The Secret of Chess

That would be extremely easy, if you manage to get permisssions out of your asylum.

How is it possible that you get it all wrong?

Both Karpov and Kasparov played 1.e4 more often, and Carlsen too.

I am doing chess 16 hours per day.

You are doing just 3 daily hours, with the rest devoted to small talk and quibbling.

    I'm already feeling smarter since I've watched this thread, just look at my tactics score. Thank you chess Jesus :*. 

Lol...Merry Christmas everyone!  Santa's coming tonight and if i had something to ask that is...I wish Lyudmil win the Bulgarian national championship next year! Clear first...no tiebreaks.

No, I am not wrong. For example Kasparov played Ruy Lopez (e4) 102 times, but d4 more: Nimzo Indian (90 times) + Queen's Gambit Declined (81 times).

Ok everybody, Tsetkov has fished for more publicity than he deserves with this thread, EVERYBODY STOP COMMENTING SO THIS CAN BE BURIED ON PAGE 25 LIKE IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN LONG TIME AGO

You seem to be some kind of divine revelation too.

I would have asked for a copy of 'The Secret of Chess', unfortunately, I can not buy one from myself.

Tsetkov will probably reply with something like "Why should people stop commenting when we are having interesting discussions here?"  DON'T FALL INTO THE BAIT, JUST REFRAIN FROM COMMENTING ANYMORE AND THIS STUPID THREAD WILL DIE IT'S NATURAL WELL DESERVED DEATH. Because even bad publicity for Tsetkov is better than no publicity, just ask Donald Trump.

Carlsen is a tremendous player and the only person of the current tops for whom I have great respect.

I don't have such respect even for Kasparov.

Your numbers are wrong again. Why would you consider only the Ruy Lopez for 1.e4, while couple of openings for 1. d4?

Where are Kasparov's Sicilians?

Kasparov has opened twice as many times with e4 than with d4, I have checked that in the past and don't intend to do that once more.

Second try with SF:

Btw., no one seems to have solved my puzzle, so here some input.

The main line seems to be 1...Rg5 2. Ng5 Rg5 3. hg5 Ne4 4. Qc1 Ng5 5. Rd1 e4, after which we get to a position, where I try couple of self-plays with SF and Komodo.

1st try with Komodo:

OK, chess.com is playing some tricks with me, so please read this post in reverse order, don't have the time to repost it now.

For more games on this puzzle, please see David Smerdon's blog.

Anyone having a refutation?

I’ll buy the Amazon Kindle version, Lyudmil, as a Christmas present to you.

@Burke,  there is free content on-line.  I read this - http://www.secretofchess.com/files/17772/ckfinder/images/pawns-exc.pdf.

I have to agree with @smurfo that "[o]ne of the key insights from The Secret of Chess is the need for flexibility in one’s pawn structure."

If LT has time to post many comments on two forum threads daily, he has time to play a few games.  But even if you find a GM or IM willing to bother playing him, he would never agree.  He would get crushed and whatever faith anybody has in his system would vanish.  So forget about LT agreeing to play any master or chess engine.  He will continue making outlandish claims about his great playing strength while never providing any proof of it.

Oops, thanks a lot!

Hope you learn something.

From what I have to conclude you already got a copy of the book.

Why everyone calls it flexibility? I used the term in my free downloadable 'Little Chess Evaluation Compendium' from 2012, but then switched to compactness.

Some compact pawns(for example chains) are not flexible. If I had called it flexibility, certainly everyone would be using compactness instead.

I guess this is what people understand easiest. Thinking upon it now, I am certain people fail to see the value of at least half of the reasonable terms, simply due to the fact that there are no examples present. I will definitely try to fix that in the future.