breakingbad12 wrote:
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov, could you play computer level 4 in chess.com?
What is level 4?
If it is a dumbed-down one, why should it be a difficult one?
The Secret of Chess
Sort:
computer level 4 is the hardest in chess.com.
here is the computer: https://www.chess.com/member/computer4-impossible
win some games against it and i'm gonna buy your book (although i'm quite sure you not gonna make it 
)
Dec 12, 2017
0
#225
What’s you’re rating, Lyudmil? 4000? How come you aren’t the best player in the world? Where is you FIDE rating? Why haven’t you beaten Kasparov and Carlson with a 100-0 record? Why must you hide in the shadows? With all of these questions, we cannot trust you
the secret of chess is play the right moves.
you're welcome
After tracking this topic since its creation, I'm convinced that either a) The author here is entirely out of touch with reality and is living in his own world where he believes his work holds more weight than it does in reality. b) He is persisting in pushing his work out if desperation to save face.
breakingbad12 wrote:
here is the computer: https://www.chess.com/member/computer4-impossible
win some games against it and i'm gonna buy your book (although i'm quite sure you not gonna make it )
It joined 10 May 2010 and has 797 followers...
2100 at rapid, 2300 at bullet and blitz - that would not quite impress me.
In order to be really strong, it should feature at least latest SF on 32 cores, but I don't believe it is that strong.
cellomaster8 wrote:
What’s you’re rating, Lyudmil? 4000? How come you aren’t the best player in the world? Where is you FIDE rating? Why haven’t you beaten Kasparov and Carlson with a 100-0 record? Why must you hide in the shadows? With all of these questions, we cannot trust you
Because I am a Dark Horse.
Magnuts Carletson should not be a big obstacle, I think.
FrustratedPazter wrote:
After tracking this topic since its creation, I'm convinced that either a) The author here is entirely out of touch with reality and is living in his own world where he believes his work holds more weight than it does in reality. b) He is persisting in pushing his work out if desperation to save face.
Sorry, don't have much time for small talk, just started another book: "Fischer's 1022 tactical mistakes".
Or, you think he did not commit that many?
He's delusional or he's a troll. Probably a combination of both.
hitthepin wrote:
Everyone makes tactical mistakes. Saying that a grandmaster makes mistakes is like saying that gravity pulls things down. It’s just a fact, and stating it does not mean that you made a brilliant deduction.
Who would think that about Fischer?
Don't they cite his games as examples and analyse them, putting a huge amount of exclams?
So far, I have not seen many question marks attached to his moves. Who would be the authority to dare that?
breakingbad12 wrote:
Honestly, you're probably right.
He's delusional or he's a troll. Probably a combination of both.
In 1850, they believed The King's Gambit is best.
In 1900, they believed the QGD is best.
Later, they believed the same for the Sicilian and the KID.
You really think theory is set once and for all?
Chess is too complex for that, 'The Secret of Chess' simply tries to introduce a new shift, that is all.
A simple position.
How would you evaluate it? SF says 50cps black advantage initially. Do you agree with that? In fact, the material imbalance is 2 minor pieces and 2 pawns vs queen, and, if the minors are worth 3 points each, as we are taught, while the queen 9, then black is half a point ahead, considering white has the bishop pair. Is this true?
What would a GM say? Maybe a draw, after all?
Well, I don't ask myself such questions, as I simply know white is winning that. I have checked and rechecked similar positions thousands of times. I am certain white wins. And, if you play a statistically relevant sample of games between the top engines, you will get convinced I was right.
This knowledge, which I have reproduced in too many games, is part and parcel of 'The Secret of Chess'. If we get convinced the knowledge is valid, why would not we have high opinion of the book and its author?
breakingbad12 έγραψε:
He's delusional or he's a troll. Probably a combination of both.
None of the above.
He just desperately tries to promote his book, where a crapload of bullshit is printed.
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
FrustratedPazter wrote:
After tracking this topic since its creation, I'm convinced that either a) The author here is entirely out of touch with reality and is living in his own world where he believes his work holds more weight than it does in reality. b) He is persisting in pushing his work out if desperation to save face.
Sorry, don't have much time for small talk, just started another book: "Fischer's 1022 tactical mistakes".
Or, you think he did not commit that many?
Of course Fischer made tactical mistakes. Grandmasters have always made tactical mistakes for two reasons: they're human and they've played a lot of games. If you play no games, you make no tactical mistakes. That doesn't mean you're stronger than grandmasters. It just means you don't play any games. It's easy to point out mistakes grandmasters have made over the board. It's not so easy to play mistake-free games yourself. It's also easy for someone to say his rating would be 2900 or even 3900 if he played competitively. Anyone could make that claim. The only rating that matters is the one earned in competition.
Dec 12, 2017
0
#237
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
universityofpawns wrote:
https://www.365chess.com/players/Ludmil_Tsvetkov
okay, I found a record of some of your games, looks like you play at expert level, but not GM
Do you also see the year: 2004?
That makes precisely 13 years from now.
But that would mean you have not played tournament chess in 13 years??? and you are stronger now with no record of any games, okay....lol.
pfren wrote:
breakingbad12 έγραψε:
He's delusional or he's a troll. Probably a combination of both.
None of the above.
He just desperately tries to promote his book, where a crapload of bullshit is printed.
Is above diagram one of the crap contents, as white indeed wins that.
If you are able to refute my claim, then you might be right, otherwise, I insist that you apologise.
You can not compare my level of intelligence with your: I have studied way more things that you.
Of course, a lower level of intelligence might not be able to grasp a higher one, but that does not mean one is entitled to rude words.
hitthepin wrote:
And fails
As I told you, one day you will learn from my books...
FBloggs wrote:
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
FrustratedPazter wrote:
After tracking this topic since its creation, I'm convinced that either a) The author here is entirely out of touch with reality and is living in his own world where he believes his work holds more weight than it does in reality. b) He is persisting in pushing his work out if desperation to save face.
Sorry, don't have much time for small talk, just started another book: "Fischer's 1022 tactical mistakes".
Or, you think he did not commit that many?
Of course Fischer made tactical mistakes. Grandmasters have always made tactical mistakes for two reasons: they're human and they've played a lot of games. If you play no games, you make no tactical mistakes. That doesn't mean you're stronger than grandmasters. It just means you don't play any games. It's easy to point out mistakes grandmasters have made over the board. It's not so easy to play mistake-free games yourself. It's also easy for someone to say his rating would be 2900 or even 3900 if he played competitively. Anyone could make that claim. The only rating that matters is the one earned in competition.
That is the old way: in the future, people will exclusively play from their homes, and their ratings will exclusively be calculated on the analysis they provide.
I have already started to excel here.
(But I do promise that one day I will start playing competitively again and will thrash everyone, at least Komodo, currently simply I have more important things to do)
Whose?
All top GMs, including the world champions, will never subscribe to such mad theories, although I guess Carlsen and Kasparov, if shown concrete examples, will be the 2 to agree with most of the stuff.