Borislav Ivanov: a Lilov's add-on

[michiguel]

Is Lilov trustable person?

I don't know, but his analysis insult my intelligence as a chess player. There are many "no human would play this....", which are totally exaggerated and false. Completely biased.

Miguel

[Taner Altinsoy]

In an interview the guy said he has beaten houdini and rybka 10-0 each... This alone is enough to convince me he is a cheater LOL!

We were given statistical analysis of his performance and games and it is very very very unlikely that he is genuinely a GM level player (or even a 2700+ player as some of his results suggest) unless he has hit his head and became smarter than Einstein

We have a saying in Turkish which can be roughly translated as "no smoke comes if there's no fire". We have a lot of smoke coming out and it's just a matter of time the fire appears.

[Don]

Is Lilov trustable person?

I don't know, but his analysis insult my intelligence as a chess player. There are many "no human would play this....", which are totally exaggerated and false. Completely biased.

It's an exaggeration to say "no human would ever play this", but I tended to agree with the basic sentiment when I looked at the moves he identified. He would have been spot on accurate to say, "very few humans, even at the top level, would play this" and in my opinion that would not have been an exaggeration.

This is one of those things that it would be very difficult to appear to be open minded about. It would be like asking someone to consider whether the earth is really flat or not and to present their argument and their conclusion in a neutral and unbiased way. I consider myself very open minded about most things but I would have to fake it to appear open minded when the evidence is so overwhelming. I would be trying to persuade someone of this, not still be considering the evidence.

Miguel

[Graham Banks]

In an interview the guy said he has beaten houdini and rybka 10-0 each... This alone is enough to convince me he is a cheater LOL!

We were given statistical analysis of his performance and games and it is very very very unlikely that he is genuinely a GM level player (or even a 2700+ player as some of his results suggest) unless he has hit his head and became smarter than Einstein

We have a saying in Turkish which can be roughly translated as "no smoke comes if there's no fire". We have a lot of smoke coming out and it's just a matter of time the fire appears.

All good points. Should be interesting to see how things develop.

[michiguel]

Is Lilov trustable person?

I don't know, but his analysis insult my intelligence as a chess player. There are many "no human would play this....", which are totally exaggerated and false. Completely biased.

It's an exaggeration to say "no human would ever play this",

Exaggeration is an understatement.

but I tended to agree with the basic sentiment when I looked at the moves he identified. He would have been spot on accurate to say, "very few humans, even at the top level, would play this" and in my opinion that would not have been an exaggeration.

No Don, many of the things he say are nonsense. In fact, some of the chess concepts he _made_up_ to "prove" his point are wrong.

[d]1KR4R/PPP1B3/2N1B1Q1/4P1PP/3Pp3/p2p1np1/1ppb2bp/1kr1q1r1 b - - 0 1

Black played a5, a totally natural move, and he says

(minute 16:10)

"a5 is totally illogical, I would not play it myself because it violates one of the simple rules, do not play in the area of the board where the opponent is stronger"
That is totally BS!

Here is another view.


Not that I am defending Ivanov, I am annoyed by Lilov's videos.

Miguel

This is one of those things that it would be very difficult to appear to be open minded about. It would be like asking someone to consider whether the earth is really flat or not and to present their argument and their conclusion in a neutral and unbiased way. I consider myself very open minded about most things but I would have to fake it to appear open minded when the evidence is so overwhelming. I would be trying to persuade someone of this, not still be considering the evidence.

Miguel

[michiguel]

Is Lilov trustable person?

I don't know, but his analysis insult my intelligence as a chess player. There are many "no human would play this....", which are totally exaggerated and false. Completely biased.

It's an exaggeration to say "no human would ever play this",

Exaggeration is an understatement.

but I tended to agree with the basic sentiment when I looked at the moves he identified. He would have been spot on accurate to say, "very few humans, even at the top level, would play this" and in my opinion that would not have been an exaggeration.

No Don, many of the things he say are nonsense. In fact, some of the chess concepts he _made_up_ to "prove" his point are wrong.

[d]1KR4R/PPP1B3/2N1B1Q1/4P1PP/3Pp3/p2p1np1/1ppb2bp/1kr1q1r1 b - - 0 1

Black played a5, a totally natural move, and he says

(minute 16:10)

"a5 is totally illogical, I would not play it myself because it violates one of the simple rules, do not play in the area of the board where the opponent is stronger"
That is totally BS!

Here is another view.


Not that I am defending Ivanov, I am annoyed by Lilov's videos.

Miguel

This is one of those things that it would be very difficult to appear to be open minded about. It would be like asking someone to consider whether the earth is really flat or not and to present their argument and their conclusion in a neutral and unbiased way. I consider myself very open minded about most things but I would have to fake it to appear open minded when the evidence is so overwhelming. I would be trying to persuade someone of this, not still be considering the evidence.

Miguel

[d]rnb2rk1/pp2qppp/3ppn2/8/1pPP4/5NP1/PP2PPBP/RN1Q1RK1 w - - 2 9

White played a3 here, and Lilov said it is illogical ("no human would have played this move", ha! despite there are games in the book...) because it removes the double pawn. Nonsense! White exchanges an "a" pawn for a "b" pawn (which was actually a "c" pawn), which is always good, and you allow the Knight to develop to the natural square in this type of positions, c3. More central pawns, more space. This is basic. We may like to keep the double pawns or not, but that is a matter of taste.

[d]rn3rk1/pb2qppp/1p1ppn2/8/2PP4/R1N2NP1/1P2PPBP/3Q1RK1 w - - 2 12

"d5, a non human move". That is very typical! once black plays Bb7 d5 has the be the first consideration in queen indian type of games. Conceding c5 and e5 is totally irrelevant. I was taught this since I was 12.

And more like this.

Miguel

[Lyudmil Tsvetkov]

Is Lilov trustable person?

I don't know, but his analysis insult my intelligence as a chess player. There are many "no human would play this....", which are totally exaggerated and false. Completely biased.

It's an exaggeration to say "no human would ever play this",

Exaggeration is an understatement.

but I tended to agree with the basic sentiment when I looked at the moves he identified. He would have been spot on accurate to say, "very few humans, even at the top level, would play this" and in my opinion that would not have been an exaggeration.

No Don, many of the things he say are nonsense. In fact, some of the chess concepts he _made_up_ to "prove" his point are wrong.

[d]1KR4R/PPP1B3/2N1B1Q1/4P1PP/3Pp3/p2p1np1/1ppb2bp/1kr1q1r1 b - - 0 1

Black played a5, a totally natural move, and he says

(minute 16:10)

"a5 is totally illogical, I would not play it myself because it violates one of the simple rules, do not play in the area of the board where the opponent is stronger"
That is totally BS!

I think playing a5 for black is about the only reasonable option to consider alongside with the immediate f5, for otherwise white is threatening a mating attack with Bc2 (Bb1), Qd3, or sacrificing Bh6 first in some variations.
Here is another view.


Not that I am defending Ivanov, I am annoyed by Lilov's videos.

Miguel

This is one of those things that it would be very difficult to appear to be open minded about. It would be like asking someone to consider whether the earth is really flat or not and to present their argument and their conclusion in a neutral and unbiased way. I consider myself very open minded about most things but I would have to fake it to appear open minded when the evidence is so overwhelming. I would be trying to persuade someone of this, not still be considering the evidence.

Miguel

[d]rnb2rk1/pp2qppp/3ppn2/8/1pPP4/5NP1/PP2PPBP/RN1Q1RK1 w - - 2 9

White played a3 here, and Lilov said it is illogical ("no human would have played this move", ha! despite there are games in the book...) because it removes the double pawn. Nonsense! White exchanges an "a" pawn for a "b" pawn (which was actually a "c" pawn), which is always good, and you allow the Knight to develop to the natural square in this type of positions, c3. More central pawns, more space. This is basic. We may like to keep the double pawns or not, but that is a matter of taste.

I totally agree, Miguel. I would consider playing a3 for white as my first (and possibly only) choice, maybe because I have played too many computer games. Another important thing is the semi-open a file that would appear. Besides, the pawn on b4 gains space advantage and is more of an asset than a weakness. [d]rn3rk1/pb2qppp/1p1ppn2/8/2PP4/R1N2NP1/1P2PPBP/3Q1RK1 w - - 2 12

"d5, a non human move". That is very typical! once black plays Bb7 d5 has the be the first consideration in queen indian type of games. Conceding c5 and e5 is totally irrelevant. I was taught this since I was 12.

Again I totally agree. For me, playing d5 for white is the only option, for otherwise black would play d5 itself with probably already a slightly better position.And more like this.

Miguel

[Lyudmil Tsvetkov]

Don, I think you and many others start from the wrong assumption that a player can not play a couple of hundred elos above his current rating. That it is impossible to learn fast. But actually modern engine software makes learning and progressing much easier than ever before. training with top engines would mean that you will be able to see some pattern in their approach to the game that would facilitate learning enormously, in sharp distinction to engine software dating back a decade ago, when trying to learn with Fritz would be difficult basically because it would be close to impossible to discern a pattern in its moves, they were like on a random basis. With state-of-the-art engines of today one should be able to progress several times quicker than otherwise, not to mention training with books and a chessboard, where already energetically producing the moves would deprive you of some learning advantages.

[Lyudmil Tsvetkov]

Thanks Graham, but the important thing is that Don does not agree

[Lyudmil Tsvetkov]

Hi Taner.
The 10-0 routs of Rybka and Houdini were obviously an emotional statement; but you can expect that from a person at whom all are pointing a finger shouting 'You, cheater!'. Imagine for a moment that the accusation comes as a complete surprise to him.

I think his earlier games show some very good positional understanding combined with making lots of mistakes. Getting rid of mistakes, improving tactically could warrant a sudden strength increase.
About playing weak in some tournaments and strong in others - but that is about true for all, look at some recent world-class tournaments, there are very often players significantly underperforming, and players significantly outperforming. And that might be valid not just for a single tournament, but for a whole stretch of events spanning an extended period of time.

The smoke is in and around Taksim Square, will there be fire?