The Secret of Chess

novacek
OP seems to be on vacation too, right?
GMRVSYash

On which site you are 1750? Not tryna be rude but the trolls on this thread are WTF inducing. Gotta make sure. Im not sure about the fine art but the results is showed were for the secret of chess. Most 2000s said that it was 2000-2100 stuff with a bunch of invented terms. If SF doesn't consider it, and its not in one of those blindspot style positions, theres probably a reason. But hey I am TRASH so ehh. 

novacek
1750 IRL
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov
novacek wrote:
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
novacek wrote:
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
novacek wrote:

What are you doing to market your books and try to improve sales?

Hello Novacek.

How are you doing?

Isn't that sufficient marketing?

I already managed to sell one to you.

What are your first impressions?

 

Yes, you have sold one to me. But I am just a nobody from nowhere. If you're book is as good as you claim it to be (I have not read enough yet to provide worthwhile feedback although I do certainly intend to), would you not want it to reach a wider audience than you can from a few forums? I think you could be making a lot more from your hard work than you currently are.

Will be interesting to learn what you think later on.

Yeah, it's a heavy book, needing plentiful time to assimilate.

Precisely at this time of year, I don't think I can sell a lot more, although I certainly would be most happy to.

Everybody seems to be on vacation, or lurking in the dark.

Whatever that means.

To tell you the truth - yes, as things stand currently, I really think I WORKED TOO MUCH FOR NOTHING.

It's an unpleasant feeling, but I have to grapple with it.

Life isn't easy.

Then make it easier for yourself by either promoting the book more or getting someone professional to do it for you. It would be a shame if all your work went to waste, since it is a fine book.

Hello.

I tried to publish my first book, "The Secret of Chess", with various publishers, and all of them refused point-blank.

You know, I am not a GM.

You really like the book?

Wow, that makes me so happy!

Thank you for the kind words.

That's what makes me going: some kind words on the part of the reading public.

If you like it, then recommending it to others will do the trick - lol.

The best promotion is when people share with each other - this beats advertising and everything.

Reviews are also good, but people will need half a year to read this book.

I am really so happy - I invested so much effort, and knowing someone appreciates is really acting like a balm.

Keep me posted on your impressions.

novacek

I plan on posting a review as a blog post here on chess.com. I'm about a third of the way through the book again but when I'm finished I'll read it maybe 3 or even 5 times more. It's fantastic! Oh, and how could I forget about the Secret of Chess? I'm struggling with this one a bit (maybe because of the textbook style that has been mentioned a few times already), although I will read it properly when I can. I know that to enjoy it I need to devote my full attention to it.  Maybe I could directly message you about this further.

 

I know that this has been suggested a million times before but maybe it really is time to start seeking playing challenges once again. Once you feel recovered from writing TFAOC, of course. It would improve the reputation of all your books to no end. But this has already been debated endlessly, and is starting to have a 'brick wall' feel about it tongue.png

 

Keep up the good work.

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov
novacek wrote:

I'm up to Game 12 or so and am starting to notice an quite an increase in quality. Some of the lines you are giving, in the opening for example, are very logical and interesting and often aren't even considered by Stockfish.

 

Perhaps this is not the best move, but it is a very reasonable suggestion. Moments like this are becoming more frequent as the book progresses and I am enjoying reading it!

Indeed, after game 12, games are becoming much more interesting, also the comments, and I am happy you have noticed it!

I am really happy you like the book.

Very much hope other people will also like it, in their own way.

When it comes to chess analysis and positional understanding, I really hate boasting, but I have been analysing all possible types of positions, from extremely open ones, to extremely closed setups, for years on end with Stockfish and the other top engines, so pretty certain of my assessments.

When I add to my intuitive grasp the invaluable help of Stockfish, with which I have been dissecting all the positions, it's really difficult to make a mistake...

So, this is a book of knowledge, before all.

Yesterday, I just looked at Nunn's Understanding Chess, and, guess what, no matter he is a GM, he DOES NOT censure the Alekhine Defence, thinking it playable, which it ISN'T really.

Similarly, he thinks the Notebook/Triangle variation of the QG is acceptable and solid for black, which it isn't.

Etc., etc.

Of course, I am not a GM, but you can fully rely on most of my analysis, as it is the product of 10 years of meticulous investigations with the top engines.

And you know what?

When Nunn was analysing - and he admits doing this with engines - 20 years ago the top engine Fritz stood at 2800 elos or so.

Compare that with current Stockfish's 2300 strength.

Quite a difference, right?

500 elos.

That's a lot.

So, I can safely claim the analysis in my book far exceeds most of other books' dissections.

 

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov
GMRVSYash wrote:

But heres the thing. Thats literally just 2000 level garbage. Not worth your time, at all. Good for a 1200, SURE. But honestly, youll peak at 16-1700. There were like a few who were at the 1800 level and most said "well thats obvious". Most reported DETRIMENTAL effects, and some said no change. Infact, only 2 showed improvement. By chance, is this your first chess book?

That not true, you continue lying as usual.

Many people have reported improvements, and that is visible from the feedback.

By the way, you are talking of The Secret of Chess, which is more mathematical in nature, and my last book, The Fine Art of Chess, is quite a different work.

Aren't you aware of that?

Those are 2 separate books.

 

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov
novacek wrote:
GMRVSYash wrote:

Also, by "not considered by SF" did you see it yourself? Or take Lyudmil's word for it? Because if you took his word for it, then its probably not true. He's known for lying so...

I was going through that particular game with SF running as I went, for a change. This morning I let it mull over the position for quite a while - at a depth of 36 - and it did not consider ...Qa5. In fact, it wasn't even in its top 5 options. It seemed to prefer pawn moves like ...a6 ...b6 or ...h6 instead. Lyudmil's suggestion surely can not be an error, and it certainly seems to follow a logical train of thought. It's not worthy of '!!' or even '!' , but I think it's quite interesting. Try to separate art from artist- even if you don't like Lyudmil as a person, some of the things he is discussing are worthy of attention.

That's how I proceed when analysing a position and deciding on the optimal continuation:

If the position is easy, then best moves are obvious to everyone, engines and humans alike.

With more difficult positions, I am picking the 4-5 reasonable tries, and then, in case I am uncertain which one is best, I am feeding all those separate tries to Stockfish, going until a certain depth.

The move with the highest score will take the podium and first prize, naturally.

Now, there is a catch that frequently I'll have to prune based on pattern recognition.

What is cloudy to some, is perfectly clear to me, on many an occasion, simply because I have analysed such positions to great depth with Stockfish.

...Qa5 gives quite decent score after a while.

Please note, that Stockfish's output at the root, and analysing from a later stage, 1, 2 or 5 moves later, is quite different on occasion, too.

The closer to the root, the more precisely an engine evaluates and searches, but its choices tend to change with depth.

So, I have basically tried all of those moves before reaching the conclusion ...Qa5 might be best.

Pattern recognition also helps prolifically - you know, the juxtaposition of queen and rook, x-ray attack etc.

 

 

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov

One caveat is my recommendations may not be optimal for blitz, as sometimes may involve more deep-running lines, but for OTB chess and analysis, they certainly are extremely well-suited.

 

GM_ThugLife
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:

One caveat is my recommendations may not be optimal for blitz, as sometimes may involve more deep-running lines, but for OTB chess and analysis, they certainly are extremely well-suited.

 

 

results to back up this claim?

 

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov
novacek wrote:

I plan on posting a review as a blog post here on chess.com. I'm about a third of the way through the book again but when I'm finished I'll read it maybe 3 or even 5 times more. It's fantastic! Oh, and how could I forget about the Secret of Chess? I'm struggling with this one a bit (maybe because of the textbook style that has been mentioned a few times already), although I will read it properly when I can. I know that to enjoy it I need to devote my full attention to it.  Maybe I could directly message you about this further.

 

I know that this has been suggested a million times before but maybe it really is time to start seeking playing challenges once again. Once you feel recovered from writing TFAOC, of course. It would improve the reputation of all your books to no end. But this has already been debated endlessly, and is starting to have a 'brick wall' feel about it

 

Keep up the good work.

Man, you are fast!

I'm blushing.

So so happy.

Thank you.

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov

Here the link again, in case someone is interested.

https://www.amazon.com/Fine-Art-Chess-Lyudmil-Tsvetkov-ebook/dp/B07SPFTJSZ/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=fine+art+chess&qid=1560788164&s=books&sr=1-1

GM_ThugLife

if your book was priced more comparably to the toilet paper I can get at my local super market, I'll might give it a try.

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov
GM_ThugLife wrote:
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:

One caveat is my recommendations may not be optimal for blitz, as sometimes may involve more deep-running lines, but for OTB chess and analysis, they certainly are extremely well-suited.

 

 

results to back up this claim?

 

Lol.

Carlsen employed my recommendation to play 1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. g3, followed by e4!, to claim the WC title versus Caruana.

Carlsen employs the recommended by me Czech Benoni with black.

Carlsen frequently uses the so called "central bind", consisting of the e4 + c4 pawns (e5 + c5 for black), in his games.

Patterns rule.

Also on occasion the pointed pawn chains concept, also my own suggestion.

Shouldn't we align ourselves to what the world champions, current ones the better, are using?

 

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov

And here the "pointed pawn chain" concept illustrated courtesy of a Bobby Fischer game.

 

novacek
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
novacek wrote:

I plan on posting a review as a blog post here on chess.com. I'm about a third of the way through the book again but when I'm finished I'll read it maybe 3 or even 5 times more. It's fantastic! Oh, and how could I forget about the Secret of Chess? I'm struggling with this one a bit (maybe because of the textbook style that has been mentioned a few times already), although I will read it properly when I can. I know that to enjoy it I need to devote my full attention to it.  Maybe I could directly message you about this further.

 

I know that this has been suggested a million times before but maybe it really is time to start seeking playing challenges once again. Once you feel recovered from writing TFAOC, of course. It would improve the reputation of all your books to no end. But this has already been debated endlessly, and is starting to have a 'brick wall' feel about it

 

Keep up the good work.

Man, you are fast!

I'm blushing.

So so happy.

Thank you.

Anything to say about my proposal that you return to playing in the near future?

lfPatriotGames
novacek wrote:
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
novacek wrote:

I plan on posting a review as a blog post here on chess.com. I'm about a third of the way through the book again but when I'm finished I'll read it maybe 3 or even 5 times more. It's fantastic! Oh, and how could I forget about the Secret of Chess? I'm struggling with this one a bit (maybe because of the textbook style that has been mentioned a few times already), although I will read it properly when I can. I know that to enjoy it I need to devote my full attention to it.  Maybe I could directly message you about this further.

 

I know that this has been suggested a million times before but maybe it really is time to start seeking playing challenges once again. Once you feel recovered from writing TFAOC, of course. It would improve the reputation of all your books to no end. But this has already been debated endlessly, and is starting to have a 'brick wall' feel about it

 

Keep up the good work.

Man, you are fast!

I'm blushing.

So so happy.

Thank you.

Anything to say about my proposal that you return to playing in the near future?

That question has been asked before. The answer is always the same. He feels he is too busy writing books, looking at how computers play chess, and writing in forums. The reality is he will probably never play competitive chess again, because he knows he would get clobbered by players who ignore his claims. If everyone read his books and used his ideas, sure, he would see some success. But they dont, and that's why they are better.

it's ultimately the reason so many people dont take him seriously.