Lyudmil Tsvetkov

OK, I am extremely tired, 4/10 of the example games for the second volume, around 400 or so so far, are already chosen.

Do you imagine how much effort that actually costs?

Sometimes, I feel so bad, that I am ready to give up everything.

Instead I will be writing easy to understand 2-move tactics puzzles books, that will be done 10 times quicker and will sell 10 times better.

It is astounding so few people are able to appreciate depth and innovations.

Here a link to my very plain Fischer book/article: https://www.expert-chess-strategies.com/learning-chess-for-advanced-chess-players.html

No one discusses it.

And indeed, although useful and easy to read, why should people discuss plain and simple things?

I guess 'The Secret of Chess' has been a major event for people to discuss it that much.

Everyone is talking now about Alpha Zero, neural networks and the future of humanity.

Well, 'The Secret of Chess' represents neural network knowledge and the future of humanity.

Let me post here 2-3 games, to make the thread a bit chess meaningful.

5-move win over SF.

A draw with a more difficult imbalance:

Lydumil, you should face that hunk of silicon known as Alphazero. Prove to these sheeple that brain matter trumps circuits

One more draw with a pawn more, where white is actually winning in the end position after Nf2-d1-e3 and f4-f5.

Bad form, what to do?

And one last, where I barely save myself although the exchange up.

An awful sporting form, anyway, I am barely alive, good luck and maybe see you later, if still kicking.

Did you ever hear of the burden of proof? If not, google it or if you hate google so much use yahoo search or bing. It is not on anyone to falsify anything before those who make absurd claims prove their stand. I could, just like Bertrand Russel, say that there is a tea pot in the orbit of the sun that can not be measured by any modern instruments. If your argument were right that statement would be true until someone proved me wrong. Fortunately I have the burden of proof and if I believed my claim and ridiculed other people for not believing in it without providing any proof I would rightfully be considered a lunatic. I agree with you, though, that the author should play against A0. I would believe him if he won a match of, lets say, 10 games with classical time control. I would even buy his book because he would have proved his way of thinking about chess. Why do you believe him? Do you believe everything someone tells you? If so, I would advise you not to talk to any salesman or religous fanatic in the future. For your sake.

Youre hidden message, which I have pointed out with parentheses, proves without a doubt you are a shill. As I said, you worshippers of technology are only posting to discredit the one who exposed your silicon idols

Sorry, I didn't get your sarcasm before. It is sometimess hard if it is written and not verbal. Thank you for the clarification by going way over the top with it, though =D 

I read people here that actually meant what they said when they wrote similar things like you did. On a serious note though people sometimes fail to understand that humans have their strengths in other areas than machines. Especially in chess there are concepts that are way too complex to be programmed into an engine even though people like the book author above put a lot of time improving the numbers by defining centipawn values in different ways in order to make them better. Fortunately humans don't need that because the brain knows more ways than conscious logic to work around a problem. That is why I find it ridiculous to try to impose machine concepts on a human brain as the tables of "The secret of chess" try to do. Why try to make humans machine-like? Those defined values for certain positions help calculating (which is the strength of a computer, that is why there are calculators for complex multiplications and such) but not finding moves the "easy" human way. What the boundaries of neuronal networks on which A0 runs are have yet to be shown, though as they try to emulate a human, not the other way round. Your sarcasm implies that you make the same point, the only one with silicon idols in this thread is the guy who prides himself with competing with silicon based chess players and boasts about his (not yet proven) ability to beat them and tries to think like them but better. Sorry again for being so dense as to not detect your in hindsight obvious sarcasm.

Look, we're all making a big fuss over nothing. If the author of said book believes he has improved, shouldn't that be enough for him? I get that he allegedly spent a long time on the book, and I get that it's allegedly filled with allegations. (I still need to check it out for myself, though.) We can just drop it and move on from this advertisement thread because it hurts nobody. If he wants to peddle his wares, he can go somewhere else where people will pay attention. If we don't pay attention to it, or care about it at all, then the issue goes away.

@torrubirubi and @GWTR is about it. Even if they are professors or engineers, it’s a sample size of two - far too small to have any statistical significance.

I’m just going to finish by bolding some text above - you calling for your opponents to be banned from the site speaks for itself. It’s a new low, even for your threads.

This is a solid game, but where is the risk, the gambling? When both sides plays rock solid it is difficult to win.  Risky sidelines will probably be punished by stockfish, but could give sharp and interesting chances vs humans.

With enemies like you, who needs friends? LT doesn't even have to create his own threads. You people are going to make him the most famous person in the world.    

hey tsetkov is this what they taught you in diplomacy school? you just ignore what smerdon said because he didn't say it in the review you are so fond of using to sell your book, and call me a liar for merely cutting and pasting the quote from his blog. do you even understand what the word "lie" means? i would think an actual diplomat would. and all you do for "evidence" is put more games against your home computer up. maybe you don't understand what evidence is, either. to repeat, smerdon said that, he said it on his blog, and i would an apology, and i would like you to explain why we should ignore what he said about the usefulness of your book, while only paying attention to the positive parts of the review you quote. 

to petrip--tsetkov just employed a shady rhetorical trick and pretended i claimed that smerdon's comment came from the initial review of tsetkov's book, along with much manufactured outrage. he hoped nobody would notice that the date of the comment (jan 3, 2018) was not the same as the date of the review. then he tries to throw up a cloud of smoke by posting more meaningless games against the computer. 

Yes, but look at Trump (I know this thread is not supposed to be political, but I want to make a good analogy): he earned himself lots of (bad) publicity by making radical statements and he actually won the presidency. While I won't discredit LT with all of the effort he has put into his "Secret of Chess", I find his claims highly suspect.

Yes, there's a definite pattern here. Whenever something hits too close, you see a sudden surge of posts that only serve to obfuscate.

Funny that distracting posts are forbidden by the posting rules of this forum, though

Basically that’s it. Every time someone pins something really damning on him, he just buries it under a couple of pages of posts.

Another outright lie: you showed with your explanation that 1500s actually understand fortresses better than you. A 1500 would say that the position is completely closed and neither side has any working pawn breaks, and this would be more accurate and more to the point than your explanation.