In B4 the lock then
The Secret of Chess
Sort:
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
yureesystem wrote:
Any chess secrets will come from GM Garry Kasparov, GM Karpov or any GM, not from a non-title player. Any amateur can use a engine to show how brilliant he is, it take a GM to reveal the whys in a move. That is why I don't use a engine, I force myself to find the whys in a position; any player aspire to master level needs to learn how to analyze a position, Botvinnik said that is the first goal of a chess player to be proficient calculator. The question is how can a player be a good calculator when he is rely on that stupid engine; a very strong American master wrote to be good in analyzing a position one must force yourself to calculate and find what is hidden in a position.
You are on the surface, man, you are on the surface. Go deeper.
I can beat you 1000:0 at any time and at any place, but that will still not suit you.
I am using engines and engine games ONLY to gather statistical information, which is very important, but otherwise all or almost all ideas are fully mine. That is the difference between my books and some tactics books that are going over basically the same things: my books offer something new.
How many authors do you know who have written about contests, winning at that, with the top engines?
How many authors do you know that are using as sophisticated evaluation for positional patterns as mine?
I guess, the first obligation of a conscientious reader is to investigate what the book offers and only then comment on substance. What don't you like about the substance of 'The Secret of Chess'?
That it contains 100 pawn features, while most other books will see just 10 or 20, and some 30 outpost and material imbalance features, while most other books will contain just a third of that?
Really, it is not good to stay on the surface.
I met weak players like you in my chess club, they think they have the new revolutionary concepts that will change chess forever but they don't have anything useful or practical; their ideas work only against other weak players. I view both of your pathetic games against Komodo and Stockfish, the quality is only 1600 fide strength and these engines played so poor no wonder you were able to beat them. Comments and annotation is a player with no strong chess foundation, and extremely weak analysis; this means your are a weak player. Let take one of your game against Stockfish: 27.Rgh4 Bd7? (a) a weak move by a super GM 3000 elo Stockfish, any low expert 2000 elo would of done (a) 27...h5! 28.Rxh5 gxh5 {28.gxh6 Bxh4 29.Rxh4 and black wins} 29.Rxh5 Qg7 wins, 27...h5! is much better move and give black a better defense, compare to the weak move done by Stockfish 27...Bd7?. Komodo played some horrible moves like a very weak player and you are proud of this game? Your move 29.Rf6 and Komodo horrible move and probably a blunder 29...Bxf6? and this move done by a GM strength engine?; much better is 29...Be8! 30.Qh6 Qc7 is a must move to defend on the second rank 31.Rxg6+fxg6 32.Nxe6 Bc5 33.Nxc7 Rxc7 {33...Rxf3 34.Ne6 Bf8 35. Qg5 Bg7 36.Bxg6 Bxg6 37.Qxg6 Rf7 and white wins } 34.Rxf8+ Bxf8 35. Qg5 white is winning but black putting up a fight than the weak move 29...Bxf6?. Stockfish and Komodo played weak and didn't defend well . You might of handicap the Stockfish and Komodo and maybe that is why they played below 1700 elo strength; both engines played the opening badly, very weak middle game and we all know that engine are great in tactics and it was non-existent in both your of games.
Every new ideas in chess exponent demonstrate it in otb play, Steinitz show the world his new positional concept and Nimzovitch prove his hyper-modern concepts on otb games. Your ideas cannot be any good, not practical for beginners or not useful for advance players like me; if you were really sincere you demonstrate your new concepts and show the world that they work, but you know in your heart that they don't work and against humans you can't manipulate like engines that you can handicap them and make them weaker. You mention that you have more time and played only blitz and never standard time control, meaning you are very weak in tactics and weak player LOVE close position to avoid tactics.
Players who innovate new ideas are anxious to demonstrate their concepts otb played and to show the world their new ideas. Steinitz,Chigorin, Nimzovitch and the Russian system, practitioners were anxious to show the world their ideas work but this non-title author doesn't want to play here and he knows that his concepts don't work and avoid to plays here. Like I said all talk and no action to back up his boast.
He has no secrets and no revolutionary ideas, its all empty boast.
Some of his boast is outrageous. Let take the English 1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 { most GMs will played 3.g3 but not nontitle Lyudmil, no he knows better than a GM and claim this the best move 3.e4?! Nc6 gives black equality and interesting is 3...Bc5. His outrageous claim on a pirc position, all white's pieces is develop and the king is castle but black has only his king side pieces develop and king castle; according to Lyudmil claim black has the advantage because black has the more flexible pawn structure; Let me inform Mr.non-title Lyudmil, Tarrasch said, " Before the Endgame there is the middle game," Pretty pawn structure does not win games but good tactics and a proper plan do! All hjis position he setup, they seem to come from his games against computer, like the argument chester 3145, 1....Ng7 is not enough to save black, white as a crushing attack; but in that position you will never find it in a GM game, black defended horrible and is too restricted and a GM will never allow it.
breakingbad12 wrote:
I wonder why chess.com staff didn't lock this thread yet. This is clearly a scam. How do I contact the forum mods?
One day, you will be learning from my book.
yureesystem wrote:
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
yureesystem wrote:
Any chess secrets will come from GM Garry Kasparov, GM Karpov or any GM, not from a non-title player. Any amateur can use a engine to show how brilliant he is, it take a GM to reveal the whys in a move. That is why I don't use a engine, I force myself to find the whys in a position; any player aspire to master level needs to learn how to analyze a position, Botvinnik said that is the first goal of a chess player to be proficient calculator. The question is how can a player be a good calculator when he is rely on that stupid engine; a very strong American master wrote to be good in analyzing a position one must force yourself to calculate and find what is hidden in a position.
You are on the surface, man, you are on the surface. Go deeper.
I can beat you 1000:0 at any time and at any place, but that will still not suit you.
I am using engines and engine games ONLY to gather statistical information, which is very important, but otherwise all or almost all ideas are fully mine. That is the difference between my books and some tactics books that are going over basically the same things: my books offer something new.
How many authors do you know who have written about contests, winning at that, with the top engines?
How many authors do you know that are using as sophisticated evaluation for positional patterns as mine?
I guess, the first obligation of a conscientious reader is to investigate what the book offers and only then comment on substance. What don't you like about the substance of 'The Secret of Chess'?
That it contains 100 pawn features, while most other books will see just 10 or 20, and some 30 outpost and material imbalance features, while most other books will contain just a third of that?
Really, it is not good to stay on the surface.
I met weak players like you in my chess club, they think they have the new revolutionary concepts that will change chess forever but they don't have anything useful or practical; their ideas work only against other weak players. I view both of your pathetic games against Komodo and Stockfish, the quality is only 1600 fide strength and these engines played so poor no wonder you were able to beat them. Comments and annotation is a player with no strong chess foundation, and extremely weak analysis; this means your are a weak player. Let take one of your game against Stockfish: 27.Rgh4 Bd7? (a) a weak move by a super GM 3000 elo Stockfish, any low expert 2000 elo would of done (a) 27...h5! 28.Rxh5 gxh5 {28.gxh6 Bxh4 29.Rxh4 and black wins} 29.Rxh5 Qg7 wins, 27...h5! is much better move and give black a better defense, compare to the weak move done by Stockfish 27...Bd7?. Komodo played some horrible moves like a very weak player and you are proud of this game? Your move 29.Rf6 and Komodo horrible move and probably a blunder 29...Bxf6? and this move done by a GM strength engine?; much better is 29...Be8! 30.Qh6 Qc7 is a must move to defend on the second rank 31.Rxg6+fxg6 32.Nxe6 Bc5 33.Nxc7 Rxc7 {33...Rxf3 34.Ne6 Bf8 35. Qg5 Bg7 36.Bxg6 Bxg6 37.Qxg6 Rf7 and white wins } 34.Rxf8+ Bxf8 35. Qg5 white is winning but black putting up a fight than the weak move 29...Bxf6?. Stockfish and Komodo played weak and didn't defend well . You might of handicap the Stockfish and Komodo and maybe that is why they played below 1700 elo strength; both engines played the opening badly, very weak middle game and we all know that engine are great in tactics and it was non-existent in both your of games.
Every new ideas in chess exponent demonstrate it in otb play, Steinitz show the world his new positional concept and Nimzovitch prove his hyper-modern concepts on otb games. Your ideas cannot be any good, not practical for beginners or not useful for advance players like me; if you were really sincere you demonstrate your new concepts and show the world that they work, but you know in your heart that they don't work and against humans you can't manipulate like engines that you can handicap them and make them weaker. You mention that you have more time and played only blitz and never standard time control, meaning you are very weak in tactics and weak player LOVE close position to avoid tactics.
I am not able to follow your red writing: it just hurts too much, my eyes are sore.
Please repost in normal black font.
Of which game you are talking, post the game or at least a diagram. You ra edoing some analysis and it is not clear on what game.
But please, dear, if you have decided to annotate/assess my games with the top engines, THAT SIMPLY DOES NOT WORK, as top engines don't see my moves. So, I guess, you have simply wasted all your effort.
Pity.
yureesystem wrote:
Players who innovate new ideas are anxious to demonstrate their concepts otb played and to show the world their new ideas. Steinitz,Chigorin, Nimzovitch and the Russian system, practitioners were anxious to show the world their ideas work but this non-title author doesn't want to play here and he knows that his concepts don't work and avoid to plays here. Like I said all talk and no action to back up his boast. He has no secrets and no revolutionary ideas, its all empty boast.
You will be proven wrong.
Yours are just words, I have posted specific examples with diagrams, from where it is clear I am right.
Where are your counter-examples, I want to see them?
One thing you can not understand is that chess engines have changed forever the way chess is played and understood. I guess there even many players, who have not played dven a single competitive game in their lives, but who have been doing chess since early childhood constantly, so without having the GM title, theye are the strongest humans actually. Who knows?
Chess on the deepest levels requires total concentration, and human OTB competitions are far from ideal for that. There is no total concentration in OTB conditions.
Botvinnik liked quiet conditions very much, Fischer did the same, and I do too.
yureesystem wrote:
Some of his boast is outrageous. Let take the English 1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 { most GMs will played 3.g3 but not nontitle Lyudmil, no he knows better than a GM and claim this the best move 3.e4?! Nc6 gives black equality and interesting is 3...Bc5. His outrageous claim on a pirc position, all white's pieces is develop and the king is castle but black has only his king side pieces develop and king castle; according to Lyudmil claim black has the advantage because black has the more flexible pawn structure; Let me inform Mr.non-title Lyudmil, Tarrasch said, " Before the Endgame there is the middle game," Pretty pawn structure does not win games but good tactics and a proper plan do! All hjis position he setup, they seem to come from his games against computer, like the argument chester 3145, 1....Ng7 is not enough to save black, white as a crushing attack; but in that position you will never find it in a GM game, black defended horrible and is too restricted and a GM will never allow it.
You are mumbling something I am unable to understand.
Show us specific examples, with diagrams, then we can discuss.
About outrageous claims in the English opening, I just posted the Nikolic-Fischer game, shall I repost it, specifically for you?
Fischer has just played e5-e4, and, believe me or not, yes, I do claim it from the bottom of my heart and the maybe 1000 games I have analysed with the top engines with similar pawn structure, black is already won.
- Seriously
- Yes, quite in earnest
- Why so
Because the f2 white shelter pawn is backward, the whole white shelter is inflexible, so playing f2-f3/f2-f4 to get rid of the bind is difficult of impossible, if played, the white shelter will shrink to only 2 pawns, h2 and g3, while the e3 pawn will be weak and a constant target.
The specific pawns structure in the center, d4,c4 vs d6,c6 pawns make opening the game impossible, on c4-c5, black has d6-d5, while on d4-d5, c6-c5, so the game remains closed.
After that, black will regroup, bring more pieces to the king side, use its storming pawns and win, there is no escape; actually, that is what Fischer did. You don't believe Fischer?
That game started from the English opening(see game above), with 1.c4, so allowing black to play e5-e4 is really disastrous here. The only way white will not allow that push is by plaing e4 himself. What is so difficult to understand?
Where am I wrong? I have analysed similar structures in 1000 games or so until great depths.
Or maybe Fischer is wrong, as he has played precisely the same structure also with reversed colours, the KIA, shall I post his game against Magmiasuren?
Ok, here it is:
And here is the vital diagram:
Fischer has just played e4-e5, getting the very same position with reversed colours: white e5 pawn, black e6,f7 and g7 pawns. This is also already won or very close to winning, and indeed, Fischer won.
Above pattern, I call a central backward-maker, and it has a very wide application in chess.
As in above position the central clamp is bad for black, so is it for white in the English.
What is so difficult to understand?
In distinction to you, however, I am always backing my claims with very concrete examples, as I have devoted a tremendous amount of time studying chess scientifically.
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
Hi everyone.
I wrote a new book, titled 'The Secret of Chess'.
It is available for a modest charge here: http://www.secretofchess.com
On above page you can learn more about the book, as well as browse
some exceprts.
Let's back up for a moment. Who is the target audience you had in mind in writing this book? Perhaps the answer to this question will help to clarify things for the forum.
i would rather pay someone to tell me the "Cliffs Notes" version of the book instead of wasting time reading the book.
coldgoat wrote:
i would rather pay someone to tell me the "Cliffs Notes" version of the book instead of wasting time reading the book.
https://www.chess.com/blog/smurfo/the-secret-of-chess
eulers_knot wrote:
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
Hi everyone.
I wrote a new book, titled 'The Secret of Chess'.
It is available for a modest charge here: http://www.secretofchess.com
On above page you can learn more about the book, as well as browse
some exceprts.
Let's back up for a moment. Who is the target audience you had in mind in writing this book? Perhaps the answer to this question will help to clarify things for the forum.
GM Kasparov, GM Carlsen and GM Fischer. 
Everyone can learn patterns, that is easier than studying countless opening variations.
It is much easier to remember 300 patterns and apply them in your play, including your opening play, rather than study 5000 specific variations and subvariations of an opening.
coldgoat wrote:
i would rather pay someone to tell me the "Cliffs Notes" version of the book instead of wasting time reading the book.
I am sure, with that lingerie...
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
About outrageous claims in the English opening, I just posted the Nikolic-Fischer game, shall I repost it, specifically for you?
About outrageous claims in the English opening, I just posted the Nikolic-Fischer game, shall I repost it, specifically for you?
Fischer has just played e5-e4, and, believe me or not, yes, I do claim it from the bottom of my heart and the maybe 1000 games I have analysed with the top engines with similar pawn structure, black is already won.
- Seriously
- Yes, quite in earnest
- Why so
Because the f2 white shelter pawn is backward, the whole white shelter is inflexible, so playing f2-f3/f2-f4 to get rid of the bind is difficult of impossible, if played, the white shelter will shrink to only 2 pawns, h2 and g3, while the e3 pawn will be weak and a constant target.
The specific pawns structure in the center, d4,c4 vs d6,c6 pawns make opening the game impossible, on c4-c5, black has d6-d5, while on d4-d5, c6-c5, so the game remains closed.
After that, black will regroup, bring more pieces to the king side, use its storming pawns and win, there is no escape; actually, that is what Fischer did. You don't believe Fischer?
That game started from the English opening(see game above), with 1.c4, so allowing black to play e5-e4 is really disastrous here. The only way white will not allow that push is by plaing e4 himself. What is so difficult to understand?
Where am I wrong? I have analysed similar structures in 1000 games or so until great depths.
Or maybe Fischer is wrong, as he has played precisely the same structure also with reversed colours, the KIA, shall I post his game against Magmiasuren?
Ok, here it is:
And here is the vital diagram:
Fischer has just played e4-e5, getting the very same position with reversed colours: white e5 pawn, black e6,f7 and g7 pawns. This is also already won or very close to winning, and indeed, Fischer won.
Above pattern, I call a central backward-maker, and it has a very wide application in chess.
As in above position the central clamp is bad for black, so is it for white in the English.
What is so difficult to understand?
In distinction to you, however, I am always backing my claims with very concrete examples, as I have devoted a tremendous amount of time studying chess scientifically.
Your comments, annotation and assessment is superficial; like the Nikolic vs. Fischer Vinkoci 1968 Yugoslavia, you say that white is dead lost after Fischer 9...e4! but you are wrong, black has a slight advantage only. Play through the game again and white has 21.a6! with equality, Nikolic 21.Rh1 is losing. I have played the French for years and met many KIA setup and black is not lost. Nikolic position is reverse French defense and he was outplay by Fischer who was GM to Nikolic with no title and low rating 2222 fide; no wonder Fischer crush Nikolic.
Your two games you posted and you played Stockfish Feb. 6, 2015 and Komodo Aug. 8, 2016, very poor quality and the two engine played below 1800 fide and I was so surprise that a super GM engines tactics were non-existent, these tactical monster can find tactics in the most driest position but in both your games they lost without a fight.
In the English Opening is basically a reverse Sicilian, 1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.e4 conceded the advantage, black can get a equality with 3...Nc6; GM Larry Christiansen vs. IM Maurice Ashley 1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.e4 Bb4 this the reverse Sicilian 5.d3 d6 6.g3 Nd7 7.Bg2 Nf8!? much better and leads to equality is 7...0-0, if black play sensible black can achieve equality.
Your assessment given positions are superficial, there is no depth, like in Nikolic vs. Fischer, white is lost; No! White is not lost.
Thanks for the link
yureesystem, how dare you!? Never question the (self-proclaimed) god of chess Lyudmil_Tsvetkov.
breakingbad12 wrote:
yureesystem, how dare you!? Never question the (self-proclaimed) god of chess Lyudmil_Tsvetkov.
lol Lyudmil is god of chess in own mind. Normally I just ignore delusional chess players but I would want a chess player thinking that Lyudmil has the "chess secrets", any 1800 fide will recognize he has nothing to offer concerning chess knowledge. He really think he can beat Scockfish, Komodo and now AlphaZero; if he that strong prove it and play here, if he starts beating GMs and Carlsen then I can believe he has something to offer.
Someone ask Lyudmil his target readers and he never answer the question. non-title Lyudmil is surprise there is very little interested, well, first you don't have a title and that mean no credibility. When a GM share his knowledge its from his studies and experiences; I would rather buy Chess Praxis by Nimzovitch and learn something of value than to buy Chess Secrets by Lyudmil and his ridiculous and outrageous claims. Look at his ridiculous explanation on Nikolic vs Fischer and why black is winning and its only a slight advantage for black; ask any GM and they will laugh at his claim black is winning. Nikolic vs Fischer game is very simple, black has more space because of 9...e4 and attack chances and if black doesn't use temporary advantage he will lose it. Let me ask you chess players a logical question, how can white be lost after 9...e4, look at post # 134 and position: white attack on the queen side and black on the king side and with best play its a draw. White could of achieve equality but he miss 21.a6! and played 21.Rh1? and lost.
No one right now has any chess secrets, not even Carlsen; they might know more and have deep understanding but give any 2500 elo GM and he can understand Carlsen's games and annotated for us amateurs and we can have deeper appreciation of Carlsen's move, and its depth and beauty. Chess engine cannot tell us why Carlsen made that move and why, only a GM.
I wonder why chess.com staff didn't lock this thread yet. This is clearly a scam. How do I contact the forum mods?