Lyudmil Tsvetkov

I suppose you are of Bulgarian descent.

I asked you about that, but you never replied.

If this is so, you should know also some Bulgarian, simply try browsing some databases, if not available online, try to contact the Bulgarian Chess Federation for further assistance.

Hello Deirdre.

Did you take your medicine today?

You quoted 3 reviewers, each of whom USED the word 'REVOLUTIONISE', 'REVOLUTIONARY KNOWLEDGE', etc., and you still fail to see if there is something revolutionary...

You have picked up only the bad, more negative parts and discarded the good/positive ones, while strongly misrepresenting other points/sections.

If this your understadning of fair reviewing?

I am sorry I am too tired now to oppose each and every of your claims, but certainly people have read and made their conclusions.

Russell gives 6/10, but better than Hans Berliner, who is a World chess champios in correspondence chess and IM OTB.

So, I have written a better book than an OTB IM and correspondence WC, right?

Besides, the lower marks of Russell, as well as the other reviewers are almost exlusively for a bit more difficult/unusual presentation, and not for chess quality.

If that is so, the chess contents/quality is excellent/extraordinary.

Is not that what most chess players would be looking for: good chess quality?

Hard to expect anything from an author who is delusional about his own ability with respect to the subject matter he is supposedly writing on

I wont claim as blunders. This guy's understanding of chess logic is really terrible. I would claim less than 1600 level. Too many illogical moves starting from 3.----Nd5? Why. There are many things to do. I am pretty sure every good player might consider something instead, e.g 3.--- e6.

Bump for @SteamGear

Your logic is terribly flawed. Berliner was more than a bit of a nut (suffice it to say he had a “God complex” of roughly equal measure to what I’ve seen here) and he also wrote a book which was supposed to contain all of chess’ deepest secrets and just flat out failed. You did a little better than Berliner, but that means nothing, and you overestimate the quality of the chess content: most of your ideas are old ones you’ve just recycled and attached centipawn values to.

Said the 2000-strong.

And probably, this is just your online rating.

Beware, when commenting on the games of much stronger players, especially when currently the difference in strength is sky-high.

'Recycled and attached centipawn values too'

Beautifully said.

Why don't Smerdon, Welling and Grooten think like that then?

No one mentions recycling, as far as I am aware, all mention NEW, revolutionary.

If I had 'recycled' something, I would stick to the old theories.

But I have my own, very different point of view on almost each and every position.

This certainly means I am also ABLE to apply my new approach.

I gave Lyudmil a position to analyse, he said it was a complete draw after plugging it into his chess engine, such an analysis from a human perspective was absolutely flawed, white had an advantage but Lyudmils chess engine has NO concept of such positional subtitles and could tell him nothing about it.  

Of course 2000+ is strong, that rating is better than 99%. That rating come from real games( and you said online players are cheaters,  Hilarious).

It has no notion of subtitles, but very good notion of subtleties.

That position was indeed a plain draw.

Too few material and no passed pawns.

Cheating is indeed a big problem with online play, no one can convince me of the opposite.

Which does not mean, of course, all players are cheaters.

I already told you, Deirdre.

Very simple, as my moves will more or less replicate SF's or be better, the Chess.com software will think I am cheating myself.

So, better refrain from playing.

BobbyT, thanks for the challenge.

Quite the game, hmm ...

and I have not blundered ... yet.

Thanks, LT and Human Versus Machine, Part 1!

You either play dangerously ... or not at all!

(I know, Bobby, I know - I also play the London.  Please no more insults.)

OK, Punchy -- then let us play!

your engine has no notion of static v mobile pawns that's why neither you nor your engine saw the imbalances in the position, an EPIC FAIL.