Lyudmil Tsvetkov

You seem to have gotten "you" and "him" switched

But honestly, where have we many any sort of illogical statements?

He didn't only claim that he was above 3000, he claimed that he was 3500!

And you're calling us illogical!

Personally I am shocked because the persistent repeatet claims over the last month are way above some random illogical statement in terms of offensiveness. For any player experienced in tournament chess who follows the professional scene there can be no doubt that this guy is not what he claims to be. 

Is this a serious question?

I agree with you, but there is just simply no rule that would possibly have Lyudmil's account removed. I have tried looking for some rule, but there is just not a rule saying you can't lie to people and/or say completely wrong things that you believe in.

The other 40% is for if Lyudmil is stubborn and/or ignorant, and all of the other possibilities we didn't mention (including the 0.001% chance Lyudmil is actually the best chess player in the world lol). I have met really stubborn people that would do VERY SIMILAR stuff as Lyudmil to just about that extreme that I know in real life, and they are not delusional, and they don't have mental problems. They just are really stubborn people and have little cognitive maturity.

Another thing I was thinking about. Maybe if StockFish has some sort of disadvantage, from time control to simply SF running on a laggy computer, Lyudmil might be able to pull it off. But, of course, this does not count as him legitimately beating SF.

wow I thought xkcd just did those science What if? Q&As. Maybe I should more carefully look at their website some time

I haven't even found rules for writing in this forum on the site yet so I believe you when you say trolling is not forbidden on this site until I learn otherwise. 0,001 is still optimistic, you need so many zeros that you can dismiss that possibility. If he was that stubborn or ignorant, thus believing what he says, he would be delusional which would be a mental issue, no? An other possibility I found was him wanting attention for advertisement purpose. As in "There is no bad PR"

He's obviously got to you to. Lyudmil has claimed that he is not only the best chess player in the world, and not only that he can beat StockFish and AlphaZero, but he has made the most revolutionary chess book in the history of chess, and that there is not any other chess book worth reading but his. And HOW does he prove this? With a 2200 FIDE and some nuanced positive reviews from prominent chess players. From this proof, he can't be much more than 2500 FIDE, and that's an overstatement! His skill is likely anywhere from 1900-2300 FIDE. How are we illogical when Lyudmil is the one that has no strong argument? I might never be able to beat him in 10 lifetimes, but I have this thing called logic. And logic, backed up by common sense, says that Lyudmil does not have NEARLY enough proof that he is a good chess player!

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/community/chesscom-posting-rules

The closest rule that would come to him being banned is no spamming/pointless/distracting posts. This is not spammy, pointless would be defined something more like someone posting "watermelon" occasionally on a post about Silicon Defense, so pointless is out of the question. And there is no distracting posts, which I am pretty sure is posts that deviate from the topic too much. If you think any of these rules could apply to him, or if you find any other rules from a different place, then just let me know :)

You are being a little pesstimistic with the percentage. 0.001% is 1/100000 chance. Don't dismiss him completely. He did get attention from a GM and IM. So I stick to my 1/100000 chance. Not that it matters lol

To be that stubborn and ignorant does not mean they are delusional. It's just like a kid that is stubborn no matter what facts hit them, and if they find it convenient to change their opinion, they will do so, and many times, they will say they never had the previous opinion. They are not delusional, just simply really stubborn. However, I would be the first to say that being so incredibly stubborn as an adult could lead to delusion, as in they actually believe the things they say.

As of him advertising, I can find no rules against it besides advertising other groups and other chess sites. Besides, he isn't advertising as much as he is the opposite with the claims he's making.

And what does PR stand for?

 :-)

Mr.LT posts games notes and all this algebrical notation stuff.

The all of you only post blah blah unsupported by algebrical notation.

From my point of view (no chess attitude and low brain gifted..) the only people entitled to speak without algebrical notation stuff are those guys with GM IM CM and so on in front of their nicks...

For all the other should be fine to see some confutations in algebrical or descriptive notation instead of tons of commons sense and "take this guy and kill him"

Thank you for the link. You could call it distraticting that he insults people that question his methods or credentials or what things make him believe his book makes people a GM but I agree it is hard to draw a line here. Personal attacks are forbidden and he did that a lot, though.

I am not pessimistic in my opinion. If I told you I am the best soccer playyer ever but I don't play because it would be no challenge, I could score from anywhere shooting the ball at 1000mph at the opponents goal but I am not willing to prove it you'd have to say that is ridiculous. There is no way a human could possibly do that, many may have tried but nobody succeeded. Your chances tell me that of 100000 people trying to get good at chess one would be able to achieve what he has claimed to achieve while no human ever has reached such a level of play. 

Kids are kids, he is a grown man and should certainly be experienced in life and intelligent enough to be able to understand logic or the burden of proof anybody has who makes outragous claims yet his proof are games against SF which, as you say, too, proofs nothing. If he believes what he says he is delusional, if not he is a troll. Maybe he is in between, is that what you say?

Advertisement is ok, but aggressive and false advertisement could be considered spam, calling out on people with 1500 rating on chess.com that they can't understand anything because they have not read his book yet and there are actually people scammed into buying his book.

PR = public relations. In this case it means that it doesn't matter what he is known but if he is known by a lot of people it helps his sales and business in the long run. Who knew this guy before his thread? I certainly never heard of him before.

I know a lot of internet forums and I recognize someone toxic for the community if I see him. Chess.com does not agree with me apparently and so I have given my warning and said enough about banning, warning or restricting him and will talk about other things from now on.

His notations aren't worth anything. Anybody can copy stockfish analysis into a forum. That does not make it worth a dime. I understand it makes him look competent to beginners because it looks like really advanced stuff but it actually is not. He has failed to use his concept on any position given by other users and actually dismisses a GM annotation to a GM game because the annotator uses vague concepts yet fails to understand that chess sometimes is vague.

I don't look at this from an algebraical viewpoint. I think of it logically. By that, I mean that I think, "Does this guy have enough proof that he is the best chess player in the world?" The GM, IM, nor CM think so. They gave positive feedback on the book, but it is pretty nuanced, and does not indicate that the book is even revolutionary. So if these people don't claim this, how is he going to make me believe that his book is the most revolutionary book of all time? How did he convince you? My reasoning is not supported by analysis of his games. I admit that he is far better than me at chess (as you can see from my Chess.com rating compared to his FIDE rating). I am not looking at this from an analytical viewpoint cause that would be stupid. Instead, I use this thing that you seem to lack: logic, reasoning, and common sense. What you are saying is the equivalent to just believing everything a politician says just cause he says really technical stuff that you don't understand.

And looking at your Chess.com rating, you can't debate in this discussion anymore than me from an analytical standpoint, so don't even try supporting Lyudmil just because he posts analytical annotations that you can't judge yourself. 

i dont think he ever reached 2200, nor do i think there is a 1 in 100,000 chance he is right. evidence, please. the most favorable review i saw was smerdon's, who concluded is book is probably useless from a practical standpoint, or something to that effect, so "receiving attention from gm's" is not a one way street here. 

Correction: a 2100 FIDE rating.

Correction: a 2100 FIDE rating was 12 years ago. Proablay 1800 now!

Even among chessplayers there are people who are incredibly stupid... so Tsvetkov discovered an untapped market for himself: writing chess books for the stupid chess audience