The Secret of Chess

Don't let the fraud get away with pseudo science when there is zero basis for his claims. He is going for the kind of people who fall for get rich quick schemes.

Sub-1400 players don't have the self-awareness and easily get delusions of improvement. A few losses will get them back into reality. 

In my perception, the odds that those types of people, that are non-intellectually oriented, that are playing chess to seem smart or make themselves smarter, are slim and none. I seriously doubt this was Lyudmil's strategy. He has played chess for many years. I knows what kind of people chess players are. He sees their analytical skills. i seriously doubt he was betting the farm on that to work for pulling of a get rich quick scheme, especially selling books to do it.....

If he were here saying buy my book and you'll see how I got rich, bring you r friends to my next seminar, yada, yada, yada, then what you are saying would have merit...

This book has tangible, working, chess knowledge in it, applicable for many, many players, in many, many games...

They will not give you a free account for CM--you must be FM or better.

Did you ever consider his book if for players who start with better chess knowledge than you have?

Nope CM still get's you a free lifetime diamond membership.

So far, Lyudmil went from 3600 to 3000 and the latest "self estimation" for his rating is 2600?

But so far, he has NEVER even gotten a blitz rating here on Chess.com, or played a standard FIDE rated tournament so we can all see just where he stands?

LOL

@Debristo Actually he has played in fide tournament's there was link for his fide profile a few pages ago.

But that is pretty old. I believe in the past, he gave the excuse that he can't cope with any noise at all, when he is playing a tournament game as it "affects" his concentration. So he has avoided all tournaments for a long time.

But rest assured, he is a super duper GM and even much better than Magnus Carlsen (when he was 3000 or 3600). With a 2600 rating now though, he is still considered a "strong GM" and better than hundreds and hundreds of other GMs in the world.

Why? Because he says so.....

LMAO

Sounds like you're essentially arguing a preference for the classical method of occupying the center—which certainly has its merits—as opposed to the more modern approach of controlling or challenging the center after allowing white to occupy it—which also has its merits. Both approaches are viable, and all the defenses you mentioned have seen success, at one time or another, in the hands of master-level players who know how to wield them.

(Though, French and Caro are, I'd argue, quite aggressive in the center, they simply need a move to first prepare for their central thrust. And the Horwitz is more of a flexible waiting move, inviting white toward one of many mainlines, while denying him the immediate Trompowsky response (2. Bg5).

 I'm not sure I follow your logic here. If one wants to play a Sicilian Dragon, why not play 1...c5? And if they want to go into a Sicilian Dragon via 1...g6, then obviously they should be prepared to face 2.d4, which would be the most common response. Indeed, for any Modern Defense player, 2.d4 would be exactly what they're hoping to see.

 Perhaps you did the best with it because it occupied the d5 square, establishing a strong foothold in the center, but you found it awkward and unforgiving because of black's "problem" c8 bishop? If so, the Caro Kann was made especially for you.

Your trial and error path toward finding a defense that finally agreed with you is worth a tip of the hat (anyone who attempts to better understand the game deserves applause in my book)—though it should also be noted that you've essentially just described what happens when a person attempts to buck theory and figure it out on their own (which, to be fair, most players have attempted to do at some point or another). What you seem to have concluded (from my perspective) is that: you like occupying the d5 square as black, you dislike the potential liabilities of a kingside fianchetto, and you still have some noticeable gaps in understanding when it comes to queenside play and development.

My recommendation (which you can take for whatever it's worth to you) is to take all this trial and error and see it as your first step toward learning proper theory, now that you've identified the kind of game you want to play. Pursue defenses that involve occupying the d5 square, while keeping that solid, protected feel that you seem to like.

The Caro and the Queen's Gambit Declined seem, to me, to be exactly what you're looking for.

I don't think Lyudmil is crazy for trying to teach patterns that he's discovered. I do, though, find him aggressive and condescending as a result of all the backlash he's received, which tends to draw out similar behaviors from those responding to him (I've been guilty of it myself, as well).

I firmly disagree, though, when you say it doesn't matter where such patterns came from, or how strong he is—when it comes to learning materials, these kinds of factors are immensely important.

I've no doubt that Lyudmil can hold his own at an expert level. Perhaps even at the range of a low-level master. Beyond that, though? ...

Keep in mind that the ideas of a 2300-ish player (a low-level master) would, logically, be a huge leap in improvement over those of a club player. However, the ideas of that same master could be considered terribly flawed in the eyes of a stronger master (from a grandmaster's perspective, for example). Such is the nature of relative understanding, and part of why it would certainly help if Lyudmil had a current Elo to serve as a guide to understand what level of skill he's presenting his information from.

Currently (as best I could find), he's rated 2095 FIDE. That puts him solidly in the Expert range. An expert with an engine is still better than an expert without one, sure. But it's still just an expert with an engine—which means that, with any engine moves or lines that surpass the understanding of an expert, that expert must resort to rationalizing a move that's beyond their ability to do so. Which would, most likely, lead to incorrect conclusions, as well as any "rules" that may follow from those conclusions.

However, he says he's GM-strength now, which should be an encouraging claim for those who believe in his teachings. However, it's also a claim that demands to be challenged by the skeptics.

Until some sort of progress is made in that department, I see things merely going the way of everyone making up their own minds. I've glanced at his material and found it unhelpful (and full of dogmatic conclusions, many of which I disagree with). But that's just me. Others might find his material immensely helpful and illuminating—and if that's the case, then all the better for them.

In all honesty, not really. If it was applicable for players of a higher level, I figure that they'd know most of it already.

I feel the same way, that most of it is already intuitive for GMs and have seen those patterns. The lower rated players probably stand to benefit most actually. It would probably be necessary that they have someone walk them through. Intermediate and advanced players, who have deeper chess understanding could easily use this book without a coach helping them. 

I just have to laugh at the ponz....he has no idea what all I know. He looks at a few numbers and reads a few post, then thinks he has it all figured out. 

I don't always tell people what all I understand. I didn't really want to post how I view openings. Imagine Magnus Carlsen feeling obligated to explain his rationale for his chess play or beliefs. It is probably why he os so vague in the first place. 

Christopher_Parsons wrote:

We could debate it, but certainly beginner and intermediate players should take Mikhail Botvinnik's advice regarding the classical approach. Who was stronger and why, Retti, Benko, Larsen, Nimzowitsch....or Fischer ? We could argue that Fischer would beat them playing their own systems, if he played theirs and they played his, but I certainly see a correlation between the strength of the player and their choices.

I actually believe that the stronger the player, the less preferences they seem to have. See Carlsen, for example, who plays rather flexibly, comfortable in pretty much any opening or position he goes into.

Christopher_Parsons wrote:

I find it both a bit ironic and comical, when I consider your last passage. I don't mean it in a condescending manner either, though it may come off a bit like it is. The reason I feel that way is as follows. If you set out to learn theory, "your way", as opposed to "my way", or vice versa, surely someone would begin to see the tranpositions and similarities of opening lines. 

You misunderstand me. I'm not trying to argue about whose way is right or wrong—I'm just saying that, given what you've described, it sounds like there are certain defenses that are right up your alley. If you don't want to study them, that's fine. It's entirely your call.

Christopher_Parsons wrote:

... if we aspire to learn chess thoroughly or as completely as possible, need to learn patterns of all levels, no ?

It's a good question. Regarding Lyudmil's text(s), some might argue that the patterns being taught are either incorrect, or unhelpful (some titled players on this thread have even argued that they exist more in the range of detrimental). Though, this argument seems to extend to other authors as well (see some of the threads attacking Silman's or Nimzowitch's teachings, for example).

Christopher_Parsons wrote:

I have found during the many, many, analyses that I have engaged in, at the highest levels of chess (during the resulting positions), there tends be somewhere between perhaps 2-6 playable lines, in any rich chess position. That means there are multiple ways to win. It becomes semantics really. True, that some lines are stronger than others, but GM's find ways to make a weaker novelty move weak with consistency. The fact there are many openings and playable lines, proves what I am saying.

I find this point of yours ironic, as Lyudmil is one of the loudest voices when it comes to arguing that there is only one best path, and the rest are, according to his perspective, inferior. For what it's worth, I agree with you: in most positions, there's more than one way to skin a cat (unless, of course, it's a position where there's a forced line that leads to a concrete advantage).

Christopher_Parsons wrote:

As far as I am concerned, unless Lyudmil plays only other titled players, he will be one of the most likely targets for cheating. Many players would be happy to get banned even, to prove he can't beat Stockfish. If the guy can't get a fair game, there isn't much point in him playing. Most GM's probably aren't going to stop everything they are doing to play him, in any setting. If he starts playing the other titled players here and is generating the numbers I got from post game analysis of his blitz games, he will likely be thought of as a cheater, considering the level of his play is so high. It all seems like a lose / lose proposition from where I am sitting. 

If he wanted to, Lyud should be able to get into the 2200-2300 range pretty quickly (after a mere handful of games, due to the quick rating-spike from provisional wins).

At that point, you're mostly facing titled players, who really have no need to cheat (nor would they likely even know, nor care, who Lyudmil is). Most of the strong players here don't hang around these forums. They log in, go straight to Live Chess to play, then log out when they're done.

There's also an implication there that players would need to cheat to beat Lyud. I'm fairly confident that there are many players on this site who would be able to best him in blitz, without requiring any sort of assistance. Which isn't to say I think he'd be a pushover—but to say that there a lot of potent blitz players here. Even Top-10 players like Wesley So, Fabiano Caruana, and Hikaru Nakamura have found themselves on the losing end of some blistering attacks from some of the resident blitzers.

More to the point: you have guys like Carlsen playing against random opponents online. Everyone knows who he is, yet you don't see him wringing his hands out of fear that someone will use an engine against him.

(For some good fun, check out the YouTube video of him Berserking his way through everyone, from 1500s to 2500s, on that other site.)

Of course, if Lyud wants to avoid playing, that's his choice to make, and no amount of debating about it will change that fact. I just see it as a wasted opportunity not to, is all.

Engine abuse probably reduced his playing strength since all tactics has been delegated to computers. He is just reading off numbers and trying to rationalize them as 'patterns', and using wild claims to give an impression of authority (of which he has none)

As I warned all of you, the publishing of bad books on my part is already a history.

Here my first best-seller: https://www.amazon.com/Tactical-Tal-Part-Lyudmil-Tsvetkov/dp/1980771499/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1523180753&sr=1-1&keywords=lyudmil+tsvetkov

This is the Kindle edition: https://www.amazon.com/Tactical-Tal-Part-Lyudmil-Tsvetkov-ebook/dp/B07C16MSBW/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1523180849&sr=1-1

The books are still not linked.

What is interesting about my investigation?

Well, Tal is a joy to read and replay.

In my downtrodden state of mind, I still enjoyed going through all the intricacies of the combinations.

The puzzles are split as follows:

- one half beginner

- one third intermediate

- 50 or so advanced puzzles

300 puzzles in all, but taking into account the many subvariations for the more complicated ones, the contents is much richer.

Sometimes, I am very unhappy, when I am unable to solve some advanced tactics puzzle.

But guess what?

Tal failed to solve a couple of the intermediate puzzles and, please note WELL, BLUNDERED in half of the advanced puzzles in his own games!

Of course, those were very complicated ones.

So, this is a good book to study beginner and intermediate tactics, but also to dive deeper into the tactical complications of the advanced set.

You even can not count whose turn it is, and that 3. Nc3 is already white's 3rd(!), not second move...

From now on, I will be answering only meaningful posts, as this is complete BS which is talked here.

Caro-Kann Exchange: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessopening?eco=b13 

2 Knights: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044138

Mostly trasposing and featuring similar play as the main lines, Karpov, Korchnoi Variations, etc.

You should learn more openings, man.

Those mostly transpose.

Developments are very similar as in the main lines.

The Exchange Variation is quite apart, nothing in common.

@Christopher Parsons, post 5688: thank you, Chris!(I almost wrote Christ  , such is my confusion)

As always, you give me hope.

Thank you, so many detractors around...