As you see, Stockfish score suddenly rises from big minus to big plus 20 moves later, so Stockfish can't see anything at the root.
It has weak evaluation, unlike me, lol, and therefore it is hopeless here.
This is a position reqiring the implementation of wild sharp imbalances (material/pawn for the bishop pair + center and initative), and so extremely hard for even top GMs, not to mention mere mortals.
That's why almost everyone will miss it, lol.
wishing you every success for the New Year Lyudomil even if your ideas are unorthodox and your claims outlandish!
Another line after 5.Bg5 instead of 5.a3.
Again not optimal, but clearly demonstrating white's advantage.
Black is not advised to take at d5, as d7 becomes isolated on half-open file.
Stockfish ignores this, it lacks evaluation for this specific example, apart from some rough psqt for isolated pawns.
Ending at close to +100cps, so quite good for white.
If white doesn't take on d5, this pawn severely restricts the opposing pieces, black has difficulties developing.
Similar d4-d5! idea happens in the QID on move 6 or so, has been played by AlphaZero, and is generally acclaimed by current theory, right?
From there to guessing d4-d5 is good already on move 2 is a long long way...
The Reti is similarly very dubious because of 2...d4!, and white struggles.
One last one, this time in the Bg5 line, and after ...Qa5 instead of ...exd5.
Black gets crushed.
Wild imbalances almost no one understands, but again the d5-pawn fully paralyses black.
It's all long term, Stockfish is unaware for a while, let alone any random GM, lol.
Ending at +300, quite convincing.
playing zero games on give you zero credibility
ZERO
it's either the games or the books.
it's too noisy.
some people are cheats.
Wait, if you are better than Stockfish, cheaters will be dead (because they cant cheat/play better than Stockfish)
playing zero games on give you zero credibility
ZERO
it's either the games or the books.
it's too noisy.
some people are cheats.
Wait, if you are better than Stockfish, cheaters will be dead (because they cant cheat/play better than Stockfish)
It seems like if his opponent cheats, that would only help him even more. If he's as good as he says he is (roughly 3500) then ANY result from such a game would benefit his credibility. If he loses, it would be barely. If he draws, it would be very impressive. If he wins, then people would start believing him and buying his books.
Maybe he just doesn't want all the fame and fortune of selling too many books. Maybe he likes the low key, no credibility, no sales approach better.
yeah, well...
Dear Lydmil Tsvetkov,
Many players report about the quality of your chess books and your rating. But according to me your books are worth to read. I am residing in India. Here your books are not available in Amazon.in. So kindly make some steps and arrangements to sell your books in India. I am sure your books will be get a hot sale in India
playing zero games on give you zero credibility
ZERO
it's either the games or the books.
it's too noisy.
some people are cheats.
Wait, if you are better than Stockfish, cheaters will be dead (because they cant cheat/play better than Stockfish)
It seems like if his opponent cheats, that would only help him even more. If he's as good as he says he is (roughly 3500) then ANY result from such a game would benefit his credibility. If he loses, it would be barely. If he draws, it would be very impressive. If he wins, then people would start believing him and buying his books.
Maybe he just doesn't want all the fame and fortune of selling too many books. Maybe he likes the low key, no credibility, no sales approach better.
Hi dear.
How are you doing during the crisis?
Dear Lydmil Tsvetkov,
Many players report about the quality of your chess books and your rating. But according to me your books are worth to read. I am residing in India. Here your books are not available in Amazon.in. So kindly make some steps and arrangements to sell your books in India. I am sure your books will be get a hot sale in India
The Kindle editions of my books are available on Amazon.in.
Amazon doesn't offer paperbook printing for independently published books
on the India site.
That might change in the future, but entirely depends on Amazon.
I would be glad for sharing more thoughts/feedback on my books.
Anyone having gotten stronger after reading Secret of Chess, Fine Art or Neverending Tactics?
Please, share some info.
Btw., where are my good friends GWTR and Chris Parsons?
I just put out a new beginner tactics book: https://www.amazon.com/999-Basic-Tactics-Lyudmil-Tsvetkov-ebook/dp/B08B3WML7Y/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=basic+tactics+999&qid=1594828814&s=books&sr=1-1
Maybe someone will be interested.
I also recently published a book on Paul Morphy: https://www.amazon.com/Best-Move-Morphy-Lyudmil-Tsvetkov-ebook/dp/B085WX4Q4J/ref=pd_sim_351_7?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=B085WX4Q4J&pd_rd_r=22c806c4-242c-40cb-90d1-226f595c7e48&pd_rd_w=axMBt&pd_rd_wg=Ys6NW&pf_rd_p=3c412f72-0ba4-4e48-ac1a-8867997981bd&pf_rd_r=0J1D0SD0ZKXE08HGZ0WT&psc=1&refRID=0J1D0SD0ZKXE08HGZ0WT
playing zero games on give you zero credibility
ZERO
it's either the games or the books.
it's too noisy.
some people are cheats.
Wait, if you are better than Stockfish, cheaters will be dead (because they cant cheat/play better than Stockfish)
It seems like if his opponent cheats, that would only help him even more. If he's as good as he says he is (roughly 3500) then ANY result from such a game would benefit his credibility. If he loses, it would be barely. If he draws, it would be very impressive. If he wins, then people would start believing him and buying his books.
Maybe he just doesn't want all the fame and fortune of selling too many books. Maybe he likes the low key, no credibility, no sales approach better.
Hi dear.
How are you doing during the crisis?
I'm doing very well, thank you. No crisis here, at least where i live. It's good to hear from you again. Even though I disagree with your thoughts on your chess playing ability, you do seem to be an avid chess enthusiast. Have you been staying happy and healthy?
Mr Lyudmil remember the line 1. d4 c5, d5 e5 ? So after 1. d4 nf6, d5 can we play c5 or e5?
Where is Lyudmil?
is this good boko to buy to become grandmaster in 4 years???
Get my latest chess tactics book, Amazing Chess Tactics:
https://www.amazon.com/Amazing-Chess-Tactics-Lyudmil-Tsvetkov-ebook/dp/B08HPGYC98/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&qid=1599798668&refinements=p_27%3ALyudmil+Tsvetkov&s=digital-text&sr=1-1&text=Lyudmil+Tsvetkov
Alien tactical motifs and combinations only 3200+ players can solve, after a lot of thinking.
Not all are like that, but the harder ones definitely will blow your mind.
Yes. Please do not give so-called "book moves" exclamation marks...…..and don't put an exclamation on every second move (first game)
Explain the "why" before the "how". Eg. In your first chapter, explain what tempo is and why it's important before giving the games as examples. Don't bombard your reader with a series of games right off the bat. Also, make it clear in your annotations what the game has to do with the chapter. Just from the way you are writing, I can tell this book is geared towards lower rated players. Lower rated players will likely not understand words like "tempo" or "pin".
Every move also doesn't need an annotation -- not to mention some of the annotations don't make much sense. Eg. game 2 move 9. I also feel like you spend more time discussing the opening moves than the actually "content" of the game
This was just from skimming the free preview.
Then read the full book first, and then try to comment.
Otherwise, it doesn't make much sense.
When you start reading a games collection, you already know basic tactics, so what a pin or a tempo is, right?
The book is not for absolute beginners, it is more advanced next to Logical Chess, and even Chernev doesn't explain what tempo is.
But when you see a clear instance of lower-power piece attacking a stronger piece or a pawn attacking an enemy piece that need to retreat, you immediately get the clue, right?
Which annotations don't make much sense - please, concrete examples.
Maybe it's just your impression.
One reader censored me for the fact I claimed 1.Nf3?! is not optimal compared to 1. e4, 1.c4 and 1.d4, but that's absolutely true.
You NEVER get an advantage with white after 1.Nf3, even 1.Nf6 mirroring fully equalises.
So 1.Nf3 is really a subpar option, hard to understand?
Is my claim past the point or inaccurate?
I've been investigating a lot before making such claims.
There are many opening variations, but there are a negligible portion of overall chess content, so I guess your impression on the opening issue is also a bit off.
Hey Lyudmil.....thanks for responding to my feedback. I find that many people don't often do that, so I really appreciate it
I can't actually read the full book, since I can't find the pdf anywhere online, which means I have to order it. I can't really order anything unless its Christmas or my birthday -- both of which have already recently passed.
In regards to your comment about understanding words like "tempo", or those relevant to the chapter, I still believe it would be most beneficial to provide a brief explanation before the games. Or even a brief explanation of the chapter itself. What you did was you just presented the game and expected the readers to piece it together without an intro -- based off of one game! (Also recommend adding in more games) Highly established authors such as Jacob Aagaard often add brief introductions in their books and I (personally) find it really helpful.
About the annotations, I think that they are a bit overzealous. For example, game 2 move 9 for White
"9. Rg5 Again. Seemingly a bit flirtatious, but very very efficient"
I just don't understand what that's supposed to mean. I mean, I understand that the rook is attacking the queen, but you didn't have to add that comment, it just sounds way too confusing / over enthusiastic, if you know what I mean. You say that the readers can comprehend the fact that "a lower-power piece attacks a higher-power piece thus forcing it to move". Well, this is the same concept! You don't need to point it out with excessively detailed annotations.
About the Nf3 thing. I do thing that it is slightly worse than either e4 or d4 (but then again, who am i to speak -- an advocate for b3 and a3), but it definitely shouldn't be given a "?!". That annotation is usually given for a dubious move, which I wouldn't even give to a3 or b3. Rather a "!?" should be given, if anything at all. Although I guess this is just a matter of preference.
Anyways, thanks so much for taking the time to thoroughly read through my feedback, and I'm definitely considering getting this book (or The Secret of Chess) the next time my birthday comes around.
Sincerely,
@1_a31-0