The Secret of Chess
Sort:
hitthepin
May 14, 2018
0
#5681
Torrubirubi , it is all of our faults that we continue arguing. It does not matter who started it: if we all continue to fight we are all equally guilty. Just my opinion.
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
torrubirubi wrote:
drmrboss wrote:
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.
Although it's been mentioned many times before, you may not have paid much attention. It's not a good idea (if you are selling something) to be telling members of the public they are stupid. If you want to sell books, you should probably stop posting here. Your latest string of comments are simply more reason for people to avoid what you are selling.
From your insistance that you could "destroy" an IM here, to your claim of 3000 strength again it's obvious very few people believe you anymore. I looked at a couple of your games when you played live people. They didn't look like 2100 caliber to me which is why I think you are probably closer to 1900. If you have improved from 12 years ago, or, if you think you are somewhere around 2500 then go play some rated games.
The more you say how good you are, and the more you refuse to prove what you say, the more unbelievable you are. Your computers are good though. They no doubt would win against the IMs here.
Your FIDE elo is 2095, the highest its ever been is, 2111 April 2004. You were an active tournament player about 20 years ago.
https://chess-db.com/public/pinfo.jsp?id=2905850
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
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.
I'll pick a random endgame, what is the result of this endgame Lyudmil? Doesn't matter who is to play.
Christopher_Parsons wrote:
torrubirubi wrote:
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.
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 ?
I have learned, know 20 000+ words in English, French, German, Russian, Italian, Spanish and Portuguese.
Still, as you easily recognise, my English language knowledge is rather poor for a native speaker.
Knowing 50 000+ words and expressions, when a language has at least 2 000 000 is, of course, minimalistic.
But that is about the best a non-native speaker can do.
Once you become a native speaker, you also change your nationality, of course.
It is as simple as that.
People are made by the language they speak.
May 14, 2018
0
#5687
As always, @IfPatriotGames has a very good point. And, as always, LT will find a way to work around it. I don’t mean any offense, but it’s true.
Iam2busy wrote:
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.
As long as there are top engines and improving, I will challenge them.
Unfortunately, the goddam writing prevents me from doing this now.
I am myself very interested how a 10 game match against top engine at LTC in an anechoic chamber and no distractions will end.
I would not bet the engine will beat me, no way.
I will struggle though against the very same engine under standard OTB conditions.
...Bg4 lines in the Grunfeld are no good. I think I could whup you Ljudmil, easy.
Jancotianno wrote:
Yenny-Leon wrote:
E_Luckov wrote:
... 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. ...
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
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.
Indeed.
I guess a second read could only be beneficial.
I would VERY MUCH like that someone tries to disprove some of the concetps in my book CHESSICALLY, with diagrams and games.
So far, no one has done this.
Any clue why?
I mean, I want someone to come along and say:
1) the pair of bishops when the opponent has no bishops is a menaingless concept, because this and that
2) twice aligned pawns are a meaningless concept, because this and that
3) permanent minor piece outposts are a menaingless concept, because this and that
So far, no one has done that.
People forget one thing - SF is a tool.
Fritz was also a tool 15 years ago, as Crafty was 30 years ago, during the time of Fischer and Karpov.
You certainly can achieve a lot more with a knife than you can with a nail-clipper, right?
So much blindness in this world...
May 14, 2018
0
#5693
Again, With my poor chess knowledge I am not able to evaluate TSoC. I only can say that for me the book is interesting and helpful. I can also compare the book with other works from my library, and TSoC contains a lot,of information that you can’t find in other books.
By the way, I guess you belong to the people who criticise the book / author without having work with the book, right?
If this is true, your analogy with flat Earth believers is interesting. These believers were known to „know“ the truth without considering the available evidence. The evidence concerning the value of LTs book you can find in the book, not in the forum. If you want to discuss,seriously the book you have to purchased and read one. Otherwise you are acting like flat Earth believers who don’t care about any evidence.
Your choice buddy.
By the way, I guess you belong to the people who criticise the book / author without having work with the book, right?
If this is true, your analogy with flat Earth believers is interesting. These believers were known to „know“ the truth without considering the available evidence. The evidence concerning the value of LTs book you can find in the book, not in the forum. If you want to discuss,seriously the book you have to purchased and read one. Otherwise you are acting like flat Earth believers who don’t care about any evidence.
Your choice buddy.
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
pfren wrote:
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.
Or maybe subzero.
I am happy with -600
Still, I will be able to easily beat you.
Dude.
If you say things like that, you have to be willing to back it up.
-----> Your FIDE elo is 2095, the highest its ever been is, 2111 April 2004. You were an active tournament player about 20 years ago.
And finally it's happened...i always knew it and now it's happened.
Mr. LT has a biograph..and he deserve this..good job.
Actually Ljudmil was quite a good player back in early 2000's, I dunno why he needs to make himself appear stronger than he actually is.
m_n0 wrote:
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
pfren wrote:
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.
Or maybe subzero.
I am happy with -600
Still, I will be able to easily beat you.
Dude.
If you say things like that, you have to be willing to back it up.
But you know he wont. He will claim the sun got in his eyes, he has an earache, it's too noisy, his anechoic chamber is on the fritz, etc. I had an ex like that. Full of bluster and nonsense. Big talker, but never did a thing. I'm always willing to give the benefit of the doubt, but both of these guys ran out of credibility a long time ago.
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
The evidence is clear, I am the only living person, so far, who is able to beat the top chess engines.
What more do you want?
SF is very easy to beat...what do you mean? I can beat 10 engines at once in a simul. Should I prove it with the edited pgns? I gave each engine 5 seconds for the whole game...excuse me *2 hours* 
for the whole game...with unlimited takebacks...excuse me *no takebacks*
May 14, 2018
0
#5699
I know. If a guy says “Hey, I’m 2100, take a look at my book,” then I’m interested. If a guy says “ Hey, I’m 3500, take a look at my book,” then I’ll think he’s BSing
