The Secret of Chess

This forum is for general discussions and questions, including Collectors Corner and anything to do with Computer chess.

Moderators: Harvey Williamson, Steve B, Watchman

Forum rules
This textbox is used to restore diagrams posted with the fen tag before the upgrade.
Lyudmil Tsvetkov
Member
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2017 4:46 am

Post by Lyudmil Tsvetkov »

One more review has appeared, by IM Gerard Welling from the Netherlands:
https://www.chess.com/blog/Swordfish55/ ... t-of-chess

Maybe it is time to buy the book. :)

https://www.amazon.com/Secret-Chess-Lyu ... 1522041400
Lyudmil Tsvetkov
Member
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2017 4:46 am

Post by Lyudmil Tsvetkov »

One more review is available, by IM Herman Grooten of the Netherlands:
http://www.secretofchess.com/files/1777 ... 0Chess.pdf

So far, we have 4, and, although not all are ecstatic, all are largely positive.
Maybe the bigger number of reviews can help you make up your mind better.

I would be very happy for anyone considering the book, when it is in a slump:
https://www.amazon.com/Secret-Chess-Lyu ... 1522041400
User avatar
Fernando
Admiral of the Fleet
Posts: 3059
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 4:35 pm
Location: Santiago de Chile

Post by Fernando »

Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:One more review is available, by IM Herman Grooten of the Netherlands:
http://www.secretofchess.com/files/1777 ... 0Chess.pdf

So far, we have 4, and, although not all are ecstatic, all are largely positive.
Maybe the bigger number of reviews can help you make up your mind better.

I would be very happy for anyone considering the book, when it is in a slump:
https://www.amazon.com/Secret-Chess-Lyu ... 1522041400
Lyudmil, the most hidden secret of chess is the fact that you never improve enough. I am 69 years old -almost- and I have been playing comps and programs and human for centuries and still I can be beaten by a mediocre program worthy at most 2300 and i still fall in the same tactical mishaps and i still do not know a thing of endings and opening and I still does not care much about all that, so....the secret is"you are good or you are bad and that is all" as a funny guy of a Russian novel say...

Fern
Festina Lente
Lyudmil Tsvetkov
Member
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2017 4:46 am

Post by Lyudmil Tsvetkov »

Hello Fernando.
Unfortunately, for me, the secret seems to be: 'good guys are unlucky and good books too', it seems our world is already so desperately stale and meaningless, that we have time and consideration only for average and bad things.
Anyway, probably just my mood...

I dropped by to post my first draw and handicap win over SF, maybe someone is browsing such games.
Such games have a lot to do with the concepts in my book, nowadays, you need knowledge even only to draw SF.
I am not in a very good form, so, hopefully, in the summer we will see many wins over SF.

[fen][Event "Blitz 2m+2s"]
[Site "Microsoft"]
[Date "2018.02.05"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Stockfish 9 64 POPCNT"]
[Black "Lyudmil Tsvetkov, owner"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "D94"]
[Annotator "owner"]
[PlyCount "111"]
[EventDate "2018.??.??"]
[TimeControl "120+2"]

{512MB, OWNER-PC} 1. d4 {0.55/22 17} d5 {2} 2. c4 {0.51/22 8} c6 {3} 3. Nf3 {
0.54/23 8} Nf6 {2} 4. e3 {0.31/24 16} g6 {2} 5. Nc3 {0.59/21 3} Bg7 {2} 6. Be2
{0.45/23 6} O-O {2} 7. O-O {0.35/21 3} Bg4 {3} 8. a4 {0.53/21 5} a5 {0} 9. b3 {
0.47/22 7} e6 {11} 10. Ba3 {0.44/28 0} Re8 {2} 11. h3 {0.39/25 4} Bxf3 {3} 12.
Bxf3 {0.33/24 1} Bf8 {5} 13. Bb2 {0.42/22 2} Na6 {0} 14. Qc2 {0.34/21 3} Nb4 {3
} 15. Qb1 {0.35/22 13} Nd7 {23} 16. Na2 {0.24/28 0} f5 {11} 17. Nxb4 {0.31/24
11} Bxb4 {1} 18. g3 {0.66/19 2} Nf6 {3} 19. Kg2 {0.38/25 23} Ne4 {14} 20. Qd3 {
0.17/26 0} Qg5 {10} 21. Rh1 {0.48/22 10} h5 {2} 22. h4 {0.67/17 1} Qh6 {10} 23.
Rhc1 {0.57/22 3} Rf8 {0} 24. Qc2 {0.57/26 5} Rf7 {3} 25. Rh1 {0.49/25 13} Raf8
{2} 26. Be2 {0.40/20 3} Kh7 {0} 27. Bd3 {0.39/22 2} Qg7 {9} 28. Qd1 {0.39/25 3}
Qh6 {2} 29. Bc1 {0.39/26 6} Qg7 {2} 30. Qc2 {0.39/25 0} Rd7 {4} 31. Bb2 {0.39/
27 2} Rfd8 {4} 32. Rhc1 {0.39/23 3} Nf6 {4} 33. Be2 {0.39/20 4} Rg8 {9} 34. Bf3
{0.39/20 2} Qh6 {5} 35. Qe2 {0.39/20 2} Rdg7 {8} 36. Rf1 {0.39/22 2} Rd7 {9}
37. Rac1 {0.39/23 3} Kh8 {4} 38. Rh1 {0.39/23 2} Kh7 {4} 39. Bc3 {0.55/19 1}
Bxc3 {0} 40. Rxc3 {0.41/24 1} Ne4 {5} 41. Rd3 {0.41/21 2} Ra8 {6} 42. Rb1 {0.
41/22 1} Ra6 {3} 43. Qb2 {0.40/23 3} Rb6 {3} 44. Qc2 {0.36/21 3} Rb4 {5} 45.
Rf1 {0.12/23 2} Kg8 {9} 46. Rdd1 {0.12/21 1} Rf7 {0} 47. Be2 {0.12/25 2} Qf8 {
17} 48. Bd3 {0.11/35 0} Qd6 {3} 49. Ra1 {0.11/25 2} Rg7 {7} 50. Rab1 {0.11/24 2
} Kh8 {0} 51. Rfe1 {0.11/26 3} Qb8 {12} 52. Qb2 {0.11/21 2} Rf7 {2} 53. Rg1 {
0.11/27 2} Kh7 {3} 54. Qc2 {0.11/27 2} Qd6 {2} 55. Rgc1 {0.11/27 2} Rf8 {5} 56.
Qd1 {0.11/27 4} 1/2-1/2

[/fen]
Lyudmil Tsvetkov
Member
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2017 4:46 am

Post by Lyudmil Tsvetkov »

Now, the diagram does not work for me.
Nothing works for me these days.
Here the plain pgn:

[Event "Blitz 2m+2s"]
[Site "Microsoft"]
[Date "2018.02.05"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Stockfish 9 64 POPCNT"]
[Black "Lyudmil Tsvetkov, owner"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "D94"]
[Annotator "owner"]
[PlyCount "111"]
[EventDate "2018.??.??"]
[TimeControl "120+2"]

{512MB, OWNER-PC} 1. d4 {0.55/22 17} d5 {2} 2. c4 {0.51/22 8} c6 {3} 3. Nf3 {
0.54/23 8} Nf6 {2} 4. e3 {0.31/24 16} g6 {2} 5. Nc3 {0.59/21 3} Bg7 {2} 6. Be2
{0.45/23 6} O-O {2} 7. O-O {0.35/21 3} Bg4 {3} 8. a4 {0.53/21 5} a5 {0} 9. b3 {
0.47/22 7} e6 {11} 10. Ba3 {0.44/28 0} Re8 {2} 11. h3 {0.39/25 4} Bxf3 {3} 12.
Bxf3 {0.33/24 1} Bf8 {5} 13. Bb2 {0.42/22 2} Na6 {0} 14. Qc2 {0.34/21 3} Nb4 {3
} 15. Qb1 {0.35/22 13} Nd7 {23} 16. Na2 {0.24/28 0} f5 {11} 17. Nxb4 {0.31/24
11} Bxb4 {1} 18. g3 {0.66/19 2} Nf6 {3} 19. Kg2 {0.38/25 23} Ne4 {14} 20. Qd3 {
0.17/26 0} Qg5 {10} 21. Rh1 {0.48/22 10} h5 {2} 22. h4 {0.67/17 1} Qh6 {10} 23.
Rhc1 {0.57/22 3} Rf8 {0} 24. Qc2 {0.57/26 5} Rf7 {3} 25. Rh1 {0.49/25 13} Raf8
{2} 26. Be2 {0.40/20 3} Kh7 {0} 27. Bd3 {0.39/22 2} Qg7 {9} 28. Qd1 {0.39/25 3}
Qh6 {2} 29. Bc1 {0.39/26 6} Qg7 {2} 30. Qc2 {0.39/25 0} Rd7 {4} 31. Bb2 {0.39/
27 2} Rfd8 {4} 32. Rhc1 {0.39/23 3} Nf6 {4} 33. Be2 {0.39/20 4} Rg8 {9} 34. Bf3
{0.39/20 2} Qh6 {5} 35. Qe2 {0.39/20 2} Rdg7 {8} 36. Rf1 {0.39/22 2} Rd7 {9}
37. Rac1 {0.39/23 3} Kh8 {4} 38. Rh1 {0.39/23 2} Kh7 {4} 39. Bc3 {0.55/19 1}
Bxc3 {0} 40. Rxc3 {0.41/24 1} Ne4 {5} 41. Rd3 {0.41/21 2} Ra8 {6} 42. Rb1 {0.
41/22 1} Ra6 {3} 43. Qb2 {0.40/23 3} Rb6 {3} 44. Qc2 {0.36/21 3} Rb4 {5} 45.
Rf1 {0.12/23 2} Kg8 {9} 46. Rdd1 {0.12/21 1} Rf7 {0} 47. Be2 {0.12/25 2} Qf8 {
17} 48. Bd3 {0.11/35 0} Qd6 {3} 49. Ra1 {0.11/25 2} Rg7 {7} 50. Rab1 {0.11/24 2
} Kh8 {0} 51. Rfe1 {0.11/26 3} Qb8 {12} 52. Qb2 {0.11/21 2} Rf7 {2} 53. Rg1 {
0.11/27 2} Kh7 {3} 54. Qc2 {0.11/27 2} Qd6 {2} 55. Rgc1 {0.11/27 2} Rf8 {5} 56.
Qd1 {0.11/27 4} 1/2-1/2

[Event "Blitz 2m+2s"]
[Site "Microsoft"]
[Date "2018.02.06"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Lyudmil Tsvetkov, owner"]
[Black "Stockfish 9 64 POPCNT"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "owner"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pp1p1ppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "77"]
[EventDate "2018.??.??"]
[TimeControl "120+2"]

{512MB, OWNER-PC} 1. e4 {0} Nf6 {2.40/22 12} 2. Nc3 {3} Nc6 {1.75/21 7} 3. Nf3
{2} d5 {1.97/20 3} 4. exd5 {2} Nxd5 {2.15/22 5} 5. Nxd5 {1} Qxd5 {2.09/22 3} 6.
d4 {2} Bf5 {1.92/23 3} 7. c3 {2} Be7 {2.01/20 4} 8. Bd3 {2} O-O {2.02/21 3} 9.
Bxf5 {3} Qxf5 {2.17/19 2} 10. O-O {2} Rfe8 {2.09/22 3} 11. Be3 {2} Bf6 {2.23/
23 22} 12. Qb1 {2} Qd5 {2.07/22 0} 13. Qd3 {3} Rad8 {2.19/20 4} 14. Rfe1 {6} g6
{2.32/21 7} 15. Bd2 {5} Ne5 {2.30/19 3} 16. Nxe5 {3} Bxe5 {2.25/22 2} 17. b3 {
16} b5 {2.18/21 6} 18. Qf1 {0} h5 {2.42/22 19} 19. Rad1 {0} Bf6 {2.70/24 11}
20. Rxe8+ {2} Rxe8 {2.89/23 2} 21. Be3 {0} Rc8 {2.86/24 5} 22. Qd3 {6} Qf5 {3.
01/25 0} 23. Qxf5 {0} gxf5 {3.17/23 3} 24. Rc1 {5} Kf8 {3.24/25 9} 25. c4 {14}
bxc4 {2.46/22 1} 26. Rxc4 {4} Rxc4 {2.79/25 0} 27. bxc4 {1} f4 {3.07/24 4} 28.
Bxf4 {2} Bxd4 {3.31/24 4} 29. Be3 {2} Bb2 {4.06/29 9} 30. Bxa7 {3} Ke7 {5.02/
30 12} 31. Kf1 {9} Kd7 {4.44/28 4} 32. Ke2 {1} Be5 {5.18/28 7} 33. h3 {3} Bd6 {
4.98/23 2} 34. g4 {7} hxg4 {6.03/26 6} 35. hxg4 {1} Ke6 {6.35/26 2} 36. Kd3 {2}
f6 {7.18/25 3} 37. Be3 {8} f5 {7.21/21 0} 38. gxf5+ {4} Kxf5 {10.49/27 0} 39.
c5 {3} 1-0
User avatar
spacious_mind
Senior Member
Posts: 3999
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 10:20 pm
Location: Alabama
Contact:

Post by spacious_mind »

Hi Lyudmil

I don't think that people are not paying attention to your posts, I am sure they are. The difficulty for me though are that the types of games you have to play to beat for example a Stockfish are difficult for me to want to play.

Having grown up in the Fisher era, enjoying the swashbuckling pre computer games played by Grandmasters all the way back to 18th century, my enjoyment is to play open and aggressive and lose gloriously and maybe sometimes win gloriously. Dreaming of becoming a Grandmaster ended several decades ago.

So as much as I can appreciate your skill in holding a mostly closed position, patiently waiting for your opponent to be the first to become impatient is just not a style that intrigues me enough to want to learn it. Perhaps many years ago yes in order to obtain an advantage in these closed situations, but not nowadays.

In your example drawn game, this is the position after 26 moves:

[fen]5r2/1p3r1k/2p1p1pq/p2p1p1p/PbPPn2P/1P2P1P1/1BQ1BPK1/R6R w - - 9 27[/fen]

and this is the position when the game ended after 56 moves.

[fen]5r2/1p5k/2pqp1p1/p2p1p1p/PrPPn2P/1P1BP1P1/5PK1/1RRQ4 w - - 32 56[/fen]

30 full moves later and not a single pawn move with only change on the board being the black squared Bishop are off the board.

Your position for example with Rook trapped on b4 completely relies on SF to make the move towards breaking up the pawns which of course SF will not do as it probably sees it as slight negative in its evaluations.

Any pawn advance that you might consider probably would end up losing for you. Taking the pawn on c4 opens attacks on your backward b pawn. Advancing g opens h. Probably advancing e does not work either.

Therefore the expectation here is that SF makes the first move, which did not happen.

If for example Carlsen or Kasparov or any other GM includes games like this in their book (which does happen) I tend to maybe play them once and then skip them for ever more as the style of play does not work for what I have learned to enjoy over the years.

I don't think that the problem lies in your approach as I am sure you have identified many opportunities to beat modern engines. The problem I think lies more in an older reader like myself who perhaps out of years and years of having learned to enjoy particular styles from books and history struggles with wanting to change this.

Best regards
Nick
User avatar
Fernando
Admiral of the Fleet
Posts: 3059
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 4:35 pm
Location: Santiago de Chile

Post by Fernando »

Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:Hello Fernando.
Unfortunately, for me, the secret seems to be: 'good guys are unlucky and good books too', it seems our world is already so desperately stale and meaningless, that we have time and consideration only for average and bad things.
Anyway, probably just my mood...

I dropped by to post my first draw and handicap win over SF, maybe someone is browsing such games.
Such games have a lot to do with the concepts in my book, nowadays, you need knowledge even only to draw SF.
I am not in a very good form, so, hopefully, in the summer we will see many wins over SF.

[fen][Event "Blitz 2m+2s"]
[Site "Microsoft"]
[Date "2018.02.05"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Stockfish 9 64 POPCNT"]
[Black "Lyudmil Tsvetkov, owner"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "D94"]
[Annotator "owner"]
[PlyCount "111"]
[EventDate "2018.??.??"]
[TimeControl "120+2"]

{512MB, OWNER-PC} 1. d4 {0.55/22 17} d5 {2} 2. c4 {0.51/22 8} c6 {3} 3. Nf3 {
0.54/23 8} Nf6 {2} 4. e3 {0.31/24 16} g6 {2} 5. Nc3 {0.59/21 3} Bg7 {2} 6. Be2
{0.45/23 6} O-O {2} 7. O-O {0.35/21 3} Bg4 {3} 8. a4 {0.53/21 5} a5 {0} 9. b3 {
0.47/22 7} e6 {11} 10. Ba3 {0.44/28 0} Re8 {2} 11. h3 {0.39/25 4} Bxf3 {3} 12.
Bxf3 {0.33/24 1} Bf8 {5} 13. Bb2 {0.42/22 2} Na6 {0} 14. Qc2 {0.34/21 3} Nb4 {3
} 15. Qb1 {0.35/22 13} Nd7 {23} 16. Na2 {0.24/28 0} f5 {11} 17. Nxb4 {0.31/24
11} Bxb4 {1} 18. g3 {0.66/19 2} Nf6 {3} 19. Kg2 {0.38/25 23} Ne4 {14} 20. Qd3 {
0.17/26 0} Qg5 {10} 21. Rh1 {0.48/22 10} h5 {2} 22. h4 {0.67/17 1} Qh6 {10} 23.
Rhc1 {0.57/22 3} Rf8 {0} 24. Qc2 {0.57/26 5} Rf7 {3} 25. Rh1 {0.49/25 13} Raf8
{2} 26. Be2 {0.40/20 3} Kh7 {0} 27. Bd3 {0.39/22 2} Qg7 {9} 28. Qd1 {0.39/25 3}
Qh6 {2} 29. Bc1 {0.39/26 6} Qg7 {2} 30. Qc2 {0.39/25 0} Rd7 {4} 31. Bb2 {0.39/
27 2} Rfd8 {4} 32. Rhc1 {0.39/23 3} Nf6 {4} 33. Be2 {0.39/20 4} Rg8 {9} 34. Bf3
{0.39/20 2} Qh6 {5} 35. Qe2 {0.39/20 2} Rdg7 {8} 36. Rf1 {0.39/22 2} Rd7 {9}
37. Rac1 {0.39/23 3} Kh8 {4} 38. Rh1 {0.39/23 2} Kh7 {4} 39. Bc3 {0.55/19 1}
Bxc3 {0} 40. Rxc3 {0.41/24 1} Ne4 {5} 41. Rd3 {0.41/21 2} Ra8 {6} 42. Rb1 {0.
41/22 1} Ra6 {3} 43. Qb2 {0.40/23 3} Rb6 {3} 44. Qc2 {0.36/21 3} Rb4 {5} 45.
Rf1 {0.12/23 2} Kg8 {9} 46. Rdd1 {0.12/21 1} Rf7 {0} 47. Be2 {0.12/25 2} Qf8 {
17} 48. Bd3 {0.11/35 0} Qd6 {3} 49. Ra1 {0.11/25 2} Rg7 {7} 50. Rab1 {0.11/24 2
} Kh8 {0} 51. Rfe1 {0.11/26 3} Qb8 {12} 52. Qb2 {0.11/21 2} Rf7 {2} 53. Rg1 {
0.11/27 2} Kh7 {3} 54. Qc2 {0.11/27 2} Qd6 {2} 55. Rgc1 {0.11/27 2} Rf8 {5} 56.
Qd1 {0.11/27 4} 1/2-1/2

[/fen]

You mean your books has not been sold as you expected?
Festina Lente
Lyudmil Tsvetkov
Member
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2017 4:46 am

Post by Lyudmil Tsvetkov »

spacious_mind wrote:Hi Lyudmil

I don't think that people are not paying attention to your posts, I am sure they are. The difficulty for me though are that the types of games you have to play to beat for example a Stockfish are difficult for me to want to play.

Having grown up in the Fisher era, enjoying the swashbuckling pre computer games played by Grandmasters all the way back to 18th century, my enjoyment is to play open and aggressive and lose gloriously and maybe sometimes win gloriously. Dreaming of becoming a Grandmaster ended several decades ago.

So as much as I can appreciate your skill in holding a mostly closed position, patiently waiting for your opponent to be the first to become impatient is just not a style that intrigues me enough to want to learn it. Perhaps many years ago yes in order to obtain an advantage in these closed situations, but not nowadays.

In your example drawn game, this is the position after 26 moves:

[fen]5r2/1p3r1k/2p1p1pq/p2p1p1p/PbPPn2P/1P2P1P1/1BQ1BPK1/R6R w - - 9 27[/fen]

and this is the position when the game ended after 56 moves.

[fen]5r2/1p5k/2pqp1p1/p2p1p1p/PrPPn2P/1P1BP1P1/5PK1/1RRQ4 w - - 32 56[/fen]

30 full moves later and not a single pawn move with only change on the board being the black squared Bishop are off the board.

Your position for example with Rook trapped on b4 completely relies on SF to make the move towards breaking up the pawns which of course SF will not do as it probably sees it as slight negative in its evaluations.

Any pawn advance that you might consider probably would end up losing for you. Taking the pawn on c4 opens attacks on your backward b pawn. Advancing g opens h. Probably advancing e does not work either.

Therefore the expectation here is that SF makes the first move, which did not happen.

If for example Carlsen or Kasparov or any other GM includes games like this in their book (which does happen) I tend to maybe play them once and then skip them for ever more as the style of play does not work for what I have learned to enjoy over the years.

I don't think that the problem lies in your approach as I am sure you have identified many opportunities to beat modern engines. The problem I think lies more in an older reader like myself who perhaps out of years and years of having learned to enjoy particular styles from books and history struggles with wanting to change this.

Best regards
Hello, Spacious mind.
Thanks for your attention.
Yes, the position is mostly draw, though I guess black has some definite edge, and, at LTC, I could have tried to win.
The main problem with my games is the shorter TC, where it is difficult for the human to attempt much, unless he is very certain of the outcome, i.e. very familiar setup.
On the other hand, I don't quite agree with you, you want to say drawing Carlsen in a game is not to appreciate, even if the game lacks fireworks?
Or if you manage to hold on for 12 rounds on the ring against Mike Tyson? :D
For me, each and every position has its appeal, one has just to grasp it.
Lyudmil Tsvetkov
Member
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2017 4:46 am

Post by Lyudmil Tsvetkov »

Fernando wrote:
Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:Hello Fernando.
Unfortunately, for me, the secret seems to be: 'good guys are unlucky and good books too', it seems our world is already so desperately stale and meaningless, that we have time and consideration only for average and bad things.
Anyway, probably just my mood...

I dropped by to post my first draw and handicap win over SF, maybe someone is browsing such games.
Such games have a lot to do with the concepts in my book, nowadays, you need knowledge even only to draw SF.
I am not in a very good form, so, hopefully, in the summer we will see many wins over SF.

[fen][Event "Blitz 2m+2s"]
[Site "Microsoft"]
[Date "2018.02.05"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Stockfish 9 64 POPCNT"]
[Black "Lyudmil Tsvetkov, owner"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "D94"]
[Annotator "owner"]
[PlyCount "111"]
[EventDate "2018.??.??"]
[TimeControl "120+2"]

{512MB, OWNER-PC} 1. d4 {0.55/22 17} d5 {2} 2. c4 {0.51/22 8} c6 {3} 3. Nf3 {
0.54/23 8} Nf6 {2} 4. e3 {0.31/24 16} g6 {2} 5. Nc3 {0.59/21 3} Bg7 {2} 6. Be2
{0.45/23 6} O-O {2} 7. O-O {0.35/21 3} Bg4 {3} 8. a4 {0.53/21 5} a5 {0} 9. b3 {
0.47/22 7} e6 {11} 10. Ba3 {0.44/28 0} Re8 {2} 11. h3 {0.39/25 4} Bxf3 {3} 12.
Bxf3 {0.33/24 1} Bf8 {5} 13. Bb2 {0.42/22 2} Na6 {0} 14. Qc2 {0.34/21 3} Nb4 {3
} 15. Qb1 {0.35/22 13} Nd7 {23} 16. Na2 {0.24/28 0} f5 {11} 17. Nxb4 {0.31/24
11} Bxb4 {1} 18. g3 {0.66/19 2} Nf6 {3} 19. Kg2 {0.38/25 23} Ne4 {14} 20. Qd3 {
0.17/26 0} Qg5 {10} 21. Rh1 {0.48/22 10} h5 {2} 22. h4 {0.67/17 1} Qh6 {10} 23.
Rhc1 {0.57/22 3} Rf8 {0} 24. Qc2 {0.57/26 5} Rf7 {3} 25. Rh1 {0.49/25 13} Raf8
{2} 26. Be2 {0.40/20 3} Kh7 {0} 27. Bd3 {0.39/22 2} Qg7 {9} 28. Qd1 {0.39/25 3}
Qh6 {2} 29. Bc1 {0.39/26 6} Qg7 {2} 30. Qc2 {0.39/25 0} Rd7 {4} 31. Bb2 {0.39/
27 2} Rfd8 {4} 32. Rhc1 {0.39/23 3} Nf6 {4} 33. Be2 {0.39/20 4} Rg8 {9} 34. Bf3
{0.39/20 2} Qh6 {5} 35. Qe2 {0.39/20 2} Rdg7 {8} 36. Rf1 {0.39/22 2} Rd7 {9}
37. Rac1 {0.39/23 3} Kh8 {4} 38. Rh1 {0.39/23 2} Kh7 {4} 39. Bc3 {0.55/19 1}
Bxc3 {0} 40. Rxc3 {0.41/24 1} Ne4 {5} 41. Rd3 {0.41/21 2} Ra8 {6} 42. Rb1 {0.
41/22 1} Ra6 {3} 43. Qb2 {0.40/23 3} Rb6 {3} 44. Qc2 {0.36/21 3} Rb4 {5} 45.
Rf1 {0.12/23 2} Kg8 {9} 46. Rdd1 {0.12/21 1} Rf7 {0} 47. Be2 {0.12/25 2} Qf8 {
17} 48. Bd3 {0.11/35 0} Qd6 {3} 49. Ra1 {0.11/25 2} Rg7 {7} 50. Rab1 {0.11/24 2
} Kh8 {0} 51. Rfe1 {0.11/26 3} Qb8 {12} 52. Qb2 {0.11/21 2} Rf7 {2} 53. Rg1 {
0.11/27 2} Kh7 {3} 54. Qc2 {0.11/27 2} Qd6 {2} 55. Rgc1 {0.11/27 2} Rf8 {5} 56.
Qd1 {0.11/27 4} 1/2-1/2

[/fen]

You mean your books has not been sold as you expected?
It did sell some copies until some time ago, and then suddenly everything stopped.
I am still trying to work out what the cause is, and am mostly unable to.

Below 2 more boring draws(if someone is interested in drawing SF 9):

[pgn][Event "Blitz 2m+2s"]
[Site "Microsoft"]
[Date "2018.02.08"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Lyudmil Tsvetkov, owner"]
[Black "Stockfish 9 64 POPCNT"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "D02"]
[Annotator "owner"]
[PlyCount "88"]
[EventDate "2018.??.??"]
[TimeControl "120+2"]

{512MB, OWNER-PC} 1. d4 {0} d5 {0.06/22 8} 2. c3 {5} Nf6 {-0.19/20 2} 3. g3 {4}
e6 {-0.28/22 8} 4. Bg2 {5} Be7 {-0.30/23 0} 5. Nf3 {3} O-O {-0.23/23 1} 6. O-O
{2} Nbd7 {-0.22/24 2} 7. Re1 {13} b5 {-0.17/22 11} 8. Nbd2 {13} Bb7 {-0.37/21 4
} 9. a3 {20} c5 {-0.70/19 3} 10. b4 {4} c4 {-0.99/22 3} 11. Ne5 {0} Nb6 {-0.99/
22 2} 12. f4 {9} Ne4 {-1.36/24 6} 13. Qc2 {0} f6 {-1.32/27 4} 14. Ng4 {3} f5 {
-1.32/27 6} 15. Ne5 {8} Qe8 {-1.34/22 3} 16. Nxe4 {6} dxe4 {-1.23/24 0} 17. e3
{5} a5 {-1.18/23 16} 18. Bd2 {7} Bd6 {-1.33/26 30} 19. h4 {0} a4 {-1.64/21 5}
20. Kf2 {12} Nd5 {-1.75/28 4} 21. Rh1 {5} Nf6 {-1.67/30 23} 22. Bh3 {0} g6 {-1.
62/23 4} 23. Rag1 {4} h5 {-1.55/29 5} 24. Ke1 {8} Kh7 {-1.55/28 4} 25. Kd1 {10}
Be7 {-1.55/26 3} 26. Kc1 {3} Rg8 {-1.55/25 4} 27. Kb2 {3} Bd6 {-1.55/27 3} 28.
Rg2 {7} Bd5 {-1.55/25 4} 29. Rf2 {5} Rh8 {-1.55/27 3} 30. Rfh2 {6} Rc8 {-1.55/
24 5} 31. Re1 {4} Kg8 {-1.55/25 3} 32. Rhh1 {2} Rc7 {-1.62/28 5} 33. Rhg1 {3}
Rhh7 {-1.62/24 1} 34. Bc1 {5} Bb7 {-1.55/23 3} 35. Ref1 {6} Nd5 {-1.76/19 1}
36. Re1 {5} Rh8 {-1.55/23 2} 37. Bd2 {2} Kg7 {-1.55/30 0} 38. Rg2 {2} Be7 {-1.
55/24 3} 39. Rgg1 {2} Bf6 {-1.55/27 2} 40. Rh1 {4} Qg8 {-1.55/25 3} 41. Rhg1 {3
} Qh7 {-1.55/29 2} 42. Rh1 {2} Kf8 {-1.55/28 3} 43. Rhg1 {2} Ke8 {-1.55/30 2}
44. Rh1 {2} Kd8 {-1.55/31 3} 1/2-1/2

[/pgn]
[Event "Blitz 2m+2s"]
[Site "Microsoft"]
[Date "2018.02.08"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Lyudmil Tsvetkov, owner"]
[Black "Stockfish 9 64 POPCNT"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "D02"]
[Annotator "owner"]
[PlyCount "84"]
[EventDate "2018.??.??"]
[TimeControl "120+2"]

{512MB, OWNER-PC} 1. d4 {0} d5 {0.06/22 7} 2. Nf3 {3} Bf5 {0.00/21 4} 3. Bf4 {3
} e6 {-0.04/23 8} 4. c3 {3} Bd6 {-0.24/21 2} 5. e3 {4} Bxf4 {-0.22/21 3} 6.
exf4 {1} Ne7 {-0.22/24 15} 7. Bd3 {5} O-O {-0.17/22 4} 8. O-O {3} b6 {-0.22/23
1} 9. Na3 {6} Bxd3 {-0.27/20 3} 10. Qxd3 {1} c5 {-0.25/20 1} 11. Nc2 {3} Qc7 {
-0.25/23 6} 12. g3 {4} c4 {-0.44/22 4} 13. Qe2 {2} b5 {-0.54/22 0} 14. Ne3 {0}
Nd7 {-0.23/20 4} 15. Ne5 {6} a5 {-0.57/20 2} 16. Nxd7 {9} Qxd7 {-0.44/24 0} 17.
a3 {16} h6 {-0.42/25 15} 18. h4 {3} Nc8 {-0.40/28 8} 19. Nc2 {14} Nd6 {-0.61/
21 2} 20. Rae1 {0} Rab8 {-0.40/31 5} 21. Qf3 {5} Ne4 {-0.31/24 16} 22. Qe3 {0}
h5 {-0.55/27 2} 23. Re2 {5} Rbe8 {-0.55/33 6} 24. Qf3 {3} g6 {-0.55/33 3} 25.
Qg2 {12} Kg7 {-0.55/33 3} 26. Rfe1 {8} Rb8 {-0.55/32 5} 27. Qf3 {3} Kh7 {-0.55/
35 3} 28. Kg2 {4} Qc7 {-0.55/33 2} 29. Rd1 {9} Kg7 {-0.55/34 3} 30. Rh1 {2} Nd6
{-0.55/32 3} 31. Rhe1 {7} Rfe8 {-0.55/32 9} 32. Rh1 {6} Rf8 {-0.55/36 0} 33.
Rhe1 {2} Rg8 {-0.55/31 7} 34. Rh1 {2} Ra8 {-0.55/32 2} 35. Rhe1 {5} Rae8 {-0.
55/31 2} 36. Rh1 {3} Kh7 {-0.55/33 4} 37. Rhe1 {2} Qd7 {-0.55/32 3} 38. Rh1 {3}
Ne4 {-0.55/33 3} 39. Rhe1 {4} Rb8 {-0.55/33 3} 40. Rh1 {2} Rge8 {-0.55/33 2}
41. Rhe1 {2} Nd6 {-0.55/30 3} 42. Rh1 {3} Ne4 {-0.55/37 5} 1/2-1/2


[pgn]

It is not me to blame, SF has entrenched itself into a fortress, and it is difficult to get it out.
User avatar
spacious_mind
Senior Member
Posts: 3999
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 10:20 pm
Location: Alabama
Contact:

Post by spacious_mind »

Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote: On the other hand, I don't quite agree with you, you want to say drawing Carlsen in a game is not to appreciate, even if the game lacks fireworks?
Or if you manage to hold on for 12 rounds on the ring against Mike Tyson? :D
For me, each and every position has its appeal, one has just to grasp it.
Sorry but that is not what I said. I said that if I see a closed positiion like this where both players move 30 moves behind a wall then I switch off as you might as well have drawn the game on move 26. There are plenty of drawn games that I find brilliant.

Basically what you have done is put SF to sleep. It is just not a style that I enjoy, but that is my personal choice and should not put you off from enjoying and teaching people on how they might be successful against a powerful engine.

[fen]3r2kq/p2prp1p/1p4pP/2nR4/1Q6/1B3RP1/P4PK1/8 w - - 0 1[/fen]

However if you were to to teach me to spot a winning opportunity at a glance and enjoy a glorious win by Rook taking Knight on c5 is what I live for :) A book like this would be worth a sack of Gold :)

Seriously though it's hard to change an old dog's habits especially if the dog doesn't want to be changed. Especially if that old dog finds his enjoyment in wanting to beat humans and computers in gambits and play like for example Adolf Anderssen :)

I think you have to find avenues where you can teach from your book in education perhaps in chess clubs. It is the younger generation who should benefit from understanding these strategies to beat a computer and perhaps allow them to grow up go past these teachings perhaps one day bring back brilliancies like the Rxc5 sacrifice that makes everyones jaw drop in awe.

ps... If I were a programmer I would have my program play a pawn exchange and open up the game every time. ie anti Father and Tsvetkov opening book :) In other words not allow you to lead the strategy but me (the computer) force you to face my tactical strength every time :)

Best regards
Nick
User avatar
spacious_mind
Senior Member
Posts: 3999
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 10:20 pm
Location: Alabama
Contact:

Post by spacious_mind »

Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:
[/pgn]
[Event "Blitz 2m+2s"]
[Site "Microsoft"]
[Date "2018.02.08"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Lyudmil Tsvetkov, owner"]
[Black "Stockfish 9 64 POPCNT"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "D02"]
[Annotator "owner"]
[PlyCount "84"]
[EventDate "2018.??.??"]
[TimeControl "120+2"]

{512MB, OWNER-PC} 1. d4 {0} d5 {0.06/22 7} 2. Nf3 {3} Bf5 {0.00/21 4} 3. Bf4 {3
} e6 {-0.04/23 8} 4. c3 {3} Bd6 {-0.24/21 2} 5. e3 {4} Bxf4 {-0.22/21 3} 6.
exf4 {1} Ne7 {-0.22/24 15} 7. Bd3 {5} O-O {-0.17/22 4} 8. O-O {3} b6 {-0.22/23
1} 9. Na3 {6} Bxd3 {-0.27/20 3} 10. Qxd3 {1} c5 {-0.25/20 1} 11. Nc2 {3} Qc7 {
-0.25/23 6} 12. g3 {4} c4 {-0.44/22 4} 13. Qe2 {2} b5 {-0.54/22 0} 14. Ne3 {0}
Nd7 {-0.23/20 4} 15. Ne5 {6} a5 {-0.57/20 2} 16. Nxd7 {9} Qxd7 {-0.44/24 0} 17.
a3 {16} h6 {-0.42/25 15} 18. h4 {3} Nc8 {-0.40/28 8} 19. Nc2 {14} Nd6 {-0.61/
21 2} 20. Rae1 {0} Rab8 {-0.40/31 5} 21. Qf3 {5} Ne4 {-0.31/24 16} 22. Qe3 {0}
h5 {-0.55/27 2} 23. Re2 {5} Rbe8 {-0.55/33 6} 24. Qf3 {3} g6 {-0.55/33 3} 25.
Qg2 {12} Kg7 {-0.55/33 3} 26. Rfe1 {8} Rb8 {-0.55/32 5} 27. Qf3 {3} Kh7 {-0.55/
35 3} 28. Kg2 {4} Qc7 {-0.55/33 2} 29. Rd1 {9} Kg7 {-0.55/34 3} 30. Rh1 {2} Nd6
{-0.55/32 3} 31. Rhe1 {7} Rfe8 {-0.55/32 9} 32. Rh1 {6} Rf8 {-0.55/36 0} 33.
Rhe1 {2} Rg8 {-0.55/31 7} 34. Rh1 {2} Ra8 {-0.55/32 2} 35. Rhe1 {5} Rae8 {-0.
55/31 2} 36. Rh1 {3} Kh7 {-0.55/33 4} 37. Rhe1 {2} Qd7 {-0.55/32 3} 38. Rh1 {3}
Ne4 {-0.55/33 3} 39. Rhe1 {4} Rb8 {-0.55/33 3} 40. Rh1 {2} Rge8 {-0.55/33 2}
41. Rhe1 {2} Nd6 {-0.55/30 3} 42. Rh1 {3} Ne4 {-0.55/37 5} 1/2-1/2


[pgn]

It is not me to blame, SF has entrenched itself into a fortress, and it is difficult to get it out.
In the above game:

[fen]rn1qkbnr/ppp1pppp/8/3p1b2/3P1B2/5N2/PPP1PPPP/RN1QKB1R w KQkq - 3 3[/fen]

1. d4 d5 2. Nf4 Bf5

Do you have an example on how to beat SF if SF plays:

[fen]rnbqkbnr/ppp1pppp/8/3p4/2PP4/8/PP2PPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 2[/fen]

How would you teach a student to win as Black? Standard position either black at some point takes c4 or white at some point takes e5.

Regards
Nick
User avatar
spacious_mind
Senior Member
Posts: 3999
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 10:20 pm
Location: Alabama
Contact:

Post by spacious_mind »

ps... ooops sorry for typos.. in a rush for work. Correction Nf3 and cxd5 (not e)

Regards
Nick
Reinfeld
Member
Posts: 486
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 3:54 am
Location: Tacoma, WA

Post by Reinfeld »

Nick is hitting the essential point here. As chessplayers, we want to play beautiful chess. That's not the same thing as figuring out ways to glitch a chess engine. I grant that drawn-out maneuvers can be attractive, but when they're deployed against an engine in what amounts to a lab experiment, it's just not the same.

- R.
"You have, let us say, a promising politician, a rising artist that you wish to destroy. Dagger or bomb are archaic and unreliable - but teach him, inoculate him with chess."
– H.G. Wells
Lyudmil Tsvetkov
Member
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2017 4:46 am

Post by Lyudmil Tsvetkov »

@SpaciousMind:
I have many examples, and for everything.
The point is that is just NOT PRACTICAL to play top engines like this.
It simply would not work, you know.
I used to beat Fritz and Ruffian like that, but those were engines 500 elos weaker than current SF.
About Rc5 from Alpha-SF, well, that requires deep calculation, plain and simple, I don't think it is such a spectacular move, it is a good move, but not quite spectacular.
Of course, if you enjoy it, no problem with this. :)
I enjoy more deeper, even if a bit boring-looking, chess.
When there is depth and positional understanding, there is nothing boring about it, but maybe one needs to have played SF a lot to understand the statement.
User avatar
spacious_mind
Senior Member
Posts: 3999
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 10:20 pm
Location: Alabama
Contact:

Post by spacious_mind »

Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:@SpaciousMind:
I have many examples, and for everything.
The point is that is just NOT PRACTICAL to play top engines like this.
It simply would not work, you know.
I used to beat Fritz and Ruffian like that, but those were engines 500 elos weaker than current SF.
About Rc5 from Alpha-SF, well, that requires deep calculation, plain and simple, I don't think it is such a spectacular move, it is a good move, but not quite spectacular.
Of course, if you enjoy it, no problem with this. :)
I enjoy more deeper, even if a bit boring-looking, chess.
When there is depth and positional understanding, there is nothing boring about it, but maybe one needs to have played SF a lot to understand the statement.
Hi Lyudmil,

I know that. What I am trying to say is that most of the time you are not able to get SF or a human into a position to even play the structures you are trying to build, because after 1. d4 d5 2. c4 will be played as just one example. For your strategy to work your computer or human opponent has to allow you to build your fortress as a result of specific opening moves so a reader has to be taught what situations to look for. Or is your book just meant to be sold to Grandmasters and not the average person?

What I am trying to tell you is that your book helps in given situations but maybe this explanation is missing or has to be better explained so that the reader knows exactly what he will be getting when he buys the book... I don't know.. Fernando writes books. I don't therefore I can just comment on what I look for as a customer. For me to buy a book in a store it has to have a good explanation that tells me what to expect and a flip through the pages shows me verification that it matches what I want. I rarely buy books online unless I know in advance the book that I am buying. A book I don't know I tend buy more often from a store where I can pick it up read the cover and flip through a few pages to see how it is structured. If I don't like the structure or cover words I don't buy. Especially if the promise does not match the content. Hey I am even that fussy that if I pick up a thick book and glance inside it and the font is huge,, I get put off because someone is trying to sell you 100 pages of words and make it look like 500 pages. Or if the print is so small I need a magnifying glass to read it I put it back too :)

It is all about perceptions.

Perhaps build your ideas into a series of books with easier longer explained steps for the simple person like me to understand and break it down into the type of opening structure to look for when:

Book 1 / Part 1 White you are white player and plays d4. What responses to look for from Black
Book 2 White player and e4. What opening responses from Black?
Book 3 Black player strategy against d4
Book 4 Black player strategy against e4
Book 5 Other 1st moves.

Then if you could ever figure out a good strategy by building a semi open fortress where one file is opened after a d4 opening and e4 opening then someday you will be selling 10 books! :)

So don't give up. I am sure that every word you put on paper makes you one word better in your skills :)

ps.. e-Books never bought one in my life... because I can't put it on a shelf and enjoy seeing it there.

Best regards
Nick
Post Reply