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.
You can use it for either. If you know how to use it, it is more useful than let's say Chess Analyse 2.6 or Arena 3.5, for finding players who pass off engine moves as their own.
But don't you think it's weird to refer to a review by someone significantly below e.g. Carlsen's level as support for his book when he says Carlsen is a weak player? If the OP considers Carlsen a weak player then Smerdon must be an even weaker player. So, when the OP is referring to Smerdon's review he is saying that the review of a very weak player (not according to me, but according to the OP) is valuable. That makes no sense, at least not in a place governed by logic.
Not all club players are going to stay club players. There is more than one way to learn or teach.
...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?
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.
You are accusing me of making some assumptions, yet are making a few of your own. I don't recall Lyudmil claiming he can play this level of chess and at that speed, without making mistakes or that he does ever lose. I certainly never said that.
You are also assuming that he uses engine analysis to improve, when he is actually using the way engines analyze to improve. There is a difference. You also must assume I don't much about this also. If he was here telling people to try to utilize minimax formulas to pick their moves, I would tell you his full of $#!+.
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?
It is obvious that you will only accept evidence as evidence on your own terms, that doesn't make either Lyudmil a fraud or me wrong. It only makes you narrow minded and faithless. Good luck with that. It is hard teach old dogs new tricks. Thus why you reject the books premise and teachings to begin with.
But don't you think it's weird to refer to a review by someone significantly below e.g. Carlsen's level as support for his book when he says Carlsen is a weak player? If the OP considers Carlsen a weak player then Smerdon must be an even weaker player. So, when the OP is referring to Smerdon's review he is saying that the review of a very weak player (not according to me, but according to the OP) is valuable. That makes no sense, at least not in a place governed by logic.
He wouldn't be the first person I have ever encountered that I saw trying to be desperate enough to use bad logic or even misinformation, to outright lies to try to convince people of the truth. I don't find it strange at all. I call it human nature. Let's look at this for what it is, and Lyudmil will be the first to tell you I don't mince words and have been critical of him in some ways...he is an excellent theoretician, a decent author and a salesman he is not. To me the truth is the truth, regardless of whether he is a great chess player or he can prove it.
I agree with your statement "the truth is the truth". I don't know if he is a great theoretician, but I do know - from reading this thread - that he is often contradicting himself and that his logic is flawed. Having studied logic and being a math teacher, my experience tells me that people tend to be able to think logically or they don't. If they make logical errors when talking about one subject (let's say the stock market) they tend to make the same errors when talking about something else (e.g. chess). So, without having read his book, I cannot know if he is a good theoretician or not, but I can say I strongly doubt it since to be an excellent theoretician one must be logically consistent, which the OP is not in this thread.
christopher, it is apparently impossible to teach you a new trick, the trick being how to evaluate evidence. i'm asking him to demonstrate his strength in a demonstration that others can judge. you want to "give him the benefit of the doubt" with regard to his unprecedented claims, for some reason. that's not the way it works. he needs to provide some evidence besides assertions, assertions like he is stronger than magnus, stronger than stockfish, or even that he is a 2200 player. you call this demanding evidence on my own terms, but it isn't. it is simply a standard way of assessing claims. that you don't know this is surprising.
how do you know he is a great theoretician christopher? are we running up against that evidence problem, again? has anybody called him a great theoretician? where are all the book reviews that claimed his book was worthless?
I agree with your statement "the truth is the truth". I don't know if he is a great theoretician, but I do know - from reading this thread - that he is often contradicting himself and that his logic is flawed. Having studied logic and being a math teacher, my experience tells me that people tend to be able to think logically or they don't. If they make logical errors when talking about one subject (let's say the stock market) they tend to make the same errors when talking about something else (e.g. chess). So, without having read his book, I cannot know if he is a good theoretician or not, but I can say I strongly doubt it since to be an excellent theoretician one must be logically consistent, which the OP is not in this thread.
The problems I had directly with him were similar in nature, but certainly understandable and quickly resolved. I criticized the way he presented the material. I told him that no ordinary editor would help either, since they don't understand chess. One of the problems is that he seems to have trouble relating his point of view a bit. I think some of it is linguistic and cultural. English isn't his first language. Writing it in his native tongue and having an interpreter, skilled in chess translate it, may have been his best bet. He seems to think since it makes sense to him, that everyone else automatically should get it too. We often fail to see the flaws in our own logic. I will often pick moves in a tactics puzzle in the wrong order. They made logical sense to me, but the engine saw it differently. It is obvious that Lyudmil doesn't think like the ordinary person. If he did, I would have quickly noticed it and wrote him off. He is definitely different. By the way, he isn't first person who isn't a native English speaker I have had trouble with either. Even those from other countries who speak a different type of English can be difficult to follow for me.
so christopher, you admit he is likely lying, but you want to give him the "benefit of the doubt". once again, the old dog can't seem to learn a new trick.
You are accusing me of making some assumptions, yet are making a few of your own.
I'm not accusing you of making any assumptions. What I am doing is describing the various claims he's made in this (and other) threads, on this (and other) website(s).
You are also assuming that he uses engine analysis to improve, when he is actually using the way engines analyze to improve. There is a difference.
I mentioned nothing about "improvement" (that's a debate best left for another thread)—and I consider the difference between using engine analysis, and using the way engines analyze to be, in this instance, just a matter of semantics.
My overall assertion is that he's most certainly a 2100-rated player—not a 3000+ player—as evidence to the former has been clearly established (in the form of his 2004 Bulgarian games), while evidence to the latter (in the form of lofty self-proclamations, combined with posted PGN games) is both contestable, and unverifiable.
so christopher, you admit he is likely lying, but you want to give him the "benefit of the doubt". once again, the old dog can't seem to learn a new trick.
NO, I said that I have seen others do it. I was stating that some use bad logic or are as bad as even lying. Either you read that wrong, or would prefer to twist my words to give your opinion the merit that you feel others should. I can't prove it, so will give you the benefit of the doubt. You find I am not a one trick pony and I don't think of this as a circus side show.
You are accusing me of making some assumptions, yet are making a few of your own.
I'm not accusing you of making any assumptions. What I am doing is describing the various claims he's made in this (and other) threads, on this (and other) website(s).
You are also assuming that he uses engine analysis to improve, when he is actually using the way engines analyze to improve. There is a difference.
I mentioned nothing about "improvement" (that's a debate best left for another thread)—and I consider the difference between using engine analysis, and using the way engines analyze to be, in this instance, just a matter of semantics.
My overall assertion is that he's most certainly a 2100-rated player—not a 3000+ player—as evidence to the former has been clearly established (in the form of his 2004 Bulgarian games), while evidence to the latter (in the form of lofty self-proclamations, combined with posted PGN games) is both contestable, and unverifiable.
You are assuming again. You are assuming the present facts are what they are, based on the past. You fail to see how much you assume. This is common in people who think they have it all figured out. They don't learn well. They reject learning anything that makes their level of understanding inferior, since they base their self worth or worth as a chess player, based on what they think they know.
Logic is not dictated by language. My native language is Danish. In this thread, he made enough contradictory claims for a textbook on logical inconsistencies. 
How can you take him seriously? Here is an example (I am paraphrasing the OP):
I am much better than Carlsen (who played poor chess until five years ago). I wrote a book about chess. Someone who is much weaker than Carlsen says it is good, so it is good.
This makes no sense. Neither does his excuses for not playing, either here on chess.com, on ICCF or OTB.
Logic is not dictated by language. My native language is Danish. In this thread, he made enough contradictory claims for a textbook on logical inconsistencies. How can you take him seriously? Here is an example (I am paraphrasing the OP):
I am much better than Carlsen (who played poor chess until five years ago). I wrote a book about chess. Someone who is much weaker than Carlsen says it is good, so it is good.
This makes no sense. Neither does his excuses for not playing, either here on chess.com, on ICCF or OTB.
I guess the difference between me and other people is that when someone else makes outlandish claims, is that I don't believe them necessarily, but I don't automatically decide it isn't possible either. Many people base their own ideas of logic on how they not only think reality is, but also on how they think it should go. For me, this is even more illogical that Lyudmil making a claim for which he cannot prove. Even those as outlandish as he has made here.
You are assuming again. You are assuming the present facts are what they are, based on the past. You fail to see how much you assume. This is common in people who think they have it all figured out. They don't learn well. They reject learning anything that makes their level of understanding inferior, since they base their self worth or worth as a chess player, based on what they think they know.
Facts are concrete—not speculative—and in this instance, past facts have been established.
If you wish to argue that I've made the assumption that his playing strength has remained unchanged since his 2004 games, I'll counter that I've made no such assumption. I've no doubt that his playing strength has changed since then (whether higher, or lower).
Whether his strength has changed to the point of being 3000+ (as he claims), and whether or not his playing level is now at the point of being superior to engine play at blitz speeds (as he offers PGNs as evidence)—is the issue.
The claims are outrageous (by the very definition of the word: bold, unusual, startling) and unproven, and the methods in which the PGNs have been created are simply unverifiable.
You are assuming again. You are assuming the present facts are what they are, based on the past. You fail to see how much you assume. This is common in people who think they have it all figured out. They don't learn well. They reject learning anything that makes their level of understanding inferior, since they base their self worth or worth as a chess player, based on what they think they know.
Facts are concrete—not speculative—and in this instance, past facts have been established.
If you wish to argue that I've made the assumption that his playing strength has remained unchanged since his 2004 games, I'll counter that I've made no such assumption. I've no doubt that his playing strength has changed since then (whether higher, or lower).
Whether his strength has changed to the point of being 3000+ (as he claims), and whether or not his playing level is now at the point of being superior to engine play at blitz speeds (as he offers PGNs as evidence)—is the issue.
The claims are outrageous (by the very definition of the word: bold, unusual, startling) and unproven, and the methods in which the PGNs have been created are simply unverifiable.
Assuming past facts are still current facts is speculative and highly prejudicial.
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?
It is obvious that you will only accept evidence as evidence on your own terms, that doesn't make either Lyudmil a fraud or me wrong. It only makes you narrow minded and faithless. Good luck with that. It is hard teach old dogs new tricks. Thus why you reject the books premise and teachings to begin with.
ok so in other words, you don't have any evidence whatsoever and have to resort to personal attacks. wow, I would never have guessed that.
it's quite obvious why you and Lyudmil are such good buddys
christopher parsons where is the evidence that he beat a 2700 chess engine. try to remember, maybe write it down, assertions aren't evidence.
Go back a few pages in this thread and see my in depth analyses of one of his games. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt that he actually played game and we couldn't calculate a 3500 ELO if we wanted to, unless he doctored a pgn, played a take back game, or is the bot programmer I have ever heard of, the evidence is rather compelling that he did indeed play at a very good GM level, against a machine that could play substantially higher, if it had more than 10 secs to analyze between moves.