hitthepin wrote:
Funny how he calls be a rabbit even though he himself is not a master. :)
I am not a master, I am a past master.
On “The Secret of Chessâ€
Sort:
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
hitthepin wrote:
Funny how he calls be a rabbit even though he himself is not a master. :)
I am not a master, I am a past master.
You are not a past master, and you are not a master right now. You are a 2100. Get over it.
I think we should move away from personal comments and look at or discuss matters that pertain to some of the claims made previously.
Does Lyudmil's book have anything which has not been discussed elsewhere? For example in the 1960s book Point Count Chess. Also no doubt there are many learned articles about the horizon effect in chess playing programs which could be looked at and discussed.
Is his analysis valid? for example if one were to process some of the positions he has offered would a good engine play better?
Things like poor set out and bad English can be easily either discounted or ignored if his book has anything valid in it.
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.
Hi Justin,
this above is exactly the type of constructive criticism of Lyudmil I was talking about, thank you. I hope he takes your sensible suggestions to heart and acts upon them.
I see you live in NC like me. We are known to be sensible here. 
stewardjandstewardj wrote:
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.
chesster3145 wrote:
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
hitthepin wrote:
Funny how he calls be a rabbit even though he himself is not a master. :)
I am not a master, I am a past master.
You are not a past master, and you are not a master right now. You are a 2100. Get over it.
When I start playing, you will be SURPRISED.
Because, many think it is a good book with a not very strong author, but everybody will be surprised, REMEMBER that.
That will be the MUCH BIGGER surprise.
hitthepin wrote:
Ok, so many people don’t like Lyudmil, not all.
More people like me than the other way round, but the detractors are too vociferous.
chessspy1 wrote:
I think we should move away from personal comments and look at or discuss matters that pertain to some of the claims made previously.
Does Lyudmil's book have anything which has not been discussed elsewhere? For example in the 1960s book Point Count Chess. Also no doubt there are many learned articles about the horizon effect in chess playing programs which could be looked at and discussed.
Is his analysis valid? for example if one were to process some of the positions he has offered would a good engine play better?
Things like poor set out and bad English can be easily either discounted or ignored if his book has anything valid in it.
Another review that is from a correspondence player: https://www.welshccf.org.uk/article/325
Also positive, largely.
Also confirming the book has new concepts and chess knowledge, which are not to be found in any other book.
And also stressing the fact it might be a bit of a difficult read, for some.
So that, everyone agrees the book offers knowledge which other sources lack.
The big surprise, however, will come WHEN they really understood the concepts they still not fully understand.
stewardjandstewardj wrote:
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 understand your concern.
I also wished I was higher-rated, but what to do?
I will need couple of years to get a good title, significantly improve my rating.
They have been reviewing 'The Secret of Chess', so far NO strong titled player has reviewed 'Human vs Machine'.
Why?
- they don't believe the games are real
- they don't understand the games, are not certain if the stronger side is actually winning, simply because those closed positions are extremely deep(so deep that top engines don't understand them, small wonder some GMs might have a bit of a difficulty)
- some other reason, most probably, 'Human vs Machine' was released much later, etc.
I am really eager to see what a strong titled player will say about 'Human vs Machine'.
chesster3145 wrote:
stewardjandstewardj wrote:
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?
chesster3145 wrote:
stewardjandstewardj wrote:
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.
While that might be true, a GM and IM have given reviews. We really can't say how good he is at chess until he decides to start playing
hitthepin wrote:
Where are they?
They are all gone, I convinced them all of my right, and they are all gone.
It is worth noting that 2100 FIDE roughly translates to 2200 USCF, which. Is National Master. So if he lived in America he could indeed call himself a master. It's also quite plausible that if he's been playing and studying regularly for the past 12 years that he's 2300+ strength by now. To become a GM is requires something special, however. Not just knowledge but a strong sense of competitiveness to win, and resiliency when things don't go your way.
FrancisCominelli wrote:
It is worth noting that 2100 FIDE roughly translates to 2200 USCF, which. Is National Master. So if he lived in America he could indeed call himself a master. It's also quite plausible that if he's been playing and studying regularly for the past 12 years that he's 2300+ strength by now. To become a GM is requires something special, however. Not just knowledge but a strong sense of competitiveness to win, and resiliency when things don't go your way.
Not so much the resiliency when things don't go your way, but you definitely need a sense of competitiveness to win. I you don't want to win, you won't really want to win, and so you won't really win
Resiliency is very important. The ability to keep fighting and making opponents play accurately will save a lot of games in which psychologically weaker players will just kind of give up. You need to be mentally strong to be a top competitor in any game, be it chess, golf, basketball, etc.
I like him.
I like you.