The Secret of Chess

It go a long way to help prove the OPs credibility to this community if he actually played some games on chess.com and beat some strong players, just saying.....but I'm keeping an open mind. There are so many people on our forums here who have not even played any games, that we as a community have become numb to them.

So you did not read the whole thread, from where it is clear I have beaten grandmasters over the board?

How can you post in a thread, when you don't read the whole thread?

My secrets are THE SECRET.

A lot of hard work has gone into it, the measurements are based on statistically relevant number of games, involving the top engines, so I guess something useful could result out of it.

One thing I understand only now, though, is that indeed, it is very difficult, even for GMs, to fully understand some of the concepts.

For example, how can one be certain that 2 minor pieces + rook almost always win against queen + 2 pawns? Especially in more complex positions?

Someone might say a random guess, but this claim is statistically backed up by a large number of top engine games. As humans in general play material imbalances rather poor next to engines, even GMs will have considerable difficulties with the concept and its implementation over the board.

One thing the book has needed is much more explanations, and example games, then many more would be convinced, but I guess this is something to think for the future.

Another lie.

How can everything you say be wrong?

It does not square in any way. It is because you attacked me on no grounds at all that I supposed you simply don't like to investigate things deeper. But then you also seem to have a second mind.

Indeed, learning through patterns is the much faster way, in case you know many useful patterns, you can do without many other things, even without learning any opening theory at all, because the patterns will be choosing the right opening moves for you.

But, as Smerdon says, it takes some effort on the part of the reader, as remembering all those patterns is not that easy.

I am fully convinced learning through pattern recognition is tremendously superior to any other approach.

The excerpts are on my site:  http://www.secretofchess.com/  , see Excerpts

But the Paypal purchase option does not work, just Amazon, I have to update the site.

No strong players here, bud.

 https://www.365chess.com/players/Ludmil_Tsvetkov

okay, I found a record of some of your games, looks like you play at expert level, but not GM

Clearly Lyudmil is not doing himself any favors by how he presents himself here, but I also read Smerdon's review today (who I do respect as an insightful thinker and chess player) and he had positive things to say about the book. 

Your original comment above wasn't directed at me.  Apparently you're confusing me with someone else.  I haven't attacked you.  In fact, I defended you against a post I considered misleading above (#40).  I simply asked where the independent evidence is to support your claims.  In a previous post you said the evidence is clear but you haven't provided any evidence.  And I can find no evidence elsewhere that you've beaten the top chess engines.

This is getting ridiculous. You say you can beat Stockfish and I'm the liar? Ok, buddy.

No strong players here?  Most of the top GMs play here, including Magnus Carlsen.  You really expect people to believe they're not strong enough for you to play?

+1.  The book seems interesting.  The author clearly is passionate about the work but his aggressive tit-for-tat posts detract from his presentation.  While it's tough for some folks to deal with all the trolls, I would have thought a former diplomat would handle things differently. 

Regardless, the price on Amazon for the paper version seems a little steep for what seems to be an unknown work.  While it may be worth the money, it's a little too much for me to take a flier on it without a greater number of reviews.. 

I don't believe you beat stockfish in a classical game, and anyone with a brain will agree. Engines are stronger than  players and can  see a tree of 30 moves ahead and can  calculate millions of moves/second. If you had that calculating power and speed in your brain you were in the top 10. 

Do you also see the year: 2004?

That makes precisely 13 years from now.

The evidence is when you play through the games of the 3 parts of 'Human versus Machine', and check the relevant positions.

Neither Stockfish, nor Komodo understand them, they assess most positions in their favour, or equal, when it is actually the human side that is winning. Many GMs don't fully understand them too, just ask some of them.

You see what GM Smerdon writes: 'Well, I don't know', 'To be honest, I am not sure', etc.

If those games contain moves that no engine and GM sees, who has actually played and created those games? Any guess? An extraterrestrial?

As said, I am doing laboratory work under as quiet conditions as I can find. Too much noise while playing in tournaments certainly does not help concentration, nor scientific approach to chess.

You said I have 'generated' some information.

That is a lie, because all sites where my name is present, are authoritative ones, like Amazon, computer chess wiki, etc.

On other hand, you can't be certain if I can beat Stockfish or not, as you simply don't have enough data.

Indeed, I might look as a sketchy door-to-door salesman, but the insurance I am offering is not bogus and can even save your life.