No matter how bad my book sells, if you start promoting it, it will be a disaster.BrendanJNorman wrote:Says the guy claiming to be the only guy on earth who can beat Stockfish.Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote: Otherwise, you are just LYING.
That is what you are, Brendan, a LIAR.
Here are some TRUTHS for you, Lyudmil.
1. Hundreds for 2750+ GMs have tried and failed to defeat Stockfish.
2. You claim to have done so - numerous times.
3. Unlike most chessplayers, especially those with a playing strength of 2750+ as you claim, you have no history at all of playing chess online. Therefore, no proof of playing strength.
4. You also refuse to provide proof of your claims.
5. People on chess.com have run your games against Stockfish through Stockfish...and strangely enough, Stockfish no longer agrees with the moves he played against you.
Those are self-evident truths, which in and of themselves, reveal you to be the liar.
If you truly as as strong as you say, I challenge you to 6 games of 3 0 on LiChess.com.
If you win even 3, I'll take your claims seriously, if you win all 6 (as someone stronger than SF should) - I'll promote your book myself.
How does that sound? Time to put up or shut up.
3/0, is that all the you can play?
Is that how you got a good online rating, by using time lag, wins on time and fast hand-moving?
All those games with no increment make no sense at all.
You are to weak for me, I would have played some games in order for you to indulge in my brilliant play, but for the time being I simply don't play online.
1/3 of the online players are cheaters, right?
Post a position where the SF version used by me for a particular game takes a very different decision, or just shut up.
PS. Again, I did not start all this.
I hate the way it goes, but that is it.
I posted another review and couple of games, nice input.
Then, Ulisses comes and starts trolling; Brendan joins into the scuffle; others too.
Again, it was not me who started it.