Human versus Machine

So you suggest the winning games in the book are fake?

I propose that you carefully study them, and only then draw your conclusions.

Even if you were right, then I must have been very resourceful in compiling them,

as all of them feature positions no other human being or engine plays.

Very, very resourceful.

Takebacks? I only consider a win a win if there are NO takebacks. Impossible to know if you took back moves or not, and also if you played the same line against the machine many times until it is repeating itself, moving the same opening moves again and again. Doesn't take much skill to be an opening theoretician, that is why Nakamura hires Kris Littlejohn (rated 2100-something).

And, what are the time controls? Giving the engine 5 minutes while you get hours or days does not count. That is why GMs who played against engines (and lost), did so under controlled situations and with third party human supervision.

Hi Lyudmil, what is your over-the-board rating please?

No takebacks in the games published in the book, but I am not sure how to prove that, the pgn will hardly hint at overwrites.

Time control is specified in the introduction to the book: blitz or fast games, with the engine taking

2' + 2'' or 5' + 3' or something similar, and me 2 times more. Couple of games might have a bit different TC, with a bit bigger or smaller time handicap.

Cheating allegations are completely unfounded, as almost all featured positions are

completely unique: you will not find such in any human or engine database.

Someone must have come up with the concept, right, it was not a regular human or an engine,

was it an extreterrestrial then?

It is so disgusting, when you see a gem, and you mistake it for a broken cobbled stone...

Ne sus proices margaritas.

Already discussed, 2100+ FIDE, 2200+ Bulgarian(same as FIDE), dating back 12 years.

12 years is a lot of time, especially when you bear in mind my rating from 12 years ago was achieved

with an hour or 2 daily chess on average, while later I have been involved with chess 16 hours per day.

Only on talkchess in the last 5 years, you will find more than a thousand threads, analysing all types of

positions up to exhaustion.

People get something from that.

Sorry I didn't realise this had been discussed earlier.

Are you going to be returning to OTB play anytime soon? Since you're much stronger than any GM - even admitting the possible exception of Carlsen - it would seem a shame not to. 

Yep. Carlsen is 2826, Aronian (#2) is 2801.

So the OP is much stronger than 2801, but possibly not as strong as 2826. It seems to me he could make some good money on the tournament circuit.

There wasn't a crazy American saying similar stuff before? Sorry but I sometimes get absolutely lost here.

No, the one who had youtube videos. He was in his way to be World Champion.

Yeah. Someone report this guy for abuse or something.

I think he was called "StupidGM", AKA Ray Gordon - did some youtube videos. He talked about learning from the engines with emphasis on perfecting his openings, as opposed to beating the engines in closed games.

Seems like a good idea.

I just want to bring back to life an intriguing thread on talkchess, involving a live chess game between me and Stockfish, played in late 2014:
http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic_view=threads&p=598874&t=54487&sid=863741b0621363b365f8debe27a1a99c
This is just to show how much analytical effort has gone into developing the right strategies to overpower the top engines.
With each move consistently analysed for half an hour, and Stockfish using 16 threads, the amount of knowledge one gets from similar sessions is certainly tremendous.

And that is only one of maybe more than a thousand similar analytical threads on talkchess during the last 5 years.

Some might try to raise cheating allegations against me, but I am worth
what I am worth.

Concerning the possibility to perfect one's openings using a top engine,

here already I might be a bit sceptical, as, while engines do provide useful tactical

analysis, one must be very careful and creative, while exercising discretion and human

approach, but who knows?

I am not closely familiar with the Ray Gordon case, nor do I have any evidence one way or another,

therefore I am unable to comment.

I guess it is good approach for everyone to comment only on substance.

My point was simply that I don't think you're the same person.

Lyudmil, when you play against Stockfish, how often are you able to manoeuvre the game into one of these closed positions (like the one with the Qf6+ move in the other thread)? Presumably the engine is configured with a suitably high "contempt for draw" parameter (or whatever it's called).

Interesting topic though.

Thanks very much, IpswichMatt(so gfar I have only heard about the Ipswich football team, do

they play chess in Ipswich?)

I feel light-hearted, when people discuss on topic.

It could be practically every game, as there are thousand openings from which you can get

either a KID or a central bind pawn structure.

For example:

- Chech Benoni, with some improvements, namely playing Ne7 instead of Nf6, 1.d4 c5 2.d5 e5 3. c4 d6 4. Nc3 g6 5. e4 Bg7 6. Bd3 Ne7, and then castling long, followed by f7-f5

- Nimzovich Opening(not Nimzo-Indian, but Nimzovich, Nc6, for black), 1.e4 Nc6 2. d4 d6(much stronger than the usually accepted e6) 3. d5 Nb8 4. Nf3 e5, and then g6, Bg7, Ne7 and f5

- Ryu Lopez, 1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Bd7(not the best, but good against Stockfish) 4. d4 Nf6 5.d5

(Stockfish prefers that) Nb8, and then Be7, 0-0, Ne8, g6(to support f5) and f5

etc., etc. I will not enumerate all, but there should be more than 100 similar opening systems and

transpositions, arising out of a variety of openings.

And that is only for black and only referring to the KID.

There are 3 or 4 other similar structures, that could be applied in a range of openings.

Of course, not all games are won, but one can draw a large amount, if one follows similar patterns and exercises some caution.

There was a thread on here a while back about the best cover on a chess book. Yours would be up there I think, cool cover on your book.

There are a couple of chess clubs in Ipswich, I used to play for one but not since about 1999

I see in your lines above you're playing Black - I'll give this a go tonight, against Stockfish 7 using the Fritz interface and see how it goes - I just want to see if I can get to a closed position.

Well, here you already surprise me, I completely don't know how covers are done,

but if at least one person likes it, then I am happy.

I hope you beat the beast.

It might take some practice, as Stockfish could deviate here and there, but,

after 5-10 games, you are certain to start getting the feel.

There's no chance of me winning or drawing, I'm way to weak. I just want to see how often I can get a closed position. I recall reading that some GM (maybe Kramnik) said that getting a closed position against an engine was "easier said than done".

However, he was playing a match against it so maybe they give the computer an "anti-human opening book", or something