First game was played at TC 2' + 2'' for the engine, and 5 times as much for me, with Komodo using contempt(hence the strange evaluations, Larry has always claimed Komodo plays better against humans with contempt, so we tried that out, and I alloted myself more time to avoid any unpleasant tactics).
The second game was played at fully equal TC, 5' + 3' for both opponents, with Stockfish pondering, so you see it is possible to beat the tops even with fully equal conditions.
Tsvetkov,
I give you benefit of doubt and am willing to believe you. But, wouldn't it be more convincing to play some games here on chess.com and show how great your skill is? You can find some titled players whom you can challenge for a blitz game. If you can defeat 3-4 titled players, then your claims will have more credence. But, if you avoid playing any games, then you can't blame people for not believing your claims.
Lol I just read this whole thread. This guy is a joke. 1000 bucks says he's not even who he claims to be. Just another dumb troll that doesn't even play here.
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.
+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..
Thanks for your feedback, Euler's-Knot, trolls are difficult to handle, you know, regardless of one's background and experience.
The more passionate you are, the harder it is to stay calm.
Well, initially, the ebook was priced at 8 and the paperback at 18, and then I experimented a bit with both values, only to ascertain it makes no difference at all.
The paperback migth be steep curently indeed, but those 300 pages are actually A4 format, so some
500 pages in a standard book(9/6 or 10/7).
I understand, hence my post. Still, I presume your promotion of the book is better achieved through placing it in the hands of the proper chess cognoscenti than battling it out on this forum. Clearly you've done some of that type of promotion already. That takes time to see results.
I'm a bit old school; if I'm going to buy a book, it will be paper. e-books are ok if free, but I don't find the medium as conducive to learning as text in print, so I don't pay for them.
My gut tells me you are on to something, but as you can tell from my rating, that hunch comes more from education and experience than it does my current chess playing abilities.
You clearly can't beat Stockfish. If you can, then why don't you play against chess.com computer level-4? What a scam. Go ahead, buddy. Play some games against computer 4 using that account and I will believe you. But we all know you not gonna do that, right?
Tsvetkov,
I give you benefit of doubt and am willing to believe you. But, wouldn't it be more convincing to play some games here on chess.com and show how great your skill is? You can find some titled players whom you can challenge for a blitz game. If you can defeat 3-4 titled players, then your claims will have more credence. But, if you avoid playing any games, then you can't blame people for not believing your claims.
Why should I play here, only to suit you?
There are thousands of places to play.
I will easily get to 2500 at blitz, but I am much stronger analytically.
That is what I am offering, my painstaking analysis, and not my blitz skills.
I actually, hate playing online, because:
- there are cheaters
- there is time lag, you can lose games just because of that
- more importantly, chess.com is very slow for me, some 'long-running scripts' are constantly slowing down my access to the forum, and I guess it will be the same with playing.
I am not avoiding challenges, not at all, just I am not in the mood for playing now(too many other things to do), and besides, as already pointed out, I am much stronger analytically.
Hey guys I could be 3000 blitz if I wanted to be, I just don't feel like proving it.
^ Lol me too. I can beat Kasparov but you guys have to trust me lmfao
Lol I just read this whole thread. This guy is a joke. 1000 bucks says he's not even who he claims to be. Just another dumb troll that doesn't even play here.
Did you conclude that from the 2 games I posted?
Why did not you do the hard work instead to check more closely the 2 games?
If you do so, you will see that, in the first game, Komodo plays 28...Qc5 with an evaluation of 59cps(evaluations are included). Then, on the very next move, after white has played 29.Rf6!, it suddenly shows 560cps white advantage.
So score jumped 500cps, 5 full pawns in a single move. Obviously, Komodo simply did not see Rf6 coming. As simple as that, no cheating, bud, better check the facts closer.
In the same game, for a very long time, up until maybe move 26 or so, Komodo shows black advantage, i.e. it is better, then, suddenly, score changes by a full pawn again. As there are no tactics, Komodo has simply evaluated the position wrongly. You certainly can beat an engine that evaluates the position wrongly. No cheating, bud, rest assured, and make your homework.
Take also the second game, there are no evaluations in there, but, if you check the fens, you will see that Stockfish does not know it is worse for the whole game. So, I have used some engine weakness and outplayed it. Naturally. No top engine sees my moves either, and I guess many GMs will also doubt they are best, so why are you talking to me about cheating?
Check your facts, do your homework and then we can speak as equals.
You see I am able to recognise an awful lot of details, so I may have a point, what details did you recognise?
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.
+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..
Thanks for your feedback, Euler's-Knot, trolls are difficult to handle, you know, regardless of one's background and experience.
The more passionate you are, the harder it is to stay calm.
Well, initially, the ebook was priced at 8 and the paperback at 18, and then I experimented a bit with both values, only to ascertain it makes no difference at all.
The paperback migth be steep curently indeed, but those 300 pages are actually A4 format, so some
500 pages in a standard book(9/6 or 10/7).
I understand, hence my post. Still, I presume your promotion of the book is better achieved through placing it in the hands of the proper chess cognoscenti than battling it out on this forum. Clearly you've done some of that type of promotion already. That takes time to see results.
I'm a bit old school; if I'm going to buy a book, it will be paper. e-books are ok if free, but I don't find the medium as conducive to learning as text in print, so I don't pay for them.
My gut tells me you are on to something, but as you can tell from my rating, that hunch comes more from education and experience than it does my current chess playing abilities.
Thank you, Euler's-Knot, you will not let me alone in the midst of that pack of trolling wolves, will you? 
To tell you the truth, it starts getting funny, I have never thought there are so many low-thinking people in this world.
I understand you very well, I also frequently prefer paper, it all depends on what should be investigated. If I knew you would be so willing to buy a paperback at a lower price, I would have decreased the price substantially straight away, my problem is all that involves too much work, and I am a bit low on resources and time these days.
Education is very important. Usually, I am best understood by high-quality people, like scientists, academics, engineers, etc. As I am also one of them.
Thank you for the support, anyway.
I actually, hate playing online, because:
- there are cheaters
Thief thinks every man steals
If you want to win a game of chess remember, checkmate the king.
See that was "The secret of Chess" !!!
You clearly can't beat Stockfish. If you can, then why don't you play against chess.com computer level-4? What a scam. Go ahead, buddy. Play some games against computer 4 using that account and I will believe you. But we all know you not gonna do that, right?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯Nao me digas esas coisas.
O xadrex e muito dificil.
No jugarei contra os impostores do chess.com.
What a funny bunch.
Bye, bye until later.
I took a quick look at the book in the link. There are a lot of numbers and a lot of technical-sounding terms and abbreviations. And what is stated may all be correct (e.g. how a given materially imbalanced game would end). However, I don't see at all how anyone could improve their chess by reading this book. There is no practical advice, no real-game examples, no analysis of how positions play out in games, etc. For example, a complex Q vs 3 minor pieces endgame (+ paws for each side) is shown. The only comment is "This is pretty much a draw." In what possible way does this help anyone? I promise you, I could outplay someone weaker than I am from either side of that position. And someone stronger than I am could outplay me. How? Well, you certainly won't learn the answer from the book.
I don't know why everyone is personally attacking the author. There is no need to be rude or insulting. And maybe this book works as an academic dissertation on some aspects of chess positions. But I think it's useless as a learning tool.
The attitude you display in your messages here makes one really wonder about your "diplomatic" past, as in these there is no even basic conversation etiquette, let alone diplomatic level conversation. Your reactions to people is just simply immature at best, and I can't imagine you being a serious person as you try to portray yourself as. Following that bad behavior comes from bad people, your case is fishy and thats something that will stand for sure.
I took a quick look at the book in the link. There are a lot of numbers and a lot of technical-sounding terms and abbreviations. And what is stated may all be correct (e.g. how a given materially imbalanced game would end). However, I don't see at all how anyone could improve their chess by reading this book. There is no practical advice, no real-game examples, no analysis of how positions play out in games, etc. For example, a complex Q vs 3 minor pieces endgame (+ paws for each side) is shown. The only comment is "This is pretty much a draw." In what possible way does this help anyone? I promise you, I could outplay someone weaker than I am from either side of that position. And someone stronger than I am could outplay me. How? Well, you certainly won't learn the answer from the book.
I don't know why everyone is personally attacking the author. There is no need to be rude or insulting. And maybe this book works as an academic dissertation on some aspects of chess positions. But I think it's useless as a learning tool.
If it works like an academic dissertation, then it is for the grandmasters to learn, and when they do that, they will teach in turn other people.
So that, according to you, my main reading public should be grandmasters.
You have a point that the material is not presented extremely well for beginner and intermediate players, but there is a reason for this:
1) one simply can not do without all those tables, as otherwise the evaluation would simply be imperfect; there is a big distinction between a simple defended and a twice defended pawn on e5, and between 2 twice defended pawns on c4 and d5 respectively, believe me, that has been tested in engines, but my close observations from statistically relevant samples also point this way. So, if I had to be simplistic, I would not have been true, and it was obligatory to be true.
2) as there are over 300 hundred evaluation terms, each taking a page or so on average, just in terms of descriptions, if I had to add sample games with commentary, that would swell the volume to over 1000 pages; so, I had to choose, and I chose to have all terms inside, even if the format is not perfect.
Looking at what some reviewers think, I guess I might release at some further point in time an addendum or something like that, featuring detailed explanations and abundant sample games.
But then, when I get rid of precise values, that would not be fully correct, although probably much simpler to understand for some people.
To tell you the truth, I have difficulties on the other hand with books, written by GMs, that always assess a position in terms of very fuzzy concepts: white slightly better, unclear position, with compensation, etc. What the hell all that means? Unclear to whom? What kind of compensation?
That really does not make very much sense to me. A position is either drawn or won for one side, if the respective GM is not very clear on the matter, that is another thing.
But I prefer to be clear, even though sometimes hard to understand. In what way an approach that leaves you guessing, although easily digestable, is superior to an approach that makes clear statements, won/drawn/lost, albeit requiring a bit of effort for the concepts to sink in?
The attitude you display in your messages here makes one really wonder about your "diplomatic" past, as in these there is no even basic conversation etiquette, let alone diplomatic level conversation. Your reactions to people is just simply immature at best, and I can't imagine you being a serious person as you try to portray yourself as. Following that bad behavior comes from bad people, your case is fishy and thats something that will stand for sure.
Only thing fishy here is you. If it says I have been a career diplomat, then it is true.
Sometimes, I have also tried to give Stockfish 8 a pawn advantage, but that usually turns disastrous:
Of course, I made a huge mistake on move 21 with Qg2(leaving d4 unprotected) instead of Qf2.
After 21.Qf2, although Stockfish thinks black is substantially better, it is actually the other way around.
How do you guess this should end?
If that is not a draw, I think white should win, but lines are deep as this is a more closed position.
So actually, if one practices a lot, it is not that difficult to beat Stockfish with more time even without a pawn.
Anyone having beaten Stockfish 8 without a pawn?
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.
I have never played classical, LTC games against the top engines.
Most of my wins are blitz and rapid, with myself having more time, and the engine pondering.
You should not forget that I am computer chess expert, and know almost by heart all top engine specificities and behaviour on the board.
When one has followed every single game of TCEC, and analysed for long hours daily all possible types of positions with the top engines, one certainly gets the knack of it. It is a matter of experience.
Below one game from the second part of 'Human versus Machine':
As you see, winning is possible even in not fully closed positions, Komodo simply made some inaccuracies.
And one more, this time against an earlier version of Stockfish, just to show that my style of play is unmatched by anyone or anything, and all fake stuff allegations are fully unfounded.