Lyudmil Tsvetkov

Run the games through Stockfish for yourself.

Many of the games started with Stockfish as Black with a two pawn disadvantage. 

You will also find games where Stockfish pointed out the error in analysis. 

You don't have to believe me.This is verifiable.

luydomil busted again!

You are not the first person to say that, SmyslovFan. However, you have not provided a single example of a position which justifies it. Another player has been equally emphatic and their "obvious" examples have proven to be entirely consistent with an engine on a few seconds a move (either engine top choices with limited time, or evaluations very close to engine top choices).

I am just interested in the truth here, so please do justify your claim with one or more examples of specific positions and moves.

Actually, Elroch, I did in response to one of Lyudmil's games. I pointed out precisely where one game the computer immediately found the right move despite Lyudmil's opponent playing the wrong move. But the game itself has been deleted. 

It's possible that he was using an old program. I don't know how you prove he didn't without going through all the different iterations of Stockfish. But that was never his claim. He claimed to be able to beat Stockfish at full strength.

 Added: There was another he posted at about the same time where he talked about the efficacy of closed positions. But Stockfish didn't play the moves leading up to that position. This was after he had been criticized for setting up positions without showing how Stockfish could arrive at those positions.

for some reason, some people just want to believe that a guy who never got a 2200 fide rating could plausibly be better than magnus carlsen, better than the best engines, etc. i was just hoping to warm people with a more realistic take before they bought his book. i also think he likely had sock puppets, though i doubt everyone that is a fervent supporter is a sock puppet.

 Welcome back, Ljudmil!

Sorry, but you need to do better than claiming there was evidence but you have lost it. We need to be scientific and do independent analysis as time increases and to examine the comparison of the evaluations. Because of a degree of stochasticity in the algorithms, Stockfish does not play the precisely same moves even with exactly the same time in the same position (but evaluations tend to  vary only very slightly). I would expect you would not require any further proof that a different move must be the "right" move. I would not be so casual.

I am sure Ljudmil will be happy to provide us with examples of games that meet our needs.

SmyslovFan, I have to repeat that you have not yet presented a single move which supports your claim. Presumably you think you can get away with the suggestion that there is one in there somewhere.

But you referred specifically in an earlier post to the game Ljudmil posted in #434 as inconsistent with Stockfish choices. Do suggest a move from this game that supports your claim. Meanwhile, analysis of this game with Stockfish 9 (probably a different time per move) finds the discrepancy in centipawn evaluation is never more than 3 (extremely low) and averages between 1 and 2 (Stockfish' own evaluations often disagree with its own much more than this as it searches deeper, but closed positions tend to reduce this).

The idea that the engine play couldn't be genuine because the evaluation of one move is 3 centipawns different to the one Stockfish finds with a different time on each move would indicate lack of understanding.

So, your turn to justify your earlier claim that the game in #434 could not have been played by Stockfish with one or more example moves that best support your case. I can then do a more detailed analysis of what Stockfish sees at various depths of analysis. Or more appropriately, you could concede that that particular claim of yours was unsupportable and go look for another one.

Let me emphasise that the statement "Stockfish does not play the same moves" looks to me like a genuine mistake by you, rather than deliberate deceit. Stockfish does not even necessarily play the same moves given computation time of 1 second, 2 seconds, 3 seconds, 5 seconds and so on: this should be well known. Not so well known is that, empirically, it does not necessarily play the same moves with the same time in the same position if this is repeated. So this statement is is fatally flawed as an accusation. What you need to do is look more closely at how Stockfish evaluates the different moves, and how this varies as the tree expands. The absolute ideal is to repeat this multiple times for positions.

Which one is verifiable?

As you see, I am back.

Post a diagram with engine output or analysis or otherwise apologise.

OK, I have decided not to post here, as this is a troll thread.

From now on, please visit 'The Secret of Chess' thread for creative discussion.

No one needs so many threads and such fake attention.

OK, here my last 2 handicap wins.

Which one of those games is fake?

The second one.

Btw., THANK YOU Elroch, and the rest, few, but very kind and TRUE people, who are NOT trolling.

It is sad people treat me like that, but what to do?

And one more question: imagine Kasparov posts a review tomorrow.

What will you do then?

Celebrate because we’ve been proven right.

So you are complaining he dropped too many pawns?

In truth, Lyudmil's play was exceptionally precise in this game: I would think this is not common.

For the record, do you use any additional input in the selection of moves, Lyudmil?

What additional input?

The evaluation I created myself.

Whatsapp gays

I am re-reading My System now that I have read Human Versus Machine, Part 1.

I am really understanding AN's use of semi-outposts due to my learning from LT.  Thanks again, sir!