The Secret of Chess

I don’t even get what you’re saying. I’m not saying that he’s using an engine against an engine, just that his engine is a good 700 points weaker than it should be.

Since you don't understand what I am stating about how hardware and time control affect engine ELO, you should reconsider making claims about any sort of foul play by Lyudmil. Also, how many people in the world can beat one of the few strongest engines, regardless of time control or hardware? If the engine is playing at near championship levels for blitz, how does this diminish Lyudmil's credibility? Ok, so he didn't play at the 3500 ELO, according the engine, but who knows how good his moves are at 80 plies? Until you understand the process, the math and the science, I would suggest you spend more time reading and understanding, instead of typing. 

we don't know that he did beat one of the strongest chess engines. again, where is the evidence? assertions aren't evidence.

So beating an engine that performed at 2700 ELO is meaningless, since we couldn't rate it at 3300? 

Arbitrary isn't a good adjective. They aren't random. However, if you are going to attack engine ELO ratings, without attacking the flaws in the ELO system itself, you creating a double standard, in saying the ELO means something in itself as accurate, but the ratings for engines are a toss of the dice. Considering the science involved in engines earning their ratings to begin with, and the science behind using human pools, which are even more accurate, to give the Stockfish ARM version it's rating and the subsequent analysis of Lyudmil's game in question, you would be better off claiming he altered the pgn or played a take back game.

Christopher, I think it's great that you are trying to establish the OPs playing strength. However, you might be wasting your time, since none of us know how his games were created. Was it actually him playing against the engine, was it two engines playing each other, or was it fabricated in some other manner? This we will never know, and so all attempts to establish his rating is futile. Unfortunately. 

Here is the bulk of GM Smerdon's review of The Secret of Chess:

I feel like it would be unwise to ignore his lessons on how to evaluate closed structures, and it would not surprise me if computers tell us exactly the same thing in ten or fifteen years’ time.  

And this goes to the heart of the issue. Whether or not you believe in Tsvetkov’s chess philosophy or even just his evaluations, there’s no question that his approach to chess is fresh and different, something that’s been missing in the chess literature for a long time. I probably won’t end up a convert, but I have definitely spotted several interesting new heuristics that I will be trying out in the future. Concepts such as “vertically isolated pawns”, “twice backward pawns” and “spearhead pawns” are not things that I consciously think about when I analyse, though in a sense they sit somewhere in my chess intuition for assessment. But knowing which of these heuristics are relatively more important than others – a feature that Tsvetkov’s quantifications can address – as well as automatically bringing them into one’s decision processes, might be quite valuable. In any case, I’m going to try it out.  

Unfortunately, the combination of the textbook style without much in the way of descriptions, combined with difficult English, makes The Secret of Chess a really hard read. And given the knee-jerk rejection that many ‘classical’ chess players will feel, there’s a fair chance this book will be largely ignored by the wider chess community. But I sincerely hope this doesn’t happen. I’m almost surely in the minority, but I believe Tsvetkov’s insights could really change the way we think about chess, from how beginners learn the game to how experts improve. It’s bold, completely different and sometimes conflicts with a lot of established chess wisdom, but, just like big data analysis, meditation and veganism, that doesn’t mean there aren't some lessons to be learned, even if you don't subscribe to the whole package. If you're willing to open your mind to a new way of thinking about chess, and you're determined enough to power through the text, this book is definitely worth a read.  

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

did you see smerdon's later comment, that the book is likely not useful for club players trying to improve? you must have missed that one but he still said it.

christopher parsons where is the evidence that he beat a 2700 chess engine. try to remember, maybe write it down, assertions aren't evidence.

Such a joke isnt it? Run the game on post #1239 through the spy and watch parsons confirm 2700 rating. Yet move 22 isnt stockfish. At the depth listed or any depth. It only takes one bad move inserted to change the game. 

However that doesnt disprove he is a secret second to carlsen. This being a plan to purposedly sabotage his reputation so if he was exposed no one would believe the accuser. For all we know they put up a mental hospital as a front just in case. Meanwhile there is a hidden lab of remote viewers keeping tabs. :;

thanks GWTR, this review  has only been posted 100 times before.

Just had a peak at PGN Spy. It seems as if the program is for analyzing a collection of games, not just a single game. 

I find GM Smerdon's evaluation ironic considering how I continually see people here who are treating Lyudmil like he has to sell us on the material based almost exclusively on his own ability. 

This is like telling a 5 year old witness that he isn't allowed to tell the truth, since he can expound it, to present it in a more incontrovertible manner. 

Beyond that, these same people run Carlsen into the ground for not giving more concise, articulate commentary on his games and wonder why someone like Carlsen would generally come across as cold or distant. No one demands he reveal his method. What if he has something surgically implanted, telling him the moves? 

If you can't see the applicability of what Lyudmil is stating, unless he proves it on your terms, even though the truth is self evident, you aren't worthy of seeing the truth of it or the proof. You are a faithless individual who deserves to wallow in his doubts. 

It is strange that the OP considers this review worthy of anything, as the review is written by someone far below some of the Super GMs the OP have referred to as being weak players. Am I the only one who thinks this is rather inconsistent? 

Consider what you're proposing:

That Lyudmil (a 2100-rated player) can regularly and consistently beat one of the strongest chess engines in the world—an engine that tops out at the 3400 level.

That he not only can regularly beat it, he also can do so at blitz speeds.

Without making a single mistake, ever.

He also refuses to play live chess against humans, using the reasoning that he only plays well at home in front of his computer.

He's also repeatedly asserted that he's the strongest player in the history of the world, and that even world champions like Carlsen, Kasparov, Kramnik are weak, compared to him.

Now consider the simpler (and more likely) alternative:

That he's a 2100-rated player who uses engine analysis to help him better understand chess positions.

If you're not sure which scenario is the most reasonable here, consider Occam's razor.

oh dear christopher, you mean people are actually asking for evidence to back up extraordinary claims? and here you are, making another assertion without evidence, to wit, that the same people who criticism tsetkov criticise carlsen? do you have any evidence for this assertion? you do understand how assertions that cannot be supported by evidence are not to be taken as factual, right?

I have recommended that he stop trying to sell the book based on his ability or perception of his ability in comparison to others. I told him that short of proving it by playing, his best bet was to use known master games and above, apply the information in his method to demonstrate their mistakes, confirm it with an engine, and this will do more for demonstrating it's applicability than anything. Let's face it, if Carlsen knew nothing of this method and how to articulate it in demonstration to his own play, people would buy it because his name is on it. That is why Lyudmil is basically restricted at this point to proving it's applicability by other means.