The Secret of Chess

I don't like how you paraphrased my words. You are making it seem as if I am saying that I know a lot about chess, first of all, so then it will seem as if you are more right, once someone checks my ratings. Clever, but not smart enough. Second of all, how can you do anything if you don't know how ? I don't care how you wish to try to tear that idea down, it is immutable and incontrovertible. No one accidentally or incidentally plays perfect chess. If you know how to play chess well, it will show when you play...period...win lose or draw, any discerning chess player will see your skills, even if you make a few mistakes. It will be obvious whether you are totally putz or you have some skill.

You can't teach GM's and IM's how to play chess better, if you yourself don't understand how to play chess better than they are. 

I have not read any part of this book. But you said you have read part of it. In your opinion, has your chess playing ability improved, stayed the same, or gotten worse as a result of reading those parts of the book? You say there is no evidence of it being useful in OTB play, but I'm wondering if you feel there is any other benefit, not just in OTB play.

Cos I am having fun with these posts , like a clown show. 🤔

I have read part of the book. I do know more than I did. I am making better choices at particular phases of the game than I did before. I suddenly see where the problem lies, you expect drastic, immediate results, when those things take time to truly show, especially daily chess, which is mainly what I play, or this book is useless to you. Do you lift weights once and become a body builder?

I also never said the info in the book wasn't useful in OTB games. It is useful in OTB games, especially at longer time controls, where you get to think about the positions and apply them to the book. This book might only ever help me to reach 2000. It might help someone else to reach 2200. It might help someone else reach GM level. It is relative to the skill of the player and their level of time and dedication. I have 2 sons, am married, have a full time job, often work OT on weekends and week nights, plus I hunt cheaters. I don't even have enough time to truly apply the book to the level I would like, but hopefully by the time I am retired, I will have my mind wrapped around it rather well. 

I think you're misinterpreting a few things here. First of all, I was of the mind that you were talking about Lyudmil. You said that you can't back your chess knowledge up if you don't have it in the first place. I actually misread your argument-I thought you were arguing against the previous poster, when you pretty much just said the same thing, but reworded it. I thought you were saying that you can't have chess knowledge without having the skills to back it up, and I was arguing that. I wasn't talking about your skill at all-at that point, I'd say that you're just attacking me personally.

It was the way I read it. It seemed to be twisting the way people would see reality, if they read your post. It wasn't a personal attack. I was simple pointing it out. 

Okay, I just want to state my point of view. The book may be good, okay, I accept that.

However, Lyudmil has no right to go around claiming that he's 3500 just because he wrote one fairly good book.

It is silly to claim a rating anyway. It is relative and ratings don't necessarily prove or adequately state strength. 

Ratings are an empirical MEASUREMENT of chess strength.

Made up ratings are fiction.

Empirical or not, it doesn't change the fact they are relative and an estimate. They also aren't necessarily indicative of playing strength, regardless of how you slice it. That is why I find it both silly that Lyudmil chose to try to use them to convince people of his theories and that people give those ideas any merit, based upon ratings, whether for or against his ideas. 

-------> Cos I am having fun with these posts , like a clown show. 🤔

me too...so i'm thinking we are in the show..you too :-)

Ratings are statistical data created by standard, generally accepted methods based on games played under various time controls.

If someone does not play chess (anymore), like Lyudmil, then his exact rating is zero.

I have read a lot of comments in the thread, and Im agree with those that say, play and show it. Do a performance of 2400 in an important open, and then come back here and post it. you will a sell a lot of books if you are able to do it, and probably spending less time than writing replays here.

I told him that if he got an anonymous account on here to 2800 in blitz i would buy 10 of his books for local schools (and one for myself).  There is NO cost to creating a test account and putting it into practice, then linking the two when his methods work.  I got nothing but excuses.  Going to a real life tournament will generate nothing but excuses.  I feel like this is a deep troll but there has clearly been so much work put into the books, even if the evaluations are made up, just constructing that many diagrams for a troll is a lot of work.

The book gives evaluations without proof so everyone who says its great is saying so without theoretical proof or any "proof of application".  Why is a pawn in front of a knight in the middle of the board 12 ctp instead of 14 ctp or 24 ctp?  No justification is given and no experiments using these metrics has been performed.

Get to 2800 on here and you will sell books Lyudmil.  Dont and you wont sell hardly anything.  Its that simple.

He would have to do it on camera, or he would get banned...

Which is why he wont do it. He cant. It looks to me like he is using one or more computers to play against other computers. Or maybe a computer plus himself against another computer. Then he comments on the games or analyzes them. Incredibly boring and of no use to someone like me. The last time he played he got beat by a 1900 but tied against a 2100. Given his concern about playing people (especially in a tournament) I think his ability and performance would be about 1800 or 1900. In reality though IM pfren is probably right, as of now his rating is probably zero. Unless they use his last known rating, which was about 2100.

He would do fine in any given tournament, even have a chance of winning, if he were allowed to use his computers.

You are accusing him of cheating,  although I don't see your evidence.

In fact it is very easy to come with such accusations since he is not playing here,  so he will not enjoy the protection that we all have against such accusations.

From a moral point of view although I would say it absolutely unfair to accuse him. I showed his games to an IM and he didn't tell me that LTs games were faked. Neither Smerdon seems to think that the games are faked.  Such accusations are mostly formulated here by rather weak players.

that's another example of your usual nonsense. IM pfren is one of the highest rated players in the whole forum and he is also extremely skeptical towards Lyudmil (skeptical is even an understatement).

 he could make an anon account and put it in the profile after the account is 2800 then PM me... who cares even if it gets banned its an anon account.  This is a really lame excuse.  Even if he got banned, he would be the guy who got banned for being too good when he revealed himself.  There is literally NO LEGITIMATE reason not to do it, so im assuming he can not do it.

That is brilliant, get your IP and Mac Addresses associated with a cheating scandal....