The Secret of Chess

[Lyudmil Tsvetkov]

Sam, please drop a mail to my address specified at the site, so that I could include you in future updates of the book.

[BrendanJNorman]

Lyudmil Tsvetkov

Other than your posts, is there something you can provide to recommend your qualifications as a chess author? Something other than your fooling around with engines a lot...say ELO maybe? I've just been wondering and thought I would finally ask.

elo is nothing, Alekhine had no elo, Steinitz had no elo, Capablanca had no elo, some of those even had no titles.

I have not played for 12+ years, if I do some competitive runs now, I will get to over 2500 quite easily, at least, but I don't see the point of doing it.

OTB players are nasty.
I have been winning against GMs, who have been resorting to all kinds of tricks, in order not to lose, for example pressing down the clock button for a very long time, when both are low on time.

You should understand that the average chess master/GM is very stupid. Maybe the top 50 or so are a bit intelligent, but overall, chess masters are very ordinary people without a lot of talent.

if a brighter person decides to put a lot of energy into chess instead of law, business or public administration, he will easily surpass them.

later

Look Lyudmil,

It's comments like this that make it really hard to take you seriously.

Steinitz, Alekhine and co. not having ratings (in the pre-ratings era) is a terrible argument for not having a respectable rating in the post ratings era.

Back then chess strength wasn't measured mathematically, now it is - and that's all there is to it.

Alekhine has an excuse - we don't.

You say that you haven't played for over 12 years, you're currently 2100, but if you got serious now you'd get to 2500 "easily".

Come on man.

That's as immature as the kid who says "I could smash Mike Tyson - I just don't want to!"

We're all free to say anything we like without the burden of proof being placed upon us.

If you can get a chess.com account to even 2300 blitz rating, I'll be more convinced (still far off 2500 though since the difficulty of improvement increases exponentially at those levels).

The way you approach computer chess seems quite scientific - why not apply that same scientific, objective and intellectually honest approach to the rest of life?

Just a crazy idea...

[duncan]

Was this for me?

I was sure that you knew this abc, just felt your title could be tightened up a bit.

[Marek Soszynski]

William Shakespeare

Other than your plays, is there something you can provide to recommend your qualifications as a dramatist?

[Lyudmil Tsvetkov]

William Shakespeare

Other than your plays, is there something you can provide to recommend your qualifications as a dramatist?

[whereagles]

one should not write books, that are too advanced, or for an audience that is too unadvanced.

advanced books that are systematic and well-written are very necessary and in short supply for most mind sports.

chess is actually the exception.. bridge, for instance, has like 2 or 3 really good ones

[MikeGL]

one should not write books, that are too advanced, or for an audience that is too unadvanced.

advanced books that are systematic and well-written are very necessary and in short supply for most mind sports.

chess is actually the exception.. bridge, for instance, has like 2 or 3 really good ones

In my opinion, advanced topic in chess is relative. It is different for you,
and it is different for me. In fact, I don't think there's even an "advanced" topic
in chess because everything can be understood and explained by even a
12-year-old GM or IM. Unlike other fields like Computing, Physics or Mathematics
where advanced means proving some obscure differential equations or proving
the equations of Einstein from scratch or solving one of those 7 millennium prize problems. I digress.

Best chess books written by powerful players were not even labeled as advanced but were
called fundamentals and basics, like Nimzovitch's My System and Capablanca's Chess Fundamentals which is a pre-requisite for any beginner who are
attempting to become good quickly.

MCO or Informator is pretty advanced for most tournament players,
but it is just intermediate level for some.

In my perspective, having chess.com blitz (3 mins) and lightning (1 min) ratings both maintained at around 2200, the following books are advanced.

https://www.amazon.com/Domination-2-545 ... 0923891870

http://www.chessinformant.org/ece-encyc ... s-endings/

But then again, as I mentioned earlier "advanced" chess topic is different for each of us.


.

[leavenfish]

Lyudmil Tsvetkov

Other than your posts, is there something you can provide to recommend your qualifications as a chess author? Something other than your fooling around with engines a lot...say ELO maybe? I've just been wondering and thought I would finally ask.

elo is nothing, Alekhine had no elo, Steinitz had no elo, Capablanca had no elo, some of those even had no titles.

I have not played for 12+ years, if I do some competitive runs now, I will get to over 2500 quite easily, at least, but I don't see the point of doing it.

OTB players are nasty.
I have been winning against GMs, who have been resorting to all kinds of tricks, in order not to lose, for example pressing down the clock button for a very long time, when both are low on time.

You should understand that the average chess master/GM is very stupid. Maybe the top 50 or so are a bit intelligent, but overall, chess masters are very ordinary people without a lot of talent.

if a brighter person decides to put a lot of energy into chess instead of law, business or public administration, he will easily surpass them.

later

Look Lyudmil,

It's comments like this that make it really hard to take you seriously.

...

Agreed.

Lyudmil... I have to say, the more he speaks, the more he seems to show himself to be what he probably is. I'll let others judge for themselves....and have no more to say on the subject.

[Lyudmil Tsvetkov]

Lyudmil Tsvetkov

Other than your posts, is there something you can provide to recommend your qualifications as a chess author? Something other than your fooling around with engines a lot...say ELO maybe? I've just been wondering and thought I would finally ask.

elo is nothing, Alekhine had no elo, Steinitz had no elo, Capablanca had no elo, some of those even had no titles.

I have not played for 12+ years, if I do some competitive runs now, I will get to over 2500 quite easily, at least, but I don't see the point of doing it.

OTB players are nasty.
I have been winning against GMs, who have been resorting to all kinds of tricks, in order not to lose, for example pressing down the clock button for a very long time, when both are low on time.

You should understand that the average chess master/GM is very stupid. Maybe the top 50 or so are a bit intelligent, but overall, chess masters are very ordinary people without a lot of talent.

if a brighter person decides to put a lot of energy into chess instead of law, business or public administration, he will easily surpass them.

later

Look Lyudmil,

It's comments like this that make it really hard to take you seriously.

...

Agreed.

Lyudmil... I have to say, the more he speaks, the more he seems to show himself to be what he probably is. I'll let others judge for themselves....and have no more to say on the subject.

what I said is that chess masters/gradmasters are mostly ordinary people with no particular talent, excluding the top 50 maybe.

I guess this is spot on.

of course, if brighter people, who go into business, law or public administration, would prefer to concentrate on chess instead, they would achieve much more and human chess as a whole would be much more advanced.

but they simply won't do that, as chess is unappealing as an activity.

what is so unacceptable or strange about this statement?

Fischer has very similar quotes, Bareev too, and many others.

btw., do you know what the Soviet dominance in chess until the fall of the Berlin wall was due to?

Fischer already stated it, but you paid no attention.

as, in all totalitarian Communist regimes, ordinary people/non party members are prohibited by law to apply for any positions having to do with government, law, business, etc., most of the brighter ones would choose alternative careers, and chess was one of those.

If these legal bans did not exist, the Soviets certainly would not have had so many champions, as Botvinnik, Tal, Spassky, Kortchnoy and others simply would have picked more promising careers than chess.

[whereagles]

A petite bourgeoisie would say chess is unappealing because you don't make much money from it

I tend to agree that there is a fraction of good players that lacks manners and/or has no other special talent. After all, chess is only a test of analytical intelligence, and, partially, spatial intelligence. There is more to intelligence than just those factors.

But of course, not all good players are rude or devoid of any other skills. I think Botvinnik was an electrical engineer.. I suppose he could have been a pioneer of electronics. Fischer, on the other hand, had little to show but chess.. but ok, his paranoia didn't help.