Lyudmil Tsvetkov

Fischer hated losing, even a single game.

All great players hate losing.

It is the inacceptability of a loss that makes a player strong.

Zero distractions are available only in an anechoic chamber.

Give me an anechoic chamber and I will beat SF 7-3 out of 10 games.

For the rest I don't know.

He hates losing, and that's fine. I hate losing too, not just in chess, but in video games, in sports (though not so much since I am not good at any sports lol), even in grades if you could perhaps think about getting an A as "winning." Probably not all, but certainly almost every great chess player hates losing. And I will not accept losses, nor should you, nor should anyone else if they want to be good at that particular thing. The inacceptability of a loss does indeed make a person strong.

But you flee from loss. You don't use losses to make you strong! YOU HIDE FROM THEM! Great chess players might not accept losses, but almost always they acknowledge the fact that it happens! You want to make us perceive of you as a chess player so great, you can be compared to StockFish!

At first, I read it as anaerobic. I was thinking, "How exactly are you supposed to breathe?" lol

You cannot beat StockFish, Magnus Carlsen can't beat SF in an anechoic chamber, so there is no reason why you would be able to do it

I know you don't like good advice, or people helping you. But once again you are your own worst enemy. You continue to not sell books, at any price, if you keep saying things like that. If any of these things you have said were true, you would have done them by now. They are not true, and everyone knows it. And because of that, people are not interested in your books. Really you have two options, stop lying. Or start selling. You cant do both.

See what good chess game I just won against a top engine.

Read this useful article to learn some good tactics and knowledge patterns:

https://www.expert-chess-strategies.com/learning-chess-for-advanced-chess-players.html

for the millionth time, you never show any proof! People would actually recognize you as an AMAZING CHESS PLAYER, from the news to amateur players to Magnus Carlsen himself if you just showed some proof!

If I showed some proof, I would take Magnus Carlsen's place and all the mystery would be gone!

What kind of place is this world without a mystery?

Even though my book is already up there on Amazon and everybody could get it, read it and try to understand it, even the top players, many are still unable to understand what it is all about.

Another mystery.

Pretty sure we have enough mysteries in this world already...

Just saying.

Mystery is the essence of life.

When you lose the mystery the essence is lost.

One of the mysteries that Lyudmil's supporters seem to take for granted is how his silicon opponents play so badly against him, but not against anyone else. 

Try running that game in post 529 through a machine and see what it thinks of the engine's play.

And yes, I am still convinced that Lyudmil allows himself unlimited takebacks AND sees the engine's lines of analysis while he's playing. 

For the record, here's the game from above:

Learn from your mistakes

And we anxiously await Lyudmil's reply...

Knowing Lyudmil, he'll either ignore it or call him a liar and a troll.

It depends who is monitoring, SF 9 is a good choice, but IS NOT the perfect player, so you might want to take this analysis with a grain of salt.

It is only about NATURAL that the player who lost, human or machine, commited more mistakes.

If I posted a game, where I lost to Houdini, of which there are many, you will also ascertain I have commited more mistakes.

What unnatural you see in that?

Btw., 21...Rd8 certainly loses too, so 21...g6 is NOT a mistake by any means.

Check your analysis better next time before posting, or, alternatively, increase your strength with some 1000-1200 points.

Making accusations is easy, where is the proof?

Again, no takebacks and no looking at the engine analysis window - you might be certain of that.

All the handicap is using more time, 2-1, 5-2 or 3, something like that.

That is what SF gives on first try: it reaches +500cps white advantage soon.

So, 21...Rd8 DOES NOT save black.

That is extremely evident to me, as white has HUGE advantage above.

The thought of a draw never crosses my mind.

Obviously, you are very weak, if you can not easily judge for yourself this is lost.

Believing an analysis at 1 sec. per move or lower and no game play is very naive indeed.

But that is how all my detractors are: seeing only on the surface and nothing that lies beneath.

No one can refute my knowledge or prove I am weaker than 2500-2600 elo at least, simply because I am most probably the biggest chess pro in the world in the last 5 or so years.

"Making accusations is easy, where is the proof?"

Exactly...Just like claiming to be stronger than the strongest chess engines, but offering absolutely no proof. 

So your excuse for why you don't want to positively impact the world of chess as much as possible is because of mystery? You do realize you could possibly make yourself forgotten for decades after you die, assuming your claims are real, right? Maybe you would even be forgotten forever. I wouldn't risk it. If I were in the same position you claim you are in, I would have been chess champion 2016 or sooner! Mystery should not be an excuse for fame, prestige, and forever changing the chess world for the better!

Mystery sure is a big part of life. To say it's the essence, I could disagree, but if there were no mystery, life would be quite boring wouldn't it?

But I agree with AlphaOmega, there are too many mysteries as it stands, and your mystery sure is not a benefit. You are holding back the chess community. It's the chess equivalent of finding the cure for cancer, but never actually present this information to the public. No one in there right mind would make either of these pieces of information a "mystery."

My proof is that you don't have any proof. I don't know how to really interpret the info SmyslovFan gave besides the fact that you probably couldn't do just 6 inaccuracies and nothing more. But you don't have any more proof than he does. Our argument is as just as a mother's argument is to a toddler that claims that 1 + 1 = 7. The kid has no proof, and all sane mathematicians know that 1 + 1 = 2. The world won't believe the kid's claims. It's pretty similar here, except replace 1 + 1 with I'm the greatest chess player in the world" and the toddler with a barely qualified for CM chess player. Obviously more legit than the toddler, yet still so unbelievable