CheesyPuns wrote:
quadrupedally defended backwards maker octopus blocking a doubly backwards pawn?
This is simply won for white.
This does not make any sense, my terms are very correct and extremely well-thought, as well as with high statistical relevance.
A twice defended minor outpost on d6/e6 might occur in 1 out of 500 games or so.
A knight outpost on d6/e6, as in your case, defended by 2 pawns, one knight and a queen will occur only once out of 30 million games or so.
You understand now why my terms make much sense, and your not.
But at least, you started learning my jargon, congratulations.
Both reviews you have given, from Smurden and from Welling, both say that the book has lots of modern ideas/positions. They also say that your English is bad in the book. Regardless of whether you are legit or not, I urge you to try and focus more on your use of English in the next book you are writing.
As of being legit, you seem to make very good books for the rating you have. However, both reviewers ALSO never say you could have beat StockFish. They say that you use chess engines. I'm not sure what they mean, but they never even once hint that you are better at chess than StockFish, nor that you are even GM quality.
While your claims are not proven to be legit yet, nor your claims about your book, your book itself seems to be pretty legit. Welling is surprised that even though you have a low rating of a "candidate master", you have proven that you are much more knowledgeable at chess than a CM.
Lyudmil, the world, including me, wants more proof than your books. You have studied plenty of chess, but unless you play chess games, you can not do anything with this other than write more books. You must play rated games and/or an official game against chess engines no one has beaten before if you want to prove how amazingly good you are at chess; I still remain unconvinced you beat SF.
I would dispute whether Lyudmil is actually as knowledgable about chess as he says he is. Again, most of the positions he’s posted on the site feature main ideas that are either well-known or ideas any imaginative 1500 could find. This includes the Qf6+ sacrifice, and most of his terms are either well-known by other names or intuitively understood by chess players in general.
You understand too many things intuitively.
Could you also understand, intuitively, that your intuition might be sucking?
Can you understand, intuitively, that sometimes intuition is enough? You don’t need a pseudo-intellectual term for the f7-pawn in your Qf6+ example: you can simply be happy that the f6-square and f7-pawn are weak forever.
With my pattern recognition I am beating SF.
With your some 1600 players.
There is a BIG distinction, don't you really see it?
With your pattern recognition you're beating Stockfish by exploiting its weaknesses and playing it in massively skewed conditions, and there is no substantial proof that you have even beaten Stockfish.