Stockfish is blind!

Thank you, Mr. Rattigan.

 there are certain positions when stockfish cannot see things. heres an example:

here, stockfish gave me 0.00: a dead draw. however, 1. Rb1 wins. only after 1... h4 2. Kc6 h3 3. Kb7 c4 4. 4. Ka8! Qb8+ the numbers suddenly leap to 46+.

That is your opinion.

You wanted controlled conditions, and you get them.

Now you want more.

I hate to repeat myself once more, but I will do it, for the single reason that

the talk/ad I am doing about the Secret of Chess dwarfs the quality of the book(by quality

I mean only available chess knowledge).

I wrote it in 4 months, but I have spent 4 years in preparing all the necessary material, gathering

all relevant statistics, etc.

And, if you happen to read the book, and try to understand it, you will really understand this is a unique book, unmatched in many respects.

From the quality of the chess knowledge in the book, you can judge about the author.

A weak player can not write such things, neither a weak player can frequently crush Stockfish.

On the other hand, my 2 latest booklets, Human vs Machine 1 and 2, are interesting, but nothing special: each one took about a weak to write, as I was very familiar with the stuff.

PS. Again, I hate all that, but what to do, someone raises a point, so I have to defend myself.

On similar grounds, you have to exclude Morphy, Lasker, Capablanca from your list of 'verified'

strong players.

@OP

You may have taken advantage of the traditional chess engine weaknesses of getting a closed position (I myself have done before years ago in my home and beaten chess engines that way BUT have never ever boasted about it), but if you want credibility, go play a human OTB tournament with GMs in it, then we'll talk.

For every time you can beat the engine by succeeding to maneuver the game into a totally closed position, I can guarantee you that the engine is capable of beating you at least hundreds/thousands of times. Getting the engine to play the same few opening lines favoring you does not count.

Engines have improved over the years to not allow the game to get into a closed position, but this still remains their traditional weakness. But there is no way a strong human player will get into the kind of position you showed.

Also claiming to be almost as good as Carlsen (let alone any grandmaster), makes you look rather frivolous. You don't even dare to play here and get a rating at least.

To avoid cheating allegations you must reveal your FIDE ID or your username on any other chess site where you play.

And I have defeated the strongest engine in the world, which in turn easily defeats the strongest human players.

To tell you the truth, this already starts getting boring.

I don't need to justify my writings, they are what they are.

Neither my games with the top engines - similarly.

I am on this forum for a day or 2, maybe a couple more, so I don't intend to

bore you with my presence, neither would I like to be bored by the same repetitive claims.

If you have something concrete to say about what I have written/how I have played a game, then you are welcome.

At least 2000 elo more until perfect chess, that has been discussed on many occasions

on talkchess.

So, we will have perfect Stockfish around version 100 or so.

It amazes me that every so often someone new shows up, never plays any games, "claims" to play on another site, never gives any proof, and yet has beaten the worlds strongest chess engine.  

And yet, they never play OTB.

I even won't read you until the end.

I am able to draw level in the majority of games, even if playing only standard, non-closed chess.

Engines from 5-10 years ago don't count; try beating Stockfish now and then kindly post the game.

If you want, you might even write a book about it.

he has played otb he is a candidate master

And for me, it is highly suspicious that you don't believe me, in spite of all the available evidence:

a high-quality unique chess knowledge book.

This is a statistical material gathered by analysing millions of engine games, both between me and the engine and between engines. Statistics, derived from TCEC games, I hope you believe in TCEC, statistics derived from games in engine tournaments run on 16 and more cores.

The creative ideas are mine, but all top engine databases and sparring with the tops have been used to corroborate what I have noticed.

I fyou would like it that way more, you can add Stockfish and Komodo as co-authors, or at least

contributors: would it be more acceptable for you that way?

Would that dissipate any suspicions of yours?

Are Stockfish and Komodo strong enough for you to trust them?

Or do they need FIDE rating too?

I see no proof of this.

You want me to start playing here and get to number 1 spot?

That is a good idea.

One can not however play and write books at the same time.

At some point, I will probably test my luck again in competition, but not certain when this will be.

My title is Bulgarian, and not FIDE, so you should learn Bulgarian first and then do

a search.

Below a link to the last rapid tournament I played in 2006:

http://chess.slivnitsa.com/slivnitsa-open-2006

Scrolling down the page, you can see a rankings table.

My name is on place 13, written in Bulgarian.

As you can easily see, my Bulgarian rating then(same as FIDE) has been

2202.

Is not this sufficient for a candidate master title?

I hear that in the US people having over 2200 are considered master level.

As you can also see, all people above me in the rankings have ratings above 2300,

so I have been used to playing such competition, and sometimes winning.

Going to the bottom of the table, most players are above 1900, in Bulgaria we

don't have players below that.

If you want to make sure it is really me, just press the 3rd picture, and you will

see me right in the middle, to the left of the corpulent old man.

To investigate further, you might want to compare this picture with my other photos.

Is this sufficient proof, or I faked the site and the picture again?

No one ever proved he has been cheating.

They simply suspended him, with no proof at all.

the Bulgarian Chess Pederation ruined him: typical step-mother attitude.