The Secret of Chess

The lack of respect began not with LT but with the guys who argued LT is not a GM so he should not publish a chess book (Karpov and Kasparov are in their eyes credible authors).

Probably the most influential chess coach and author, Mark Dvoretski, was not a GM, and several good authors were not titled players, but had a reputation as strong analysts (often players without time or money or the health to play tournaments and often using their skills to help IMs and GMs in their preparation, or strong correspondence players).

The idea that only a super GM is able to write an useful chess book is similar to the idea that only former tennis pros will be good tennis coaches - but some famous tennis coaches never played a single pro match.

It could be argued that great chess players don't necessarily make the best teachers or authors. There are a list of reasons for that. Great learning ability and understanding, doesn't necessarily translate into great teaching ability. There are as many bad teachers as their students by percentage. They may be a bit stuck on themselves and put their own ideas ahead of a more sound approach. That could be debated and I am sure it has regarding other chess books. Also, a top GM would perhaps feel a bit in need to be secretive. They wouldn't want to publish their MO. Also there are linguistic considerations. A great chess author might only be only be a CM or FM, but can speak French, English and Russian, so they have a way of articulating things in a more concise manner. Even Lyudmil himself struggles a bit in this area.  Perhaps some of these reason working together is why Magnus Carlsen seemed so elusive or poorly spoken in post game interviews about his games of positions from those games. A great talent like Carlsen might even play on instinct sometimes and not even know best how to explain his rationale for his choices. Many humans don't understand the best engine moves. If that is what it takes to be really good at teaching, perhaps this is an advantage Lyudmil has ?

Just out of curiosity I went back and read the entire first page of this topic. I think part of the problem is you might be starting from a position where you believe Lydumil somehow earned respect before it was deserved. Nobody attacked him, but a few did question his credentials. Which a customer or potential customer has every right to do and should be expected. A buyer has an obligation to find out details before spending his or her money.

The problem is Lyudmil quickly showed he did not deserve or earn respect because starting on the very first page he questioned his customers motives. Very bad idea. And then he went on to make one of those claims people keep talking about, saying that he is 3 times stronger now than he was 12 years ago when he was about 2200. This all on the first page. Like many have suggested (it might pay to listen to the customer) if he had just simply said he isn't a GM, isn't GM strength, but instead has displayed some very unique ideas. If he kept the conversation about how his ideas can help the average player and NOT about him he probably would have done much better. Instead, even starting on the first page he said grandmasters would not understand his book. It's reasonable for people to immediately think he has an attitude problem.

It reacted to the provocation. If you follow the thread you will how often he was offended in every possible way, as for example of being a cheater.

Really sad are those people giving him one star in Amazon to be sure LT would not sell any books anymore, reviews written by people who didn't read his books.

I can hear Lara the arguments "It is his fault, how could he dare to write a book not being a super GM".

And I am surprised by the perseverance of some of those people, popping up regularly in this thread to continue the attacks.

My own motivation is that I appreciate his books, I am learning with them more than with any other book I read before. I feel he deserves more respect for his work.

I am sure if a guy like Dvoretsky would in the past had tried to make advertisement for one of his books, people would show the same kind of disrespect as towards LT. "Why do you think somebody would buy your crap book if you even are not a GM?" Or "Why do you think a strong GM would have something to learn from a GM?" and similar "arguments".

Most players here would probably fail,to beat Stockfish even with a rook up, me too, so they simply can't believe that LT is able to defeat SF regularly.

Following this line of thinking he has to be a cheater and his book has to be useless.

Stop this nonsense, everyone!

Listen up. I don't think he has to be a GM to write a good book.

It would help his sales if he did, because that is how some people think, like it or not.

But it's okay if he doesn't.

Now why do I "attack" LT then?

Firstly, I'm not attacking LT. I'm questioning his claims. And LT ends up taking things too personally. And claims that we are attacking him, which leads to his supports saying that we attacked him. That's not true now, is it?

Now, which claims am I questioning? Well, the claim that he can beat Stockfish, mainly.

I have yet to hear of a player who has beaten Stockfish, and out of the blue, a man (who hasn't played chess in a while, and isn't even close to the rating of GMs who can't beat stockfish) claims that he has done it multiple times! Am I not allowed to at least question this?

Of course there are other claims, but his supporters say that he was being sarcastic. Which leads me to another point.

How do you know what LT is being sarcastic about? Are you sure he was being sarcastic? LT himself has yet to verify that he was being sarcastic.

 

I assume you know nothing about Dvoretsky's life/career...

Anyway, if you are a blind believer, well, good look with that.

 

Thanks to this approach, people believe that the Earth is flat or that man never landed on the moon. There are some "forgotten geniuses" that even "can prove that"... there are plenty of pages, groups, even some books.... You can't just dismiss all that "evidence", right?

 

 

 

Being curious enough about a book to actually read it is "blind belief"?  Or makes me a "follower" (and Mr. Tsvetkov a "prophet"?), as others have implied?  That's so melodramatic.   I'm reading many books, but don't consider a follower of those authors.  If you really want to know what's in a book, read it, instead of relying on biased uninformed hearsay.  Or at least read a review by someone who has actually read it, such GM Smerdon and others in the case of TSOC, the subject of this thread.

 

And what do "flat earth" and moon landing conspiracies have to do with a book about chess advice?  Nothing, it's a chess book!

 

• GM Smerdon review:  en.chessbase.com/post/the-secret-of-chess
• IM Gerard Welling review:  chess.com/blog/Swordfish55/review-the-secret-of-chess
• IM Herman Grooten review:  Secretofchess.com/files/17772/ckfinder/images/Review%20on%20The%20Secret%20of%20Chess.pdf

• Russell Sherwood (Welsh Correspondence Chess Federation):  welshccf.org.uk/article/325

 Hi luckov,

you too 0 games and 0 at all but only here for Mr. LT. 

Crusade for the chess truth is growing and there's no reason to give up a good ( more or less...) reason for a healthy lynching.

And mostly important --->it is so rare to be right that when it's seems to be possible why not throw ourself over like so many hungry dogs.

Now that these reviews are a few months old it would be interesting to see if any of them are still reading the book and are applying it in their games, or if they've moved on and forgotten about it.

Still, some times of the year Amazon seems to sell less regardless of the author.

Thanks Faith003.

As said, h5-h4 has been drawing for the length of 63 moves.

Really no one noticing this?

 

Hawaians will soon burn in fire, no need to worry about their time zone.

Indeed, if I write 2 words in reply, it takes 5 seconds.

Posting an avatar, looking for the picture, saving, etc., takes at least 30 seconds and more.

25 seconds lost in vain.

Precisely.

Once I get rid of NOISE I will show everyone what I am capable of.

The point is, I can not get rid of NOISE, and the world can not either.

Some people thrive the bigger the noise, although the theory goes humankind develops into a direction of more thoughtful entities, which would requite LESS noise.

Strange...

Those people would like to see me play under noisy conditions to lose all my concentration and perform badly.

Really they would.

But the point is that IS NOT what counts.

What counts is how good you are under OPTIMAL conditions.

One way or another, the important thing is Trump recognised Jerusalem.

Anything more we could possibly wish for?

I already told you: I am 3000 and the book 3500.

What is so difficult to understand?

Indeed, so what can we do?

I play at 3000 in complete quiet/concentration, 500 points lower under average conditions and 1000 points lower or maybe even 1500 in a discotheque.

Which is the objective measurement?

 

I am a competitive personality, I LIKE competing(or maybe did in the past), under FAIR conditions.

A person who scores 5-6 goals in a soccer game each and every time could not possibly be bad at competing.

My problem is I got too carried away with intellectual pursuits and now I can not find a quiet enough surrounding to normally play.

Or maybe subzero.

I am happy with -600

Still, I will be able to easily beat you.

You obviously did not read the whole thread.

My values SUCCEEDED in SF, repeatedly.

there is proof and evidence for that, material one.

Knight behind pawn in the mg is, say, 12 cps, because it is around 2 times LESS significant factor than a doubled pawn, and that is worth around 20+ cps.

Really difficult to understand?

Why is my work worth and superior, much much superior?

I will tell you.

Because I consider MANY factors.

Everybody has pair of bishops as a positional factor, right?

But I have more:

- I have standard pair of bishops

- I have pair of bishops when the enemy lacks a bishop, which is worth more

- I have pair of bishops when both kings are castled on different sides of the board, etc.

My knowledge is simply MORE complicated, truer and much more advanced.

As simple as that.

You are crazy, man.

Computers are not like horses, you know.