The Secret of Chess

Actually, I have positive feedback from players rated around 1800, who like it a lot.

I guess it depends on how serious you are about learning and whether your mind is open for new things.

If you are willing to learn, you can learn from absolutely every source. But I did not say it does not require some effort on your part; yes, it does. The more you invest, the greater benefits you will reap.

Maybe, there are many books, if not all, that are written in a way easier to understand. BUT, and I would like to dwell on here: I still, with pure heart and full convinction, assert using pattern recognition for learning is by far the fastest possible approach.

If the stronger players were more than the lower-rated ones, you would have said the book is for lower-rated players...

You prefer h4 and Nh3 to f4 and Nf3, well, you obviously prefer to place piece and pawns on the edge of the board rather than in the center.  

This seems like a new methodology.

Did not we speak about the Nikolic-Fischer position, are you convinced now Fischer is winning?

Well, f5 is a nice suggestion, its only flaw is that it already loses.

For example, f5 ef6! gf6 f5:

This is already tactically won for white.

Or, alternatively, Nf6 instead of gf6, then Nf3:

Believe me or not, this IS also won for white; I have watched thoiusands of similar positions in engine-engine matches. The engines don't know white is winning, but it still does so.

Why is white winning?

Because of the black e6 twice backward pawn/feature, the d4 and f4 white pawns constitute a central bind, and, as the e6 pawn is central and unadvanced, the asset is worth somewhere 70cps or so; this simply wins the game for white.

Please see, that white has numerical pawn advantage on the king side, logically, f, g and h pawns versus g and h black pawns, because the black e6 pawn is fully immobilised, it does not take part into the action at all. So, white will simply regroup, get the rooks to the king side, and push the pawns on the king wing. That will win the game at some point. The black light-square bishop is also hemmed-in by the e6 twice backward pawn.

SF, of course, does not think so, it does not prefer to capture on f6 and thinks white has only slight advantage after that. The lines are very deep, involving a lot of regrouping, and it does not have the necessary refined evaluation. But, believe me, white is won, I have checked similar positions with a central bind thousand times.

Someone told me there are many strong players here, too.

Every 1600 is a potential 1800.

You advance, when you read more advanced books and solve more advanced puzzles.

That is the essence of learning.

Luidmil, why don't you stop posting diagrams from other peoples games? Instead you should play Computer Impossible here on chess.com, surely you will beat it easely at least 3 times in a row using white twice and black once, for instance. You invite us to kibitz and witness your wins, I will buy the book if you prove your claims in live games here!!!

Because the diagrams are from games mostly at LTC, which are instructive.

90% of blitz games are mostly not that instructive, if at all. You can not imagine the amount of weak moves that are usually played in blitz, especially when the stakes are bigger and both players are overexcited.

The win is rewarding after the game, some might lose, but overall the quality will be pretty low.

You didn't answer my suggestion at all. I mentioned nothing about blitz, infact go ahead and play 4 games against Comp Impossible, 15/10 or 30mins time, I'd be happy to sit along and watch you get destroyed. Or contact Danny Rensch and ask to play rapid against Komodo, so we can all see a vid of you getting trounced. But of course you won't do that, you'll just come up with some new excuse or pretext as to why you won't do it. Nothing wrong with marketing something you've written, but you're doing it the wrong way buddy. Infact I'm gonna contact Rensch on your behalf to set up that mini-match. Points for trolling capabilities though!

And if you don't answer, well then we all know I just hit a sore spot, don't we? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Otherwise people won't believe you, and credibility is quite important if you are trying to sell something, wouldn't you agree?

I am going to play officially SF and Komodo, I do promise.

I am just waiting for considerably stronger versions to be released, so that both sides have chances, the current versions are, well, how to say it, weak.

I told you I am selling my analytical skills and not my blitz play.

What if I hate kibitzers(which I really do)? I can't count the number of games I have lost due to kibitzers or people analysing their games on the next board.

Try to disprove some of the claims/positions/diagrams I have posted and then you might prove me wrong.

On the contrary, it is very easy to prove, as this analysis is not encountered anywhere else.

It might still be of extraterrestrial origin, though...

Hahahaa... The number of kibitzers plays no role whatsoever to your own game in progress, one simply closes those tabs and the chat as well from the options, it's not like they're using your bandwidth anyway, everybody has their own internet provider.You should get faster internet instead of blaming your losses for it. And again who said anything about blitz play? Play G60 or more against Komodo while it gives you knight or bishop odds, I'll be wiring you a thousand bucks if you even win 1 game. Did you guys notice the new pretexts? "I hate kibitzers! SF and Komodo are weak!"  Well if they are weak then play either one, tomorrow, live with kibitzers so you can prove that claim, you should be able to beat them easily shouldn't you?....Eagerly awaiting for your next pretext for chickening out of proving your claims! What will it be?? What will it be?   And did you notice how this guy didn't mention the free online forum marketing, after I raised the subject? Take that as a sign, guys... Really, Tsvetkov, your book is probably just fine and interesting, but your claims about beating 3400rated engines need live proof NOW. Otherwise why should anyone buy your book if you won't prove that other claim in a few live games? KOOOTT-KOT-KOT-KOT-KOOOTT-----CHICKEEEEEEEEEN-----LYEEEEERRRR

And about disproving your ideas, well you should know that modern engines are programmed to steer away from closed or blocked positions into relatively open ones, now do you think we should call Kasparov, Aljechin, Topalov, Morphy WEAK, because they preferred open attacking play??? You won't even get near the sort of positions you have shown, against the computer, in official live play. So sure, go ahead and do your Position Setups with those blocked positions you have shown, but the fact is you are never going to get close to that type of position in controlled live match play, the opening book will take care of that easily.

I've seen lots of book titles with "secret" in them: "The secret to becoming rich in the stock market," "The secret to losing weight," "The secret to writing hit songs," "The secret to creating a winning sports team," etc. etc.

All of them were garbage because there is no "secret."  In every endeavor you have to work hard, do your homework, and prepare.

Additionally, I'm very skeptical when the online rating of the author isn't as high as the OTB ratings of high school players I coached.

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov, could you play computer level 4 in chess.com?

Who do you say will give the odds in Komodo-me?

I played once a match of 10 games with knight handicap and won 10-0.

When I gave Komodo myself the knight handicap, I drew one out of 10 by blocking the whole board.

So, who do you say shall give the odds?

Man, I am even stronger in open play.

As I already told you, closed play is much more difficult and complex and that is one reason top engines fail there. But you simply don't listen.

I know by heart what Kasparov, Fischer and Lasker played, but also where they went wrong, as I have analysed that with computers.

So better just calm down.

I have no online rating, I have never played a single online game in my life, anywhere.

Concerning hard work, I agree, but here is where I EXCEL.

Before publishing my books on beating the computer(see the Human versus Machine thread), I have played more than 50 000 engine games, in the last 20 years or so. I have:

- played the early versions of Fritz and ChessMaster

- then switched to Winboard and played almost every imaginable engine, from TSCP to DayDreamer

- then switched to playing higher rated engines, like Rybka et others; against Rybka, I have a positive score overall

- then came Houdini, I have beaten it frequently too(up until version 3)

- and then Stockfish and Komodo, you have no clue of the number of games I have played against SF, simply have no clue; and even less you have a clue how many positions I have analysed with SF, I guess there are simply not such large numbers in your brain

- I have analysed all imaginable positions, from extremely open to extremely closed, featuring IQPs, imbalances, advanced outposts, attacking and positional play, and much more refined concepts too

- only talking of handicaps, as some people would like to challenge me with handicaps, I have tried more than 50 different handicap positions, practically everything you can think of, 1 pawn, 2 pawns, 2 pawns for knight, 3 pawns for rook, queen for 2 minors, 2 bishops vs 2 rooks, 3 tempos(pieces for one side already developed), 5 tempos, experimenting with different locations for the missing pieces, black and white, etc., etc., etc.  As said, you will simply be unable to count them

So that, when I say I am an expert, I am really that.

Only taking handicap play, you really think someone, Kasparov, Carlsen or Nakamura, or some of the other GMs who played Komodo, has played that many games? Really?

So that, I know my stuff before trying to offer something to the public.

I am not that mean to hustle something to somebody.

But maybe I should publish all the games I have played and all the positions I have analysed. But I am not sure Chess.com has that much space.

Because there is a difference between my Secrets and their secrets.

It is only very rarely, speaking of the books by stronger players, that I have seen a chess author being completely dishonest with what he offers. Maybe that happens with other literary branches, but not with chess.

Chess is simply too scientific a field and most of the reading public has at least a general clue for anyone to try to cheat on it.

So I guess it is better to just relax.

g3 is not the best first move, because the center(occupying it with pawns) is more important in the early opening than kingside fianchetto.

And I can prove it with concrete game examples. 1...c5 is strongest on 1.g3.

But you can not disprove my claims that 1.c4 is best, that is the huge difference.

Did not Alpha prove me right 1.c4 and The French are good for white?

Only on 1.d4 we differ with Alpha, but it does not know 1...c5 fully equalises in a quick fashion.