The Secret of Chess

What icons?

Where?

Post one diagram, post one single diagram, dear Yuri, then we could discuss.

a6 does not save white at all; we have been analysing this specific position for so long with monstrous hardware and human input on Talkchess forum, that we have exhausted every single line of it.

It is your analysis, or the analysis of the person whose article you have read, most probably, that is wrong. You think Fischer chose that specific setup for no reason? And the reversed French? Come on, Yuri.

Concerning my games, I have to bittely disappoint you, but they are higher quality overall than Kasparov-Deep Blue. And that is easuly verifiable: current top engines easily see and correct many of Deep Blue's moves, while they fail to see and understand most of mine, so your disparaging efforts are fully futile.

You say 21.a6, with very short search, even SF gives +200cps for black, although it starts with white advantage, and that is probably what confused you:

Stockfish 8 64 POPCNT - o, Blitz 2m+2s Microsoft
2r5/p4pk1/2P2bp1/2P5/3PQ3/4PpP1/4qP2/R5K1 w - - 0 1

Analysis by Stockfish 8 64 POPCNT:

12...a5 13.d5 Qa2 14.Rf1 Qa3 15.d6
  -+  (-1.75)   Depth: 6/6   00:00:00  0kN
12...a5 13.d5 Qa2 14.Rf1 Qa3 15.d6 Qxc5
  -+  (-1.75)   Depth: 7/7   00:00:00  0kN
12...a5 13.d5 Qa2 14.Rf1 Qa3 15.Qxf3 Qxc5 16.Qe4
  -+  (-1.75)   Depth: 8/8   00:00:00  1kN
12...a5 13.d5 Qa2 14.Rf1 Qa3 15.Qg4 Rh8 16.Rd1 Qxc5 17.Qxf3 a4
  -+  (-1.78)   Depth: 9/11   00:00:00  1kN
12...a5 13.d5 Qa2 14.Rf1 Qa3 15.Qg4 Rh8 16.Rd1 Qxc5 17.Qxf3 a4 18.d6 a3
  -+  (-1.82)   Depth: 10/13   00:00:00  1kN
12...a5 13.d5 Qa2 14.Rf1 Qa3 15.Qc4 Qb4 16.Rc1 Be5 17.d6 Qxc4 18.Rxc4 Rxc6
  -+  (-1.82)   Depth: 11/17   00:00:00  3kN
12...a5 13.d5 Qa2 14.Rf1 Qa3 15.Qc4 Qb4 16.Rc1 Be5 17.d6 Qxc4 18.Rxc4 Rxc6 19.Kh2 Rc8
  -+  (-1.82)   Depth: 12/17   00:00:00  3kN
12...a5 13.d5 Qa2 14.Rf1 Qa3 15.Qc4 Qb4 16.Qxb4 axb4 17.Kh2 Bc3 18.Kh3 f5 19.g4 Be5 20.gxf5 gxf5
  -+  (-1.86)   Depth: 13/18   00:00:00  8kN
12...a5 13.d5 Qa2 14.Rf1 Qa3 15.Qg4 Rh8 16.Qc4 Qb2 17.Rd1 Qe5 18.Qg4 a4 19.Qxf3 a3 20.Rd2 Qa1+ 21.Rd1
  -+  (-1.95)   Depth: 14/20   00:00:00  21kN
12...a5 13.d5 Qa2 14.Rf1 Qa3 15.Qc4 Qb4 16.Qxb4 axb4 17.Kh2 Bc3 18.Rb1 Kf6 19.Kg1 Rh8 20.c7 Ke7
  -+  (-1.96)   Depth: 15/22   00:00:00  28kN
12...a5 13.d5 Qa2 14.Rf1 Qa3 15.Qc4 Qb4 16.Qxb4 axb4 17.Kh2 Bc3 18.Rb1 Kf6 19.Kg1 Ke7 20.Kh2
  -+  (-1.74)   Depth: 16/22   00:00:00  34kN
12...a5 13.d5 Qa2 14.Rf1 Qa3 15.Qc4 Qb4 16.Rc1 Be5 17.Qxb4 axb4 18.Rb1 Bc3 19.Kh2 Kf6 20.Kh3 Kf5 21.Kh2 Ke4 22.d6 Kd5
  -+  (-1.96)   Depth: 17/25   00:00:00  51kN
12...a5 13.d5 Qa2 14.Rf1 Qa3 15.Qc4 Qb4 16.Rc1 Be5 17.Qxb4 axb4 18.Rb1 Bc3 19.g4 Kf6 20.Kh2 Be5+ 21.Kg1 Ra8
  -+  (-1.96)   Depth: 18/28   00:00:00  98kN
12...a5 13.d5 Qa2 14.Rf1 Qa3 15.Qc4 Qb4 16.Rc1 Be5 17.Qxb4 axb4 18.Rb1 Bc3 19.Kh2 Rh8+ 20.Kg1 Kf6 21.d6 Ke6 22.Rd1 b3 23.d7 Ba5 24.Rb1 Kd5 25.Rxb3 Kxc6 26.e4
  -+  (-2.04)   Depth: 19/28   00:00:00  128kN
12...a5 13.d5 Qa2 14.Rf1 Qa3 15.Qc4 Qb4 16.Rc1 Be5 17.Qxb4 axb4 18.Rb1 Bc3 19.Rd1 b3 20.Rb1 b2 21.d6 Rxc6 22.d7 Bf6 23.Rxb2 Rxc5 24.Rd2 Bd8 25.e4 Rc1+ 26.Kh2 Kf6 27.Rd3 Rc4 28.Rxf3+ Ke7 29.e5 Kxd7
  -+  (-1.79)   Depth: 20/35   00:00:00  212kN
12...a5 13.d5 Qa2 14.Rf1 Qa3 15.Qc4 Qb4 16.Rc1 Be5 17.Qxb4 axb4 18.Rb1 Bc3 19.Rd1 b3 20.Rb1 b2 21.d6 Rxc6 22.d7 Bf6 23.Rxb2 Rxc5 24.Rd2 Bd8 25.e4 Rc1+ 26.Kh2 Kf6 27.Rd3 Rc4 28.Rxf3+ Ke7 29.Kh3 Rxe4
  -+  (-1.97)   Depth: 21/39   00:00:00  460kN
12...a5 13.d5 Qa2 14.Rf1 Qa3 15.Qg4 Rh8 16.Qc4 Qb2 17.Rd1 Qe5 18.Qg4 a4 19.c7 Qxc7 20.Qxa4 Qxc5 21.Qg4 Qc8 22.Qxf3 Qh3 23.d6 Be5 24.d7 Qh2+ 25.Kf1
  -+  (-1.87)   Depth: 22/39   00:00:00  1292kN
12...a5 13.d5 Qa2 14.Rf1 Qa3 15.Qc4 Qb4 16.Rc1 Be5 17.Qxb4 axb4 18.Rb1 Bc3 19.d6 Rxc6 20.d7 Bf6 21.Rxb4 Rxc5 22.Rd4 Bd8 23.Rf4 Rd5 24.Rxf3 Rxd7 25.Rf4 Rd2 26.Ra4 Kf6
  -+  (-2.29)   Depth: 23/39   00:00:02  2697kN
12...a5 13.d5 Qa2 14.Rf1 Qa3 15.Qc4 Qb4 16.Qxb4 axb4 17.Rb1 Bc3 18.d6 Rxc6 19.d7 Bf6 20.Rxb4 Rxc5 21.Rd4 Bd8 22.Rf4 Rd5 23.Rxf3 Bc7 24.e4 Rxd7 25.Rc3 Be5 26.Rc6 Rd3 27.Kg2 Bd4 28.Rc7
  -+  (-2.14)   Depth: 24/39   00:00:02  3619kN
12...a5 13.d5 Qa2 14.Rf1 Qa3 15.Qc4 Qb4 16.Qxb4 axb4 17.Rb1 Bc3 18.d6 Rxc6 19.d7 Bf6 20.Rxb4 Rxc5 21.Rd4 Bd8 22.Rf4 Rd5 23.Rxf3 Bc7 24.e4 Rxd7 25.Rb3 Kf6 26.f4 Rd2 27.Rb7 Rc2 28.Kf1 Ke6 29.e5 Kd5 30.Ra7
  -+  (-2.09)   Depth: 25/39   00:00:03  4366kN

(, Microsoft 08.12.2017)

So, do your homework better.

I don't know what game of mine you are talking about, please post a diagram.

No tactics there, of course, that is the whole trick, the closed systems of play I employ decisively prevent any engine tactics, as simply tactics are very rare or even unexistent in a range of blocked structures. So again, just do your homework better.

As said, my games are higher quality than Deep Blue-Kasparov.

If you rely on Mr. Ashley to tell you the truth for certain things, well, he is too weak for that.

And then you can even buy my book.

1800 players are not able to judge the play of much stronger ones, but the opposite is true.

So basically, your statements are paradoxical.

Why do you think you are stronger than GM Smerdon? :

https://www.chess.com/blog/smurfo/the-secret-of-chess

If I am using new chess language, then I have new things to offer, too.

But I guess you slowly start seeing the truth and in a short while will be convinced...

Man, when will you stop posting BS?

'Chess Praxis'/'Chess System' is good, but its concepts outdated and a lot of its assessments imprecise.

Ok, let's post here Nikolic-Fischer before white's 21st move:

You want to analyse it?

I already posted SF output, which shows +200cps black advantage in 12 moves' time, but, if you are not satisfied, we could do a more thorough analysis.

On a6, I play Nf3 check:

It's your move.

And you will promise me one thing: in case white loses this, you will never again post disparaging comments about my chess understanding and chess games.

Deal?

after Alpha zero's success, I am getting more interested in this book. But unable to buy it from my country: (

"In my country, book buys you."

--Yakov Smirnoff

Are you able to view this excerpt?

http://www.secretofchess.com/files/17772/ckfinder/images/pawns-exc.pdf

I just read it in conjunction with chapter 1, sections 13-17, of Pawn Power in Chess - https://www.scribd.com/read/271583256/Pawn-Power-in-Chess

I am impressed. 

I have a hobby of reading chess books  but still a very bad player, might be because I am too old
I have read solitis pawn structure chess, and  Rios "Chess structures: A grandmaster guide". I will try pawn power as well. But after reading review of Tsvetkov's book and alhpa zero success, my assumption that it is impossible to beat stockfish is broken.  Most importantly, alpha zero was only evaluating 80k moves whereas stockfish was evaluating 70 million moves per second. This affirms that stockfish evaluation still is not perfect. So why not, give this book a try. Might be someone else can translate his methodology to a human level

I should study the science of flags, vexicology or what was it called?

In what way precisely, if it is not a secret, dear GWTR?

Perfect chess is at 5000-6000 elos or so.

Current top engines are at 3200 or so on single core.

So maybe, we are just in the middle.

If you have followed the freely available games from Alpha-SF match, 80% were decided already in the early opening, where Alpha used its simulated book, even fianchettoeing its kingside bishop with Bg2, something current top engines almost fully misunderstand, while SF made 2 significant opening mistakes till move 6 on average in almost every game.

So, SF, at its current stage of development, is actually very bad.

Alpha is even worse on a single core, 300-400 elos or so below, but its chess on this tremendous hardware was really somewhat above SF.

I have played some games and won some against the top engines, and there are some good games among those published in my books, but you won't believe what incredible positions I have seen while analysing. Unfortunately, I have never been able to reproduce them in my blitz/fast games.

So there is really something very special beyond, above 3200 elos of SF, above 3300 of Alpha on that hardware, and also way way above 4000 elos.

Some tremendous chess is in store for us, but we should make some effort to understand it.

I have a suggestion, I hope you will not feel bad. 
Try to discuss, your methodology with someone like Jeremy Silman or anyone else who have written many books on chess that are easier to understand. In this, you both can come with an updated version of your book and that can sell better as well. In current form, I am thinking it will be hard to read as you are not the regular author so the book has become little too difficult to understand. However, I would like to give it a try but unfortunately, I am not able to buy it from my country

What important to me is that alpha was evaluating a much smaller number of positions per second as compared to stockfish and still evaluating the position better. Therefore, your point of view is validated in my opinion. Moreover, alpha has also validated your views on c4 and French defense. All this is making me curious about your methodology that how you are evaluating?

Why should I feel bad, your suggestion is reasonable.

I myself plan on releasing a second part at some point, that will include a large sample of world champion and top engine games, explaining in detail the different terms. Also, getting rid of numbers and substituting them for human interpretations.

The game collection will undoubtedly only be of use.

What concerns the human assessments instead of numbers, this will make the book more 'readable', but will definitely significantly decrease its precision. Those numbers are simply necessary there, on each and every square for some terms.

I still wonder how useful human assessments of the type 'unclear position' are?

What the hell does that mean?

Of course, selectivity is the future.

If you trace down the development of chess engines in the last maybe 70 years or so, with small oscillations, they have only become more and more selective, both in their search, by exploring less moves, and their evaluation, by assessing separate nodes/positions in more refined ways and thus avoiding the trap of calculating suboptimal lines.

Concerning my evaluation, well, maybe I have good memory, as have learned many languages, and like original stuff, which is what computer chess offers. When you start analysing all day long for a number of years, you certainly recognise some patterns that are winning/drawing games. The more you analyse, the more you recognise.

Well, I guess that at some point you like to think more than to feel; when this stage comes, the rest is simple: you are more a machine than human.

The never-ending story...

There are some people who like my work.

I don't mind the detractors at all, as long as they are objective and clearly point out what could be wrong.

What I really don't like is negating everything, just because...

That is a God-given punishment.

3 consonants one after the other: very easy.