The Secret of Chess

1. With regard to Lyudimil's "civility", calling everyone who disagrees with him patzers isn't exactly my idea of being civil.

2. "The burden of proof rests on the accuser." Well, no, actually, I think the burden of proof rests on the guy claiming to be the strongest chess player on Earth.

   2A) Before you say it, the games against the engines don't constitute proof. As many have pointed out, they could well be played under favourable circumstances (favourable time controls, weakened engines, takebacks, using a computer to blunder-check tactics, etc.).

   2B) What does constitute proof, again, like many have pointed out, would be some evidence of his strength, be it in some sort of monitored match against an engine operated by someone else AND some sort of evidence of playing strength against humans.

The burden of proof rests on the accuser.  Take as long as you need.

By the way, what I'm gathering from your post is that you're willing to accept whatever someone says as long as it sounds nice. 

I can equally say stuff like "If White gets a pawn to e5, he wins by force", and give examples of me winning games (of questionable origins) beginning 1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 e5, 1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 e5 and 1 e4 c5 2 c3 Nf6 3 e5, and then claim 1...e5!=, only move. 

Doesn't mean it makes any sense.

I don't care if it sounds nice, as long as it is true. 

I am not the kind of guy who makes people kiss my arse, jump through hoops and do back flips, before they be willing to accept what someone else has to offer, as being worth taking a look at, unlike some of you here. 

So, by implication then, you are saying the Lyudmil is making a bunch of false claims in his book, yet have probably never read it. 

What I loathe about all of this is the continual need of others to attack Lyudmil personally. They only attempt to tear down his work, through the use of personal attacks. They aren't able to tear down the work on it's own merits of their "superior" chess understanding. Therefore, all of their attacks are meaningless, as it pertains to the book's validity. 

I could care less if someone who never played a single game of chess was able to tell me the secret to it, regardless of how they knew or whether or not I liked them. I would just take the secret and be on my way. This tells me it is "PERSONAL".....there is an active agenda against Lyudmil and what he has accomplished. 

First of all, questioning someone's unfounded claims isn't attacking that person-unless they take offense to pretty much everything, in which case I can see why their feelings would be hurt.

  Deciding their claims are unfounded, based on their credentials or behavior, is a form of personal attack...That is deciding the truth is only true if you approve of the person. The truth isn't contingent upon any one individual's judgement of another human being. 

Second, I've already tried asking him questions and commenting on the book. I got "Oh, you're just a dumb schoolboy. Grow up and then read my book, then you'll understand everything."* It's pretty much impossible to question the absurd amount of terms and positions, or whether or not the games in question are real, so I pretty much just watch from the sidelines and try to make my points to people that I think just don't get how Lyudmil works.

While I think it is terrible for him to have treated you in a rude manner, he was pointing out that you would realize the validity of the positions and claims made about them, if you were more skilled. So it follows that you have no knowledge with which to rightly question his claim about any of the positions. If you found themto be flawed, you would have used your chess understanding to show any flaw, but you don't possess it. 

1. How do you know it is true?

2. I've said before in this thread: I haven't and have no intention of purchasing LT's book. Therefore, in accordance with this, I generally have been commenting on what he (and others) are saying in this thread. That being said, by now, I do (think I) have a general overview of what's covered in the books.

 It's not that they're necessarily flawed, it's that there are too many terms and positions to memorize for it to be useful, and most of the terms and positions are common sense anyways. I'm not judging it exclusively on chess, but more so on the claims that the book makes and fails to uphold. I know better than to overstep my bounds on chess knowledge: I am a fairly weak player, all things considered-I'm not going to be giving out advice on chess to anyone that I know plays at a higher level.

So if I tell you anything chessically related, that you aren't aware of, it is unfounded, simply because I am not GM ?

Unless you give evidence to prove it, pretty much. Same goes for pretty much anyone.

Unfounded to you doesn't it give your own unfounded claim anymore credibility than his or mine for that matter. That is a poor choice of words. It leads to a moot argument. Do GM's like Smerdon lie about the validity of chess books, just for a friend or because they could careless about their own reputation ?

I don't know.

Misunderstood or unbeknownst would be a much better choice of words as it applies to you.

 I'll stick with unfounded, simply because, as far as what I've seen, he hasn't provided any verified evidence to show that every single one of his ridiculous claims, such as being a 3500 strength GM, is the truth. (I think you misunderstood me on this part: for its credit, the book does give some information-I'm more criticizing the way it's written.)

Verified by GM Smerdon ....means unfounded isn't an acceptable choice of words any longer...

I have the book. I have read it. I see the applicability. I can apply the book to my own games. 

Having a general overview doesn't mean you have specific knowledge of the contents. I could tell  what the next Star Wars movie will be about, though I haven't seen it, watched no trailer, etcetera, but I have no means by which to mention very specific details. I may be able to mention a few things that will be in there, from previous understanding and exposure to related materials, but that in no way gives me "Exact and Specific" details, of the entire thing. 

You must've missed the part where I said I've tried to comment specifically things said in this thread, and not anything regarding the books I have not read.

What is there to attack? We are human we do not think like computers.