The Secret of Chess - Chess Forums - Page 10

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov · 2017-08-01T08:22:19-07:00

Hi everyone. I wrote a new book, titled 'The Secret of Chess'. It is available for a modest charge here: http://www.secretofchess.com On above page you can learn more about the book, as well as browse some exceprts.

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov

Dec 9, 2017

0

#181

FBloggs wrote:

I've probably challenged Lyudmil as much as anyone about his bold claims not supported by independent evidence. But I haven't called him a liar, a fake or a fraud. I haven't insulted him and he hasn't insulted me. In another forum he made a statement about the Fischer-Spassky match of 1972 that I knew was incorrect and told him. He stuck by his guns but I asked him to provide evidence to the contrary. He researched it and and admitted he was wrong. When he learned he was wrong, he could've ignored it but he admitted it publicly. That shows some character. I'm skeptical about his claims but I don't think the man is a liar or a fraud. I think he genuinely believes in his theories and has presented them again and again despite being ridiculed by many. I've got to give the man credit for brushing off all the insults and continuing to make the case for his book. Calling for him to be banned from the site is ridiculous. He has said or done nothing to warrant that.

Thank you.

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov

Dec 9, 2017

0

#182

To add a bit of substance to the thread, I will repost something I just posted elsewhere:

This is a critical position from the French Winaver.

What is the bst move for white?

Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, the best move is between Nf3 and f4. Which of the 2 would you choose?

As there are no tactics, that could decide in favour of one or the other option, based on concrete calculation, we should obviously decide based on some general positional observations. But what are those?

Traditional school of thought would most probably choose Nf3 as best, as this is a developing move; I on the other hand, am convinced f4 is better.

Which do you think is actually better and why?

How you decide that?

xoclueless

Dec 9, 2017

0

#183

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:

chesster3145 wrote:

@Lyudmil_Tsvetkov: I beg to differ. I think playing closed positions is easier, as long as the position remains closed, simply because there’s nothing to calculate.

Unless it is an obvious fortress, I guess it is the other way round.

Nothing to calculate, but a lot to evaluate positionally.

Why do you think precise positional evaluation is easier than calculation/tactics

chess/ratbrain syndrome...

much ado about nothing

ya can't evaluate without calculation

and ya can't can't calculate without evaluation.

they are one and the same.

"I guess? it is the other way around.''

?

what are you talking about.?

Sneakmasterflex

Dec 9, 2017

0

#184

This Ljudmila guy is trying to get his nuts in a bag, Squares Strategy vol 1-3 by A.Bangiev is, and will always take first price as legendary over-complicated chess material blended with new terms and acronyms. Always stay away from chess authors that invent "new" terms, and if you see one that puts acronyms in his book then RUN. Fruitcake material!

breakingbad12

Dec 9, 2017

0

#185

He's a scam, people. Not sure why he's not banned yet.

ScootaChess

Dec 9, 2017

0

#186

[COMMENT DELETED]

ChessianHorse

Dec 10, 2017

0

#187

The fixed central pawn chain (If the black pawn were still on c5, one would need to be a lot more careful about the center) indicates that White's way to make progress is to at some point push f5. Hence you would ideally want to push f4 before putting the knight on f3.

After f4 White wants to aim his forces at the kingside and push g4, f5,f6 etc.

I would be interested in knowing how you evaluate the position. I think White is better and the early c4-push by black was a positional mistake.

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov

Dec 10, 2017

0

#188

xoclueless wrote:

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:

chesster3145 wrote:

@Lyudmil_Tsvetkov: I beg to differ. I think playing closed positions is easier, as long as the position remains closed, simply because there’s nothing to calculate.

Unless it is an obvious fortress, I guess it is the other way round.

Nothing to calculate, but a lot to evaluate positionally.

Why do you think precise positional evaluation is easier than calculation/tactics

chess/ratbrain syndrome...

much ado about nothing

ya can't evaluate without calculation

and ya can't can't calculate without evaluation.

they are one and the same.

"I guess? it is the other way around.''

?

what are you talking about.?

Not true: you can evaluate without calculation, but you can not calculate without evaluation.

A single-ply engine could be built without search, but the opposite is not true.

Be it human or engine, you just need to give good assessment to each and every of the 30 or so available moves at the root position. That is all. If your evaluation is sufficiently sophisticated, there are big chances you will find the best move.

That is actually what 'The Secret of Chess' is all about: to spare us a lot of unnecessary calculation and instead teach us more refined evaluation.

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov

Dec 10, 2017

0

#189

Sneakmasterflex wrote:

This Ljudmila guy is trying to get his nuts in a bag, Squares Strategy vol 1-3 by A.Bangiev is, and will always take first price as legendary over-complicated chess material blended with new terms and acronyms. Always stay away from chess authors that invent "new" terms, and if you see one that puts acronyms in his book then RUN. Fruitcake material!

No need for new terms.

So, according to you, everything is set once and for all?

Chess, just as the Universe and we humans, constantly change and develop, of course.

Even the Ancient Greeks knew that: “No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man.” - Heraclitus

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov

Dec 10, 2017

0

#190

hitthepin wrote:

Third, I’m not trying to disprove and ridicule you. Or anyone here. Like I said, I’m just trying to state fact. I’m not taking a side. (yet)

It is difficult for me to understand to which post of mine you are answering.

I have not attacked you in any way, too.

What bothers me are all those fully meaningless comments.

Where are your variations and diagrams?

You can prove me wrong, if you prove my variations are wrong. But no one is trying to do that.

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov

Dec 10, 2017

0

#191

breakingbad12 wrote:

He's a scam, people. Not sure why he's not banned yet.

Nao sabes jogar xadrex.

Quem muito fala pouco faz.

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov

Dec 10, 2017

0

#192

jonathanpiano13 wrote:

The fixed central pawn chain (If the black pawn were still on c5, one would need to be a lot more careful about the center) indicates that White's way to make progress is to at some point push f5. Hence you would ideally want to push f4 before putting the knight on f3.

After f4 White wants to aim his forces at the kingside and push g4, f5,f6 etc.

I would be interested in knowing how you evaluate the position. I think White is better and the early c4-push by black was a positional mistake.

Excellent, JonathanPiano, excellent!

Eine sehr kluge Antwort.

Indeed, my impression is also that c5-c4 was pushed a bit early.

And truly, f5 is the most realistic white break.

I wish everybody here would have contributed on substance like you did.

Thank you.

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov

Dec 10, 2017

0

#193

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:

jonathanpiano13 wrote:

The fixed central pawn chain (If the black pawn were still on c5, one would need to be a lot more careful about the center) indicates that White's way to make progress is to at some point push f5. Hence you would ideally want to push f4 before putting the knight on f3.

After f4 White wants to aim his forces at the kingside and push g4, f5,f6 etc.

I would be interested in knowing how you evaluate the position. I think White is better and the early c4-push by black was a positional mistake.

Excellent, JonathanPiano, excellent!

Eine sehr kluge Antwort.

Indeed, my impression is also that c5-c4 was pushed a bit early.

And truly, f5 is the most realistic white break. g4 and f5-f6 are also outstanding moves.

I agree 80% with you, maybe even more. The only difference might be that I think white is significantly better, that would make some 40cps or so in engine evaluation and positional assets, so white should be close to winning.

I am not certain though how white actually wins after black castles long, as I still have not investigated that sufficiently.

So it might be the case this position is just above the winning margin, or just below it, most probably above the winning margin in most of the lines, and maybe below in a couple.

I still have to check if white wins in all lines or not. Seems like not the eaisest of tasks...

I wish everybody here would have contributed on substance like you did.

Thank you.

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov

Dec 10, 2017

0

#194

When I think what kind of short work I have been making with earlier versions of SF in this line...

GWTR

Dec 10, 2017

0

#195

Sneakmasterflex wrote:

This Ljudmila guy is trying to get his nuts in a bag, Squares Strategy vol 1-3 by A.Bangiev is, and will always take first price as legendary over-complicated chess material blended with new terms and acronyms. Always stay away from chess authors that invent "new" terms, and if you see one that puts acronyms in his book then RUN....

Under that benchmark, Kmoch's classic text would be totally ignored. Perhaps so would My System and/or Chess Praxis.

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov

Dec 10, 2017

0

#196

The TCEC guys start playing more and more often closed positions.

The current Superfinal saw the biggest number of positions of more closed character.

That would only confirm my supposition the stronger the chess playing entity, the more it will prefer closed positions.

See for example game 12 of the Final:

Btw., the number of mistakes by both engines in the closed setting is astounding.

Here, Komodo plays b6, when it was sufficient to just play Qe8, then Nd8, and the symmetrical b4,a4 and b7,a7 duos ensure a draw with full blocking.

Komodo plays here Ng4, which will later allow a break.

Both engines think here it is almost equal, that is, the e6 and d5 pair of central connected passers are so badly evaluated, that the win is not recognised.

Indeed, top engines gradually start moving towards play of a more closed character, but so far they make a tremendous amount of mistakes there.

How did you like that game?

Ashvapathi

Dec 10, 2017

0

#197

I'd be interested in listening to the opinion of some IMs and GMs on this book and views of Lyudmil. My personal impression so far is that he may be on to something in terms positional evaluations. But, Lyudmil seems to be exaggerating it. Anyway, I think everyone deserves a benefit of doubt by default.

GWTR

Dec 10, 2017

0

#198

Ashvapathi wrote:

I'd be interested in listening to the opinion of some IMs and GMs on this book and views of Lyudmil. My personal impression so far is that he may be on to something in terms positional evaluations. But, Lyudmil seems to be exaggerating it. Anyway, I think everyone deserves a benefit of doubt by default.

https://www.chess.com/blog/smurfo/the-secret-of-chess

yureesystem

Dec 10, 2017

0

#199

Lyudmil's book is more for advance players; he ask a question and no one bother to answer question: its his post number #198, Its a quite interesting position in the French. f4 could be the best but we have f5 and now we have very close nature and difficult for white to get an advantage; is funny maybe Nf3 is a better try, I personally prefer h4 or Nh3 to f4 or Nf3.

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov

Dec 10, 2017

0

#200

Ashvapathi wrote:

I'd be interested in listening to the opinion of some IMs and GMs on this book and views of Lyudmil. My personal impression so far is that he may be on to something in terms positional evaluations. But, Lyudmil seems to be exaggerating it. Anyway, I think everyone deserves a benefit of doubt by default.

If it is only a bit.

I said I have played some games against SF in the Winaver, but I have probably played more than 100.