The Secret of Chess

I disagree that a candidate master is considered a master.  The word candidate strongly suggests otherwise.  USCF uses the title of expert for players rated 2000-2199.  European countries use the title of candidate master instead.  I believe one only needs to know what candidate means to know what the title means.  A candidate is someone "who applies for a job or is nominated for election" or someone "regarded as suitable for or likely to receive" a position.  It seems obvious to me that the second meaning applies to the chess title - a player likely to become a master.

Obviously there's no rule against a player becoming extremely strong without playing. No one suggests that you're in violation of a rule by making that claim. But just because it doesn't violate a rule doesn't make the claim valid. You're free to claim anything you wish and people are free to dismiss your claim. You seem to believe that your claim should be taken at face value if it cannot be disproved. You fail to understand that the burden of proof is yours. People may - and should - dismiss a claim that is unsupported by evidence. And that's especially true when the person making the claim explicitly refuses to allow it to be verified.   

Here is a recent article from ChessBase on the book:

https://en.chessbase.com/post/the-secret-of-chess

"according to GM David Smerdon, this book is a one of a kind work that legitimately has the potential to revolutionise how we think about chess."

Wow.  High praise indeed.

There are nearly 1600 grandmasters but apparently only one recommends the book.  And Smerdon admits in his review that other reviewers have been at best dismissive and at worst harshly critical of the book.

Actually, candidate is a very strong word: "a presidential candidate".

Hello, Mr. GPatton.

Thanks for your interest.

I see other thing: your rating peaking at 1138.

To tell you the truth, I don't know, some not very strong players are happy with the book, and some not. It will all depend on your point of view.

If you like learning patterns, then the book is for you. If you are open to new approaches to studying chess, as Mr. Smerdon says, then again, the book is for you.

If you like the rote way of studying, based on generally accepted concepts, then you might not be very happy.

One can study from anything that is a valid knowledge; the bad thing is when you try to emulate false theories, but it is not that easy to decide which ones are false and which not.

The major deficiency of the book is currently it lacks example games, that will make understanding easier, but I will be adding those later into the next year.

Many people don't like to change the way they think.

Well, presidential candidates can still be complete and utter trash.

I guess this is some kind of a tradition in chess reviewing: some keep silent, couple of reviews at some point, and the others simply don't care.

I have 2 reviews for 'The Secret of Chess' at this point, by Mr. Smerdon and Mr. Sherwood of the Welsh Correspondence Chess Federation: https://www.welshccf.org.uk/article/325 , and both seem to agree on 2 points:

- the book is good in offering new knowledge/ideas

- the book suffers from difficult language and insufficient examples

So, I will have to correct a bit the descriptions and add lots of example games, to make reader understanding easier.

But I am expecting a feedback from Kasparov at some point, of course: certainly, with all his philosophic way of looking at things and interest in deeper knowledge, he should not miss this book, should he?

many books are there like secrets of sicilian dragon this book is also good and its helpfull 

Yes, he got published too, but by others:

Yeah, it depends how you look at it.

Learn here from my latest 2 posts how 'The Secret of Chess' explains why the Sicilian is good opening for black: https://www.chess.com/blog/smurfo/the-secret-of-chess

Thanks for this screenshot.

So, they fell for it.  I contacted New in Chess at some point, too, but they categorically refused to consider publishing the book, although Peter Boel, the managing director, readily acknowledged it is a "well thought-out book".

ARB has connections in the Netherlands.

I respect ARB's efforts, but, from what I have seen, I have always thought the games are a bit funny.

They were LTC, though, so you never know.

Of the engine players, who got published or at least some publicity, I have browsed the games and DO believe the games of Ernest Pecci, who played Fritz 20 or so years ago, Eduard Nemeth, who did the same with Shredder, Fritz, Gambit Tiger, etc., are fully realistic.

I did browse shortly couple of games of Claus Carstens, who is alleged to have beaten early versions of Houdini and Rybka, until Houdini 3, and was supported by die Rochade Europa, and the 2 or 3 games looked realistic, though you need a larger sample. Interestingly, none of those players has been using closed positions, like me, just more powerful king attacks with some sacrifices involved.

But those were earlier engine versions.

So that, I am objective and try to do my homework: I can deny neither Mr. Pecci, nor Eduard Nemeth their engine playing skills, for the rest, I am not quite certain.

I played a couple of advertised ARB games, and where he says SF played c3, SF always played c4, so...

This book is only for very advance players; GM Smerdon found some the positions interesting to analyze, there one Pirc position that Lyudmil claims black has the advantage but GM Smerdon analyze it and white hold the advantage not black and it was hard for white to make something out the advantage. Grandmasters are always looking for new way to improve, maybe GM Smerdon found something useful but for the majority of us it might not be helpful. 

I found some of his opening ideas interesting and useful, like in the English opening 1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.e4 at first I really dislike this move and its too committal but I look deeper and found a way for white get an advantage.

A presidential candidate may or may not be elected president and a candidate master may or may not become a master.  ;-)

What about my games?

Here we are at last. Things start to significantly improve concerning my image with you.

At least you start liking something about it.

If the book is for very advanced players, then I am a grandmaster. In case it is not for advanced players, then it might be recommended to the general club player. It it one of the two, as they are self-contradictory. Please, pick one.

Btw., many weaker players think it could be used as an useful manual, not everybody, of course.