x
Chess - Play & Learn

Chess.com

FREE - In Google Play

FREE - in Win Phone Store

VIEW

On “The Secret of Chess”

  • #201
    stewardjandstewardj wrote:
    GWTR wrote:
    stewardjandstewardj wrote:
    Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:

    I don't care at all.

    Let me repost what strong players say: https://www.chess.com/blog/Swordfish55/review-the-secret-of-chess

    He said it's usefule. He never said that you are the best chess player in the world. He never said your book was the best in the world. And all he commented on your list is that it is modern

    Useful and modern sound like good adjectives.

     

    Yes, they ARE good adjectives, but I am not, nor is Smurden, nor Welling, using the adjetives as positive as Lyudmil wants to believe it was used. He wants to BELIEVE that he is the best chess player in the world. He wants to BELIEVE that his book is the most revolutionary book to ever exist. The truth that actually stands, no one knows, and no one will know for a while. Lyudmil is the boy that cried wolf. No one will believe Lyudmil until he gives proof that the wolf (or in this case, his claims) exists.

    Too bad there is no way for YOU (and others) to give the book a fair reading for yourself

    http://www.secretofchess.com/pages/view-excerpts

    Maybe we can find a way to change that.  

     

  • #202
    Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
    chesster3145 wrote:
    Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:

    Concerning the closed position terms present in 'The Secret of Chess', why would anyone think you could find a better manual on the KID and similar closed setups:

     

    The closed position concepts the book formulates are very useful for real game play, indeed.

    Putting that aside, the move times in your diagram prove this wasn’t a 2 2 game.

    I have had at least 5+3.

    SF probably 2+2.

    It is just the header that says 2+2.

    But are not you aware no one can play top engines at blitz?

    You’ve already said no one can play top engines with a limited time control. That means no time control at all - another severe handicap for SF.

     

  • #203
    Guys, I made this thread so we could share our opinions-not argue.
  • #204
    chesster3145 wrote:
    Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
    chesster3145 wrote:
    Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:

    Concerning the closed position terms present in 'The Secret of Chess', why would anyone think you could find a better manual on the KID and similar closed setups:

     

    The closed position concepts the book formulates are very useful for real game play, indeed.

    Putting that aside, the move times in your diagram prove this wasn’t a 2 2 game.

    I have had at least 5+3.

    SF probably 2+2.

    It is just the header that says 2+2.

    But are not you aware no one can play top engines at blitz?

    You’ve already said no one can play top engines with a limited time control. That means no time control at all - another severe handicap for SF.

     

    I meant no one EXCEPT me.

    I bet SF will beat you 100-0, even with a piece down. happy.png

  • #205
    hitthepin wrote:
    Guys, I made this thread so we could share our opinions-not argue.

    My opinion is we need chess content, and not these stupid altercations.

    No one interested to learn something first hand for my book, for my superior knowledge?

    I am here to offer advice and answer questions, but no one asks.

    In that way, I don't see what creative discussion could arise.

     

  • #206

    Ok, I also will offer my superior knowledge I also offer advice and answer questions.

    I think this is a good idea. We 1400 rated players like Lyudmil and I should show we are quite prepared to advise FMs GMs and the like how to best play.

  • #207
    hitthepin wrote:
    Guys, I made this thread so we could share our opinions-not argue.

    as long as both arguing sides are on, argument is bound to happen. Lyudmil retaliated, we retaliated back, and war escalated lol

  • #208

    I say we nominate someone to play one correspondence game with Lyudmil on chess.com. Maybe a CM, one or two commented in his forums, and one is bound to be willing to play. If we could get one, maybe even an IM.

    Of course, that's if Lyudmil would accept, which he should since one game couldn't take up that much time.

  • #209

    You are a disaster.

    From now on, I will ONLY post chess content.

    This is how one beats Komodo with black in a setup which GMs lose:

     

    Don't thank me for the good game, enjoy.

    If you want more of this: https://www.expert-chess-strategies.com/human-versus-machine.html

  • #210
    Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:

    You are a disaster.

    From now on, I will ONLY post chess content.

    This is how one beats Komodo with black in a setup which GMs lose:

     

     

    Don't thank me for the good game, enjoy.

    If you want more of this: https://www.expert-chess-strategies.com/human-versus-machine.html

    I thought you wouldn't want to accept the most simple request due to the fact that you are afraid to lose

  • #211

    Lose from WHOM?

    As far as I know, Kasparov is already retired. happy.png

  • #212

    Two days ago, I bought Human Versus Machine, Part 1 off amazon.com.
    It is awesome..
    I dig the section on pawns in The Secret of Chess, but the rest is over my head.


    Well, over my head until I read https://www.amazon.com/Human-Versus-Machine-Stockfish-Komodo-ebook/dp/B0768G8R2C/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

    Now I see clearly.

  • #213

    It is a whole different world with GWTR involved! happy.png

  • #214
    Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:

    Lose from WHOM?

    As far as I know, Kasparov is already retired.

    And he's still better than you... happy.png

  • #215

    That is what you think.

    He is tremendous, but I have my bit of knowledge too.

  • #216
    Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:

    That is what you think.

    He is tremendous, but I have my bit of knowledge too.

    False knowledge, actually: you’ve simply put overly complicated terms and centipawn values to concepts everyone already knows and understands. My solving and explaining your positions is proof of this.

  • #217

    So far, you did not manage to solve even a single position, so just shut up.

     

  • #218
    Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:

    That is what you think.

    He is tremendous, but I have my bit of knowledge too.

    Yes. He is tremendous. That makes sense....

    If by tremendous, you mean good at chess, he has a 1667 in correspondence chess on chess.com after playing over 120 games. He is anywhere from OK to good at chess, depending on what your standards of "good" are, but not "tremendous", whatever that means...

  • #219

    You are referring to Chesster, and I have been referring to Kasparov...

    Anyway, Chess.com ratings seem a bit strange to me, some really good people have low ratings, while some really bad high ratings.

    Engine use?

Top

Online Now