1. d4 is busted forever - SF can not win a single game against me in this line.
The Secret of Chess
Sort:
Verdict confirmed, 1.d4 is weak, DON'T play it.
That is my I-KID(Improved KID) opening that guarantees a draw against d4.
Anyone wishing to draw every game with black against 1. d4, check my 'Secret of Chess'.
Again, this is new, a breath of fresh air, why stick to the same old routine?
Feb 10, 2018
0
#3105
In which page did you write it? Or at least chapter? In the next edition you could include a register, making easy to find things.
Feb 10, 2018
0
#3106
What do you thing about the Hyper Accelerated Dragon? It has the fianchettoed bishop on the kingside, which you see as positive, but it has to fight against the Marockzy bind, that you see as negative.
Feb 10, 2018
0
#3107
Lyudomil, all white first moves are probably "broken" with best play according your definition. 
Feb 10, 2018
0
#3110
@Lyudmil_Tsvetkov
Here is the report that I promised. I apologize for the size and length of it, and how long it took me to compile, but I wanted it to be thorough. I also wanted to do my best to present an apologetic case in advance to, quell potential arguments. Some of it was a pain staking process. I hope you like it.
This is an E.L.O. analysis:
This is a series of engine analyses that are done with several different engines, looking for a match to a particular engine and were also an attempt to establish the level of play, in comparison to what GM's do over the board.
* note the lack of losing positions by either participant *
Analysis by PGN Spy: according to Stockfish 7 x 64 @ 20 plies
Lyudmil Tsvetkov, owner, 1 games
UNDECIDED POSITIONS
Positions: 42
T1: 17/34; 50.00% (std error 8.57)
T2: 20/31; 64.52% (std error 8.59)
T3: 23/29; 79.31% (std error 7.52)
T4: 23/28; 82.14% (std error 7.24)
T5: 19/24; 79.17% (std error 8.29)
=0 CP loss: 29/42; 69.05% (std error 7.13)
>0 CP loss: 13/42; 30.95% (std error 7.13)
>10 CP loss: 6/42; 14.29% (std error 5.40)
>25 CP loss: 0/42; 0.00% (std error 0.00)
>50 CP loss: 0/42; 0.00% (std error 0.00)
>100 CP loss: 0/42; 0.00% (std error 0.00)
>200 CP loss: 0/42; 0.00% (std error 0.00)
>500 CP loss: 0/42; 0.00% (std error 0.00)
CP loss mean 2.64, std deviation 5.36
LOSING POSITIONS
Positions: 0
Stockfish 9 64 POPCNT, 1 games
UNDECIDED POSITIONS
Positions: 41
T1: 16/39; 41.03% (std error 7.88)
T2: 23/36; 63.89% (std error 8.01)
T3: 27/35; 77.14% (std error 7.10)
T4: 27/33; 81.82% (std error 6.71)
T5: 29/32; 90.63% (std error 5.15)
=0 CP loss: 28/41; 68.29% (std error 7.27)
>0 CP loss: 13/41; 31.71% (std error 7.27)
>10 CP loss: 4/41; 9.76% (std error 4.63)
>25 CP loss: 3/41; 7.32% (std error 4.07)
>50 CP loss: 3/41; 7.32% (std error 4.07)
>100 CP loss: 0/41; 0.00% (std error 0.00)
>200 CP loss: 0/41; 0.00% (std error 0.00)
>500 CP loss: 0/41; 0.00% (std error 0.00)
CP loss mean 5.85, std deviation 16.43
LOSING POSITIONS
Positions: 0
Analysis by PGN Spy: according to Stockfish 8 x 64 @ 20 plies
Lyudmil Tsvetkov, owner, 1 games
UNDECIDED POSITIONS
Positions: 15
T1: 4/14; 28.57% (std error 12.07)
T2: 7/12; 58.33% (std error 14.23)
T3: 7/11; 63.64% (std error 14.50)
T4: 5/8; 62.50% (std error 17.12)
T5: 5/7; 71.43% (std error 17.07)
=0 CP loss: 7/15; 46.67% (std error 12.88)
>0 CP loss: 8/15; 53.33% (std error 12.88)
>10 CP loss: 2/15; 13.33% (std error 8.78)
>25 CP loss: 0/15; 0.00% (std error 0.00)
>50 CP loss: 0/15; 0.00% (std error 0.00)
>100 CP loss: 0/15; 0.00% (std error 0.00)
>200 CP loss: 0/15; 0.00% (std error 0.00)
>500 CP loss: 0/15; 0.00% (std error 0.00)
CP loss mean 3.93, std deviation 4.97
LOSING POSITIONS
Positions: 0
Stockfish 9 64 POPCNT, 1 games
UNDECIDED POSITIONS
Positions: 10
T1: 5/9; 55.56% (std error 16.56)
T2: 6/8; 75.00% (std error 15.31)
T3: 7/8; 87.50% (std error 11.69)
T4: 5/6; 83.33% (std error 15.21)
T5: 5/6; 83.33% (std error 15.21)
=0 CP loss: 7/10; 70.00% (std error 14.49)
>0 CP loss: 3/10; 30.00% (std error 14.49)
>10 CP loss: 1/10; 10.00% (std error 9.49)
>25 CP loss: 0/10; 0.00% (std error 0.00)
>50 CP loss: 0/10; 0.00% (std error 0.00)
>100 CP loss: 0/10; 0.00% (std error 0.00)
>200 CP loss: 0/10; 0.00% (std error 0.00)
>500 CP loss: 0/10; 0.00% (std error 0.00)
CP loss mean 2.30, std deviation 4.10
LOSING POSITIONS
Positions: 0
Analysis by PGN Spy: according to Stockfish 9 x 64
Lyudmil Tsvetkov, owner, 1 games
UNDECIDED POSITIONS
Positions: 42
T1: 11/35; 31.43% (std error 7.85)
T2: 20/33; 60.61% (std error 8.51)
T3: 22/30; 73.33% (std error 8.07)
T4: 20/26; 76.92% (std error 8.26)
T5: 17/21; 80.95% (std error 8.57)
=0 CP loss: 25/42; 59.52% (std error 7.57)
>0 CP loss: 17/42; 40.48% (std error 7.57)
>10 CP loss: 6/42; 14.29% (std error 5.40)
>25 CP loss: 0/42; 0.00% (std error 0.00)
>50 CP loss: 0/42; 0.00% (std error 0.00)
>100 CP loss: 0/42; 0.00% (std error 0.00)
>200 CP loss: 0/42; 0.00% (std error 0.00)
>500 CP loss: 0/42; 0.00% (std error 0.00)
CP loss mean 3.50, std deviation 5.28
LOSING POSITIONS
Positions: 0
Stockfish 9 64 POPCNT, 1 games
UNDECIDED POSITIONS
Positions: 42
T1: 13/38; 34.21% (std error 7.70)
T2: 20/36; 55.56% (std error 8.28)
T3: 22/34; 64.71% (std error 8.20)
T4: 25/32; 78.13% (std error 7.31)
T5: 28/32; 87.50% (std error 5.85)
=0 CP loss: 26/42; 61.90% (std error 7.49)
>0 CP loss: 16/42; 38.10% (std error 7.49)
>10 CP loss: 2/42; 4.76% (std error 3.29)
>25 CP loss: 0/42; 0.00% (std error 0.00)
>50 CP loss: 0/42; 0.00% (std error 0.00)
>100 CP loss: 0/42; 0.00% (std error 0.00)
>200 CP loss: 0/42; 0.00% (std error 0.00)
>500 CP loss: 0/42; 0.00% (std error 0.00)
CP loss mean 2.52, std deviation 4.48
LOSING POSITIONS
Positions: 0
Analysis by PGN Spy: according to Komodo 9.02 x 64
Lyudmil Tsvetkov, owner, 1 games
UNDECIDED POSITIONS
Positions: 42
T1: 18/36; 50.00% (std error 8.33)
T2: 14/24; 58.33% (std error 10.06)
T3: 9/18; 50.00% (std error 11.79)
T4: 8/14; 57.14% (std error 13.23)
T5: 7/9; 77.78% (std error 13.86)
=0 CP loss: 26/42; 61.90% (std error 7.49)
>0 CP loss: 16/42; 38.10% (std error 7.49)
>10 CP loss: 8/42; 19.05% (std error 6.06)
>25 CP loss: 0/42; 0.00% (std error 0.00)
>50 CP loss: 0/42; 0.00% (std error 0.00)
>100 CP loss: 0/42; 0.00% (std error 0.00)
>200 CP loss: 0/42; 0.00% (std error 0.00)
>500 CP loss: 0/42; 0.00% (std error 0.00)
CP loss mean 4.62, std deviation 6.83
LOSING POSITIONS
Positions: 0
Stockfish 9 64 POPCNT, 1 games
UNDECIDED POSITIONS
Positions: 42
T1: 13/37; 35.14% (std error 7.85)
T2: 19/27; 70.37% (std error 8.79)
T3: 15/20; 75.00% (std error 9.68)
T4: 13/16; 81.25% (std error 9.76)
T5: 10/13; 76.92% (std error 11.69)
=0 CP loss: 23/42; 54.76% (std error 7.68)
>0 CP loss: 19/42; 45.24% (std error 7.68)
>10 CP loss: 9/42; 21.43% (std error 6.33)
>25 CP loss: 4/42; 9.52% (std error 4.53)
>50 CP loss: 2/42; 4.76% (std error 3.29)
>100 CP loss: 0/42; 0.00% (std error 0.00)
>200 CP loss: 0/42; 0.00% (std error 0.00)
>500 CP loss: 0/42; 0.00% (std error 0.00)
CP loss mean 7.76, std deviation 14.96
LOSING POSITIONS
Positions: 0
This is a report hand compiled from the original PGN, to show the move times. It was my inention to reveal whether or not Lyudmil may have used another engine or the same one playing against itself, and altered the PGN. The analysis clearly shows that a human played from a plan, against an engine. There is a clear pattern of aknown opening played by a human. There is also a long pause at key junctures, just as the opening ends and a few times during the middle and end games. This is consistant with a human thinking and the times don't show any sort of mechnical pattern. The greatest level of inconsistant move times occurs during the middle, which typically it should. The opening and end games are often more evident to a human.
Here is that report:
Event - Blitz 2m+1s
Site - Microsoft
Date - 2018.02.05
White - Lyudmil Tsvetkov, owner
Black - Stockfish 9 64 POPCNT
Result - 1/2-1/2
ECO - C01
PlyCount - 104
EventDate - 2018.??.??
TimeControl - 120+1
CurrentPosition ""rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1
512MB, OWNER-PC
White moves Black Moves Evaluation Score/Depth
1.e4 - Move time = 0 sec 1...e6 - Move time = 9 sec 0.20/21
2.d4 - Move time = 2 sec 2...d5 - Move time = 0 sec 0.14/21
3.exd5 - Move time = 2 sec 3...exd5 - Move time = 1 sec 0.02/18
4.Nf3 - Move time = 2 sec 4...Nf6 - Move time = 8 sec -0.05/23
5.Bd3 - Move time = 2 sec 5...Bd6 - Move time = 4 sec -0.03/23
6.O-O,- Move time = 2 sec 6...O-O - Move time = 0 sec -0.06/21
7.Bg5 - Move time = 2 sec 7...h6 - Move time = 1 -0.15/17
8.Bh4 - Move time = 2 sec 8...c6 - Move time = 10 -0.13/23
9.Nbd2 - Move time = 4 sec 9...Bg4 - Move time = 0 0.00/23
10.c3 - Move time = 0 10...Nbd7 - Move time = 2 -0.18/20
11.Qc2 - Move time = 2 11...Qc7 - Move time = 3 -0.31/21
12.Bg3 - Move time = 2 12...Bxg3 - Move time = 2 -0.09/20
13.hxg3 - Move time = 1 13...Rfe8 - Move time = 8 0.00/23
14.Rfe1 - Move time = 2 14...Qb6 - Move time = 2 0.00/23
15.Qb3 - Move time = 8 15...g6 - Move time = 2 -0.02/22
16.Rxe8+ - Move time = 0 16...Rxe8 - Move time = 3 -0.11/26
17.Re1 - Move time = 1 17...Qxb3 - Move time = 3 -0.33/25
18.Rxe8+ - Move time = 4 18...Nxe8 - Move time = 2 -0.30/23
19.axb3 - Move time = 5 19...a5 - Move time = 5 -0.44/23
20.Nh2 - Move = 0 20...Be6 - Move time = 2 -0.49/23
21.Nhf1 - Move = 2 21...Kf8 - Move time = 7 -0.42/27
22.Ne3 - Move time = 2 22...h5 - Move time = 0 -0.41/27
23.Nc2 - Move time = 4 23...Nd6 - Move time = 2 -0.50/21
24.b4 - Move time = 6 24...a4 - Move time = 1 -0.69/24
25.Na3 - Move time = 0 25...b5 - Move time = 3 -0.79/25
26.Kf1 - Move time = 4 26...Kg7 - Move time = 0 -0.88/30
27.Ke2 - Move time = 5 27...Bg4+ - Move time = 7 -0.84/27
28.Ke1 - Move time = 3 28...Bf5 - Move time = 3 -0.80/29
29.Be2 - Move time = 0 29...Kh6 - Move time = 5 -0.95/27
30.Kd1 - Move time = 5 30...Be4 - Move time = 0 -0.91/28
31.f3 - Move time = 0 31...Bf5 - Move time = 4 -0.81/25
32.Nc2 - Move time = 3 32...g5 - Move time = 2 -0.88/27
33.Ne3 - Move time = 4 33...Nf8 - Move time = 10 -0.64/29
34.g4 - Move time = 0 34...hxg4 - Move time = 3 0.68/28
35.Nxg4+ - Move time = 1 35...Bxg4 - Move time = 1 -0.74/29
36.fxg4 - Move time = 1 36...Ng6 - Move time = 2 -0.64/30
37.g3 - Move time = 2 37...Ne7 - Move time = 2 -0.78/28
38.Bf3 - Move time = 5 38...Ng8 - Move time = 2 -0.82/31
39.Ke2 - Move time = 3 39...Nf6 - Move time = 0 -0.78/34
40.Ke3 - Move time = 0 40...Kg7 - Move time = 2 -0.83/34
41.Kd3 - Move time = 3 41...Kf8 - Move time = 3 -1.04/36
42.Ke3 - Move time = 1 42...Ke7 - Move time = 3 -0.85/35
43.Kd3 - Move time = 1 43...Ke6 - Move time = 1 -0.84/35
44.Ke3 - Move time = 1 44...Nc8 - Move time = 1 -0.84/37
45.Kd3 - Move time = 4 45...Nd6 - Move time = 3 -0.84/38
46.Ke3 - Move time = 2 46...Kd7 - Move time = 1 -0.84/39
47.Kd3 - Move time = 1 47...Ke7 - Move time = 2 -0.84/39
48.Ke3 - Move time = 1 48...Ke6 - Move time = 1 -0.84/39
49.Kd3 - Move time = 1 49...Nc8 - Move time = 1 -0.85/37
50.Ke3 - Move time = 1 50...Ne7 - Move time = 2 -0.84/35
51.Kd3 - Move time = 1 51...Nc8 - Move time = 0 -0.84/38
52.Ke3 - Move time = 1 52...Nd6 - Move time = 2 -0.84/38
Feb 10, 2018
0
#3111
@Lyudmil_Tsvetkov
My thoughts on 1.d4 are as follows...
I don't think it is weak. 1. f3 would be weak. I see it as more of playing not to lose. The reason that I think 1. e4 is a stronger move is that, it makes a better use of the initiative. It takes space and uses it's next move to keep taking space, while perhaps it defends, if played properly and with it's subsequent moves can continue this pattern of taking space and even attacking, while defending.
The strongest moves in chess tend to both attack and defend. That is how the initiative is regained and equalization occurs. In my mind, 1. d4 simply takes space and is overly defensive. It could be argued that because it has no worry of defense on it's next move it is free to both attack and defend still, but it will be more of a reaction to black's play and less of a plan that the white player decided ahead of time. I realize this point could be argued, but to me this small inaccuracy is the difference between a win and a draw.
But after d4, c4 can follow, and what do you have? Pressure.
Feb 10, 2018
0
#3113
Pulpofeira wrote:
But after d4, c4 can follow, and what do you have? Pressure.
I enjoy the Slav/Semi-Slav against 1. d4, I used to find it as pressure, until I learned that system. I have also considered learning some of the Indian systems that can be played against it ( 1.d4 ), but similarly to my theory behind 1. e4 over 1. d4, I find relegating a bishop to a mostly defensive position, that is a sitting target for a forced trade, I stay away from those systems intentionally.
torrubirubi wrote:
In which page did you write it? Or at least chapter? In the next edition you could include a register, making easy to find things.
There is an index of terms.
The I-KID mainly relies on the e5 and c5 unbackwarded pawns.
I already have explained that a couple of times.
torrubirubi wrote:
What do you thing about the Hyper Accelerated Dragon? It has the fianchettoed bishop on the kingside, which you see as positive, but it has to fight against the Marockzy bind, that you see as negative.
No Maroczy Bind in the Hyper-Accelerated Dragon.
The best response should be building a strong center with c2-c3 and d2-d4, to countervail the fianchettoed bishop.
That is how Fischer and other top players handled it, and that indeed makes very much sense.
Each and every position is a set of a range of available evaluation factors.
When the major terms are split about equal, it will be the smaller ones that will decide who is actually better.
It would be very difficult for any position to be fully equal, up to a centipawn, so always one side has the advantage, you need a very particular position however to judge it.
@ChristopherParsons(not to quote the whole thing):
Thank you, Chris.
It was not necessary to make all that effort for me...
Anyway, interesting analysis.
Christopher_Parsons wrote:
@Lyudmil_Tsvetkov
My thoughts on 1.d4 are as follows...
I don't think it is weak. 1. f3 would be weak. I see it as more of playing not to lose. The reason that I think 1. e4 is a stronger move is that, it makes a better use of the initiative. It takes space and uses it's next move to keep taking space, while perhaps it defends, if played properly and with it's subsequent moves can continue this pattern of taking space and even attacking, while defending.
The strongest moves in chess tend to both attack and defend. That is how the initiative is regained and equalization occurs. In my mind, 1. d4 simply takes space and is overly defensive. It could be argued that because it has no worry of defense on it's next move it is free to both attack and defend still, but it will be more of a reaction to black's play and less of a plan that the white player decided ahead of time. I realize this point could be argued, but to me this small inaccuracy is the difference between a win and a draw.
Indeed, the e4 pawn is closer to the opponent king, which should castle on the king side.
This is all very complicated.
In the end, with perfect play, it might prove that all 1. e4, 1. d4 and 1.c4 lead to a draw with perfect play, and then the only distinction will be in terms of the number/percentage of winning lines.
For example, c4 might win in 65% of cases, e4 in 60%, while d4 only in 55% of cases.
To difficult to make sense for us, mere mortals, but engines are still very far from perfection, so a lot of time still ahead of us groping in the dark.
Two more draws in the same line against SF. 1...c5 fully equalises.
SF tries c4 first, or Nc3 straight, all to no avail.
I should say that I have bigger problems with black, if I answer 1. d4 with 1.. .d5, both in the QGD and the Stonewall Dutch, but why should one play inferior lines?
To tell you the truth, it is for the first time that having the black pieces is really difficult against SF.
The engine has improved and one must be very careful with a tempo less.
With white, it is much easier.
So that, having white is a substantial advantage at this stage of our competition with SF.
There is no secret. 2100 OTB. 3500 behind his computer.
Every titled player in the world can claim that.
Finally, I found player who I share same sentiment with: there's no secret in Chess except cheating with engine. And I'm very sure Mr Tsvetkov's book isn't about it. Maybe he should change the title of his book - The Gospel Of Chess - An Entire Revision Of Super GM Lyudmil Tsvetkov's Critically Criticized Infamous Book: The Secret Of Chess.
Visit my site to read some free excerpts: www.secretofchess.com
You will be educated.