Human versus Machine

[Lyudmil Tsvetkov]

Actually, it seems, the structures are not 4, but at least 8, as those could be mirrored on the queen side.
For example, a standard d6-e5-f4 black KID chain could be replicated by an e6-d5-c4 chain on the queen side, with white king castling long, etc.
That seems to happen very rarely in practice, though.

But those are only the structures I myself have discovered. I am pretty much certain there are many other ways of trying to handle the engines
easily, they just wait to be discovered by someone.

As said, if Stockfish does not improve by at least 400 elos in the next year or 2, too many humans will start beating it too easily.

[Lyudmil Tsvetkov]

Saw the 10 preview pages and you wrote about winning against stockfish 4 with stonewall .Well, Stonewall is notoriously drawish opening (since dinosaur age )against computers, of course at least 99% good players already knew and might have tried against computer already. (similar to a player nicked name Grandfather who frequently posted his drawish games with stone wall here). I can tell the reason behind the loss of computer, it was because black did not develop queen bishop on c8. However I highly doubt that the same opening will work against current stockfish or Komodo of 2017 version. If you play stonewall in either 1. e3, d4, bd3 , f4 , Nf3,Ne5 in whatever order, black will respond with d5, nf6 bf5 or bg4 in either sequence. Black will not badly play like e6 and stop developing c8 bishop in that opening. Of course you may still get a draw 1 in 100 against modern computers and it should be according to your rating difference vs computers. ( your 2100+ FIDE rating vs 3100+ computers)

I don't know when people on this forum and elsewhere will finally learn that my objective current chess strength, especially under quiet conditions, is at least 2800?

that 2100+ estimate(actually 2200+) dates back from 2004-2006, and during that period I had a couple of 2400 performances.
I simply played too few rated games during that period, mostly at the weekends or in the evening, after a strenuous working day. Lack of concentration and fatigue play an enormous role in deciding a chess game.

in the course of 12 years, I have added too much chess strength, I am even afraid to think of how large that quantity is nowadays. Matter of fact is that in the last 5 years I have played and analysed at least 3 times more games than during my entire chess training span before that.

I don't know what are you talking me drawing 1 out of 100 against Stockfish. Out of 100, I am usually drawing at least 67.

I acknowledge you are right, though, concerning Bf5 in the commented Stonewall game. It is the much better choice, Komodo does play that move, but not Stockfish.
Just check, current Stockfish will again choose e6 instead.

I believe that if you play in tournament against humans and improve your rating and get the GM title more people are going to buy your books.

If you think that you improved significantly from the last time that you played against humans then I see no reason for you not to prove it by playing against humans(and if you are really strong then you can expect also to earn money from playing.

Hey, Uri, who has so much time to waste on competitions?

You are right of course, but you need at least couple of years to get IM/GM title officially.

All I know is that, when I am commenting the games now for the book, I immediately see all available tactics, even in more complicated positions, while, when playing the very same commented games couple of years ago, frequently, I would sometimes wonder why the hell did Stockfish resign?
i.e., I have not been seeing then the relevant tactical lines, even in simpler situations.

I would assess that at at least 200-300 elo, from wondering 'What the hell is going on' to immediately seeing all tactics.

I guess also a writer's quality/strength could be assessed even by the very books written, don't you think so?

I guess you will agree there might be even players who have never played a single competitive game in their life, who don't have rating, but are actually stronger than Carlsen. Possible?

My predicament is that: to have an abundance of titles for the things I am not doing and no special titles for the very thing I am most busy with, what to do?

Still, I believe in the quality of my books.

[Lyudmil Tsvetkov]

Most people here should be aware, but for those new, I just want to
bring back to life an intriguing thread on talkchess, involving a live chess game between me and Stockfish, played in late 2014:
http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... be27a1a99c
This is just to show how much analytical effort has gone into developing the right strategies to overpower the top engines.
With each move consistently analysed for half an hour, and Stockfish using 16 threads, the amount of knowledge one gets from similar sessions is certainly tremendous.

And that is only one of maybe more than a thousand similar analytical threads on talkchess during the last 5 years.

Some might try to raise cheating allegations against me, but I am worth
what I am worth.

[Lyudmil Tsvetkov]

And this is the place to thank Louis once again, as otherwise this game would not have been possible.

[tpoppins]

both Stockfish and Komodo like a line like 1. d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3 g6!(this is the trick,
definitely strongest continuation) 5. e3 Bg4!(again, best) 6. h3(that is how top engines play) Bg4 7. Qf3(bishop pair lacking,
but the queen is very displaced here) e6

That's two illegal moves in a seven-move sequence.

[tpoppins]

[Lyudmil Tsvetkov]

both Stockfish and Komodo like a line like 1. d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3 g6!(this is the trick,
definitely strongest continuation) 5. e3 Bg4!(again, best) 6. h3(that is how top engines play) Bg4 7. Qf3(bishop pair lacking,
but the queen is very displaced here) e6

That's two illegal moves in a seven-move sequence.

Is not it obvious that it is 6...Bf3?

[Lyudmil Tsvetkov]

haha, Tim, very funny.

There will be Part III, but I don't know when and that will certainly not be
the topic.

Below a real review, by a real reader, who has read the book and understands chess, not just playing around with computers and fully trusts them.
That is what MarshallArts posts on Rybka forum:

The exhortation not to buy his books is very mean-spirited and basically unfounded. I can understand if someone does not like the playing conditions which these games were conducted under, but the criticism is going too far.

His books are quite good actually. I only skimmed through the Secret of Chess, but the newer human vs machine game books seem packed with good and crisp explanations that can help elevate a reader's play even against other human players. The games themselves are H vs M masterpieces, regardless of whatever handicaps were used by the author. A very high level understanding of chess transpires when looking at these well commented games. I was positively surprised by the quality of
these games and their annotations.



http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforu ... ?tid=32312

So that, basically, Tim, I would say, read the book, learn better chess, and then post such hilarious edited screenshots.

[Lyudmil Tsvetkov]

Probably I should not be posting this, the other thread running now on the main forum might be sufficient, but, as I am too emotional, I was just surprised to find another 1 star review, again without a verified purchase, on Amazon, this time about Part I of 'Human versus Machine':
https://www.amazon.com/Human-Versus-Mac ... l+tsvetkov

I might be overreacting, but I simply wonder why a book about beating the top engines, i.e., doing something close to the unimaginable, should receive bad reviews?
Of course, almost nothing in the review is true, obviously the reviewer simply did not read the book and has a grudge on me, it might very well be one and the same person posting under different names, but it still hurts.

I would be glad, if someone on this forum, who has read the book and has a different opinion, could help a bit and share his thoughts on Amazon.

Why are people so grudgy?

[Lyudmil Tsvetkov]

I simply don't know what to say.
Obviously, I have angered beyond repair some person with my posts about
the books I have published, so that he has resorted to the meanest action possible, posting a 1-star review on Amazon, not once, but twice, for both parts of 'Human versus Machine', without even having read the book:

https://www.amazon.com/Human-Versus-Mac ... l+tsvetkov

https://www.amazon.com/Human-Versus-Mac ... 0RCGK15NE9

It is the very same person, Serverless, who probably has accounts on all main computer chess forums.

Why are people so mean?

I have put an awful lot of effort into writing these books and get almost nothing in return, and still people resort to unimaginable dirty tricks to
deprive me of even the slightest consolation to see my books if not assessed, than at least not denigrated.

What a pity.