The Secret of Chess

Logic is logic. We cannot have "our own ideas of logic". 

The world has been documented to be round: past fact.

If someone were to assert that the world is now shaped like a triangle, facts would be required to verify this new assertion. Agree?

Your response is akin to saying, "Assuming that the world is still round is speculative and highly prejudicial."

No, it's not.

Assertions (of the sort LT has made) require verifiable evidence if they're to be taken seriously, of which LT has not provided any.

Do you not see the lack of such evidence?

Or do you, indeed, recognize this lack of evidence—but are merely trying to win the argument?

Christopher, would you bet - let's say $1,000 - that the OP's playing strength is above 3.000? 

No and never thought it was not claimed to be. The only thing I was defending was the information in the book and the analysis showing IM/GM level play. I really don't care how good Lyudmil is. 

We all have different ideas of what we take personal. I find many people get offended, as soon as usurps the truth that they don't like or puts them in their place. I could call a liar a liar. Is that a personal attack or stating a fact? Do us all a favor and take your cracker jack box argument and go play elsewhere. Their are more important things at stake here. I really don't care if facts offend. 

ok so you really don't have any evidence whatsoever and are desperate to distract from that fact. ok.

Well, the OP claimed to be 3,500 at one point (if I remember correctly). But fine, then please tell me what makes you think the OP is an excellent theoretician and what qualifies you to judge the value of the information in his book. I am not criticizing you, but your rating is rather low. I am not qualified to judge his book since I'm a mediocre chess player myself. 

Regarding the IM/GM level play showcases in the PGNs. This might be a correct assessment. But we still don't know how these PGNs were generated and if it was actually the OP playing the games showcases. 

My statement is valid in the proper context. If you presume upon my statement that I spoke of the immutable as not relevant or constant to predispose of all past facts to win an argument, it isn't saying much for you. It is obvious I was referring to the types of things that could easily have changed. Even the Glicko RD factor has this same logic I speak of built in. If this what you have to resort to, to try winning an argument, you might as well call it quits. You never stood a chance. 

I never read the entire thread, nor would I or expect anyone else to, in order to give their opinion any merit. 

Speaking of merit and opinions, what gives you the right to question my opinion then, as if yours has more merit than my own ? Either our opinions are that  and we respect them, or we might as well not waste our time conversing. 

You are the one saying the OP is an excellent theoretician. I am simply asking what you base this on. That is all. 

I am just trying to say that we have to be careful not to take everything for what it appears to be. To illustrate, here is a game. Is it a human-human match, an engine-engine match or a human-engine match? Can you, or anyone else, tell? 

Regarding opinions, not all opinions are of equal merit. I respect opinions which are founded on induction and deduction, not opinions pulled out of thin air. Why should anyone take the opinion of someone who is not qualified seriously? I, for example, would be a fool if I held any opinions about which car engine is the best since I know nothing about cars. 

From a preliminary stand point, I can see that there is no way to tell for certain. This game could have been played by humans, with engine help, for all we know. I am doing an in depth analysis to see what that tells me about the data. I can tell you that it doesn't show up in Chessbase, or Chess Data Base, as a game that has ever been played and saved there. That doesn't mean two humans didn't play it though. It could be very recent and also it is quite interesting in my opinion. 

I will get back to you...

Thank you. I am curious about what you find. 

I understand where you are coming from. I feel the same way about chess. Should we all hang upon the every word of Magnus Carlsen, since he is for all intents and purposes, the best chess player that we are aware of ? My thought is no, for several reasons. 

One is, he isn't exactly an open book. Also, we are talking about a guy that stated an engine is like and idiot that can beat you...lol. Beyond that, his ability as a chess player, can lead to him having biased opinions about things. They are facts for him, in his world. We can't make them true for us necessarily. 

Using the car analogy was a good one to demonstrate opinions and how I see opinions about chess to a degree. For example, you may not know a lot about the way an engine works, but after test driving the 10 best according to a group of car experts, elected by consensus ( note the pun here, but not directed at you ), you could decide you think engine # 4 is the best and have some backers.

For me, it isn't their opinion that gives your merit. At some point, it is semantics anyway. Yes, it is true that it is better to form an opinion based upon the educated and sound logic, but I find political views, or other prejudices can get in the way. At some point it doesn't matter. We can't prove blue is the best color, by putting it to popular vote, even among leading artists. So to each their own. I didn't come here to defend Lyudmil or even myself. I am here standing up for what I believe in. The truth is bigger than any one of us anyway. While I am aware that I can't necessarily convince any one of you of what the truth is, my veracity still gets the best of me.

My opinion is what it is. Does it really matter if my rated ELO is around 1900, instead of 2100 ? I am still not a GM. Why listen to a 2500 GM about it ? He obviously isn't a super GM. 

You are obviously welcome to go back through this thread and find all that I have had to say about any thing pertaining to what you might want to use to form your opinion of me. To a degree, unless others make up your mind for you, you will do that anyway, unless you are the type that prefers to judge by your instincts and doesn't prefer to be swayed by the whole truth, since it points out you are betrayed but what you feel and what you think afterward. If you do go back and look, you will see there is quite a bit of evidence that I am compelled by, that certainly have not the time nor desire to repost here, in an attempt to qualify myself or convince you that my opnion is relevant. I learned a long time ago that the truth, the validity of my opinion and the level of my intellect aren't dictated by vote, nor do I have anything to prove to anyone. 

I will say that I appreciate your civility and your lack of personal attacks. It is refreshing to experience that during a debate in these forums. If I come across as a bit snide or condescending, I get a bit edgy and it is difficult for me to find time to calm all the way down and rethink things, so I appear more gentelmanly. I tend to be rather blunt and don't sugarcoat anything anyway. I hope you understand that it is nothing personal either.

Of course, certain things are subjective, like "blue being the best color". Others are not subjective. E.g. a kilo of gold is heavier than a gram of gold. This is not up for debate. I think we all ought to learn to say "I don't know" and to refrain from holding opinions about objective matters we know little about. Being able to say "I don't know" and refraining from holding an opinion is a forgotten virtue if you ask me. It would be good for the world if more people would learn to listen to the experts instead of insisting on the right to their own homebrewed opinions. For this reason, I don't have an opinion about how to brew the best beer or many other things. Still, I am inclined to believe that the OP is not as good as he claims to be, and I am still not convinced that he is an exceptional theoretician (since I find his reasoning bizarre). To give another example: More than once he argued that the Table Of Contents was a proof of the value of his book. This is silly. I could write a Table Of Contents with a lot of impressive terms and still not be able to actually write anything of value about it. 

      niver new     you coud  play a engine

        aint make sinse  

  like a small block 283?

To assert that LT's playing strength "could easily have changed" is not proof. Of anything. That's pure speculation.

Honestly though, I'm not interested in further arguing with you about this (and I can only assume that you're not interested in arguing about it more either).

However, I am interested in seeing some verifiable proof to support LT's claims, and I'm fairly certain you would, likewise, be interested in seeing the same.

Things that I consider verifiable proof: documented, OTB FIDE games.

Of course, LT has no obligation to do such a thing. He's free to make all the claims and post all the PGNs he likes. But until some sort of acceptable evidence is provided, members are quite likely to continue to criticize and/or simply be skeptical (and their skepticism would be fully justifiable).

And round and round the pot stirs.

Though, LT did make a suggestion a few months ago, which sounded quite promising at the time:

"I am going to play officially SF and Komodo, I do promise.I am just waiting for considerably stronger versions to be released, so that both sides have chances, the current versions are, well, how to say it, weak." — Lyudmil Tsvetkov

I'd be very interested to see something like this. Though I can't help wondering if any sort of serious attempts to secure such a match have been made—or if this was simply more of the same empty hyperbole.

I suppose only time will tell.

This is becoming the most likely situation. At first I thought maybe he just figured out the weaknesses in computers. But now, after so many truth related issues, I would say it's most likely that he is just playing one computer against another and commenting on the results. He has done a lot of research for sure, and a lot of hard work. But in the end it's just some guys opinion on how computers play. To me that opinion is not worth anything, since it doesn't do any good when playing against people.

I understand and can appreciate your sentiments. Likewise, for me, supposing Lyudmil's strength hasn't changed is just as assuming than supposing it did. However, I am thinking there is about a 58% chance that Lyudmil's strength has changed for the better or worse, as opposed to being the same. Since chess players tend to learn and improve, I would think that is what has happened, as opposed to staying the same. 

You are also correct in that I have no desire to argue you over what neither of us can prove. It is like having a spitting contest into the wind. 

I see this as more of a matter of applicability, than one of practicality. A general pattern of logic dictates that we first decide if something is or should be applicable before it is practical. In other words, you honest may not know until you try, but many people refuse to try. They put practicality above applicability, citing that the results of the past are proven and effective. I feel like going back through history and citing examples of how innovation trumped known and accepted practice, may be like trying to ride a dead horse in this case. There are examples of something may have been created for one purpose and ended up being applicable for another. I see same thing in this case. It reminds of the way you can create an intrinsic rating system for chess play and then use it for cheat detection or vice versa.