Ha ha, Spark chess aka Boris is not so hard to defeat
SparkChess and Spark are 2 different engines. I played against Spark of Allard Siemelink on 8 threads, which is rated around 3100. Your SparkChess is a Romanian engine in the range of 2400.
I said it at least 5 times and will repeat it again: all I said is I will easily get to 2500, if I go to play OTB now, and, I am much better in analysis and under quiet conditions. The quieter the surrounding and better I am able to concentrate, the stronger I play.
You say that you would easily get to 2500 if you played over the board but there's no evidence of that. You might sincerely believe it but that's neither here nor there. Nobody is going to take your word for it.
You also say that you're strongest under "quiet" conditions. I believe you estimated your strength as above 2900 under such conditions. That claim is demonstrative of enormous self-regard but not of skill. But even if you really were the world's strongest player under laboratory conditions (different from the real world conditions of rated matches and tournaments), so what? Suppose I'm the fastest human being in a low gravity environment, say about a sixth of that of Earth's surface. If the Olympics were held on the moon, I would return to Earth with the gold.
Your reason for not proving your playing strength in actual competition is that you've got more important things to do at this time. Presumably you mean writing chess books. Perhaps you make a greater contribution to the game by writing than by playing. However, whatever contribution your writing makes is measured by how many people read your books. If few people read them, their impact will be insignificant no matter how good they are. People will buy books written by Fischer and Kasparov because the authors demonstrated their skill over the board. They have credibility because of their achievements in competition. You lack credibility because you lack achievement. If you want your books to sell, nothing should be more important to you than establishing credibility. Earning the title of GM would prove that you really are as strong as you claim. If you're not willing to do that, no amount of braggadocio will convince anyone.
To get the GM title, you should play in at least 10 tournaments in the course of one or 2 years. That is a lot of time for me, currently.
Bragadoccio or not bragadoccio, the book is worth what it is worth.
When you find a diamond in a waste bin, do you question its credentials?
Or, a lingot of gold, would you accept a lingot of gold, fetched by someone who is not a goldsmith?
If you would not, then you are simply very naive at the least.
Ha ha, Spark chess aka Boris is not so hard to defeat
SparkChess and Spark are 2 different engines. I played against Spark of Allard Siemelink on 8 threads, which is rated around 3100. Your SparkChess is a Romanian engine in the range of 2400.
2400? I would say Boris is 1550 but ok
Maybe you are right, we are talking of different engines. Mr. Suitman could not be that strong, after all. 
"You lack credibility because you lack achievement". My son goes around quoting the little green guy on star wars. That sounds like something he would say.
"Let the force be with me!"
"Difficult to see the future is, the Dark Side clouds everything..."
Those very advanced guys on Star Wars don't seem to have many titles too, apart from jedi and master. But they are more realistic than what we are with all our honorary positions and titles.
Titles and honours ruined the modern world.
To get the GM title, you should play in at least 10 tournaments in the course of one or 2 years. That is a lot of time for me, currently.
Bragadoccio or not bragadoccio, the book is worth what it is worth.
When you find a diamond in a waste bin, do you question its credentials?
Or, a lingot of gold, would you accept a lingot of gold, fetched by someone who is not a goldsmith?
If you would not, then you are simply very naive at the least.
If I found a diamond in a waste bin, of course I would question its value. I would have it appraised. And I certainly wouldn't buy a diamond if I didn't know what it was worth.
One doesn't need to be a grandmaster in order have credibility as a chess book author. Irving Chernev wasn't a grandmaster but he was one of the most successful authors of chess books (if not the most successful). He had credibility because he wrote some excellent chess books that were among the biggest selling of all time. If one doesn't have a reputation through his writing, he needs to have established his credibility through his playing. When My 60 Memorable Games was published, Fischer didn't have a reputation as a chess book author but people knew he was one of the world's best players.
If you don't have a reputation as a successful author or player, you can't expect many people to buy your book.
To get the GM title, you should play in at least 10 tournaments in the course of one or 2 years. That is a lot of time for me, currently.
Bragadoccio or not bragadoccio, the book is worth what it is worth.
When you find a diamond in a waste bin, do you question its credentials?
Or, a lingot of gold, would you accept a lingot of gold, fetched by someone who is not a goldsmith?
If you would not, then you are simply very naive at the least.
If I found a diamond in a waste bin, of course I would question its value. I would have it appraised. And I certainly wouldn't buy a diamond if I didn't know what it was worth.
One doesn't need to be a grandmaster in order have credibility as a chess book author. Irving Chernev wasn't a grandmaster but he was one of the most successful authors of chess books (if not the most successful). He had credibility because he wrote some excellent chess books that were among the biggest selling of all time. If one doesn't have a reputation through his writing, he needs to have established his credibility through his playing. When My 60 Memorable Games was published, Fischer didn't have a reputation as a chess book author but people knew he was one of the world's best players.
If you don't have a reputation as a successful author or player, you can't expect many people to buy your book.
And he surely can't expect people to buy his book if he has a reputation as a pompous keyboard warrior.
Ha ha, Spark chess aka Boris is not so hard to defeat
SparkChess and Spark are 2 different engines. I played against Spark of Allard Siemelink on 8 threads, which is rated around 3100. Your SparkChess is a Romanian engine in the range of 2400.
Nice graphics thou 
. The site of other Spark has vanished.
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov, can you please explain how you can even ATTEMPT to claim to have beaten StockFish, in which no one can even come close to such an accomplishment? You have a Tactics rating of 1000 and a Chess Mentor rating of 1400. Surely, you would have done better since you claim to be the best player in the world! Surely this would have been in the news by now! I can't believe you have gotten ANYONE to believe such a lie!
You claim to be the best chess player in the world! You claim to be able to beat every single chess engine in the world! You claim to have beaten the very chess engine that has been unable to be beaten by anyone else except another chess engine that calculates TENS OF MILLIONS of positions in a second! And yet, no one has heard of it except in the forums you have created. I may seem to be redundant, but I am trying to emphasize how CRAZY it is for you to claim that you have achieved such a tremendous feat! A human being cannot ever surpass engines like AlphaZero and StockFish, no matter how many positions they study! A human would not be able to beat StockFish if they could calculate 1 million positions per second! A human could not calculate 100 positions per second!
The best chess player in the world has not beaten StockFish, so unless you can't beat him, stop claiming that you have beat StockFish. If you want to claim this, please become a grandmaster and win the World Chess Championship.
Google's Alpha-SF match is in the news, the match with the fake 30/1 hardware, and people believe it.
People like me, that just work hard, are not in the news, the biggest accomplishments in science and creativity are usually assessed much much later, decades or so later, as their authors have been far ahead of their time.
So that, I remain unfuzzled.
Have you checked my SF games, they are of exceptional quality, why would you refuse to believe in them?
While many grandmasters are not in Wikipedia, almost every single one if them, if not every single one of them, would have some sort of article written on them. So surely, if you have beat StockFish it would be on the news, as that is a much greater accomplishment then becoming a grandmaster!
As you have said, all great accomplishments are well known. People are unaware that teleportation has existed since 1996! However, there are plenty of articles on the fact that we have the technology to do that. However, there has bound to be at least one article if your claims are legit.
Your games have been posted by you. It has never been proved to be official. If you want someone to believe such an outlandish idea, please get proof! Anyone that's good enough at chess can post such a game as you have posted!
From the links provided, I can see now that you are definitely not TOTALLY fake. However, the FIDE Elo rating of 2095 you have is not enough to beat StockFish.
Stewardandstewardj makes a good point. Everyone familiar with Stockfish knows it's stronger than any grandmaster. If a grandmaster was able to beat it, that would be major news in the chess world. So why isn't it major news that a Bulgarian candidate master has beaten it? Because it hasn't been confirmed by independent evidence. It's just a claim. People make outlandish claims all the time. It's not news. Anyone can post games and claim they were played against Stockfish.
Here's an obviously drawn position that Stockfish evaluates as -72.88.
White to play.
If your good enough to beat Stock fish then play ALPHAZERO.
You wont have a chance
Why don't you play a person rated 1600
Better than you.
Alpha is not a very big challenge, even if they double the hardware.
I am able to score over 60% against SF, so I will score at least 55% against Alpha.
Still a lot to learn until they reach my level.
LOL. LOL. LOL
Thanks for giving me a reason to laugh.
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov, can you please explain how you can even ATTEMPT to claim to have beaten StockFish, in which no one can even come close to such an accomplishment? You have a Tactics rating of 1000 and a Chess Mentor rating of 1400. Surely, you would have done better since you claim to be the best player in the world! Surely this would have been in the news by now! I can't believe you have gotten ANYONE to believe such a lie!
You claim to be the best chess player in the world! You claim to be able to beat every single chess engine in the world! You claim to have beaten the very chess engine that has been unable to be beaten by anyone else except another chess engine that calculates TENS OF MILLIONS of positions in a second! And yet, no one has heard of it except in the forums you have created. I may seem to be redundant, but I am trying to emphasize how CRAZY it is for you to claim that you have achieved such a tremendous feat! A human being cannot ever surpass engines like AlphaZero and StockFish, no matter how many positions they study! A human would not be able to beat StockFish if they could calculate 1 million positions per second! A human could not calculate 100 positions per second!
The best chess player in the world has not beaten StockFish, so unless you can't beat him, stop claiming that you have beat StockFish. If you want to claim this, please become a grandmaster and win the World Chess Championship.
Google's Alpha-SF match is in the news, the match with the fake 30/1 hardware, and people believe it.
People like me, that just work hard, are not in the news, the biggest accomplishments in science and creativity are usually assessed much much later, decades or so later, as their authors have been far ahead of their time.
So that, I remain unfuzzled.
Have you checked my SF games, they are of exceptional quality, why would you refuse to believe in them?
While many grandmasters are not in Wikipedia, almost every single one if them, if not every single one of them, would have some sort of article written on them. So surely, if you have beat StockFish it would be on the news, as that is a much greater accomplishment then becoming a grandmaster!
As you have said, all great accomplishments are well known. People are unaware that teleportation has existed since 1996! However, there are plenty of articles on the fact that we have the technology to do that. However, there has bound to be at least one article if your claims are legit.
Your games have been posted by you. It has never been proved to be official. If you want someone to believe such an outlandish idea, please get proof! Anyone that's good enough at chess can post such a game as you have posted!
From the links provided, I can see now that you are definitely not TOTALLY fake. However, the FIDE Elo rating of 2095 you have is not enough to beat StockFish.
Everyone would be able to create such games like mine with SF, but they don't.
Also, everyone would be able to write a book like 'The Secret of Chess', but they don't.
Maybe, there is a reason for that after all?
Stewardandstewardj makes a good point. Everyone familiar with Stockfish knows it's stronger than any grandmaster. If a grandmaster was able to beat it, that would be major news in the chess world. So why isn't it major news that a Bulgarian candidate master has beaten it? Because it hasn't been confirmed by independent evidence. It's just a claim. People make outlandish claims all the time. It's not news. Anyone can post games and claim they were played against Stockfish.
But not everyone does that, why so?
You got me dead tired with your constant obstructions, are not you(I mean all) going to say something positive?
Here's an obviously drawn position that Stockfish evaluates as -72.88.
White to play.
You might have put 10 more light-square bishops: some engines and GUIs accept more pieces than that.
If your good enough to beat Stock fish then play ALPHAZERO.
You wont have a chance
Why don't you play a person rated 1600
Better than you.
Alpha is not a very big challenge, even if they double the hardware.
I am able to score over 60% against SF, so I will score at least 55% against Alpha.
Still a lot to learn until they reach my level.
LOL. LOL. LOL
Thanks for giving me a reason to laugh.
I will give you even more in the future.
I am eagerly waiting for SF to release version 9, so that I start thrashing it with new impetus(I am more experienced now, you know), but they are afraid to release it.
Here's an obviously drawn position that Stockfish evaluates as -72.88.
White to play.
You might have put 10 more light-square bishops: some engines and GUIs accept more pieces than that.
I thought I'd stick to a legal position. But even -73 suggests SF doesn't quite understand that kind of position.
Otherwise I could have added 24 more light bishops giving an evaluation of -103.60.
White to play and draw.
Of course if we're adding illegal numbers of bishops we could add illegal numbers of other pieces as well. I notice Stockfish evaluates the one below as -127.99. But is it drawn? You could probably tell me that off the top of your head.
White to play and ?
I've inserted how computer level 10 plays it on chess.com anyhow. (I think it's SF). Looks pretty blind to me.
White to play and Black to win.
About #297: Why others has not created fake games against Stockfish? Is this what you are asking?
Also on the book "The secret of chess" I already seen such a book and it concentrates much on Dutch defense, which for sure is not on AlphaZero openings list.
Stewardandstewardj makes a good point. Everyone familiar with Stockfish knows it's stronger than any grandmaster. If a grandmaster was able to beat it, that would be major news in the chess world. So why isn't it major news that a Bulgarian candidate master has beaten it? Because it hasn't been confirmed by independent evidence. It's just a claim. People make outlandish claims all the time. It's not news. Anyone can post games and claim they were played against Stockfish.
But not everyone does that, why so?
You got me dead tired with your constant obstructions, are not you(I mean all) going to say something positive?
The fact that not everyone posts games and claims they were played against Stockfish is proof that the games you've posted are legitimate?
I am eagerly waiting for SF to release version 9, so that I start thrashing it with new impetus(I am more experienced now, you know), but they are afraid to release it.
They're afraid to release the new version because they know you will thrash it? In the never-ending debate over which chess player is the best of all time, names like Fischer, Kasparov and Carlsen are always mentioned. The name Tsvetkov is never mentioned. But now we're informed that not only is the greatest player of all time someone who never held the world championship but never earned the title of master either. Yet he is not only the best ever, he's the only player able to beat the strongest chess engines. It's remarkable that such earthshaking news has been ignored by the entire chess world except for a couple of forum threads on a chess website.
"You lack credibility because you lack achievement". My son goes around quoting the little green guy on star wars. That sounds like something he would say.