The Secret of Chess

Concerning my games, the simple truth is that top engines fail to understand properly a wide range of positions involving more complicated pawn structures.

For example, both Stockfish and Komodo, even the latest versions, would assess this position as equal or even slightly favourable for white, while in actual case black is winning with g5!

As simple as that. You might want to check above fen with your engines.

Or, here. Both Stockfish and Komodo see the position as equal or even slightly favouring black, when, in actual fact, white is winning after Rf6!

You might want to check the fen with your engines too.

Is it me to blame that I have thoroughly investigated top engine weaknesses and am able to make use of that?

Academic does not mean advanced!  It means relating to education and also theoretical rather than practical.  I think people question your credibility for two reasons.  First, you make grandiose claims (for instance, that you're the only person alive who can beat the top chess engines) without providing any independent evidence.  Second, you make contradictory claims and comments about the book (for instance, the book's preface states, "Learn chess 5 times easier through pattern recognition." but you posted in this thread, "But I guess one problem is even grandmasters will have big problems understanding it." 

You are marketing this as something that it is not, and that's your elementary flaw here, beside your way of butthurt response to people. Those two things make people suspect you, and I don't see what is hard to understand in that. This is at best a specific positional chess engine analysis book, and you are presenting it as a general public universal chess learning book for everyone, just to make an extra buck. Thats just stupid, false, and it is expected that you receive flak for that and that people suspect you. Your responses just make people more and more dislike you, and guess where your sales will be going then. You might have some subject going on, but your way of presenting it is totally wrong. Bye.

I guess I already answered this at least 2 or 3 times, so I don't intend to waste my time on it any more.

So, let us just get to the details:

How would you assess this one?(and I beg everyone on this forum to give their feedback, because this is very important to understand why my book in indeed unique)

Stockfish and Komodo say position is equal or even black has a slight advantage. Would not many GMs think in precisely the same way? Any GMs or very strong players around? What do you think of this position?

My assessment is simple: white is winning. How am I able to know that? Because I have my very sophisticated evaluation terms that indeed work perfectly. I say, above:

- the f7 black shelter pawn is twice backward(but many GMs even don't know what that is), and this is worth somewhere between half a pawn and a full pawn penalty, so white gets significant/winning advantage only because of that term

In what way is this not sophisticated, if GMs don't see it, top engines don't see it, but prove me right after a much deeper analysis? In what way is this not academic, and in what way is this not advanced?

Can you answer me?

In what way is this difficult to learn? In what way would a new good term not arouse human curiosity?

Please, analyse this position carefully, you will see I am right, I have done this analysis at least a 1000 times, before I came up with the concept of twice backward shelter pawns.

Another clue, why would Rf6 be best above, any guess?

Well, another term from 'The Secret of Chess' helps:

- after Rf6, white gets a twice defended rook outpost(a rook outpost defended by 2 friendly pawns) on f6, which is also worth some nice bonus, so Rf6 immediately increases your evaluation advantage and is just about natural. In any case, I am able to immediately see it precisely because of these sophisticated terms I have formulated.

In what way is this difficult to learn? Please, tell me. In what way would not a new term be interesting?

And lastly, after a possible Bf6 capture and gf6 recapture, white gets another bonus due to the very long b2-c3-d4-e5-f6 long chain, which is substantial. In 'The Secret of Chess', pawn chains, especially advanced and central ones, get big bonus.

Precisely because of my refined evaluation understanding, I am able to also see that Rf6 is tactically sound. Without making any calculations at all, just based on assessment.

In what way is this difficult to understand? In what way a sophisticated and precise new concept would not be interesting? Why would I pick the well-known old routine instead?

Besides, evaluation knowledge spares me:

- learning tactics

- learning openings

- learning a range of other useless stuff and an awful lot of calculation over the board

In what way is this bad and not to be recommended?

Am I not right when I claim this approach saves you a lot of time, is vastly superior and allows much faster learning?

1. Rf6 Ng7 and now what?

As a side note, your “new” evaluation terms are meaningless - they are already intuitively understood by almost everybody to play chess.

1. Rf6 is in and of itself a natural move, and this position is not magical - it’s just a position, governed by the same principles as every other position.

Most IM and GM books are cheaper than this book by a 1400 rated player and I question if a player with such a rating knows what to do with the patterns he sees or knows what to tell people to do.

I'm also turned off every time a see a book title that claims there's a "secret to chess," "secret to investing in stocks," "secret to winning football," "secret to playing the piano," etc. etc.

There is no "secret" except you need to put in a LOT of hard work to be good at any of them.

I've been pushing pattern recognition to those lower-rated players who want to know what to study and suggest you first memorize basic tactics motifs: memorize these several dozen tactics/patterns by name and be able to demonstrate any one:

https://www.chess.com/article/view/chess-tactics--definitions-and-examples

https://www.chess.com/article/view/chess-tactics--definitions-and-examples

Then look at books like Song's and Preatu's The Chess Attackers handbook where each chapter is a theme (opposite castling, color squares, pawn play, etc.) and Fred Wilson's Simple Attacking Plans, where four straightforward principles, including point all your pieces at your opponent's king (Song's Chapter 6) and uses 30+ games to demonstrate them.

There are a number of books on patterns as well as video series.

Mick, I believe that Lyudmil was a 2200+ player OTB when he was playing. I also believe that he has a good understanding of these closed positions. 

You really think so?

Then why don't you see the way white wins after your Ng7? You certainly have an engine and use it, but it also is unable to help you, right?

After Ng7, white has Nf3, Bd2, Kh1, Rg1-g4, Bf5 capture(the black knight will supposedly go to f5) and Rh4, with a rout. Why did not you see that line, when you are so good and able to understand everything naturally?

What principles are you talking about, chess evolves, you can not use the same principles in different positions, there are always specificities.

As it turns out, the best chess knowledge books these days are written by 1400 players.  

If you are weak, as it is obvious, then why don't you believe GM Smerdon then? :
http://davidsmerdon.com/?p=1970

How are we supposed to know if your approach saves a lot of time, is vastly superior and allows much faster learning?  Because you say so?  You seem to believe the claim itself is evidence that it is true.

Bye, bye, I don't need you here especially.

Of course, you will dislike me after my responses, because 1) you see I am right, and 2) you feel it is difficult for you to grasp what my point in the book is, people like to understand things, you know.

No extra buck, I sacrificed 5 whole years of my life and a good salary to gather the knowledge and statistical information, presented in 'The Secret of Chess'.

Where you are most wrong, however, is that is just a specific positional chess engine analysis book.

No, not at all, such positions, terms and examples constitute only a very small part of the book, maybe 15%, not more, so the rest 85% certainly deal with more common positions, which does not mean I have not been able to find original new terms/patterns there too.

'The Secret of Chess' no doubt is a general knowledge chess book, and I have done my utmost not to miss any salient positional or tactical term. You will find exhaustive information on topics from discovered checks and double attacks to different types of outposts and material imbalances, so each and every aspect of the chess game is covered.

When I add example games at some point, you are going to scream with joy.

Btw., don't talk about engines, the knowledge is universal, just take a look at Nikolic-Fischer:

Do you recognise my pointed chain concept: the white f2,e3,d4 and c5 pawns coupled with the black c6,d5 and e4 pawns?

This is a strong feature and Fischer used it.

And later in the game:

Do you recognise the f2 white twice backward shelter pawn?

Why do you think Fischer won?

You think Fischer was nuts, just like me?

Maybe you should've chosen another grandmaster because Fischer really was nuts.

What an immature response. The position you posted is simple and can be understood by any old 1400: Black's kingside dark squares are weak. White's pawn chain points towards the kingside. Then you think: wouldn't a pawn on f6 be amazing in this position? Done. It's not that simple in an OTB game (nothing is), but understanding it (not playing it, that's different) is simple, and involves simple concepts (weak dark squares, attacking on the side of the board where you're stronger) that hold true for every closed position and have long been recognized in chess literature.

    Your ideas are neither new nor special. Get over it.

Nuts, but an icon.

I did not know about the fight-lookers. That surprises me.

I am not showing disrespect to anyone, just answering people's claims.

As far as I am concerned, it is only me who has posted some productive input here, some sample games, positions, etc.

So that, I try to be as constructive as possible.

Then why then neither GMs, nor top engines would assess it correctly?

Why I am the only one who is fully convinced white wins?

My ideas are very new and very special, and some GMs recognise it, so I would recommend that you get the book to learn something.

Your statements would have had some weight, if you had thought white is winning and seen the sequence, but, as you suggested it might be just a draw, your comments are completely meaningless.

I never suggested anything about the result, but rather tried to start a civil discussion with my 1... Ng7. After all, if you’re the only one who is convinced White wins, you might just be wrong. Making these claims says nothing about your strength as a player or their correctness: it just says that you might be more prone to making them than other people.

Also: no engine used on this one. The only engine I have is on mobile and I’m too lazy to put your position in.

That is the point: white is indeed won.