The Secret of Chess

4 time zones for the mainland US. If you count Alaska and Hawaii, perhaps 10. I never looked into though.?

what ??

That sounds like an excuse for "I don't know how to do it"

I haven't changed my avatar since I came to chess.com.

It is internet,  everyone can claim whatever they want, LT can claim 9000 rating and his book will ultimately lead you more than super GM level! It is up to you who believe him.

See this guy claim he did time traveled from year 5000, (bonus he has a proof photo)

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/wtf/time-traveller-claims-to-show-photo-of-the-world-from-the-year-5000/news-story/dec32b04e73db0bb35d1c2e79e94f3f4

Practice what you preach and tell your buddies who haven't purchased or read the book, to stop posting 1 star reviews...

I think he IS practicing what he preaches. He is being honest in his assessment of the author. He is saying what most are saying, the author should sell his book based on what is in the book, NOT what the author is saying. Even if it were a good book, it's obviously quite easy for the author to torpedo sales based on what he says.

That's how business works. The author cannot divorce himself from the book. A business owner cannot divorce himself from the business. There are MANY, MANY cases of one star reviews on the internet from people who have never even patronized the business. Why? Because they did not like the business owner or his views/opinions/actions/speech etc. A business owner (or author) cannot go around in public saying crazy things, lying, comitting fraud and then expect good reviews about his business. Further, he cannot complain when one star reviewers have never even patronized his business (or bought his book). Like it or not, the reality is a business will be judged not just on the quality of the product or service it provides, but it will also be judged on the character of it's owner. It's very likely Lyudmil does not understand this. He likely believes he can say and do whatever he wants and expect that to be completely independent of the quality (and sales) of his book. 

Maybe what has happened is that he has spent so much time using one machine to play chess against another machine, he has completely ignored the intricacies of humans playing chess and now he thinks that applies to book sales too. If only machines bought his books, it might sell because a machine could seperate his ridiculous claims from his book. A human wont.

He could only be practicing what he preaches going forward. He was speaking of future actions. I am telling him that if he believes that, then he should be silent as well and tell his buddies to do the same. There is no way that after trying to help run Lyudmil and his work into the ground, it could possibly qualify for him believing the book should sell itself. If he can't see the absurdity in expecting anyone with a product to sell, not to advertise, there is obviously no reasoning with him. Perhaps he should be relegated to being an inventor who isn't allow to market his product, so he can see how it feels. 

Some of you here are so desperate to disqualify this man and his book, you will say things like, one review by a very strong titled player suggests that the book would only be useful for GMs and IMs, but yet you have the nerve to attack him for claiming to be a stronger player than them? How can a man teach IMs and GMs, if he doesn't possess greater knowledge than them? 

Think that over for a few minutes. Maybe you will get it finally...

Commenting on how one machine plays against another machine does not mean someone has greater knowledge than the machine. Nor does it mean he has greater knowledge than an im or gm. It just means he likes watching machines play against each other. That is my point. It could be that he is so used to watching machines play he lost the ability to consider how humans think. If a machine were buying books he might sell some, as they wouldn't care about his ridiculous claims. But it's humans buying books, and they DO care about ridiculous claims.

It's not Lyudmils critics that have disqualified him. He has disqualified himself. A machine wouldn't care. A machine would only care about the content of his book. But people care about not only the book, but also the author.

So basically you are saying that someone can possess chess knowledge, but not have the skill to back it up? You must have dyslexia. It works the other way around. You can't back it up over the board, if you don't possess the knowledge. 

I bet you are one of those people who thinks Ben Finegold is hilarious, but Lyudmil is arrogant...

I find it hilarious that you attack him about his claims of strength, yet have no concept of what happens if you put 10 GMs in a rating pool, all start at 1200 and have identical records against each other. I could make a big deal about Lyudmil saying perfect chess is played at 10,000 ELOs, but unlike some of you, I understand what he means, when he says what he says. 

I thought about if for 5 seconds, its completely circular reasoning.

Apparently not. People keep commenting, even you. Lol....

Do you own a copy of book?

I began reading this topic back when there were "only" 3000 or so posts.  I bought the book and followed the discussion for about a week or so, then got distracted with other things.

I came back today seeing that there are more than 6000 posts in this thread.

I have read parts of this book, especially the part instead of a foreword explaining the idea and layout of the book.

I would like to point out that he states that image recognition is the way people will learn the best.

In the book the author writes very objectively and I find it interesting.

To me it is very understandable that he could have found some very accurate ways to find the best move in a position, and thereby play at the highest level, without having performed at that highest level himself.

Yes, he has made some very big comments regarding his own ability at Chess that seems doubtful.  To me the real question is whether his book and method can actually and applicably improve an individual's performance at the game.

Hans Kmoch wrote a book about Pawn Power that has a lot of ideas that were new when he wrote them.  So, this fellow comes up with some newly named concepts that have arisen with the coming of higher level computer game analysis.  That's fine.

But, I want to get back to the reality of the situation.  Will this method and book prove to be groundbreaking making players better and stronger at play?

I have insisted that it certainly can, if applied. It isn't rocket science to figure out whether a position showing an advantage is used in your game, as opposed to some other losing idea that you'd try, no ?

Your insistence is theoretical unless you have actual evidence of this being applied.  Let's be objective.

If what he writes is true but does not improve performance then the reading of the book can very well be intellectually entertaining, but of no playable use.

If, on the other hand, the reading and studying of his book improves Chess performance, then it really will be a revolutionary thing.

Seeing no actual evidence of its use in OTB play, this read, while having a lot of information, is currently not proved to be either good or bad at this time.

We could argue that the air quality is to blame and not the book for better play. Is there really a way to prove it ? It is an opinion. Not everything works for everyone.