The Secret of Chess

He will lose to 1600 players....So he must use every excuse to avoid playing

Well, this was a Swiss with 1000 players.

Statistical noise here is very big.

Maybe he just had a lucky streak.

While running Swiss tournaments with engines, I have often seen much weaker engines, Phalanx for example, come on top of Fritz and Hiarcs, with some difference.

200 elos weaker but scoring +2 points to the much stronger competition.

So again, this is just RANDOM NOISE.

I am a CANDIDATE MASTER.

Not a FIDE, but a Bulgarian one.

Since 20 years!

There was a single year in my life, when I chose to compete more, and I IMMEDIATELY got the CM title.

I simply have not competed much, that is my problem.

I even have not played 50 FIDE rated games.

Of course I am over 2600 at any reasonable time control.

I told you - my Bulgarian rating is over 2200.

My FIDE rating used to be 2100+

Local CM only. Thanks . So shameful. I thought you were GM. I have "0" OTB . That means, FIDE haven't even access my level yet. I know I am 3000+ OTB if I play enough games.

But my excuse is same like you, OTB tournments are far from my home. 

If I play 200 OTB games, I will definitely be 3000+.

I will consider you when you were 2600+.

Sorry I dont play beyond 400+ range.

Indeed, even if I was not that strong and found all my chess knowledge concepts/rules based on thorough investigation with the help of SF and large statistically significant databases, what would that realy change?

You are after the knowledge and its validity and not after who the hell I actually am, right?

Yes, the Caro is MUCH weaker than the Sicilian and definitely not better than the Pirc.

NOT recommended to play.

I played it from time to time against top engines, but that is only because of its positionality, where engines could go wrong.

For the very same reason I sometimes choose 1. d4.

Play one imprecise move in the Caro with black and you are busted, just like with any other opening.

Bronstein is indeed weak, but Korchnoi is too, just that engines need extreme depth to see it, so you will never be able to reproduce this only with longer search.

Karpov, Nbd7, not to get doubled pawns, is definitely best in the 2 Knights.

Btw. you make A LOT of blunders for the height of your self-esteem.

The variation you refer to is NOT called 'Exchange', but '2 Knights'.

The Exchange is 3. exd5 cxd5

Your notation is also FAULTY, it is not 3...exd4, but 3...dxe4, and not 4. Nxd4, but 4. Nxe4

Problems with visualisation?

Of course, I will not play you, you are not qualified enough.

Brainfish = SF + large opening book.

At fast TCs, the opening book is essential, primarily because this saves time(not thinking on the moves), at longer TC the difference is precisely = 0.

Cerebellum is just an automated book based on SF analysis and back-propagation.

This might help in less complicated positions, but in openings the approach brings you almost nothing, as sooner or later the engine will have to rely on its evaluation, and current SF evaluation, although maybe best among engines and at around weak GM strength, is still too inadequate to correctly assess a very wide variety of positions.

This makes Cerebellum almost fully useless.

The Two Knights is actually 2 Nc3 d5 3 Nf3.

Where do you see two knights developed in his variation.

Perhaps you are the one who's insufficiently qualified.

Sure, there are a lot of sharp lines in pretty much every opening. But one doesn't have to go into them.

In the mainline, 4...Nf6 pretty much dodges all those sharp complications.

It's a nice option for those who like simple, straightforward development without needing to know a lot of theory (or pretty much any theory, really).

OTB games are, undoubtedly, more important than any other kind of game.

But winning live blitz games against strong opponents would certainly have a positive impact on your reputation (and most likely would increase your book sales, too).

I see it as win-win, and I really can't see a reason to avoid it. But that's just me.

The problem with a scammer is although he claims to be 3000+, what will happen if he doesn't win 1600?" Although such kind people have "grandiosity",  they also have "inferiority complex and anxiety " at the same time. Lyudmil will give you thousand excuses. He better see doctor/psychiatrist!

Well white can avoid the mainline though if he want's. It does get quite solid though in the line you show. 

I dont think anyone believed you when you said you were 3500. I dont think anyone believed you when you said you were 3000. So I know you like to do research. Lets see if you can find 3 people, anywhere, that believe you are 2600 at any time control. If you cannot even win against someone who is 1600 what business do you have thinking you are 2600? No wonder no one buys any of your books. Once you are capable of beating a 1600 player, THEN you can think about higher rated players. Until then maybe you should retitle your book...."The Secret of under 1600 players using computers to beat computers".

That is a great point. U.S. NMs get a lot of fanfare on Chess.com, yet so many other nations probably have national titles. 

My biggest objection to openings like the Caro-Kann, Pirc, Owen's Defense, Modern Defense, Horwitz Defense, or even the French Defense, which still scores quite well for black, with engines and database wins, is that they should really be more aggressive in the center, right away, to try to help negate white's first move advantage, by taking as much space and central control as it can get per move.

A quick example of what I am trying to say is, think of the potential consequences of intending to play a Sicilian Dragon type set up of some sort, but opting to play the Modern Defense first and then transpose into it. If your opponent cooperated and played 2. Nf3 kindly for you, it would work out ok, but they are more likely to play 2. d4 and grab the center. Of all of these, I find the French was the opening I did the best with, but I find it awkward and unforgiving still. 

I have a system that I have experimented with that is designed to get an e4 or d4 player, out of playing the system they are used to playing with white, without opening up the position and turning it into a tactical slug-fest, which in my eyes will favor white every time.

When I first started trying to shorten the learning curve for black defenses ( you can usually play the same opening more often with white, than you get the opportunity to play the same one with black, so you learn deeper, faster, with white) by playing flexible openings, in my search for one that worked against anything. I tried the Modern Defense first, but it ended up being a ton of theory that, a lot of experienced players were more familiar with than myself. I also found that I was normally in a cramped position also, my games were difficult and I usually lost. I also found that it was harder to play aggressive, assertive chess from a cramped position, especially where you have relegated your DSB to an all but defensive role, lest it gets traded, or more permanently displaced and you end up with a weakened pawn structure around your king. I find this a death sentence, especially if you don't have the initiative. Also, I simply find it harder to gain and keep the initiative in such positions.  

To try taking advantage of the the fact that openings can transpose, that positional play is less clear than open positions and that ,"for me" , closed and semi-closed positions are easier to get out of the opening and into a playable middle game with, I started playing either 1... e6 or 1...c6, depending on my mood or whether or not how sure I knew what your second move was and then, unless you did something really crazy, I would play either 2...e6 or 2...c6, so that no matter what, I was always starting the game off like this...

I found it difficult and cramped quite often, but I figured out that I could manipulate what the other guy was going for, trying to make it more about his calcualtion skills versus mine, insted of my calculation skills against his memorized patterns and his calculation skills. It would get me out of the database faster and tend to make it more obvious faster if someone was perhaps using an engine. I found that using this system, if you gave me time and or space, to develope my pieces, it became a rather strong position. I won several games with it and as you can imagine, lost my fair share also. 

I never gave up on the idea of searching for that same sort of ideology, but somehow better. Out of sheer chance, I stumbled across a gem of a game that was played using a black defense that I like. I actually posted the game here previously, between Aronian and Anand, from the 2013 Tata Steel tournament. I always found playing the Slav defense most comfortable for me against 1. d4, so I wanted to see the way it could or should be played.

I also eventually started experimenting with the Sicilian Najdorf. I had bounced around between playing all sorts of stuff against 1. e4 and I never was happy to see it played against me. I tried everything from the Anti-Fried Liver, Ruy Lopez: Cozio Defense, Petrov's Defense, The French Defense, and even trying random lines of the Sicialian, not having the first clue of why I was playing them, other than it was the best reply to my opponent's move, according the databases. I was very uncomfortable and losing a lot of games against 1. e4...

The reason I eventually tried the Najdorf was that I happened to start watching Bobby Fischer videos, to see how he played against it. I reasoned to myself that the theory of today's players was likely too far over my head, so I needed to start a bit further back. Since I was able to understand some of his tactics reasonably well, the idea seemed feasible. I also reasoned to myself that the opening can't be too bad, if Kasparov also saw fit to play it too. I began to see how much I loved the two bishops that seemed so easy to keep and  get them pointed at enemy kings. I also really loved how the knights defended each other. That nasty pin of the f6 Knight to the queen seemed rather minimal now with the d7 knight waiting in the wings. This same knight could also be placed either on d7 or c6, if need be. It seemed very flexible for me, given white's choices. There were also no more pins or checks of the white's bishop on b5, this opening seemed to have it all. 

As I kept playing it, I quickly noticed the similarities to the Slav/Semi-Slav system that I kept playing as a staunch choice to 1. d4...

It had the two knights defending each other. It had the similar opportunity to get the bishop pair aimed at the white king. I didn't get any pins or checks from white's LSB and the only thing I noticed about it  I didn't like sometimes, were two things. One was that I could get forced into the exchange variation of it. I also noticed that I if I wasn't careful, I could get the threat of Bg5, attacking my knight on f6. I noticed that it didn't happen to Anand in his game with Aronian. Aronian decided to play e3 instead of preparing a push to e4. Imagine the irony here, considering the angst I had earlier and onus I placed on taking space and central control, in the beginning of this article. I was finding that my opponents would most often play the e4 push, instead of the more passive e3 and this didn't block in their DSB. It was then free to pin my knight at any time. 

So I began experimenting with move order and delaying playing the knight to f6, as long as possible, waiting for a DSB move, or an e3 move. I was either going to make it cost them a tempo if they wanted to play the pin, or try to run them out of database or "usual" moves and get them to change their plans. Once, while recently trying this tactic in the opening, I ran into this idea...

The intent of this 3rd move by me was to try to get out of the database, since I suspected this player of foul play, also to get the move order very different, to hopefully not get that pin on my f6 knight. My worst fear was that my opponent would opt for the exchange version of the Slav, which now would leave me with my d7 knight on the wrong square. It is better on c6, in the event of the exchange variation, according to databases. When he played it, I was sure I was totally screwed, but then I quickly noticed something after the opening finished, that I will point out later.

I needed to continue with the move order that hooked my knights together right away, since I now lacked the protection of my c pawn. I defended my d5 pawn with e6, making my knight on f6 free of defending it. This made my knights better defenders of one another. I also noticed he seemed more interested in controlling the h2-b8 diagonal, than a pin that I was prepared for quite well. Since this happened before the e pawn was ever even moved, I had time to play a3, stopping the potential of checks or pins from the LSB. I only had the e7 square for my bishop, to get out of the way for castling, though I was originally wanting it on d6. I was a bit disappointed. I was happy though to end up castling, without being assaulted while my king was in center, as I had experienced in the past, while playing this, after the Slav exchange. 

I looked carefully at my position and I realized what I mentioned earlier that I saw. I was in what was essentially a Sicilian Najdorf set up, though the game started with 1. d4...!!! The only thing I noticed much different was that I no longer had a c pawn to harass white's d pawn and that I was going to have to learn how to beat white with two central pawns, while having a Sicilian setup. Imagine my joy though, getting two central pawns and a Sicilian Najdorf type position, after being forced into a line I don't like to play, simply from experiementing with the move order, of what I consider to be an even more forgiving opening now. 

Here is the resulting position...

After this game was over and I analyzed it better, I realized a few things, though I lost. One was that my opponent was definitely a cheater..

https://www.chess.com/daily/game/187536556

https://www.chess.com/member/againgetback

Another was that I felt a new confidence about playing with the black pieces. I would almost rather have black than white now.... !?!

I also realized that my choice to play against engines at various levels, experiment with the move orders of openings and try to force the opening into positions that I wanted to play, inspite of the fact I would be playing an engine, I think has helped me gain playing strength and more insight into the game. I find I rarely consult a database any more during opening play. I don't even want the crutch. I am finding I would rather watch a video about an opening than consult a database. We learn best from something that you can use as a tool, that teaches with concepts and forces us to learn how to think. Some things will only throw you a bone and require brute force memorization, possibly without an immediate practical application. 

To everyone who thinks Lyudmil is crazy for trying to learn and teach pattern recognition as a primary means of playing and using engines to do it, should seriously reconsider or let go of your pride and realize, it is seriously ok to learn or do things in an unconventional manner. We all don't learn the same way. We all don't think the same way. I would have never understood what I know about opening transpositions, pawn structures and move orders, if I only did things the way lessons in books and videos say to do them. I learned by thinking for myself and through patterns I saw. Is what I presented earth shattering ? No..., but I learned. I also learned something that I have never saw anywhere else and that no one ever even came close to trying to explain to me before. You can argue that it won't make me a stronger player and will never replace, known, sound theory, but it is simply a stepping stone and a building block. Lyudmil's book is full of them and it doesn't matter so much where they came from, how strong he is, etcetera, but they're are part of the available raw materials for building a chess player.

                                     ....I frankly love unique design....

I am thinking that you should be able to get a titled player account then, with the CM next to your name. All you have to do is sign up for a new account and in the profile and rating information, follow the instructions. It will give you full access to all of Chess.com features and get rid of the annoying ads...

Post Script Edit....you may even be able to edit your existing account. I am sure at least one Chess.com user has earned a title or gained a new one, thus needing to edit their information. Go for it. You don't have anything to lose. It might even shut some of these guys up...

 @Chris: Personally, I have nothing against pattern recognition, and even try to do it myself to some degree. That's not the issue that I have with the book, though. The main issues are that Lyudmil uses way too many terms and patterns (though I can somewhat let the latter slide for the "less complicated" portions) that make understanding what he's trying to say extremely difficult and that he does not (and refuses to) give any proof that his ideas can actually be of use OTB. (Grammar/Readability is also an issue, though that could be fixed simply by rewording different sections.) The other issues I have are more with the author and his ludicrous claims that with his book.