Now, that I have some purchases from Amazon, I already start panicking, envisaging following dark scenarios:
- David Smerdon will regret his review
- US citizens will run out of money
- Amazon will close down
- Chess.com will close down
I't's not easy to be a writer...
Btw., did you read this very interesting interview of Kasparov: https://medium.com/conversations-with-tyler/garry-kasparov-tyler-cowen-chess-iq-ai-putin-3bf28baf4dba
He thinks Carlsen has a chance against the top engines, if he does not think about the possible loss.
That is what I am actually doing, saving some valuable mental energy, while not thinking I could lose to machines, someone could have this and that opinion of me, etc., etc.
Mental energy is there to grab.
The term compactness is better. Thanks! It will help me better remember the principles while at the board. I really did learn a lot from your chapter on pawns.
Btw., I already linked you to this review by Arne Moll on Shashin's 'Best play'. Very interesting to read too.
And a very interesting position too, the second diagram, from Tal-Milev:
Arne asks here how would Shashin find the best move, d5, based on his philosophy, and concludes that, granted certain details in the position, for example, the black queen being on c8 instead of c7, when already d4-d5 would not have been possible due to cd5, the philosophy would not quite work.
First, I would like to say something about the position: back there in 2013 they did not have engines as strong as current SF, so they could not be completely certain even if the game is won at all after d5. Checking now with SF, I see both 1.d5 ed5 2. Rae1 de4 and 1.d5 ed5 2. Rae1 0-0-0, especially this second line, are very close to draw.
I guess white wins both in the end, but they are very close to draw and one might need some 60-80 moves or so to convert.
For example, in the second line, after 3. Nc5 Bc5(Qc5 is hardly better) 4. Bc5 Re8, we get this position with opposite colour bishops:
How easily do you think white wins that?
I guess it is still won, but you will need 80 moves or so with perfect play.
Secondly, on the main diagram position itself and 'The Secret of Chess': no problems for the concepts in the book to quickly find d5 as best option.
On above diagram, according to the book terms:
- the mobility of the white dark-square bishop on the g1-a7 diagonal increases after d5 is pushed
- d5 is an advanced lever on the 5th rank, which gets some bonus(Kmoch's best contribution for me are precisely levers, but he forgets to mention only levers on the 5th and 6th ranks are really worth it)
- after d5 is pushed, the d5 pawn is mobile central pawn, d5-d6 is an option, so another nice bonus
- x-ray attacks, Qc2 and Qc7 attack each other on an x-ray, but, according to the book concepts, there is a distinction between the two attacks, as Qc2 attacks Qc7 with an opponent object/pawn in-between, c6, while Qc7 attacks Qc2 with a friendly object/pawn in-between, and the first x-ray attack receives higher bonus in 'The Secret of Chess'.
Lastly, why would a new dislocation of the black queen on c8 change things? Well, on c8 the queen is defended very well, while on c7 undefended and my book provides bonus points for piece defence, as well as penalties for undefended pieces.
So that, actually, no big problem for 'The secret of Chess', that does not naturally mean everyone will see it, just that the conceptual framework seems good.
Any thoughts on that?
Now, that I have some purchases from Amazon, I already start panicking, envisaging following dark scenarios:
- David Smerdon will regret his review
- US citizens will run out of money
- Amazon will close down
- Chess.com will close down
I't's not easy to be a writer...
Don't get me wrong, but I have two questions:
1. in your book, do you advocate Dutch Defense for Black?
2. if yes, how come, because on every engine-engine game I have played, White wins?
Yes, Dutch Defence with transposition from the QGD, immediately after 1...c5.
Top engines don't understand the Dutch, especially the Stonewall, as it is closed game and requires bigger depths.
SF and Komodo both give 50-70cps white advantage in those lines, but is perfectly equal.
When you don't know how to assess a line, of course, you will go wrong, as you always will be picking the wrong positions considered as best instead of the true best ones.
Both SF and Komodo are weak engines, not to be trusted too much.
Now, that I have some purchases from Amazon, I already start panicking, envisaging following dark scenarios:
- David Smerdon will regret his review
- US citizens will run out of money
- Amazon will close down
- Chess.com will close down
I't's not easy to be a writer...
If Smerdon has read your forum threads, my guess is he already regrets his review. The next three scenarios are nothing to worry about. You left out the one you should worry about. The book will never sell well. You haven't given potential buyers a reason to buy it. You've provided no evidence of your playing strength or that your methods work. And you've undermined your credibility by making outlandish claims and then refusing to put them to the test. People reasonably assume that you're either dishonest or delusional. They don't trust the book because they don't trust its author.
Now, that I have some purchases from Amazon, I already start panicking, envisaging following dark scenarios:
- David Smerdon will regret his review
- US citizens will run out of money
- Amazon will close down
- Chess.com will close down
I't's not easy to be a writer...
If Smerdon has read your forum threads, my guess is he already regrets his review. The next three scenarios are nothing to worry about. You left out the one you should worry about. The book will never sell well. You haven't given potential buyers a reason to buy it. You've provided no evidence of your playing strength or that your methods work. And you've undermined your credibility by making outlandish claims and then refusing to put them to the test. People reasonably assume that you're either dishonest or delusional. They don't trust the book because they don't trust its author.
I think there is a very high probability you are right on all counts. I think it would be amazing if any very good chess player could reliably beat the worlds best computers. So with about 1500 grandmasters in the world there should be at least a few hundred great reviews, not just one.
Oh, and maybe it's just me, but I have never in all my life ever heard of someone concerned that US citizens will run out of money. My grandmother who grew up during the depression always said how some people were never affected by it. I'm not sure where he came up with that one.
Now, that I have some purchases from Amazon, I already start panicking, envisaging following dark scenarios:
- David Smerdon will regret his review
- US citizens will run out of money
- Amazon will close down
- Chess.com will close down
I't's not easy to be a writer...
If Smerdon has read your forum threads, my guess is he already regrets his review. The next three scenarios are nothing to worry about. You left out the one you should worry about. The book will never sell well. You haven't given potential buyers a reason to buy it. You've provided no evidence of your playing strength or that your methods work. And you've undermined your credibility by making outlandish claims and then refusing to put them to the test. People reasonably assume that you're either dishonest or delusional. They don't trust the book because they don't trust its author.
I will stop answering the same claims again and again, as it simply does not make sense.
Funnily, I just read Nimzovich's texts, dating back almost a century, and here is what I find:
I now hand this first installment over for publication. I do so in good conscience. My book will have its defects – I was unable to illuminate all the corners of chess strategy – but I flatter myself of having written the first real textbook of chess and not merely of the openings.
There would be no point in recording all the scorn and derision directed at me during this period, or even in pointing it out. Suffice it to say that no one in the whole history of chess has been subject to such abuse. I was rewarded for my new ideas with invective and at best a systematically practiced silence.
Steinitz’ only mistake after all was that he was at least fifty years ahead of his generation!
Self-praise is ‘playable’ in only one instance, namely, when merited recognition has remained unjustly withheld; in all other cases it comes across as tasteless and demoralizing.
Funny...
Now, that I have some purchases from Amazon, I already start panicking, envisaging following dark scenarios:
- David Smerdon will regret his review
- US citizens will run out of money
- Amazon will close down
- Chess.com will close down
I't's not easy to be a writer...
If Smerdon has read your forum threads, my guess is he already regrets his review. The next three scenarios are nothing to worry about. You left out the one you should worry about. The book will never sell well. You haven't given potential buyers a reason to buy it. You've provided no evidence of your playing strength or that your methods work. And you've undermined your credibility by making outlandish claims and then refusing to put them to the test. People reasonably assume that you're either dishonest or delusional. They don't trust the book because they don't trust its author.
I will stop answering the same claims again and again, as it simply does not make sense.
Funnily, I just read Nimzovich's texts, dating back almost a century, and here is what I find:
I now hand this first installment over for publication. I do so in good conscience. My book will have its defects – I was unable to illuminate all the corners of chess strategy – but I flatter myself of having written the first real textbook of chess and not merely of the openings.
There would be no point in recording all the scorn and derision directed at me during this period, or even in pointing it out. Suffice it to say that no one in the whole history of chess has been subject to such abuse. I was rewarded for my new ideas with invective and at best a systematically practiced silence.
Steinitz’ only mistake after all was that he was at least fifty years ahead of his generation!
Self-praise is ‘playable’ in only one instance, namely, when merited recognition has remained unjustly withheld; in all other cases it comes across as tasteless and demoralizing.
Funny...
You’re. Not. Nimzovich. He coined and put into writing some of the most important strategic concepts there are. All you’ve done is, in pseudo-intellectual style, use a bunch of complicated terms and make ludicrous claims.
Now, that I have some purchases from Amazon, I already start panicking, envisaging following dark scenarios:
- David Smerdon will regret his review
- US citizens will run out of money
- Amazon will close down
- Chess.com will close down
I't's not easy to be a writer...
If Smerdon has read your forum threads, my guess is he already regrets his review. The next three scenarios are nothing to worry about. You left out the one you should worry about. The book will never sell well. You haven't given potential buyers a reason to buy it. You've provided no evidence of your playing strength or that your methods work. And you've undermined your credibility by making outlandish claims and then refusing to put them to the test. People reasonably assume that you're either dishonest or delusional. They don't trust the book because they don't trust its author.
I will stop answering the same claims again and again, as it simply does not make sense.
Funnily, I just read Nimzovich's texts, dating back almost a century, and here is what I find:
I now hand this first installment over for publication. I do so in good conscience. My book will have its defects – I was unable to illuminate all the corners of chess strategy – but I flatter myself of having written the first real textbook of chess and not merely of the openings.
There would be no point in recording all the scorn and derision directed at me during this period, or even in pointing it out. Suffice it to say that no one in the whole history of chess has been subject to such abuse. I was rewarded for my new ideas with invective and at best a systematically practiced silence.
Steinitz’ only mistake after all was that he was at least fifty years ahead of his generation!
Self-praise is ‘playable’ in only one instance, namely, when merited recognition has remained unjustly withheld; in all other cases it comes across as tasteless and demoralizing.
Funny...
You’re. Not. Nimzovich. He coined and put into writing some of the most important strategic concepts there are. All you’ve done is, in pseudo-intellectual style, use a bunch of complicated terms and make ludicrous claims.
Have you read the book's excerpts?
http://www.secretofchess.com/pages/view-excerpts
Whether one finds them useful or not, a comparison to Kmoch is not unfounded.
The comparison to Nimzowitsch is interesting. Nimzowitsch's ideas were revolutionary and thus naturally were met with resistance. His ideas eventually took hold, however, because he employed them to great success over the board. He had already established himself as one of the world's best masters by the time My System was published. He won a number of strong tournaments during the 1920s and 1930s.
The Secret of Chess was written by an obscure former player who never achieved the title of master. His ideas may be considered revolutionary but as far as I know, there isn't a single master who has used them in competition. And the author refuses to play competitively.
Lyudmil Tsvetkov is no Aron Nimzowitsch.
His great predecessors: Nimzovitch, Kmoch, Berliner, Sashin, ARB...
Especially ARB.
The comparison to Nimzowitsch is interesting. Nimzowitsch's ideas were revolutionary and thus naturally were met with resistance. His ideas eventually took hold, however, because he employed them to great success over the board. He had already established himself as one of the world's best masters by the time My System was published. He won a number of strong tournaments during the 1920s and 1930s.
The Secret of Chess was written by an obscure former player who never achieved the title of master. His ideas may be considered revolutionary but as far as I know, there isn't a single master who has used them in competition. And the author refuses to play competitively.
Lyudmil Tsvetkov is no Aron Nimzowitsch.
Lyudmil Tsvetkov is not Numzovich, he is a bit better.
I am a candidate master. Candidate master, master, international master or grandmaster, it is still a master. That is the key word.
Well, there were stronger players than Nimzovich who wrote nothing, so you can not simplistically compare playing strength with theoretical contribution. But yes, I am very strong.
Does FIDE forbid to get extremely strong without playing/competing? As far as I know, there is no such rule, so you might not know I am really strong, but you also can't be certain I am weak.
Concerning Nimzovich's ideas, and that is what I like most, hard work and concrete examples, I guess 'The Secret of Chess' significantly improves on Nimzovich on all his revolutionary concepts:
- blockade, Nimzovich was rather vague, 'The Secret of Chess' couple of instances of blocking and differentiates between different blockers, which Nimzovich does not do; each specific piece on each specific square performing a blockading function gets different bonus, and this is the much better approach, of course, as this is objectively what happens on the board, there is differentiation. TSOC has an advanced concept of central blockaders, referring only to squares c3-f3 and c4-f4. How could a numerical, extremely precise approach be worse than Nimzovich's general concepts? The language is more accessible to readers, but the knowledge is definitely inferior.
- over-protection, well, TSOC solves that very easy by the different values received for defending pawn and pieces. When a piece or pawn is protected by a couple of friendly pieces, it receives bonus for them all, and this naturally calculates the term; you just have to pay attention to what pieces and squares are defended
- prophylaxis, well, so many terms in TSOC deal with this, for example, there is a term pair of symmetrical aligned pawns on ranks 2 or 3, with different values depending on the rank, which is a term that prevents the opponent from opening the position on critical sections of the board. Kmoch has similar term, he calls it buffer duo, but he fails to mention which ranks are important, so his is again just a general concept(maybe because he had a fuzzier understanding?); there is a king safety term, giving bonus for our king placed on a side of the board that is fully closed, no other author has ever mentioned this; there is another term, giving bonus for our advanced pawn on e5/f5 or d5/c5, when the opposite side of the board is fully closed, as this prevents counterplay, etc., etc. Again, no one has ever mentioned this.
So that, I have better terms, more precise estimates and things that no one has ever discussed, and you would like to think this is something bad and there is no contribution.
Nimzovich and Kmoch, no matter how intelligent and insightful, can NEVER compete with a person who has constant access to the top engines and much much larger statistical database.
Again, I guess most of the critiques come because:
- people actually have not read the book
- its way of presentation might indeed be hard to understand for a range of people
I would like constructive critique, though, pointing out specific issues.
When I publish the second part, I guess everyone will have much much easier time to understand what actually is going on.
OH
I guess I still don't understand. I understand the part about saying you are a great (maybe the greatest) chess player. I understand the part about talking about specific ways to become great (like instructions in a book). But I dont understand the part about not actually doing it. Tiger Woods swing coaches have enjoyed great success as teachers, but not so much as players. They can say how to do it, but they cannot do it themselves. Tiger Woods on the other hand has not spent a great deal of time talking about how great he is, talking about how weak other players are, or how to become great. Instead, he has spent his career focusing on actually becoming one of the best, if not the best. Do you see that the skepticism is not from failing to read your book, but from failing to see any accomplishments.
The accomplishments are in the book.
People who read it and are strong players, will know it.
You want it the easy way: someone told me, the USA Today, Washington Post and New York Times titled, so I do believe.
Actually, most of the newspaper articles are not worth much.
Btw., here my latest book, on a hero of yours: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B078NSTR3K/ref=sr_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1514485788&sr=1-6&keywords=lyudmil+tsvetkov
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.
That is what you think.