The Secret of Chess

Why make another account when he can do it with his own account?

Why can't he just click "live chess" and play a game?

because if he loses on an anon account he can just ditch it and it wont be traced back to him.  hell he could even do it on another website...  really wtf

Until he signs up for a new account or logs into his current account and the IP and Mac Address is matched to an account with a high instance of moves matching engines...

lol

Mind if I borrow your argument structure for something?

 

Lyudmil is claiming many things,  although I don't see his evidence.

In fact it is very easy to come with such claims since he is not playing here,  so he will not be able to be disproved by accusations.

From a moral point of view although I would say it absolutely ridiculous to lie about such things. An IM appears to think Lyudmil's games were faked. 

 

Now, I'm not "fixing" your argument, I'm just saying that, with a few changes, you can argue the other side with it.

 

It is very easy to think as fake execpt his believers. Why?. He is saying super human level, 3000-3500 rating, above 100 million chess players.

Likewise, if someone claim he can run faster than Usain Bolt, show it on public. ( video recording will be assumed as fake, same as his pgns )

This is simply not true.  Officially speaking a player will keep his last rating after quitting play  in official chess tournaments. Or a player will keep his title his whole life even if for some reason the rating goes dramatically down, as often happens with old players or players for example who had a stroke.  This "zero rating-claim" fits the general attitude of attacking LT. But it has nothing to do with facts.

I agree with everybody here who are unhappy with some of LT's  exagerat claims in the forum. But to counter attack this with similar exaggerated or unfair statements is not okay.  We don't know his potential rating now.  Period. 

Tell me,  do you don't get tired of posting over in over the same thing here?  The claim on he being the strongest player in the world was meant as a joke, a reaction to insults and provocations. And you and all the other people are this specific claim as it would be formulated as a serious statement? Reducing his skills and chess knowledge to this claim?  Come on! 

Well, I have common sense. I wont believe someone claiming beyond human level such as

1.Run faster than Formula One

2.Fly in the air.

 

It is up to you. Believe it or not.

And your statement is a further example of your tendency to manipulate and distort claims. 

I wrote "mostly", not "exclusively". I will start from the premise that you know what "mostly" means, and that you are intelligent enough to understand how the word affects my statement.

If this is true, I can only conclude that you are again distorting the facts and somehow hopping that nobody will note. 

 

See #6099

How do you know this particular claim was meant as a joke? I certainly could not tell it was a joke given the sincerity and also the amount of times he made similar claims. What about his claim that he wrote a good book? His tone was identical. Is that claim a joke too?

Regarding your other claim that I accused Lyudmil of cheating. I never accused him of any such thing. I said it looks to me like he is using a computer (or a computer and himself) to play against another computer. As far as I know there is nothing wrong or immoral about that. I'm sure many grandmasters and ordinary players have done the same thing and I"m sure some have written opinions on the results. I would imagine computer programmers play one computer against another computer all the time, to learn about what happens as a result. That is just very boring to me and I really dont care about how one computer plays against another computer. I think chess is a social game and I'm more interested in how people play against other people.

Your other point was a good one, but it doesn't really help your cause. We do not know Lyudmils potential rating now. Well, we dont know your potential rating either. Or mine. Or the world champions. Or anyones. I'll take your word for it, that his rating is what it was after quitting offical tournaments. Which was about 2100. Given that was many years ago, and given his extreme reluctance to play against people, I assume that rating is a bit high. In real life conditions (as he admits) the toll of noise, distractions,not being in a chamber of some kind would probably result in a rating of about 1800 or 1900. Now if he could tap his oracle potential or access the other dimension he talked about, then maybe he could break through the 2100 level. So until he does that, or until he proves any of his claims, or until he stops making such ridiculous claims, I will keep assuming he is just commenting on games played between two machines.

If LT says he plays against engines and regularly defeats them,  he means of course he does it without the help of other engines or other tricks.  From this obvious point of view is any statement claiming that LT is not winning through own skills an implicit accusation of cheating.  

Do you see,  I don't know exactly about the conditions of these games,  but I would first start from the premise that games are real. I do the same concerning my opponent's games. I only will accuse somebody of cheating if I see evidence for this. 

What do you mean by your first sentence? Are you implying that if he says something, he means it? Are you saying if he says something, it must be true? Please. You said his claim of 3500 was a joke, why is his claim that he alone is playing the computer not also a joke? What's the difference?

You even admit you do not know the conditions of his games. Yet you assume in this particular case (playing a computer) that he must be telling the truth this time. Dont you see the problem here? When someone exaggerates so much and so often, you have to start from the position that this claim is an exaggeration too.

Again, there is nothing wrong or immoral about playing two computers against each other, people do it all the time to learn. It just appears to me that when you, or he, say that he is playing the computer it might be another one of his exaggerations. It might be him actually running the computer, which to him means he is doing it, he is responsible. To someone who thinks he is an oracle or has access to another dimension or thinks he has a 3500 ability, using one computer to play against another computers isn't such a big deal. It's quite tame compared to some of his other claims.

So, what does LT actually claim to be able to do? What's "sarcastic" and what isn't? How can we tell the difference? After all, claiming to win Stockfish multiple times is similar to claiming to be the best player.

Reading this entire thread takes more time and costs more money (electric bill) than buying the book.

Lyudmil, does your book have hundreds of practice problems with detailed solutions to allow one to apply and test the secret knowledge in your book? If not, then are you going to write a companion workbook, either with such problems or where you show your method as applied to games against others, including engines? Even Nimzowitsch nearly a century ago had Chess Praxis to His System. Without these, your book will at best be the equivalent of memorizing a dictionary and grammar book to learn how to communicate, or second best merely an interesting chess read.

But I went ahead and bought your book anyway ... the marketing and catchy title got to me.

Only because most of the best players in the world lose against strong engines doesn’t mean necessarily that a much weaker player can do better with engines.

Super GMs make their money playing against humans. They use engines for their prep, but to win against humans.

LT spend a lot of time playing and analysing the games against engines.

Only engines.

He is highly specialised in this task.

Few people would not agree with the statement “Roger Federer is a strong tennis player”.

But if somebody spend decades to improve a single aspect of the game, like for example using a ball machine to hit balls to a certain target on the court, this person could get much better in this task than Federer.

Because Federer doesn’t earn money hitting targets on the court.

He is specialised in winning against humans.

If Super GMs would put such effort to win against engines as LT did, they would be very good in this task, much better than LT, I guess.

But LT is the only guy crazy enough to spend so much time playing against engines.

There is nothing impossible in what he is doing.

His skills only reflect his dedication and perseverance.

He should be respected for being able to do this.

But most people prefer to show disrespect and insult him.

And he insults back.

Making this thread a sad example how humans can be disrespectful to each other.

The best prove (for me) that LT is playing against engines (and not cheating by using engines in this task) is the fact that he struggle a lot to defeat a new released version of SF.

If he would be a cheater he would just say “today I won three games against the new SF”.

But instead he was posting losing games or draws, or winning odd games.

But of course most people (who lack LT’s enthusiasm and love for the game) probably would say “this is part of the fake”.

It is cheap to accuse people of cheating. It costs nothing, just a little bit time.

Especially if they do something that we will never be able to do.

No, LT is not an easy person.

But I accept him as he is.

Even if he likes Trump!

Nobody is perfect.

"If Super GMs would put such effort to win against engines as LT did, they would be very good in this task, much better than LT, I guess."

"But LT is the only guy crazy enough to spend so much time playing against engines."

The problem with these statements is that he has given absolutely no proof.  He "claims" to have done this.  He "claims" to have routinely beaten chess engines.  He "claims" to know the "secrets" of chess.  When in fact there is not a single shred of proof.  Personally, I dont care either way.  I hope he makes a fortune with his books.  And again...the main issue is his refusal to show any proof.  Sure his book says he had the engine set at certain parameters, but is that proof?  Of course not.  

If a scientist published a paper "claiming" to have solved the mysteries of the universe, but supplied no proof, and no facts, how do you think that would be taken?  

Despite it all, the bunny has to give credit to ludo boy for having an extremely active and long lived thread that does not rely on spam or counting or indeed's or lol's or hmm's or blank postings.  The bunny is impressed.

If somebody rated 900 will accuse you of cheating in your games here what would you say? Ok, you will contact the support because you enjoy protection against such accusations here. But let's assume you can' contact the support. What would you do? Would you try to offer scientific evidence for your fair games? Like showing that you have inaccurate or blunders in your games? And what would you do if the guy say this is not a scientific evidence, but only shows that you make intentional blunders in still winning positions? 

You have to offer evidence of cheating. 

Not the opposite.

I know, now people will come back with the 3500 rated story and argue it is all about unfounded claims, right? Ignoring that LT more than once told us that he thinks his rating is far below 3500.

But nobody point to these statements.

As they don' fit to the attempts to attack him.