The Secret of Chess

That's a good point. This one is more like totally nuts, but still applies I suppose.

People with severe dimentia, schizophrenia, or bipolar disorder might be crudely (and cruelly) referred to as "totally nuts" by inarticulate commentators.  But such a crude label does not apply to a person who single-handedly carries out a difficult multi-year research project, intelligently articulates complex and subtle ideas, and endures sustained personal attacks while still maintaining a sense of humor.  Is it too much to ask people to avoid unfair personal attacks in these debates?  Are we still in high-school?

I think it's fair to say only a qualified professional can accurately assess which particular disorder he has. I know I am not qualifed to identify it and probably most here are not either. But we dont have to be professionals to know SOMETHING is wrong. If you casually drive down the interstate and notice a 17 car pileup with debris strewn everywhere you dont have to be a professional insurance claims adjuster to say "looks like a car wreck".

The only thing I've seen LT write that raised my eyebrows is his boasting/joking about his very high chess strength/rating.  I'm not sure how serious he is, but I shrug it off because I'm accustomed to hearing such "colorful" exaggeration from chess players (and in other sports too of course).  I can accept his personality, and just study his ideas on their own merits.  You don't have to like an author's quirks to appreciate their writing.  Is there some other issue of concern, or is this all there is to the alleged "17-car pileup"?

Sorry, man. Sockpuppet or not, I won't bite. Still, I wonder why a nutter can't have a good sense of humour.

I think you should answer your own question. The ones who are saying he is a big deal is himself and his supporters. The only ones who are reporting fake news is the same. Then again, since he 'knows better' than the top objective sources, that brings us back to your question.

Id suggest his supporters explain how this book has helped them, rather than demand other people read it.

that's just a complete straw man, like I already told you. the book title is a very very minor criticism. The actual reason why Lyudmil is bashed is a completely  different one - because he claims ridiculous things (I am 3 500 strength, Kramnik is weak, etc etc etc) with no back up whatsoever. And because his book doesn't really help us improve, even GM Smerdon says that you shouldn't buy this book if you are club player and want to improve your chess.

So now I'm a sockpuppet?  Just for asking you to be more articulate, instead of using the absolute yet vague insult "totally nuts"?

Well, at least you haven't labelled me a "nutter" (yet).

I wouldn't go as far as to call Yenny a "sock-puppet", because I know it's likely that he's a real person. I've been called a sock puppet and a troll many times before simply for being on an opposing political party!

But still I'd say that Yenny isn't using his rational logic here. After all, how can one trust a man making such claims?

Sure, there are a few instances where outrageous claims were proven to be true. But then again, how many are there? What are the chances? And also:

Why doesn't Lyudmil back up his claims?

Why doesn't he take our advice to prove his skill in some games of chess?

Why doesn't he make a livestream against stockfish?

Why not? If his claims are true, he can easily do all of the above.

He should at least understand that we want proof after so many posts here asking for it, and yet he still ignores them/changes the topic. Why?

Being 3500 can certainly help in a tournament! I see no reason not to play some live chess on chess.com. He claims he can't play because:

1. He's too busy.

2. Chess.com has cheaters(using stockfish)

3. People watching would make it distracting.

4. The noise of cars and such make it impossible to concentrate.

Well!

1. Lyudmil spends hours searching up his name and talking in forums. He said so himself, not too long ago. He can easily take some of that time to play chess, no?

2. This was funny

(If you don't get it, highlight this section -->( He can win stockfish anyway, right?)

3. Focus mode is a great tool for that, if he's truly distracted. Also, block the chat if he really needs it.

4. Well, if he can find a place quiet enough to beat stockfish, then he can find a place quiet enough to beat anyone else!

That's all the time I have right now, but I'll be back.

Where did I ever say that I trust his claims about his playing strength?  I didn't, because that is irrelevant (as long as he's at least master-strength, which I don't think is in doubt).  As I already stated, I'm interested in the book, not LT's personality.  And the way to investigate the veracity and usefulness of a book is to actually study the book, and try to test its ideas in practice.

Note that, from what I've seen, none of his critics here has quoted a single word from the book (except the title).  Is it rational to reject a book one has never seen?  As a scientist, I try to avoid taking anything on faith.  Instead I try to investigate if possible.  And I try to keep an open mind until I can reach an informed conclusion.  And refrain from letting knee-jerk emotional reactions cause me to unfairly label people whose opinions differ from mine.

I'm finishing chapter 2, and hope to be able to discuss the book with others who read some of it.  Someone recently posted here about TSOC material relating to the French Defense pawn structure.  I'll try to respond when I get to that section.

So you demand that I read yet another secret chess book or otherwise its true? lol....are you going to read everything Ive read? Is it fair for me to demand you read everything Ive read?

wow, this forum got to 300 pages. Lyudmil, congratulations, you have held your ground for the last 9 months. It's not a good thing you held it, but congrats on holding it anyway lol

It was Lyudmil himself who perpetuated the myth that in order to be able to successfully convey conceptual chess ideas you need to be a master level player.  Its the same myth that one sees perpetuated almost on a daily basis on these very forums and it belies a very poor grasp of logic. 

We do not send Mathematicians into our primary schools to teach children how to multiply.  Primary school teachers are perfectly capable of doing that.  Why then do we insist that a player must be of master level strength or above on order to be able to teach certain concepts to amateurs?  Its complete and utter nonsense and logically unsustainable.  I suspect the idea is that the strength of the master will somehow magically transpose itself to the student.  Another premise that is not entirely sound.  Will a Beethoven be able to convey his creativity to some bourgeoisie numskull? probably not.  He may be able to teach the rudiments of music but so can anyone else with a grasp of harmony. 

Chess talent is one thing, the ability to convey that thought process quite another and yet Lyudmil and almost the entire chess community harbour and perpetuate the delusion that one must of necessity be a strong master to be able to effectively teach chess concepts to chess amateurs.  I reject the premise entirely.

Had Lyudmil simply came to the forum and stated, 'look I am an amateur with an engine, I have done extensive research, these are my findings, they are very interesting and well worth taking note of, I have put them down in a book you might like to read' he would have done much much better, but nooooooo, he had to perpetuate the myth and was forced to make some ludicrous claims on the basis of being a strong player and all his creditability soon evaporated.  The pathetic part (and I mean that in the original sense of the word) was that there was no necessity to do so.   Honesty would have served him much better.

You bring up a great point, that most of his critics have not quoted his book. Maybe you should read what Robbie wrote. The reason so few people read his books is because of his fraudulent claims. Had he been more honest to begin with, he would have sold more books. And he might very well have had fewer detractors. But his claims are so outrageous it makes no difference how good his book might be, very few are going to buy it now. Which means, as you said, his critics will not quote from his book. It's a self perpetuating cycle that Lyudmil himself intentionally created.

It's been said many times before, he is probably a very hard worker, he probably has done things with computer chess that maybe hasn't been done before. But he made sure very few would ever find out by making such ridiculous claims. Also, one of his followers was asked if the book helped. His response wasn't a yes or no, but rather he said he wasn't reading any particular book at the moment. I take that as a no.

https://www.chess.com/video/player/nakamura-toys-with-rybka-funniest-chess-games-ever

This video shows what a top Super GM can do after practicing against engines. Look at this 3 minute game. After seeing what Nakamura does to Rybka, it makes what Lyudmil claims to be able to do, quite reasonable. Since I have analyzed Lyudmil's play against Stockfish 9 and both he and the engine were playing at about 2600 strength, it makes sense that the 2750+ Nakamura would have fun against Rybka. 

No, the secret is to abstain from love to get down to The Secrets of Chess.

Indeed, that is how it looks at present.

I need to write just one book that sells, so that I have the opportunity to continue with my deeper work on chess and reveal more knowledge to people.

If nothing sells, 80% of the knowledge I have acquired will go down the drain with me.

As simple as that.

So, I need 1 book to sell, but nothing works.

Pity.

Gradually, though, I am getting closer to the winning algorithm.

Maybe I will never get there.

Amazon books have many features, you have to study the algorithm for years to know what works and what no.

And in the end, at least in my case, nothing will work again.

Pity.

As said, we are living in a very bad time period, when everything, values and assessments, justice and success, is upside down.

Thank you, Robbie!

Btw., thanks for the good position.

A bit easy, but very interesting.

Post one more.

Concerning the knowledge, that is true.

Unfortunately, due to time and financial limitations, I will never write more extensively on it and it will probably perish with me.

That is how it goes, we live in the jungle, a nice human jungle.

You have a scientific mind.

Pawns and knights/bishops represent the most important features, outposts, space, etc., so this is just about natural.

Besides, they are much more numerous than the heavy pieces and this naturally builds more combinations.

Chess is algebra + geometry(and a bit of chemistry  ).

The features are important, and their precise numbers are important too.

How I wish I had more time to explain myself with concrete examples...

Provided that he INDEED holds the only chess secret.