Lyudmil Tsvetkov

I do not disagree with the points raised in that one paragraph by GM Smerdon.  That is why I chose to buy Human Versus Machine, Part 1.  It is amazing and fun.  LT's annotations really are insightful and educational.

As for The Secret of Chess, I wish I had the knowledge and skill to write a chess book that got these kind of comments from a GM:

I feel like it would be unwise to ignore his lessons on how to evaluate closed structures, and it would not surprise me if computers tell us exactly the same thing in ten or fifteen years’ time.  

And this goes to the heart of the issue. Whether or not you believe in Tsvetkov’s chess philosophy or even just his evaluations, there’s no question that his approach to chess is fresh and different, something that’s been missing in the chess literature for a long time. I probably won’t end up a convert, but I have definitely spotted several interesting new heuristics that I will be trying out in the future. Concepts such as “vertically isolated pawns”, “twice backward pawns” and “spearhead pawns” are not things that I consciously think about when I analyse, though in a sense they sit somewhere in my chess intuition for assessment. But knowing which of these heuristics are relatively more important than others – a feature that Tsvetkov’s quantifications can address – as well as automatically bringing them into one’s decision processes, might be quite valuable. In any case, I’m going to try it out.  

Unfortunately, the combination of the textbook style without much in the way of descriptions, combined with difficult English, makes The Secret of Chess a really hard read. And given the knee-jerk rejection that many ‘classical’ chess players will feel, there’s a fair chance this book will be largely ignored by the wider chess community. But I sincerely hope this doesn’t happen. I’m almost surely in the minority, but I believe Tsvetkov’s insights could really change the way we think about chess, from how beginners learn the game to how experts improve. It’s bold, completely different and sometimes conflicts with a lot of established chess wisdom, but, just like big data analysis, meditation and veganism, that doesn’t mean there aren't some lessons to be learned, even if you don't subscribe to the whole package. If you're willing to open your mind to a new way of thinking about chess, and you're determined enough to power through the text, this book is definitely worth a read.  

https://www.chess.com/blog/smurfo/the-secret-of-chess

How about you?

Some people are really luckier than others, believe me.

Ok, guys, hello everyone! What an interesting read the thread "The Secret of Chess" and this one were. 

I am seriously shocked right now. What do we have? 

- Somebody claiming to be better than anyone that has ever lived in chess

- Somebody whose credential is to beat SF in infinite TC against one Minute because giving SF more time would be a waste of his time, he has to analyze too many positions for his next book.

- Somebody who tells us there were only four/five world champions and neglects the rest because they were weak 

- Somebody who has written the only chess book worth reading in the history of chess

- Somebody who tells us even grandmasters wouldn't understand the book he has written

- Somebody who claims his chess prowess would be worth 3500 ELO

- Somebody who plays not OTB because he would not be able to concentrate when he has to think about his opponent

- Somebody who has excuses for any proposed way to prove his strength and ideas to a potential readership

- Somebody who arrogantly insults people who are sceptical of his claims

- Somebody who does not play  online because he gets distracted by people invisibly watching him and also people online cheat with engines. Also he has no time for that.

- Somebody who claims to beat every engine

- Somebody who claims A0 is weak

Best thing is - it is all the same person. People, really? There are two possibilities here to explain all that. This guy is either a very dedicated troll who gets his kick by getting attention or he has very serious mental issues. In both cases it would be best to ban him from these forums. There are inexperienced people actually believing him, they should be protected from lies/delusions whatever those claims are. Maybe by doing that help is provided to him, too. How can I report individual posts to a mod, btw?

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

so far, i've only seen assertions that he was a career bulgarian diplomat. but this is just a 5 min google. 

How can you be so impudent: https://chessprogramming.wikispaces.com/Lyudmil+Tsvetkov#cite_note-1 ?

Ezio, I have read Smerdon's review MANY times, and he never mentions Kotov or muddled up.

So, he simply made his own compilation.

Is not that cheating?

Yes, I say NM Pretzel is a LIAR.

He wants to run to the ground my 5-year colossal efforts, for which I got nothing.

He never mentions club players, Kotov and muddled up, so you are all liars!

I am appalled.

I wish destiny comes upon you too.

Soon.

Besides, the review is from December 3rd, not January 3rd.

It is not by chance that your avatar is of the BAD Darth Sidius, rigth?

Oh, you mean he said it in the comments, I just saw it, so what?

There is also a comment like this:

Where this book could be useful, is giving hard numbers to positional evaluation. Of course I know a rook is worth 5 pawns and knight is worth 3 pawns, so I won’t go swapping my rook for a knight without good reason. But in positional chess (where I think I’m rather poor, relative to 1900-ish rating), I have no good way to evaluate. I know to avoid backward pawns, isolated pawns, bad bishops, etc, but what I don’t know is how to put a value on them.

Imagine if I’m consider swapping a knight for my rook, and I think “Hmm, rooks are pretty good… but knights are pretty good too. I wonder which is better? I think in this position a knight might be better”… but that’s pretty well how I evaluate a positional decision! So if I had a set of not-too-hard-to-remember points values for positional evaluation, it would add some system to my positional chess.

Does this book provide a usable set of points values? Judging from your review, it sounds like it’s too complex a set of rules for hacks like me. But who knows?

Different people, different comments in different situations.

So, Smerdon acknowledges the books is of scientific interest.

Did not you doubt the science of the book too?

Everything could be adapted for learning purposes.

Should I have written the same book 100 other chess authors have written?

With what this book would be interesting then?

Should I have been ubtrue to the real nature of chess knowledge, which is largely numerical in value, considering imbalances?

I could have made it much simpler, by dropping the tables and saying just good or bad instead of attaching numbers, but who would such a book serve?

It would be plain, imprecise and repetitive.

Why do that?

When I finish the second volume, it will read easily, what will you say then, as this will be just commented example games?

The volume will fully explain the dark spots to some readers, but that will not make the numerical values less relevant.

So, I don't see what you are complaining about: you have the most advanced chess manual, that could be easily adapted to all purposes.

If people read the definitions and logical explanations more carefully, they could very well do without even example games, but some people are simply lazy.

You want perfect knowledge and very simple, well, there are no perfect things, if you want good knowledge, you will have to do some effort to understand the meaning.