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 I get distracted by everything, by this post of yours, by mouse clicks, and even by the movement of the pieces on the chess board.
In order to write a book like mine, you should go like this, otherwise you will not write it.
The good news is people can learn from the book.
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.
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.
And who is the IM saying that?
His proof?
I am ready to scrutinise each and every move.
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 )
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!
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.
Come, stop your stupidity.
Even the dumbest and most imperceptive of people will improve 30 elos per year with hard labour.
I had 12 years for that.
Add that to the around 2200 rating I had in the past, and you get to 2560, in the WORST of scenarios.
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.
You still FAIL to see the difference, in spite of all explanations.
Performance depends on conditions.
Players have won 10 in a row and lost 10 in a row, depending on conditions.
Thanks, Dannyhume.
There is a second volume of the book available, with example games, unfortunately all unannotated.
I simply did not find the stamina to comment 803 games, some long 150+ moves...(that is how long chess engines play)
Currently I try to write popular stuff.
Once I manage to make a single book that will sell at least relatively well, so I don't have to constantly think about finance, I will get back to seious stuff and, hopefully, fill in all the gaps left in the works released so far.
So far, I have shared 10% or so of the knowledge I have.
90% remain, openings, delving into strategy, etc.
But for that, I need to create a single performing book.
So far, unsuccessfully.
People see I have already a range of books, but what they don't know is a book in the first 100 sells about 10 times better than a book in the first 1000, so having many books that don't sell basically means nothing.
I simply have to do that, if I have to continue.
Yes, it is nasty, when you know 70% of the book knowledge is hidden in the psqt tables, but ONLY I know which values are important and correspond to mainstream features and which not.
If I am unable to explain myself to the fullest, 2 things can happen in the future:
1) someone should take the care to review each and every single value in the tables to see what it stands for in real games; that might take years, bearing in mind most people seemingly can not handle even the concepts, let alone numericalising them on specific squares
2) someone will reinvent all the concepts 100 years from now
Of course, there is the slight chance a person will come up with a much better framework, but odds should be around 1:100 000 000 that happens in the immediate future.
I myself will probably never have the same conditions to significantly improve the existing knowledge base.
Such books are not written each and every day.
What was important for me while writing the book was the intellectual pursuit, the challenge of being there and seeing things no one else has.
That was the most important part for me.
If it was not challenging and new, I would not have taken to it.
Of course, everyone sees something valid only for him, that is my part of the road.
Now, what would be wrong with Trump? 
Except he is much wealthier than me(I wished it was the other way round).
Trump is not perfect, but are the ayatollahs?
The regimes in Russia, Syria and Iran, North Korea, etc., that are all tyrannical?
The world has gone complete nuts nowadays.
I agree with everything you say, apart from one thing: strong GMs might or might NOT perform better than me against top engiens, if they trained a lot.
Competition will be stiff.
I know, now people will come back with the 3500 rated story...
Come back where?
Since he has not played any rated games for the last 15+ years, his OTB/Rapid/Blitz rating is zero.
Same goes for his correspondence rating.
End of story.
Efrakse, efrakse, when will you go back to English?
Pray I don't return OTB soon, because I will DESTROY you.
Interesting, that after Capablanca, Fischer also repeated the statement chess is solved for him.
Which, of course, was not true, I bet Fischer would not know at least 1/3 of the things mentioned in 'The Secret of Chess'.
What do you think?
He simply did not have access to strong engines and very large databases then.
For example, was Fischer perfectly aware RRB vs RR in the endgame is won?
Or QB vs RR is won, while QN vs RR draw?
And that is just the simple endgame.
What about the much more complicated stages of the game?
I still feel sorry no top chess player, over 2700 say, seriously considered and reviewed my book.
This is real pity.
Nah, he is not the strongest anymore.
I played vs 3500 rated SF, in a 100 games match. I won 99, drew 1, 0 loss.
I calculated my rating and got a whooping
4420! rating.
Now, the only thing you need is a GM to verify your claims, which I already have.
You can not beat top engines like that.
there are 5 or 10 ways to do that and yuo should learn them all.
I am very much afraid you know none of the methods.
I had a zero rating too, during a period that I was inactive.
Current rating 2307, quite a bit lower than it was 20 years ago.
LT had a rating of 2095 some 12 years ago, inactive since then. So, his current rating is zero, simple as that.
Apparently you don't know the difference between rating, and strength. Too bad for you.
Well, my last Bulgarian rating was 2202, still ABOVE 2200.
Currently, still 2202, you might want to check with the BCF.
2202 might be relatively weak, but still not 0.
That was my rating when I was playing 1-2 average daily hours, mostly on weekends.
You really think playing for 1 and 10 daily hours comes down to the same?
I am a clever person, chess players are generally stupid, I come from other branch, of course, I will learn much easier.
I'll gladly give an honest review if given a free copy. However, based on the goings-on in this forum, I've decided not to spend my money on the book. As such, as mentioned time and time again, LT's detractors are merely commenting on LT's credentials, as well as his postings in this forum.
Check the beginning of the post. LT did advertising for his book. People immediately came with the "argument" "weak player =weak book".
They provoked him constantly until the point he began to react accordingly.
You need to read the first page of this thread again. There was a query about his fide rating and statement about people usually buying books if someone has a strong rating, at least FM strength but preferably GM strength (which is true btw) and Lyudmil seemed to take it personally and instead of acknowledging that fact, he immediately started being arrogant and cheeky. This is not how someone should react when trying to promote their product, not if they want to be successful.
Come on, NO ONE is able to beat SF, I AM.
I want more and more chess players, 2700 and above, to review my book.
I would be afraid to do that, if I thought the book is not worth it.
But now, I am NOT afraid of a 2900 player giving his opinion on the book, that is how things stand.
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).
That speaks VERY BAD for the low quality of chess of forum posters, if true.
Unfortunately, GM PfRen is too weak to get everything I get.