- Joined
- 15 Dec 17
- Moves
- 5227
23 Dec 17
Originally posted by @lyudmil-tsvetkovHow about I just write you a cheque for $2?
Look at number 5: https://www.amazon.com/Chess-Board-Games-Puzzles-Books/b?ie=UTF8&node=4406
Chessbase reprinted David Smerdon's review, and some people have hurried to buy the book, true, for each ebook purchase, I am getting just a bit more than 2 dollars.
Chess Base: https://en.chessbase.com/post/the-secret-of-chess
23 Dec 17
I am happy for a cheque of 2 too.
Here another review, very short: https://www.welshccf.org.uk/article/325
by Russell Sherwood of the Welsh Corresponcence Chess Federation(thanks Russell).
It is for the first time someone puts me on the Fringe, I am very happy.
'The Secret of Chess' convincingly beats ARB and Berliner, on equal terms with Shashin.
23 Dec 17
Originally posted by @lyudmil-tsvetkov1 more star out of 10 is not 'convincing'.
I am happy for a cheque of 2 too.
Here another review, very short: https://www.welshccf.org.uk/article/325
by Russell Sherwood of the Welsh Corresponcence Chess Federation(thanks Russell).
It is for the first time someone puts me on the Fringe, I am very happy.
'The Secret of Chess' convincingly beats ARB and Berliner, on equal terms with Shashin.
24 Dec 17
Originally posted by @greenpawn34I disagree with you about people disagreeing with you.
Hi Lyudmil,
I don't mind people disagreeing with me, most do, and I agree the computer is a useful tool.
But I also point to the 1000's of very good players who emerged before 1995
when computers 'got good'.
Most of us are home and casual players. I do not think anyone on RHP
earns their living by playing chess so most of us would be very ...[text shortened]... positions
1...Kc7 looking for an error (which is human trait) rather than expecting best play.
😛
- Joined
- 15 Dec 17
- Moves
- 5227
Originally posted by @paul-leggettI think you're both wrong.
I disagree with you about people disagreeing with you.
😛
24 Dec 17
2 edits
Originally posted by @greenpawn34A computer is a useful tool?
Hi Lyudmil,
I don't mind people disagreeing with me, most do, and I agree the computer is a useful tool.
But I also point to the 1000's of very good players who emerged before 1995
when computers 'got good'.
Most of us are home and casual players. I do not think anyone on RHP
earns their living by playing chess so most of us would be very ...[text shortened]... positions
1...Kc7 looking for an error (which is human trait) rather than expecting best play.
Did you really say something nice about a computer?!? I thought computers ruined chess.
I guess my view of your view is based on the story you wrote bemoaning how chess isn't the same after the silicon monstrosity took chess into its grips.
No more personal analysis forcing people to think and be creative. Just sit back and let a computer tell you what is right and what is wrong.
When I see you comment on computers the feeling I got from that post always comes back.
24 Dec 17
Originally posted by @bigdoggproblemFor a 'fringe' book, it is sufficient it is above Berliner.
1 more star out of 10 is not 'convincing'.
It will look quite differently to the standard chess player, when I add a huge
section of example games, at some point in the future, probably in a new book.
Originally posted by @lyudmil-tsvetkovBerliner also lacked a proper respect for the complexity of the game...despite being a great CC player.
For a 'fringe' book, it is sufficient it is above Berliner.
It will look quite differently to the standard chess player, when I add a huge
section of example games, at some point in the future, probably in a new book.
His pronouncement that one must not know very much about chess if they lose with white, for example, is an overstatement (on par with "After 1.d4, c5 draws easily." )
The main difference between Berliner and yourself is that he actually has chess credentials.
If you really "know much more about chess than Kasparov", then perhaps you ought to go win a few super-GM tourneys before hawking books. They might actually sell that way.
30 Dec 17
I will post this here, as it has some relevance to computer chess and human-engine competition.
After doing an extensive study of the Fischer game collection, with the help of Stockfish, I just published a book on the theme:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B078NSTR3K/[WORD TOO LONG]
While going through the positional test suite, including 112 test positions, I had to ascertain that Stockfish still fails to solve around one third, but maybe even close to half of the puzzles. With the tactical set, Stockfish has no problems at all, all solved.
Make the conclusions yourselves how weak actually Stockfish is and how strong Fischer.
So, you might just want to forget anything about alleged engine superiority in chess.
30 Dec 17
Originally posted by @eladarYeah, but 'The Secret of Chess' and 'Human versus Machine' bring back creativity.
A computer is a useful tool?
Did you really say something nice about a computer?!? I thought computers ruined chess.
I guess my view of your view is based on the story you wrote bemoaning how chess isn't the same after the silicon monstrosity took chess into its grips.
No more personal analysis forcing people to think and be creative. Just sit bac ...[text shortened]... rong.
When I see you comment on computers the feeling I got from that post always comes back.
I also hate extremely much someone telling me what to do, be it in life, chess or otherwise.
Everyone is supposed to find his own way.
30 Dec 17
Originally posted by @bigdoggproblemOne can not be creative, if one visits top level tournaments, because all they are doing is rote learning and dry analysis.
Berliner also lacked a proper respect for the complexity of the game...despite being a great CC player.
His pronouncement that one must not know very much about chess if they lose with white, for example, is an overstatement (on par with "After 1.d4, c5 draws easily." )
The main difference between Berliner and yourself is that he actually has c ...[text shortened]... ought to go win a few super-GM tourneys before hawking books. They might actually sell that way.
I prefer to be creative, while lacking credentials.
'The Secret of Chess' is worth what it is worth, regardless of the fact who I might be.
30 Dec 17
Originally posted by @lyudmil-tsvetkov
Anyone knowing how to post fens here?
I would like to post a diagram for this position: r4rk1/2q1bpp1/pn3n1p/1pp1pP2/6P1/1BP4P/PP1N1P2/R1BQR1K1 w - - 0 17 ,
from Fischer-Benko, New York 1965.
SF fails to see 17.h4 wins here.
30 Dec 17
Originally posted by @lyudmil-tsvetkovActually, I should think if you had knowledge far superior to Kasparov, you could be as creative as you like and still win top-level tournaments.
One can not be creative, if one visits top level tournaments, because all they are doing is rote learning and dry analysis.
I prefer to be creative, while lacking credentials.
'The Secret of Chess' is worth what it is worth, regardless of the fact who I might be.
It would be like Tal 2.0.
If you wish to publish books with no credentials, purely for the love of creativity, then don't charge money for them. Let them stand solidly on merit, such as it is.
Otherwise, you're just a con artist.