On â€œThe Secret of Chessâ€ - Chess Forums - Page 6

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov

Jan 16, 2018

0

#101

prusswan wrote:

Might be easier for him to write get rich quick books....At least one person will buy them all

I don't know how this is done.

Mine is a book of purely chess content:

https://www.amazon.com/Secret-Chess-Lyudmil-Tsvetkov/dp/1522041400/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=#reader_1522041400

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov

Jan 16, 2018

0

#102

torrubirubi wrote:

GWTR wrote:

torrubirubi wrote:

One of the most interesting aspects of the negative criticism he received in the thread "The Secret of Chess", "Human versus Machine" and here is that the authors of this criticisms didn't read any of his books!

I still do not get the point of criticising the value of a book / its originality by not reading this book. Would you believe somebody who is telling you not to go to a certain movie, even if you know the guy didn't see the movie? Probably not. This is still not a "prove" that the movie is good, but you should get reviews from people who saw the movie, or by watching the dam movie. Or by reading the book.

By the way, the German IM Christof Sielecki was so kind and offer to go through LT's books in the next weeks. So we can expect to get a further opinion by an expert who will read the books.

That is great news. Here is a fine interview with IM Sielecki: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQLwXY4cyWc

I will be surprised if his reviews are not as glowing as GM Smerdon's was of LT's The Secret of Chess!

I am looking forward to see the review! We still have to wait some weeks though.

Thanks for the link, I will hear this and other podcast in the next days. And GWTR: nice that I am not alone trying to motivate people to have a more objective and open mind about LT's books!

Guys, I don't know how to thank Renato and GWTR, and also some other kind people who posted positively here.

I am so happy.

luckbird

Jan 16, 2018

0

#103

here is a secret

i think this is magnus carlsen:

https://www.chess.com/member/BlitzWorldChampion

the name makes sense

NM rk12387

Jan 16, 2018

0

#104

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:

rbk33 wrote:

I wonder why black blundered here with Bc6? Allowing white a winning attack with Ng4. It would make more sense to play something like cxd4, to open up lines for the rook right? You could follow it up with Ba4 perhaps.

Well. everyone blunders, SF too, from time to time.

There might indeed be some better moves than Bc6, but the position is already lost for black.

Suggest a line to me for black, and I will refute it.

How about 25...cxd4 25.exd4 Ba4. If 26.Bd3, Bb5 and black keeps trying to trade the bishops. (27.c4 Bb4!). If white avoids the tradde with 26.Bb1, black can play Qb6, forcing white to weaken his queenside with b3. Black has a lot of play on the queenside to compensate for white's play on the kingside.

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov

Jan 16, 2018

0

#105

luckbird wrote:

here is a secret

i think this is magnus carlsen:

https://www.chess.com/member/BlitzWorldChampion

the name makes sense

Maybee...

yogikibanda

Jan 16, 2018

0

#106

Can someone tell me why when I win my score only goes up by like 11 points!?

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov

Jan 16, 2018

0

#107

rbk33 wrote:

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:

rbk33 wrote:

I wonder why black blundered here with Bc6? Allowing white a winning attack with Ng4. It would make more sense to play something like cxd4, to open up lines for the rook right? You could follow it up with Ba4 perhaps.

Well. everyone blunders, SF too, from time to time.

There might indeed be some better moves than Bc6, but the position is already lost for black.

Suggest a line to me for black, and I will refute it.

How about 25...cxd4 25.exd4 Ba4. If 26.Bd3, Bb5 and black keeps trying to trade the bishops. (27.c4 Bb4!). If white avoids the tradde with 26.Bb1, black can play Qb6, forcing white to weaken his queenside with b3. Black has a lot of play on the queenside to compensate for white's play on the kingside.

On cd4 ed4 Ba4 Nh2 wins:

For example, this line is from SF, but I guess there are even shorter winning lines:

If a position is won, it is ALWAYS won.

chessspy1

Jan 16, 2018

0

#108

4....Qb5

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov

Jan 16, 2018

0

#109

And the shorter winning line, which SF for some reason does not see, is playing 8. Bg5 instead of Qg5:

The position is tremenoudsly won for white, black can not save it in any way.

I bet 95% of my analysis in 'Human vs Machine' is completely right.

I have played and analysed tens of thousands similar positions.

That is why the guy who reviews me well is right: https://www.expert-chess-strategies.com/human-versus-machine.html

hitthepin

Jan 16, 2018

0

#110

Um you know you have your own thread to post this on, right?

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov

Jan 16, 2018

0

#111

chessspy1 wrote:

4....Qb5

On Qb5, white has Nf6 Bf6 gf6 Qd3 Qh6(defending the bishop on d2 and threatening Qg7 mate) Qf5 Kg1 and black has no more checks.

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov

Jan 16, 2018

0

#112

hitthepin wrote:

Um you know you have your own thread to post this on, right?

Please request my main thread be moved back to where it belongs - General section.

Its place is there, as:

- discussess very important chess knowledge concepts

- enjoys wide interest

- close to 2000 posts already

I guess the most interesting threads and with the largest following should be in the main forum.

That is self-evident.

You requested for the thread to be moved there, now you do the reverse, and, please note, that I am sometimes impatient.

hitthepin

Jan 16, 2018

0

#113

I didn’t say to move the thread BACK, I just said don’t post examples here. You have your own thread to do that. You misunderstand.

prusswan

Jan 16, 2018

0

#114

Discussion of fraudulent advertising belongs to off-topic

cellomaster8

Jan 16, 2018

0

#115

LT I take back what I said before. Your original thread should not be put back into the general discussion because although some of us are engaged in that discussion, others are not. And quite frankly, some probably see the thread as a pain in the a** and hate seeing it there. The 2000 posts have come from about 8 people who keep posting and reposting. Give other threads in the general discussion some breathing room. Don’t move the secret of chess thread back.

stewardjandstewardj

Jan 16, 2018

0

#116

From the information he gave in the forum, "StockFish is blind", he gave some good evidence on the fact that the book was useful. However, he has also claimed the following:

The book is the best chess book in the world

The book will revolutionize chess

He is the best chess player in the world

He has beat StockFish before

He can beat AlphaZero if he were to play him

All of the grandmasters and chess engines in the world are weak

The facts he gave were:

He got some good reviews

He has an FIDE rating of 2100, which is not near enough to claim to be the best player in the world

He received a mildly positive, yet slightly nuanced review from a GM

Can he prove his claims with this information? NO! Either:

1. He's lying and doesn't realize that the claims are to fraudulent for anyone to believe

2. He's telling the truth, but is once again blind to realizing that his claims are too crazy to believe. He beat StockFish, but thinks that he doesn't need proof to convince people.

3. He is a troll

Doubt he's telling the truth, mainly due to the absurdity of the claims. He is also probably not a troll, cause trolls I have seen are much more immature. So my conclusion is that he is lying/bending the truth. And by bending the truth, I mean more like twisting the truth from a straight line to some sort of Gordian's Knot.

GWTR

Jan 16, 2018

0

#117

@Lyudmil_Tsvetkov , what is your view on this article?

https://www.chess.com/blog/Ginger_GM/computers-can-also-be-confused

Seems like your book could shed a lot of light on the issues raised by GM Williams!

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov

Jan 17, 2018

0

#118

hitthepin wrote:

I didn’t say to move the thread BACK, I just said don’t post examples here. You have your own thread to do that. You misunderstand.

I don't care what you say, just move the thread back, where it belongs.

So, your SHI**Y thread, completely meaningless, will stay on the main forum, while the instructive thread, where I am developing my theories, will be invisible?

And you will request me not to post here.

Just MOVE the thread back.

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov

Jan 17, 2018

0

#119

prusswan wrote:

Discussion of fraudulent advertising belongs to off-topic

Yours is the only fraudulent advertising.

I definitely sub-advertise in relation to the quality and value of my book.

Just beat Komodo with one more of the positions of the latest match(I am happy Izoria won one with white):

Seems pretty easy, g2/b2 pawns are definitely much more difficult.

Btw., would you believe it, Komodo evaluates the handicap position with just 120cps, so far from 2 full pawns.

White has significant compensation in terms of mobility and open files, of course.

No one else playing such handicap games?

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov

Jan 17, 2018

0

#120

cellomaster8 wrote:

LT I take back what I said before. Your original thread should not be put back into the general discussion because although some of us are engaged in that discussion, others are not. And quite frankly, some probably see the thread as a pain in the a** and hate seeing it there. The 2000 posts have come from about 8 people who keep posting and reposting. Give other threads in the general discussion some breathing room. Don’t move the secret of chess thread back.

So, my thread is a pain in the a**, but some stupid other threads are not?

You think I am not angered by a lot of threads?

But I do nothing to remove them.

As Robert Hyatt, the author of Crafty says, a thread lives as long as it needs to, important threads live more, less important ones die down soon.