The Secret of Chess
Sort:
Jan 13, 2018
0
#1242
Yes. There are also several other GMs, equal in strength to Smedon, who believe that the book is poor. Who do we believe?
Would you trust a man who said he would take good care of your newborn baby if he also claimed he could fly, torrubirubi? I wouldn't. In the same vein, I am doubting a man making unsubstantiated claims (like the OP) being able to write a good book, unless it is a work of fiction. This he might excel at.
Jan 13, 2018
0
#1244
I spent several hours today reading his The Secret of Chess. Some of his statements are intriguing, and I really would like to see more strong players reviewing his book. For example, his opinion has 1.c4 as the best move. I am a 1.d4 player. I new that c4 is largely used by strong players, and I was looking forward to purchase a repertoire from GM Matthias Wahls based on this move. Wahls played mainly 1.e4, but was away from chess for a long time. He decided to play 1.c4 to avoid the very theoretical lines after 1.e4. Today I received an email from him where he told me that he will begin a business and will stay away from chess. Such a pity!
In any case, it is perhaps a coincidence that AlphaZero also played 1.c4 in many games against SF (it is what I read, I saw only few games).
Coincidence or insight from a guy who really understand the game? Who knows. I am right now searching for opening repertoires which are partially following LT's repertoire 1.c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3.e4! I like his explanations, where he sometimes shows a lot of self-confidence. He also thinks that 1.f4 is not bad, too. I only know some lines against 1.f4, and from what I have learned I can say that the game get very different from games I usually play with black. I know that Larry Kaufman didn't like it, and there is the story that Krammik who said that this move is just bad, and Carlsen said: okay, in this case I will play this in our next game. Carlsen won, of course.
Come to think of it, I've also noticed LT sometimes shows a lot of self-confidence.
hitthepin wrote:
Yes. There are also several other GMs, equal in strength to Smedon, who believe that the book is poor. Who do we believe?
In addition, Smerdon’s review contains a lot of asterisks.
torrubirubi wrote:
Hmm, I will say that Smerdon's arguments are based on what is written in the book, and Smerdon, as a GM, as more chess knowledge than we all. We can therefore say that his judgement has more value than the judgement based only on deduction from somebody who didn't read his book. Do you agree with me?
One problem with simply accepting a GM's conclusion instead of making a conclusion yourself based on all the available evidence (including his opinion) is that you don't know what to do if two GMs disagree. You don't trust your own judgment. I'm going to guess you've never been in a leadership position. Oftentimes a leader gets advice from a subordinate who has expertise in something he doesn't. A leader listens to the argument and then makes a decision based on the strength of the argument - as well as his own instincts. If he simply does whatever the subordinate recommends, he's not the leader. The subordinate is calling the shots.
torrubirubi, it doesn't matter if someone at our low level plays 1. c4, 1. d4, 1. e4 or even 1. a4. We will get crushed by higher rated players no matter what our first move is. And if they play one of the "inferior moves", such as 1. d4 or 1. e4 with White we will still get crushed. I'm pretty certain AlphaZero would destroy any human player, even if "forced" to play 1. d4 or 1. e4. I really doubt that 1. c4 is significantly better than 1. d4 or 1. e4.
hitthepin wrote:
Yes. There are also several other GMs, equal in strength to Smedon, who believe that the book is poor. Who do we believe?
Who are the other GM's you reference?
Jan 13, 2018
0
#1251
The GMs Smerdon references at the beginning of his review, saying “other GMs have been at best dismal and at worst harshly critical of The Secret of Chess.”
hitthepin wrote:
The GMs Smerdon references at the beginning of his review, saying “other GMs have been at best dismal and at worst harshly critical of The Secret of Chess.”
Thanks. I wonder if he can be more specific. He seems like a good guy. I heard his interview on Ben Johnson's Perpetual Chess podcast a couple months ago.
torrubirubi wrote:
hitthepin wrote:
Well, I would get tired of being constantly mocked.
Until now there only one strong player that read one of LT's books and saw interesting patterns there. One review by a GM, and one positive review (although showing several problems who LT could try to improve in a second edition). This is the only relevant thing at the moment. As long as this is the only review by a IM or a GM, it is very easy for us weak players (okay, Jorge is of course not weak) to constantly insult the author.
Of course that everybody here will list arguments to show that he deserves to be insulted and used as target for mockery.
I can see already the next post: "He deserved it!" or "He is insulting us with his ridiculous claims to be a strong player and denying us any prove of this alleged strength".
Yes. The same as the fat boy in the school, right? He deserved to to be beaten, the young girl sexually molested because somebody perceived her outfit to be provocative, and so on.
Are several of LT's claims weird? Of course they are. Is "weird" a synonym to "faked"? Not necessarily.
My brother in law told me once the story from a computer expert hired by a large Brazilian company. He flew from the USA to Brazil, came from the hotel and contacted the guy at the reception. The problem is that the specialist looked like a beggar, with his long and unkempt hair and his flipflops. The guy in the reception did not believe him and sent him away.
The specialist went to the hotel, bought a ticket and flew back to the United States.
Some beggar-looking people pretending to be expert in something are often beggars, and sometimes not.
Several people here found out very early that it is easy to provoke LT and make him say things that he probably would not say in more respectful discussion. He is provoked, insulted, he provokes back, and this thread is a wonderful example of how different people from different nations join forces to fight a common enemy.
Not only LT is now the big a..., me too, because I bought his books, because I treat him with the respect that I think everybody deserved and therefore I am not part of the "Volkssport": insult LT in all imaginable forms fair game for everybody from rating 200 to 2000.
Yes, I am learning with his books (a little bit every day). From what I have seen yet the books are interesting - at least from what I can say based on my very low rating. I try some of his openings, get different games from what I was used before, get often check-mated, sometimes I checkmate my opponents that I didn't know would be possible. I cannot expect more from a chess book - that it will inspire me to see different things in the games.
Of course I feel a little like the child able to construct a little toy with Lego parts and, based on this primitive knowledge, trying now to understand how an internal combustion engine works. This forum seems definitively not the right place to discuss internal combustion engines.
I know, some will immediately say: "it is his fault, he deserves". Like the fat boy and the young lady with the provocative outfit, right? And the thread will go on with the repetitive insults, provocations and more insults. A never ending story, like the move Groundhog Day.
wait... didnt u say u were unfollowing this thread? or someone else? im sorry, im just confused
hitthepin wrote:
But we don’t doubt that Smerdon believes in the book. Right?
Smerdon's review seemed mostly ambivalent. He seemed to appreciate the uniqueness of Tsvetkov's approach, though he also mentioned, several times, that he simply didn't know about—or didn't agree with—some of the author's conclusions.
To me, the main takeaway from the review was this:
"I do get the impression from reading the book that chess programmers comprise Tsvetkov’s primary audience.
From a regular reader’s perspective, the tables and precise values aren’t very helpful. We’ll never be able to remember all of these numbers, let alone implement them in a live game." — GM Smerdon
Jorge, after LT described the review as an endorsement, I read it a while back. It was hardly an endorsement. Basically, Smerdon merely said that unlike other reviewers, he thought the book may have potential. It seemed that what he appreciated most about it was just that it offered a new and different perspective. I remember that line: "I probably won't end up a convert." Not a comment one expects to find in a positive review.
Yeah, I remember. One of those responses was mine. But it didn't take long for you to get fed up too. And since then you've been on him like white on rice.
aerodarts wrote:
any free pages to read like on google from this book?
Never mind free pages. When you see torrubirubi on this thread, let him know you'd like a book and he'll send you one gratis.
Hey, LT is here for our entertainment. We've got guys like you and HobbyPlayer to share insights and analysis. It's good to have some strong (real world) players on the thread who contribute some thoughtful commentary.
HobbyPIayer wrote:
Smerdon's review seemed mostly ambivalent. He seemed to appreciate the uniqueness of Tsvetkov's approach, though he also mentioned, several times, that he simply didn't know about—or didn't agree with—some of the author's conclusions.
To me, the main takeaway from the review was this:
"I do get the impression from reading the book that chess programmers comprise Tsvetkov’s primary audience.
From a regular reader’s perspective, the tables and precise values aren’t very helpful. We’ll never be able to remember all of these numbers, let alone implement them in a live game." — GM Smerdon
By the way, I watched the first four AZ vs SF videos. Very interesting. Game 9, the French, was fascinating - the one that AZ recaptured with the king relatively early in the game, which of course lost the right to castle. I think most strong human players wouldn't consider that because it's something you just don't do in that kind of position. But AZ, having taught itself, was unaware that it's taboo. It determined it was the best move and made it. No problem.
JMurakami wrote:
You see, that's the thing. When we're analyzing a position, a well presented concept supported by lines is all you require. It doesn't matter who wrote it or how strong he is. It's the same when analyzing the validity of arguments and conclusions, you use philosophy (as @cigoLogic did), or when considering claims on artificial intelligence, you'd probably like to listen to what @Elroch says about it.
In this same line, when asking about a book, whom better than the author himself? But if he chooses to make a clown of himself, it forces the rest of us to use deductive logic. And, according to this, he goes down in flames.
As I've said, a book cannot be divorced from its author; it's only as credible as he is. LT disagreed. He argued that the book should be judged on its on merits without regard to one's opinion of its author. Obviously he's wrong but even if he was right, it wouldn't make a difference. The author's credibility matters whether he likes it or not.
torrubirubi, within philosophy, what is called an argument from authority is considered a fallacy. One example would be: The earth is a sphere because Stephen Hawking says so. This is not a convincing argument, no matter how extraordinary a physicist he is. It would be much better to believe a lesser physicist who gives us good arguments for his claim that the earth is a sphere. Likewise, GMs are not the only ones we ought to listen to. Rather, we ought to listen to everyone who offers solid arguments for their claims.
Regarding the OPs book, I don't know if it is good or not since I have not read it. However, if his lack of rigor and rationality in this thread is any indication of the quality of his book, it must be a poor book indeed. This is not an opinion, but deduction.
Hmm, I will say that Smerdon's arguments are based on what is written in the book, and Smerdon, as a GM, as more chess knowledge than we all. We can therefore say that his judgement has more value than the judgement based only on deduction from somebody who didn't read his book. Do you agree with me?