I would be very interested to see the author play a game to demonstrate his methods. does anyone have a link to any of his games
He hasn't played since he published the book.
how about games from before? I can't find any
I would be very interested to see the author play a game to demonstrate his methods. does anyone have a link to any of his games
He hasn't played since he published the book.
how about games from before? I can't find any
Somebody linked a few on either this thread or the Lyudmil thread a couple of pages back.
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.
Thank you :)
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.
His supporters claim its unique content that they have been after all their lives. Are you telling me that theres another person who wrote about secret chess? Or two? Or three? Or more?
Because they claim its not about personality, so there cant be another book since they did due diligence.
Or there are other books and thus they are ...you fill in the blank. I mean why dont they mention the other books then? Lets say for example that one was written by a 2400-2500 FIDE...hypothetical of course. And lets say the foreward was written by a top level GM of the time...again hypothetical, because the Lyudmil supporters are to be taken credibly. So if such a book existed, we would have heard about it from them. Since we are making stuff up, lets say this other book was turned into a chess engine.
And as a chess engine, lets say it beats Houdini and Komodo at blitz. But again, there is only one 'revolutionary' book as they claim, so I must be only creative.
If I told you I had a spaceport on Mars, would you believe me?
Straw man argument, the favorite tactic (along with ad hominem) of debaters who lack real evidence to support their argument.
I'm laughing right now...
Well, answer the question. Would you believe me?
I see Lyudmil's claim in the same way.
If you want me to use the "facts and figures" to prove Lyudmil wrong, then you're insane. There's no need for facts and figures when they're right in front of you!
A man who hasn't played chess in years claims to be stronger than a computer than has beaten the world's grandmasters tons of times!
And you believe him.
I never knew people could be so gullible.
He hasn't got a rating or playing performance anything close to a GM, and yet he claims to be 3500, a level higher than GM!
What's wrong with everyone?!?!
You'd be simply out of your mind if you actually believe that this man is a "super-GM"
I'm not attacking Lyudmil, I'm attacking his claims, which seem outright false.
Lyudmil is a polite man, and though his English skills can be made better, he is overall okay.
The one thing I can't stand is someone making an outrageous claim that is obviously false, and then people believing it.
The more acrimonious Lyudmils' critics become, the less convincing they sound. He has maintained a much more civil attitude than most of his detractors. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, and actually examine his books. His Bulgarian chess title, and GM Smerdon's positive feedback is good enough for me. There are many good instructive chess books written by "mere" masters.
Thank you.
@SteamGear, 2705
No, there is just a single way to skin a cat.
In each and every chess position there is a SINGLE best move.
There are other good moves, but that would mean skinning the cat imperfectly.
That is why patterns are so important, because if you know FEW, you might think there are 3 ways to skin a cat on Friday; if you know many patterns, you certainly will think there is a single way forward.
Purely logical-wise, it is IMPOSSIBLE for 2 moves to provide the very same evaluation.
One will be better, even if only by 1mp(millipawn, 1/10 of a centipawn), due to the unidenticalness of the sum of patterns.
Each and every chess position is UNIQUE, unless it is a transposition, and that is why it should have unique evaluation too.
Don't you think that would mean you've solved chess?
If there's only one best move, then you've solved chess!
No.
Because I don't know chess patterns good enough.
I might know them better than many players, GMs included, even top GMs possibly, but DO NOT know them perfectly.
There is always something to improve, chess is so complex.
Is there a chapter about Smositional Evaluation of Chess Smostions in your book?
Nope.
just goddam YouFreakin patterns. 
+1
They are lucky he let them even provoke him to the point that he felt the need to tell them to go to hell. I would have blocked most of them long before he felt the need.
I have more important concerns than that.
I try to sell a few books, so that I still maintain the illusion not all my efforts have been in vain.
One way or another, this does not seem the perfect time to try to convince someone or even only make a good point on substance.
People don't like substance any more, they like substitutes.
You will still need several smoked herrings, which you will wrap with the torn book pages.
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.
I did not know Smerdon until half a year or so ago.
I even did not know who he is, of course, I had heard of him, but nothing more than that.
What is there to attack? We are human we do not think like computers.
I already do, unfortunately.
Gone are the good human days, welcome higher computerised experience.
It is not me to blame, they first created computers.
But maybe, that was necessary to do.
And of course, you should evolve, if you would not like to stagnate.
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.
Actually, do you think people in the Middle Ages thought the way we think?
Saw the world in the same way?
Experienced and felt the same?
Of course, NOT, there is a HUGE mental superstructure built in the last 5 or 6 centuries in the human perception.
The man of the Middle Ages thought more with his senses rather than his brain.
We are slowly turning the trend, due to a large amount of formal and informal instruction.
We are more and more mental, computerised, and less so senses-based.
Like it or not.
This might not be immediately evident, but the trend is obvious.
At some point, the average human will be closer to a mental being, computerised system, than a senses-based one.
Of course, some people still live in the Middle Ages.
What is there to attack? We are human we do not think like computers.
I already do, unfortunately.
Gone are the good human days, welcome higher computerised experience.
It is not me to blame, they first created computers.
But maybe, that was necessary to do.
seriously Lydo, you look at every possible continuation and prune it down to a numerical value? Let me demonstrate to you how silly such an approach is. Here is a position from a game between Scottish International Master Andrew Muir and Grandmaster Gata Kamsky. What numerical value are you going to give the b pawn? Does it have the same numerical value as the f6 pawn? what about the h pawn, what numerical value are you going to give it?
-----------> 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.
We are living at the end of Times.
A crossing point between ages.
Everything is paradoxical.
At some point, the average human will be closer to a mental being, computerised system, than a senses-based one.
Of course, some people still live in the Middle Ages.
I take it the Renaissance means nothing to you? Hilarious.
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 mean, my title is humble - just 'The Secret of Chess'.
Look at other authors:
- "From beginner to grandmaster"
- "Become chess master in 10 days"
- "Positional, tactical, middlegame and endgame secrets of Alekhine, Capablanca, Botvinnik, Nimzovich, Kasparov and Fischer"
- "Winning chess lessons", etc. etc.
I am the humblest of all, obviously.
I would be very interested to see the author play a game to demonstrate his methods. does anyone have a link to any of his games
He hasn't played since he published the book.