So both of you guys are here attacking a person , by your own admission and not challenging the book material, based on the merits of it's content.
:facepalm:
I am not attacking anyone. If I was attacking Lyudmil, you'd be able to tell. Right now, I'm challenging his ludicrous and unfounded claims about what he claims to be his strength, not his book.
So both of you guys are here attacking a person , by your own admission and not challenging the book material, based on the merits of it's content.
:facepalm:
I am not attacking anyone. If I was attacking Lyudmil, you'd be able to tell. Right now, I'm challenging his ludicrous and unfounded claims about what he claims to be his strength, not his book.
You should start your own thread about it. This is a thread about a book, not Lyudmil or his playing strength.
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.
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.
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.
You should start a thread about it. This thread is about a book.
So both of you guys are here attacking a person , by your own admission and not challenging the book material, based on the merits of it's content.
Wrong. I'm criticizing the content of LT's posts on these forums.
You should start a thread about it. This thread is about a book.
What is there to attack? We are human we do not think like computers.
Actually computers think like some humans. After all, it was humans who taught them how to think. We all don't think like a GM either. That doesn't mean we can't examine how the computer or the GM was taught how to think and apply it to our own thoughts. This is partially what Lyudmil's book is expressing.
@Christopher_Parsons: Lyudmil turned this into a commentary on his playing strength. I'm not going to make a new thread about it because the OP already turned his own thread into precisely the thread that is best suited to discuss that, and most of the important comments are here anyways.
@Christopher_Parsons: Lyudmil turned this into a commentary on his playing strength. I'm not going to make a new thread about it because the OP already turned his own thread into precisely the thread that is best suited to discuss that, and most of the important comments are here anyways.
I haven't seen him make any such claim since I have been here. Perhaps he realized the flaw in that marketing strategy. If someone says something they shouldn't, whether true or not, it doesn't give you the right to jump up and down screaming, demanding accountability in their place of business. He is the original poster not you.
-------> Lyudmil turned this into a commentary on his playing strength.
Totally wrong :-)
other people point on his plaing strenght to discredit the book.
Something like "when you will be a gm write a book" and so make perfect sense answering this people "i'm 3500 and above" . If you wrote a foolish thing Mr. LT will respond with a foolish thing.
Like a computer ------->garbage in garbage out , or in other words "you get what you deserve from Mr. Lt".......it's so simple :-)
@Christopher_Parsons: Lyudmil turned this into a commentary on his playing strength. I'm not going to make a new thread about it because the OP already turned his own thread into precisely the thread that is best suited to discuss that, and most of the important comments are here anyways.
I haven't seen him make any such claim since I have been here. Perhaps he realized the flaw in that marketing strategy. If someone says something they shouldn't, whether true or not, it doesn't give you the right to jump up and down screaming, demanding accountability in their place of business. He is the original poster not you.
I'm not jumping up and down screaming, I'm pointing it out and asking for clarification.
I'm going to find that, just because I honestly can't believe you missed that.
-------> Lyudmil turned this into a commentary on his playing strength.
Totally wrong :-)
other people point on his plaing strenght to discredit the book.
Something like "when you will be a gm write a book" and so make perfect sense answering this people "i'm 3500 and above" . If you wrote a foolish thing Mr. LT will respond with a foolish thing.
Like a computer ------->garbage in garbage out , or in other words "you get what you deserve from Mr. Lt".......it's so simple :-)
If he is joking, he never said. And either way, he still has said that his playing strength is much stronger than it actually is, be it through saying that he can beat Stockfish (giving only his word) or saying that playing against computers has raised his rating by about 400 point (and then not confirming it).
I will give you that I may have misinterpreted that-I honestly can't tell when he's joking or not.
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.
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.
I agree with all that. But, m_n0 didn't attack him in this comment. He simply said it like it is. There is nothing personal when he says the burden of proof rests with the guy claiming to be the best chess player on earth. It's not anything personal against Lyudmil or his book. The issue is simply that his claims are so ridiculous that it's easy to be skeptical.
-------> Lyudmil turned this into a commentary on his playing strength.
Totally wrong :-)
other people point on his plaing strenght to discredit the book.
Something like "when you will be a gm write a book" and so make perfect sense answering this people "i'm 3500 and above" . If you wrote a foolish thing Mr. LT will respond with a foolish thing.
Like a computer ------->garbage in garbage out , or in other words "you get what you deserve from Mr. Lt".......it's so simple :-)
Exactly. That was the first sort of question they asked, not what is in your book.
-----------> The issue is simply that his claims are so ridiculous that it's easy to be skeptical.
yes, not easy but too easy. It's too easy to be skeptical on his claims.
But what if you change the word "ridiculous" with the word "paradoxical" ?
From ridiculous to paradoxical there's an ocean of difference......the eyes..the heart...the empaty....all in the ocean from ridiculous to paradoxical.
I understand that people feel skeptical of LT's apparent boasting about his current playing strength. And it's not easy to tell how much of this is intentional self-aggrandizement as opposed to playful teasing (as chess players of all strengths are known to do). Many good authors in various fields were/are eccentric or "colorful". I'm willing to try to look past the surface of (what appears to me as) odd behavior. I'm "odd" too, as are many people here. No need for critics to get so agitated as to hurl overly simplistic branding of someone as a fake/scammer/liar etc. Angry exaggeration just derails the conversation.
The book is not a scam. It is a physically well-made, large-format (easy on the eyes), paperback. The contents seem to be logically organized and indexed. The English prose is mostly fine, and I can always tell what words he's trying to convey, even when misspelled or conjugated incorrectly. As for the content's veracity and usefulness, only time will tell. I think the price is reasonable, but of course that is subjective because it depends on one's financial resources (I'm just a middle-class college professor at a modest community college in Tampa).
I'm interested in what I can learn from the SOC book, not the author's personality. I've recently started studying the first chapter, and what I see so far looks original, interesting, and potentially useful. The author doesn't need to be a super-GM for me to learn from him/her. Many "mere" masters (eccentric or not) have written good chess books. Even if not every idea in the book turns out to be objectively correct or easily applicable, that's okay -- the same can be said about any cutting-edge book about a complex subject. His approach is original and intriguing to me, and that (along with positive feedback from people who've actually read the book) is enough for me to want to study his ideas.
I'm interested in what I can learn from the SOC book, not the author's personality. I've recently started studying the first chapter, and what I see so far looks original, interesting, and potentially useful.
You think the rest of us are chumps? I dont see why his supporters cant be honest. Personality draws book sales because it gives off a closer association with the author. I dont see anything wrong with that as long as it doesnt get stalkerish.
So, the author suddenly became a victim. And now on, any question regarding his alleged playing strenght is an empty personal attack. Right...
Let's imagine every single chess author start a thread in every available forum affirming his book is the best ever written... that in his book only you will be able to find that "obscure way" to become a super GM.
Really??
It's not about LT book... it's just one more chess author. Let the people discover how good or bad his book is. This is the only way.
But from the moment someone start with dellusional claims of greatness, don't wait for a passive audience.
I think Mr Lydumil's claims of a 3000-3500 rating are actually quite modest - he admits that perfect chess would be played at around 10,000 elos, so he's being very humble in admitting his flaws 
I think Mr Lydumil's claims of a 3000-3500 rating are actually quite modest - he admits that perfect chess would be played at around 10,000 elos, so he's being very humble in admitting his flaws
Lol
So both of you guys are here attacking a person , by your own admission and not challenging the book material, based on the merits of it's content.
Wrong. I'm criticizing the content of LT's posts on these forums.