The Secret of Chess

Sort:
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov
petrip wrote:
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:

Indeed, that is the other very relevant point: there is NO top chess player who is also a top chess writer.

And the arrival of engines has completely shifted the agenda: you already don't know what kind of person you need to write in-depth books.

Mot top players have never written a single book, and most chess writers have never been top players.

Very many of them are grand masters and there is huge amount international masters as well, and there are some top players as well. Fisches an Tal at least. 

But then again Mr. Silman for instance does not claim to be at the level of top GM and that he can beat stockfish, Now we have your claim and unfortunately since it is unsupervised I am not really interested what you say.

 

You make incredible claims and hence if you want people to believe them you need provide evidence. and only games in controlled environment do that. Easiest is normal tournaments

I am already tired of that.

Controlled conditions mean a lot of noise, a lot of distractions and a lot of imperfect chess.

I can do that too, but I simply hate imperfect chess.

Just accept I am 3500 with full concentration and 1500 with too many distractions/noise.

How I will perform will depends pretty much on that, and no one can guarantee how the conditions turn out, nowadays they are mostly very noisy, the world has simply gone mad and very very noisy.

So, I can hardly concentrate in such conditions.

My book is written at the upper elo range, though.

 

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov
torrubirubi wrote:
Christopher_Parsons wrote:

@Lyudmil_Tsvetkov

I wanted to take the time to point out a few things that may help to ease your frustration and put the expectations of others into proper perspective. 

 

 

 

First thing first, with regards to the OP demonstrating his chess prowess and proving what he is saying. Let's look at that idea from another perspective for a moment. Has Magnus Carlson written a tell all book about his approach to chess? The answer of course is no. This whole situation is a fundamental conundrum. If Magnus did that, he would likely no longer have a competitive edge. He also would be taking time away from playing and analyzing to stay on top. To expect the best players to produce such information is ludicrous. So it is only fair then that, it would be stupid to expect an author/computer programmer/ chess theoretician, to travel around and beat all of the best players. This goes to demonstrate how little forethought some of you put into this. It actually makes me wonder how you could be any good at chess? Perhaps Lyudmil isn't the fraud here and some of you are impersonating good chess players? 

 

 

 

 

I promised this forum a comprehensive break down of one of Lyudmil's games against an engine. I have most of it complete, but haven't compiled all of the analyses in a report yet. The preliminary findings of the information conclude some interesting things. One is simply this, by ELO, the play is at the GM level. By t-stats, it comes out has FM best play to lower level GM play or somewhere in between. So to say he is definitely playing at the IM is accurate and playing it safe. A few more things I have already concluded from the data. One is that if the ELO is at GM and the t-stats look more like IM play, that means he would either have had to look at a list of moves with a GUI and wait for that sort of slow analysis to take place and then pick his moves to stay below GM level, which isn't happening in 2 minute blitz or he would habe had to programmed the smartest chess bot I have ever seen, that can make engine moves appear as if chosen by a human. Both of which are more absurd to me than Lyudmil playing very human looking GM level chess. 

 

 

 

There is an interesting article in the same book and equipment forum about Stockfish 9 and the contempt 20 setting. Other users are complaining it is programmed to win and not analyze. The suspected motive, to compete with AlphaZero. 

 

 

 

I have also expressed to Lyudmil that if he showed his system at work in analyzing human games at the master level and above, then showing how applying the move choice criteria gives better move selection would help his cause. Let's face it, this a website. It is full of cheats. If Lyudmil played any doubter, he'd get Stockfish or Komodo's best game. If he wins, they just say he used an engine. It is definitely true that some people need to think more before they speak. 

This is interesting. What do you think in making a blog on the subject? In a blog you could go more in detail. In any case, thanks for the analysis. Perhaps this will motivate others to do a similar analysis ofnhis games. As long as LT doesn't show his strength by playing humans we have to use indirect cues to demonstrate his strength. I don't think that people would thimt LT isbusiis an engine if he scores well against strong players online. I am sure that a Naka versus LT match could draw the attention of more people than any super tournament. Lyudmil, yoy could get famousf, as the promotion of such a match would make sure everyone in the chess world would know you and your books. You should really consider this seriously. I am sure that everyone here, even Jorge and hitthepin would apologize to you if you can prove that you are playing at IM or GM level.

Panem et circenses.

As said, I depend a lot on noise/distractions.

I am almost certain I can NEVER perform anyway near 3000 under standard controlled conditions:

- too much noise

- too many cameras flashing

- too many emotions

- if online, stuck browsers, cheating allegations, friend requests and ads during games, etc.

2500, yes, but that is just a standard rating.

I am very strong ONLY under quiet conditions/full concentration, and no one can guarantee you that.

As simple as that.

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov

Let me give you a couple of links to reviews, maybe some still have not read them:

https://en.chessbase.com/post/the-secret-of-chess

https://www.chess.com/blog/Swordfish55/review-the-secret-of-chess

http://www.secretofchess.com/files/17772/ckfinder/images/Review%20on%20The%20Secret%20of%20Chess.pdf

 

Sorry guys, I am extremely busy, I would like to contribute more now, but only in the evening, I have to do some more writing.

I still have very faint hopes the book will start selling at some point, so maybe finishing the second part would make some sense, if I get too desperate, I might quit after all.

6 years of full devotion and now writing each and every day for one or 2 books each couple of days really makes no sense.

Let's see what happens.

Die_Schanze

At least you could prove your strenght in correspondence chess. There you have your best conditions. But i belive that the strongest players there are aware about the strengths and weaknesses of their used engines, so they use them the best way possible. And therefore they are equal strong or even stronger than Lyudmil Tsvetkov.

chesster3145
torrubirubi wrote:
Christopher_Parsons wrote:

@Lyudmil_Tsvetkov

I wanted to take the time to point out a few things that may help to ease your frustration and put the expectations of others into proper perspective. 

 

 

 

First thing first, with regards to the OP demonstrating his chess prowess and proving what he is saying. Let's look at that idea from another perspective for a moment. Has Magnus Carlson written a tell all book about his approach to chess? The answer of course is no. This whole situation is a fundamental conundrum. If Magnus did that, he would likely no longer have a competitive edge. He also would be taking time away from playing and analyzing to stay on top. To expect the best players to produce such information is ludicrous. So it is only fair then that, it would be stupid to expect an author/computer programmer/ chess theoretician, to travel around and beat all of the best players. This goes to demonstrate how little forethought some of you put into this. It actually makes me wonder how you could be any good at chess? Perhaps Lyudmil isn't the fraud here and some of you are impersonating good chess players? 

 

 

 

 

I promised this forum a comprehensive break down of one of Lyudmil's games against an engine. I have most of it complete, but haven't compiled all of the analyses in a report yet. The preliminary findings of the information conclude some interesting things. One is simply this, by ELO, the play is at the GM level. By t-stats, it comes out has FM best play to lower level GM play or somewhere in between. So to say he is definitely playing at the IM is accurate and playing it safe. A few more things I have already concluded from the data. One is that if the ELO is at GM and the t-stats look more like IM play, that means he would either have had to look at a list of moves with a GUI and wait for that sort of slow analysis to take place and then pick his moves to stay below GM level, which isn't happening in 2 minute blitz or he would habe had to programmed the smartest chess bot I have ever seen, that can make engine moves appear as if chosen by a human. Both of which are more absurd to me than Lyudmil playing very human looking GM level chess. 

 

 

 

There is an interesting article in the same book and equipment forum about Stockfish 9 and the contempt 20 setting. Other users are complaining it is programmed to win and not analyze. The suspected motive, to compete with AlphaZero. 

 

 

 

I have also expressed to Lyudmil that if he showed his system at work in analyzing human games at the master level and above, then showing how applying the move choice criteria gives better move selection would help his cause. Let's face it, this a website. It is full of cheats. If Lyudmil played any doubter, he'd get Stockfish or Komodo's best game. If he wins, they just say he used an engine. It is definitely true that some people need to think more before they speak. 

This is interesting. What do you think in making a blog on the subject? In a blog you could go more in detail. In any case, thanks for the analysis. Perhaps this will motivate others to do a similar analysis ofnhis games. As long as LT doesn't show his strength by playing humans we have to use indirect cues to demonstrate his strength. I don't think that people would thimt LT isbusiis an engine if he scores well against strong players online. I am sure that a Naka versus LT match could draw the attention of more people than any super tournament. Lyudmil, yoy could get famousf, as the promotion of such a match would make sure everyone in the chess world would know you and your books. You should really consider this seriously. I am sure that everyone here, even Jorge and hitthepin would apologize to you if you can prove that you are playing at IM or GM level.

Sorry, but it's unlikely: he would just become a nastier, less knowledgeable @pfren, and I've never apologized to @pfren for anything.

chesster3145
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
petrip wrote:
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:

Indeed, that is the other very relevant point: there is NO top chess player who is also a top chess writer.

And the arrival of engines has completely shifted the agenda: you already don't know what kind of person you need to write in-depth books.

Mot top players have never written a single book, and most chess writers have never been top players.

Very many of them are grand masters and there is huge amount international masters as well, and there are some top players as well. Fisches an Tal at least. 

But then again Mr. Silman for instance does not claim to be at the level of top GM and that he can beat stockfish, Now we have your claim and unfortunately since it is unsupervised I am not really interested what you say.

 

You make incredible claims and hence if you want people to believe them you need provide evidence. and only games in controlled environment do that. Easiest is normal tournaments

I am already tired of that.

Controlled conditions mean a lot of noise, a lot of distractions and a lot of imperfect chess.

I can do that too, but I simply hate imperfect chess.

Just accept I am 3500 with full concentration and 1500 with too many distractions/noise.

How I will perform will depends pretty much on that, and no one can guarantee how the conditions turn out, nowadays they are mostly very noisy, the world has simply gone mad and very very noisy.

So, I can hardly concentrate in such conditions.

My book is written at the upper elo range, though.

 

Why should we accept something which is clearly BS?

SteamGear
torrubirubi wrote:

I am sure that a Naka versus LT match could draw the attention of more people than any super tournament. 

He'd have to attain a live online rating of at least 2700 before Naka would even consider him worth playing.

LT would have better luck reaching the 2300 level, then playing a match against chess.com crowd-favorite GM Joey (Rogelio Antonio).

cellomaster8

I take a break...and I still see the same BS happening on this thread. LT play tournaments. Normal human beings play tournaments. Maybe you should start training yourself to be more focused and less distracted in public. Do you stay at home all day? You should be out in the public to get used to the atmosphere

torrubirubi
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:

Let me give you a couple of links to reviews, maybe some still have not read them:

https://en.chessbase.com/post/the-secret-of-chess

https://www.chess.com/blog/Swordfish55/review-the-secret-of-chess

http://www.secretofchess.com/files/17772/ckfinder/images/Review%20on%20The%20Secret%20of%20Chess.pdf

 

Sorry guys, I am extremely busy, I would like to contribute more now, but only in the evening, I have to do some more writing.

I still have very faint hopes the book will start selling at some point, so maybe finishing the second part would make some sense, if I get too desperate, I might quit after all.

6 years of full devotion and now writing each and every day for one or 2 books each couple of days really makes no sense.

Let's see what happens.

Lyudmil, go on with the second volume, I am looking forward to see it! I think you should consider making the diagrams smaller to save space. 

I was working today with The Secret of Chess, and I found some interesting things about imbalances. I didn't know that queen vs 3 minor pieces is often an easy win for the side with the minor pieces. As I understand you well, a larger number of pieces is often better even by material deficit, due to the better coordination of pieces.

torrubirubi

And don't get me wrong, I don't say that you have to play to prove something. I am just saying that for the sake of publicity such a match would be great for you, even if you don't win. It would be enough if you would  show a high level in our game and get some good positions against people like Naka. I am sure he would take the challenge if chess.com would ask him. But if you think you should not play I understand this. 

lfPatriotGames
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
petrip wrote:
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:

Indeed, that is the other very relevant point: there is NO top chess player who is also a top chess writer.

And the arrival of engines has completely shifted the agenda: you already don't know what kind of person you need to write in-depth books.

Mot top players have never written a single book, and most chess writers have never been top players.

Very many of them are grand masters and there is huge amount international masters as well, and there are some top players as well. Fisches an Tal at least. 

But then again Mr. Silman for instance does not claim to be at the level of top GM and that he can beat stockfish, Now we have your claim and unfortunately since it is unsupervised I am not really interested what you say.

 

You make incredible claims and hence if you want people to believe them you need provide evidence. and only games in controlled environment do that. Easiest is normal tournaments

I am already tired of that.

Controlled conditions mean a lot of noise, a lot of distractions and a lot of imperfect chess.

I can do that too, but I simply hate imperfect chess.

Just accept I am 3500 with full concentration and 1500 with too many distractions/noise.

How I will perform will depends pretty much on that, and no one can guarantee how the conditions turn out, nowadays they are mostly very noisy, the world has simply gone mad and very very noisy.

So, I can hardly concentrate in such conditions.

My book is written at the upper elo range, though.

 

Still stuck at only 3500? I would think that by now you would be at least 4000. Seriously though, as others have said, the more you say the less credible you become. If you want to be taken seriously, play some controlled games. Customers want credibility, and very few people if any will buy your books to see if you are credible. Your idea of assuming people should buy your books first obviously isn't working. You have to prove your credibility first. Honestly, the best thing you could do to promote sales of your books is to stop talking. If there really is good information in your books, they will sell themselves through word of mouth. You saying how good they are only hurts sales because no one believes you.

hitthepin
Just one game here on chess.com isn’t much.
cfour_explosive
torrubirubi wrote:

And don't get me wrong, I don't say that you have to play to prove something

why wouldn't he need to prove something? if you sell a book unter the premise "this is a book written by a 3500 player", then you should obviously prove that you are indeed a 3500 player, otherwise you are just cheating people off their money with false claims.

torrubirubi
What I like is that LT right now is posting here games played against the last version of Stockfish, games he is or losing or drawing. This is compatible with a real scenario, where he is studying and learning the weakness of this version. For me is quite impressive that he is already able to draw against such a strong engine which is (afaik) 50 points stronger than the former version.

About LT denying to play chess against humans in chess.com: the concern that his games could indeed be regarded as the product of manipulation is not completely unsound. Some top players like Caruana are playing regularly the best moves proposed by engines, sometimes over 20 moves. If LT is playing regularly against engines since more than 10 years, it is possible that his games would also show a strong similarity with games produced by engines. If so, the discussion about his strengths would not stop.

I think LT will once make the step and play some tournaments. I don't know about most of you guys, but I really would like to see him scoring well against top players.
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov
Die_Schanze wrote:

At least you could prove your strenght in correspondence chess. There you have your best conditions. But i belive that the strongest players there are aware about the strengths and weaknesses of their used engines, so they use them the best way possible. And therefore they are equal strong or even stronger than Lyudmil Tsvetkov.

Who knows, Die Schanze, who knows? happy.png

Hardware should make a big distinction there too, so again unequal conditions, no matter if you have the stronger or weaker hardware.

OTB is most fair, but also most demanding.

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov
SteamGear wrote:
torrubirubi wrote:

I am sure that a Naka versus LT match could draw the attention of more people than any super tournament. 

He'd have to attain a live online rating of at least 2700 before Naka would even consider him worth playing.

LT would have better luck reaching the 2300 level, then playing a match against chess.com crowd-favorite GM Joey (Rogelio Antonio).

I am also of that opinion, but I guess I will fare better than 2300, at any TC longer than 5' + 3''.

I hate playing bullet games, and they make no sense at all.

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov

Could please someone explain to me why some masters/NM/FM etc. have very low Chess.com rating around 1800 or so, while other untitled and obviously weak players have online ratings 2500 and more?

This makes no sense to me at all.

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov
torrubirubi wrote:
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:

Let me give you a couple of links to reviews, maybe some still have not read them:

https://en.chessbase.com/post/the-secret-of-chess

https://www.chess.com/blog/Swordfish55/review-the-secret-of-chess

http://www.secretofchess.com/files/17772/ckfinder/images/Review%20on%20The%20Secret%20of%20Chess.pdf

 

Sorry guys, I am extremely busy, I would like to contribute more now, but only in the evening, I have to do some more writing.

I still have very faint hopes the book will start selling at some point, so maybe finishing the second part would make some sense, if I get too desperate, I might quit after all.

6 years of full devotion and now writing each and every day for one or 2 books each couple of days really makes no sense.

Let's see what happens.

Lyudmil, go on with the second volume, I am looking forward to see it! I think you should consider making the diagrams smaller to save space. 

I was working today with The Secret of Chess, and I found some interesting things about imbalances. I didn't know that queen vs 3 minor pieces is often an easy win for the side with the minor pieces. As I understand you well, a larger number of pieces is often better even by material deficit, due to the better coordination of pieces.

Precisely.

It is good to have more pieces with other factors being equal, but otherwise one should watch out so all pieces of lower strength are suficiently defended, as queen checks are sometimes very unpleasant.

In a very open position, just couple of pawns, queen is also to prefer occasionally, but otherwise more pieces with same material equivalent is always better.

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov
lfPatriotGames wrote:
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
petrip wrote:
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:

Indeed, that is the other very relevant point: there is NO top chess player who is also a top chess writer.

And the arrival of engines has completely shifted the agenda: you already don't know what kind of person you need to write in-depth books.

Mot top players have never written a single book, and most chess writers have never been top players.

Very many of them are grand masters and there is huge amount international masters as well, and there are some top players as well. Fisches an Tal at least. 

But then again Mr. Silman for instance does not claim to be at the level of top GM and that he can beat stockfish, Now we have your claim and unfortunately since it is unsupervised I am not really interested what you say.

 

You make incredible claims and hence if you want people to believe them you need provide evidence. and only games in controlled environment do that. Easiest is normal tournaments

I am already tired of that.

Controlled conditions mean a lot of noise, a lot of distractions and a lot of imperfect chess.

I can do that too, but I simply hate imperfect chess.

Just accept I am 3500 with full concentration and 1500 with too many distractions/noise.

How I will perform will depends pretty much on that, and no one can guarantee how the conditions turn out, nowadays they are mostly very noisy, the world has simply gone mad and very very noisy.

So, I can hardly concentrate in such conditions.

My book is written at the upper elo range, though.

 

Still stuck at only 3500? I would think that by now you would be at least 4000. Seriously though, as others have said, the more you say the less credible you become. If you want to be taken seriously, play some controlled games. Customers want credibility, and very few people if any will buy your books to see if you are credible. Your idea of assuming people should buy your books first obviously isn't working. You have to prove your credibility first. Honestly, the best thing you could do to promote sales of your books is to stop talking. If there really is good information in your books, they will sell themselves through word of mouth. You saying how good they are only hurts sales because no one believes you.

I don't have a clue why sales suddenly stopped.

An event happened about 10 days ago, and they suddenly stopped.

I am trying very hard to understand what actually happened, and am fully unable.

I am researching the following hypotheses:

- I have the same Chess.com exposure, presumably, so less people are visiting the site

- I added 2 more reviews on Amazon, apart from Smerdon's, but I don't see why this should be a big problem

- someone is spreading bad word about my book or there are just psychological implications, I don't know

- or maybe Americans tend to buy books only around Christmas, but I don't believe so, as other books still sell

 

So, I really don't have a clue, as said, 10 days ago there was a very sharp decline, and I am completely unable to explain myself that.

If someone could, please help me to understand.

hitthepin
It’s like ratings. Sales fluctuate all the time. Did you really need a teenager to tell you that?