Not logged inRybka Chess Community Forum
Up Topic The Rybka Lounge / Computer Chess / The Secret of Chess
1 2 3 4 5 Previous Next  
- - By Lyudmil Tsvetkov (**) [bg] Date 2017-08-02 07:58
hi all.

I just wrote a new innovative book, titled 'The Secret of Chess'.

it is available for a modest charge from my site: http://www.secretofchess.com/

more information about the book and excerpts on the site.
Parent - - By Lyudmil Tsvetkov (**) [bg] Date 2017-08-02 08:03
If you really like the concept of Hans Kmoch's book 'Pawn power in chess' and Nimzovich's
'My system', this book is for you.

almost half of the chess terms covered in the book are introduced for the first time in chess literature.

checked on hundreds of thousands games with Stockfish and Komodo.
Parent - - By Master Om (Bronze) Date 2017-08-02 12:43
Ok looking forward its review before getting it.
Parent - - By Lyudmil Tsvetkov (**) [bg] Date 2017-08-03 05:40
first review came from Mark Lefler, the author of komodo,
who in a personal mail to me wrote that this is a great book and
in the first 30 pages read he found 10 ideas to try implementing
in Komodo.
Parent - - By Lyudmil Tsvetkov (**) [bg] Date 2017-08-03 05:46
this is a book, following pattern recognition.

in this way, it is possible to improve one's chess about 4 or 5 times faster
than the usual way through studying games and theory, as it is much easier
and less time-consuming to learn 1000 patterns than browse through and
remember 10 000 games or test/opening positions.

pattern recognition, including learning through pattern recognition,
is the future of chess.

in case the book text is a bit advanced, there are lots of diagrams accompanying each and every
chess term/pattern, so even weaker players can learn quite a lot by just looking at the diagrams
and remembering which patterns are good and which to be avoided.
Parent - - By Master Om (Bronze) Date 2017-08-05 13:07
Thanks. Looking forward to it.
Parent - By Lyudmil Tsvetkov (**) [bg] Date 2017-08-08 05:44
already available. :)
Parent - - By Labyrinth (*****) [us] Date 2017-08-03 23:18
Shouldn't there be a price listed on the buy page? Also shipping info. Seems a bit odd that one has to go through paypal to purchase..
Parent - By Lyudmil Tsvetkov (**) [bg] Date 2017-08-04 05:02
I will change a few things on the site in a short while.
been waiting for some feedback.

full price is 20 euro for a downloadable pdf file.

paypal accepts credit and debit cards, and one does not need a paypal account to buy.
just follow the button and use your credit card.
Parent - - By Felix Kling (Gold) [de] Date 2017-08-05 17:35
How did you come up with the values/tables in that book?
Parent - - By Lyudmil Tsvetkov (**) [bg] Date 2017-08-08 05:42
by playing and analysing chess with SF and Komodo for 16 hours per day for the last 5 years.

basically, human intuition, but it is nice to see top engines tend to agree with my assessment in 90% of cases.
Parent - By MachineLearning (*) [au] Date 2017-11-17 22:01
haha, so you admit you made up randomly those random numbers.
Parent - - By Dr.X (Gold) Date 2017-11-17 16:08
I'm not sure that your contribution is original. IM Jeremy Silman developed his concept of imbalance-  and from there goes into the battle between bishops and knights , acquisition of the center, territory and space -the confusing subject of pawn structure et al; and I can go on and on! But he did so not just in one work but in volumes.

So what makes you so special???
Parent - - By MachineLearning (*) [au] Date 2017-11-17 21:59
As I mentioned repeatedly in this post, the book is not selling not because of the market. I buy many expensive chess books, but why wouldn't I get this cheap one? I like chess (that's why I'm here!), why wouldn't get it?

The book isn't selling because of the author himself. He's consistently refusing useful suggestions. He's still thinking this is a special "test of time" book. This guy thinks he's like the chess god, what an arrogant fool.
Parent - - By Dr.X (Gold) Date 2017-11-17 22:38 Edited 2017-11-17 22:50
Now, who the hell are you? I directed my question to the author and you deem to answer for him? What are you his publicist?

Addendum:

>I buy many expensive chess books, but why wouldn't I get this cheap one?

Parent - - By Lyudmil Tsvetkov (**) [bg] Date 2017-11-18 06:25

>Now, who the hell are you?


That is what I am asking myself too. :)
Parent - By Dr.X (Gold) Date 2017-11-18 07:10

> That is what I am asking myself too. :)


That nice but now you're responding to the other posters question. I feeling like I'm involve with a tag team.
Parent - - By Lyudmil Tsvetkov (**) [bg] Date 2017-11-18 06:30
I guess it is already time for the moderators on this forum to stop any further name-calling on the part of
Machine Learning.

This is already the 3rd or 4th time he has been calling me names, and that is already past the borderline.
If this is tolerated, then this is already not a moderated forum.
He should at least get an admonition.

>As I mentioned repeatedly in this post, the book is not selling not because of the market


It is none of your business if the book is selling or not.
In fact, it is in the 1st million out of 32 million books available on Amazon.

For the last time, I urge you to stop all of this nonsense, I did nothing to you personally,
so just be a bit more refrained.
(and, if I did something to you, tell me what it was)
Parent - - By Felix Kling (Gold) [de] Date 2017-11-18 13:21
Well, you do some advertising for your book here and you need to accept these comments, even if they are very critical. If you feel they are unjustified: don't feed the troll.
Parent - - By Lyudmil Tsvetkov (**) [bg] Date 2017-11-18 19:31

>Well, you do some advertising for your book here and you need to accept these comments, even if they are very critical. If you feel they are unjustified: don't feed the troll.


I was referring about name-calling, that is bad etiquette, and should not be accepted on a forum;
I guess this is even against the Rybka Forum rules, though I have not read them.
Parent - - By Felix Kling (Gold) [de] Date 2017-11-18 22:00 Upvotes 2
Well, after all the moderators decide from case to case. Of course some of the comments are rude, but I think they are still acceptable. As I said, if you think the comments are over the top, just ignore them.
Parent - - By Lyudmil Tsvetkov (**) [bg] Date 2017-11-19 11:45

>Well, after all the moderators decide from case to case. Of course some of the comments are rude, but I think they are still acceptable. As I said, if you think the comments are over the top, just ignore them.


Rude and acceptable, that makes no sense to me.
'Let the serpent sting you, and just ignore'.

Good advice.
Parent - By Felix Kling (Gold) [de] Date 2017-11-20 08:25
Life is not a bed of roses.
Parent - By MachineLearning (*) [au] Date 2017-11-18 13:44 Edited 2017-11-18 13:48
There's no name-calling here and everything I say is true and make sense. You can't deny your book is not making good money for you, and why? You blamed the lack of market, but .... even good books for niche academic fields can sell, and those books sell __**well above**__ what you're asking. You have also blamed that the book is too technical, but those academic books are also not easy to read.

I'm actually the one who's helping you most here. You don't want to accept criticism because you think you are too good. You never questioned yourself or the quality of your book, but only on the market or people are too dumb to understand you.

Unless you change your attitude, you will never succeed. So far, you have not shown any superiority over us. Stop repeating like you're a study freak like 16 hours a day and therefore you are a very strong player. Come back with a FIDE title, then I'll shut up.

I'm here to help you - by pointing out your weaknesses.
Parent - - By Lyudmil Tsvetkov (**) [bg] Date 2017-11-18 06:22
Did you read the Table of Contents to the book?
Please do so, and then we can discuss further, it is available for free preview on Amazon in the
paperback book(the ebook lists something else), and also on my site(click on Table of Contents).

You will see 300 hundred positional evaluation terms, half of which are NOT MENTIONED anywhere else.
In distinction, Silman's terms, like space, activity, opposition, are mentioned everywhere.

I guess you know what the distinction between nowhere and everywhere is.

I am an educated person, a political scientist, holding a PhD, who knows 6 or 7 foreign languages, and who, in
the past 5 years, has been solely dedicated to chess analysis with Stockfish and Komodo.
I have no chess name, because in the past I very rarely played chess(I have only 30 or so FIDE rated games),
but that does not mean I am weak.
In fact, a person who can beat the top engines can not be weak.

A good assessment for my chess abilities and the precision of the chess knowledge offered in the book is that
a large amount of my suggested terms have already BEEN INCORPORATED into Stockfish, they are working, while
the suggestions of GMs and IMs don't.
There is not a better test than trying to implement chess knowledge in Stockfish.
I guess that tells a lot...

Please, take an example from Venator(Jeroen Noomen).
We have never been great friends with him, we have defended different chess points of view on talkchess,
but he still CONGRATULATED me, because he is an educated person, deep-thinking and reasonable.

I don't understand why, when someone writes a book, no one will read the contents and argue on substance, and instead
we have those endless completely futile debates?

So far, big THANKS go only to Labyrinth here, he gave his opinion based on substance, he has read something of the book
and he has the right to argue, I am happy with all his observations, I might not agree with some of them,
but they are real observations. I would be happy if he put 2 start for my book, 3 star, etc., that is his right, his opinion,
the important thing is that the discussion is on substance.

So, please try to argue on substance.
Parent - - By Dr.X (Gold) Date 2017-11-18 07:33
With all sincerity, I don't believe your book would be of any interest to me as an OTB player. However, that may be I do think this more than likely is a niche marketed book- written for a specific audience in mind, that being, as stated in most reviews, it has first and foremost the software developer in mind. With that stated, I wish you the best of luck!
Robert.
Parent - By Lyudmil Tsvetkov (**) [bg] Date 2017-11-18 19:32

>With that stated, I wish you the best of luck!


Thanks for the good wishes, Dr. X!
Parent - - By Banned for Life (Gold) Date 2017-11-18 11:15
The excerpts you provide are interesting and compelling reading. This is a very different perspective on the game than one normally encounters in a chess book, and one that is potentially more useful for the majority of players that must rely on honing their evaluation skills, rather than being able to rely on exceptional calculation ability. I believe I learned a few things in just the short time period I spent reading the excerpts.

One minor suggestion would be to put the frequency of occurrence right up at the top, next to the section title, rather than at the end of each section.

I will buy this book when I have some free time to read it, such as before I go on my next cruise. Thanks for posting!
Parent - By Lyudmil Tsvetkov (**) [bg] Date 2017-11-18 19:38

>The excerpts you provide are interesting and compelling reading. This is a very different perspective on the game than one normally encounters in a chess book, and one that is potentially more useful for the majority of >players that must rely on honing their evaluation skills, rather than being able to rely on exceptional calculation ability. I believe I learned a few things in just the short time period I spent reading the excerpts.


>One minor suggestion would be to put the frequency of occurrence right up at the top, next to the section title, rather than at the end of each section.


>I will buy this book when I have some free time to read it, such as before I go on my next cruise. Thanks for posting!


Thanks for the nice words, Banned for Life!
You cheered me up a bit. :)

Will be eagerly waiting the arrival of your next cruise. :wink:

Thanks again.
Parent - By Lyudmil Tsvetkov (**) [bg] Date 2017-12-03 07:40
I am so happy, the first review for 'The Secret of Chess' has appeared,
and by none other than Australian GM and book reviewer David Smerdon:
http://davidsmerdon.com/?p=1970

Thank you, David!

The review is also available on the chess.com blog of the grandmaster:
https://www.chess.com/blog/smurfo/the-secret-of-chess
- - By Lyudmil Tsvetkov (**) [bg] Date 2017-08-19 06:02
if anyone is interested, the book is available now for much lower prices on amazon as both
ebook and paperback edition: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B074M85CVV
Parent - - By Venator (Silver) [nl] Date 2017-08-19 06:49
Nice work, Lyudmil! Congratulations on your book :smile:
Parent - - By Lyudmil Tsvetkov (**) [bg] Date 2017-08-22 05:21
thanks Venator(I suppose Jeroen). :)

it is good to know someone can appreciate it.
Parent - By Venator (Silver) [nl] Date 2017-08-24 15:28
You're welcome! I always welcome a fresh, new approach :-).
- - By Hamster (**) [ch] Date 2017-08-19 14:57
Any one tried the book?

Lyudmil, are you selling any signed paper back versions? :smile:
Parent - By Lyudmil Tsvetkov (**) [bg] Date 2017-08-22 05:23
still not, not famous enough,
but if you want, I can sell you only my signature? :smile:
- - By Walter Koroljow [us] Date 2017-08-23 13:38
Lyudmil,

I noticed that Amazon is also selling "Pawns" and "Imbalances" by you.  How are these related to the "The Secret of chess"?
Parent - - By Lyudmil Tsvetkov (**) [bg] Date 2017-08-24 05:33
mostly, they reproduce part of the book, with some slight changes.

when I started reading about kindle, evryone was saying 'look, you must have at least couple of books
on amazon, in order to be successful', so I followed their advice.

I have just 1 or 2 copies sold for those, so not even worth mentioning.

I thought to myself, well, people don't have money, who will spend 15 bucks on a large book,
so maybe someone will buy for couple of bucks a smaller one.(etc., etc., etc., blah, blah, blah,
all stupid arguments)
I just followed the routine proceedings, as everyone else does, but maybe one day I will unpublish them.

Interested readers should buy the Secret of Chess, of course.
Parent - - By irulats (****) [ie] Date 2017-08-26 13:28
Okay. So I skipped the Amazon and bought it from your site. I am both curious and want to support your efforts (encourage you to keep at it). :grin:

Congratulations. Fresh approach and I might learn something that I can teach someone else.
Parent - - By Lyudmil Tsvetkov (**) [bg] Date 2017-08-28 06:45
thank you Colm! :)

do you know I served for a limited time as diplomat in Dublin?

very quiet city, with very nice landscape.

but you are from somewhere in the province.

I hope you will not regret your money.

best, Lyudmil
Parent - - By irulats (****) [ie] Date 2017-08-28 21:34
No. I never realized. Did you take part in any of the Irish Chess Events? Yes, I'm stuck over on the Atlantic but the sea air does me good. :)
I was at a Junior Tournament in Albena once. I will always remember the food. Absolutely fantastic.

Next time you're back in the Emerald Isle, give me a shout!

Best also, Colm
Parent - - By Lyudmil Tsvetkov (**) [bg] Date 2017-08-31 05:26
nope, too busy doing stuff.

I guess the Atlantic is better, after all, less explored and quieter.
absolutely, anytime I happen to come close to the West Coast. :)
Parent - - By Lyudmil Tsvetkov (**) [bg] Date 2017-11-16 02:18
Currently, the option for purchasing 'The Secret of Chess' from my site via Paypal is disabled, and I will update the site in a while.

So that the only option now is Amazon(paperbacks and ebooks):
https://www.amazon.com/Secret-Chess-Lyudmil-Tsvetkov-ebook/dp/B074M85CVV/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

I must say, that I am more or less happy with Amazon, in general they are doing what they say.
On the other hand, PayPal proved to be simply crooks.

3 months on, I have to ascertain there is not much feedback/interest in my book. I see 3 possible causes for this:

1.) The book is bad
2.) People can't understand it
3.) The book is written in high style/high knowledge style, different from traditional conceptions, and most people prefer low knowledge/routine instead of high knowledge

For myself, I am not entirely clear what the main cause is.

What do you think?
Parent - - By Labyrinth (*****) [us] Date 2017-11-16 12:04
Here are some issues with that book:

1. It's very niche. Chess > Chess general principles > chess books by untitled/unknown authors. That's inevitably going to affect sales.

2. The writing is a bit sloppy grammatically/structurally.

3. There is an overuse of abbreviations (for example, using mg and eg for middlegame and endgame respectively is just not a good idea in a book).

4. The way some ideas are presented is suspect. For example, chapter 1's title mentions "major corrections of piece values", but then gives the piece values in the middlegame/endgame as follows:

Pawns: 95/105, Knights: 310/300, Bishops: 320/330, Rooks: 460/490, Queens: 900/950.

This does not constitute a 'major correction' on the original 'rule of thumb' 1/3/3/5/9 piece values, and human players just don't think in terms of centipawns. It's going to go: rule of thumb values --> specific positional considerations.

To give an example of how this subject might be better presented see Larry Kaufman's article here.

5. Lack of direction. The book has a very large amount of material, but it's not completely clear what the reader should hope to gain from it. Are we going for a method/approach here ala Silman's "Reassess your Chess" or Nimzovich's "My System"? Or is this is a general foundation type book like a college textbook, like Lasker's manual? If so, are the concepts monolithic or entirely lateral? Or is this a more dry, encyclopedic style book ala Secret's of modern chess strategy by John Watson or 'Fundamental Chess endings' by Karsten Muller?

It's one thing to amass a lot of knowledge on a subject, but quite another to disseminate that knowledge to the general public in a way that is compelling and effective.
Parent - - By Lyudmil Tsvetkov (**) [bg] Date 2017-11-16 14:58
Thanks Labyrinth!
I appreciate your feedback.

(the offer for a free pdf of the book is still open to you, so if you want it, just drop me a mail to
ltsvet@yahoo.com)

Now, on your points, you will allow me to beg to disagree on some:

1. here you are right it is very narrowly targeted, and I don't have a FIDE title, but still I have always thought quality trumps superficial details; why would not the reader care for
the content of the book first, before caring for anything else?
2. well, I am not a native speaker, you might want to understand that, so you can not expect excellent language flow, but apart from that, I doubt the writing is
sloppy gramatically and structurally. I don't think there should be many grammatical mistakes, I would be happy if you point some to me, criticise/criticize and colour/color
should not be counted in, I think, I am an European after all. Maybe you wanted to say the writing lacks style, and here I could completely agree with you.
However, this was the intent of the book: to be a reference book, enumerating and assessing all the most important evaluation parameters in chess, rather than be an easy-flowing text.
It is a look-up dictionary in a bit peculiar format. If I had to add style and still include all the terms, the page count would have reached 1000.
That explains also your remark about inherent structural sloppiness: where you see sloppiness, I see a well-ordered list of terms.
3. the mg/eg abbreviations are attached to the specific parameter values, so I really don't see a problem, but if you see it like that...
4. oops, here you are wrong in substance, the title of the first chapter is 'Material and Major corrections to piece values', where the piece values refer to material, while corrections would
include piece square values, pawns on squares the colour of the friendly bishop, etc. So I guess it is structured correctly.
Thanks for the link, Larry is a good friend of mine, but in the referenced article he still claims Knight and Rook will coordinate better against enemy queen than Bishop and Rook. :)
Larry was the first person to investigate material imbalances in chess and I myself have learned something from him/Komodo in that respect,
but otherwise I don't see what is so special about that article in terms of presentation.
5. Here, you have a point that deserves further consideration.
For myself, I am very well aware what I can get from the book, but quite probably very few people are like me and would need much more extensive
spoon-feeding.
I will have to think about that more carefully.

Apart from that, what about the original ideas within?
Should not original ideas more or less trump other factors?
That is what I am asking everyone and can not get an answer: since when new approaches and original ideas don't aouse curiosity in the
human mind?
That is a question that bothers me most.

Because, without orginality, what do other things matter?
Why should I be happier when some renowned author explains to me for the 100th time in a perfect native English the importance of
placing one's rooks on an open file, than if I had the opportubity to learn something new?

Thanks again for your feedback, I would be glad if other people share too, so I have a better understanding.
Parent - - By Labyrinth (*****) [us] Date 2017-11-17 07:16

>1. here you are right it is very narrowly targeted, and I don't have a FIDE title, but still I have always thought quality trumps superficial details; why would not the reader care for the content of the book first, before caring for anything else?


Superficial details are what people are exposed to when they first encounter your product. Harsh reality of business. It might have even been better if you used the CM title.

>well, I am not a native speaker, you might want to understand that


I do understand that, and I'm sure you speak/write better English than I do Bulgarian. Unfortunately, when it comes to authoring a book in English it has to be absolutely correct. If it isn't like, 99.999% correct it can look really unprofessional. Again, this is another harsh reality that there isn't much way around. If people stumble on to your amazon page they are going to ask a few key questions:

1. Is this author trustworthy?

2. What does this book focus on?

3. Is this book too complicated/advanced or going to require more effort than I am willing to put into it to benefit?

All the information they have about this is what's on the amazon page, and what's in the preview. (It would be interesting if Amazon could provide you with stats, such as how many people clicked the preview vs. how many sales, the larger the discrepancy the more concern there should be over what's in the preview).

To answer the first question they are going to look at the name and look for any titles. Yes, that's incredibly superficial, but that's the way it is. So they see you aren't GM Nakamura, alright fine, he's a bit of an outsider but I'll give him a chance. So they look at the preview to see how professional of a job the book appears to be. If anything looks out of place it's game over, and this includes things grammar. Yes there are grammatical issues, plenty.

The second question I've already mentioned a bit, and the third question is going to have some unfortunate answers for any book that is 'encyclopedic' in size. If it is meant to be a 'look up dictionary' you might include a 'how best to use this book' in the introduction. As it is it would appear the reader is meant to read it cover to cover.

>3. 3. the mg/eg abbreviations are attached to the specific parameter values, so I really don't see a problem, but if you see it like that...


I absolutely do see it like that. Using such abbreviations, especially not capitalized, runs the risk of looking like a text message shortcut from a teenager. It just plain looks shabby in a book. I know that's superficial, but customers don't know anything about you and small things like this make a big difference. They're already giving you a chance being untitled/unknown, and when they see things like this some are going to conclude that you're just some random person, hardly more qualified than themselves. That's when the window gets closed and you're forgotten.

>4. oops, here you are wrong in substance, the title of the first chapter is 'Material and Major corrections to piece values'


'Major corrections to piece values' is part of that. What's immediately listed does not constitute 'major corrections'.

>5. For myself, I am very well aware what I can get from the book, but quite probably very few people are like me and would need much more extensive spoon-feeding.


Might not be the healthiest perspective to see it as 'spoon-feeding', but if it helps go for it.

>Apart from that, what about the original ideas within? Should not original ideas more or less trump other factors? That is what I am asking everyone and can not get an answer: since when new approaches and original ideas don't arouse curiosity in the human mind? That is a question that bothers me most.


What exactly is the new idea here? Can you answer this succinctly? I think plenty of people are curious, but they place a very high value on their time and cannot be expected to be patient.

>Because, without originality, what do other things matter? Why should I be happier when some renowned author explains to me for the 100th time in a perfect native English the importance of placing one's rooks on an open file, than if I had the opportunity to learn something new?


I think this is a false dichotomy. Take Jonathan Rowson's "Chess for zebras" or "Move First, Think Later" by Willy Hendriks. They're definitely original and I'm sure they did fine.

>Thanks again for your feedback,


Books are a cutthroat business. Having any success as an author is extremely difficult. I hope that you are able to set your ego aside and learn from mistakes, but even you do, be prepared to fail. It is like the Han quote from Enter the Dragon: "We are all ready to win, just as we are born knowing only life. It is defeat that you must learn to prepare for."
Parent - - By Lyudmil Tsvetkov (**) [bg] Date 2017-11-17 14:47

>Yes there are grammatical issues, plenty.


I would be very glad, if you are specific.
Could you please enumerate some. (please, note, that there are at least 2 editions of the book, I corrected some mistakes/inaccuracies after the first edition,
the latest changes are on Amazon, but maybe you have used the former edition in some way)

>'Major corrections to piece values' is part of that. What's immediately listed does not constitute 'major corrections'.


No, that is not true, as said, the Chapter title is 'Material and major corrections to piece values', and the specific piece values are under the heading 'Material'.

>What exactly is the new idea here? Can you answer this succinctly? I think plenty of people are curious, but they place a very high value on their time and cannot be expected to be patient.


That already surprises me a lot.
Have you read the Table of Contents(the first thing one usually reads) or the attached Index of Terms at the end of the book?
If, more or less, half of the terms are unknown to chess science, what would you think?
This guy copied and pasted from somewhere, or he came up with these ideas himself?

That is what is original, half of chess knowledge is completely original and new, not mentioned anywhere else, why would I pick a book instead
that is lacking all those terms?
Here we are talking about originality of contents, which is far more important than originality of style.

It is ideas that are lacking, chess knowledge ideas, the style could be adapted in different ways, more or less.
Parent - - By Labyrinth (*****) [us] Date 2017-11-18 15:57

>Grammatical issues


From version that I just checked the page with (07:56:36 UTC November 18, 2017)

First page:

*"without prior permission of theauthor"

No space between 'the' and 'author'.

Contents:

*The spacing doesn't look good, each entry should be double spaced. For example there should be a spaced line between "Chapter 1" and "Material and major corrections of piece values".

*There are some strange underlines that are not even in the Table of Contents. No apparent rhyme or reason to them.

*"In Lieu of a forward", could just be 'Forward".

To be in lieu of is to be in place of, so you're kind of saying that there isn't a forward, but something else in its place. Kind of odd since it clearly is a forward, but I guess not outright incorrect.

*Pawns on squares the colour of the own bishop"

Should read "Pawns on squares the same color as the bishop" (it's understood to mean one's own bishop, but to state it explicitly would have to be something like 'Pawns on squares the same color as one's bishop')

*"Central d4/e4 isolated pawn, blocked by an enemy minor outpost"

I don't think 'minor outpost' is really a thing. When people hear 'outpost' they usually think of outposts for knights. So, don't need the 'minor' part.

*"Special rule for the imbalance knight and bishop"

Would read much better as "Special rule for the knight and bishop imbalance"

*"Special rule with bishop on more advanced ranks"

Not technically incorrect, but reads really weird. Why not "special rule for bishops on advanced ranks". The 'more advanced' seems like overuse of adjectives. When you say advanced ranks I'm going to think of the 5th-8th ranks for white for example. If you're specifically talking about the 7th and 8th ranks, then put that in the title.

*"Available double pawn pushes"

Not incorrect, but sounds quite strange. What double pawn pushes are 'available' is determined by the rules of the game, so clearly you're talking about something else here, and that something else should be the title instead.

*"White knight on b1, trapped by enemy pawns"

Would the same information not also refer to 'black knight on b8 trapped by enemy pawns"?

*"White knight on b1, a2, a3, or c1, trapped by own and enemy pawns"

Is the case of the b1 knight trapped by enemy pawns not already covered per the title of above previous chapter?

*"Chapter III"

When you mention levers, sometimes you use the plural 'levers', and sometimes you don't. I think the plural should always be used, because we're hopefully talking about knowledge that can apply to countless similar positions.

*"Pieces attacking the square in front of an own or enemy passer"

Should read something like "Pieces attacking the square in front of a passed pawn", and leave the section itself to talk about both cases.

*"Restricting passer"

Would be better stated as "Restricting a passed pawn". The term 'passer' is a slang in chess.

*"Spearhead connected passer"

Not sure what this refers to, but should probably be something like "Spearheading a connected passed pawn".

*"Passer-makers"

Maybe "Passed pawn generation"? Again not sure what this is referring to.

*"Passer"

In general use 'passed pawn' as opposed to this word.

*"2 pawns controlling"

If the number is less than 10, spell it out. So should be "Two pawns.."

*"Vertically isolated pawn"

Not incorrect, but really strange. A pawn is isolated if it cannot be protected by other pawns, there is no directionality to it. It's like saying 'vertically square': either said object satisfies the properties of being a square or it doesn't, it cannot be 'vertically square' but not horizontally as that wouldn't make sense.

*"Tripled pawn"

Should be 'tripled pawns", ditto for the other singular uses of 'pawn'. It would suck if we were only going to refer to a unique position. I mean that might be appropriate for a puzzle book, but otherwise no.

*"Unbackwarded pawn"

No way Jose. If you're talking about the process (before the fact), try 'mending a backward pawn', 'remedying', or even 'correcting'. After the fact would be incredibly bizarre, which 'unbackwarded' implies. If the situation has been corrected, then it is not a backwards pawn anymore.

*"Backwardmakers"

At the very least, this needs a space between Backward and Makers. It's still quite ugly though. Maybe "Backwards pawn creators".

*"Unopposed backward-maker on the 5th rank"

I don't know what this is supposed to mean so it is difficult to rewrite. Definitely needs to be stated differently though. "Backward-maker" is a highly idiosyncratic term, I don't even know what it means for it to be opposed to unopposed in this case.

*"Backward long chain pawn blocked condition"

This sounds like google translate from Chinese. It's just bad. I can't make heads or tails of it. What's a "long chain", how can it possess the quality of being 'backward'? Or is it a 'backward long chain pawn'? If so what is that? If the pawn is blocked that would be a "blocked pawn", why is "condition" necessary here after so many adjectives? I mean this may use English words, but it is not English. It sounds like a robot that has a short circuit somewhere. Maybe "blocked backwards pawn that is part of a long pawn chain", but that's an awfully specific scenario for it to have its own chapter.

*"Control of center"

Small nitpick: I find it a bit odd that you use the American spelling "Center" instead of the British "Centre", when you used the British "colour" above as opposed to the American "color". I would prefer "Center" and "color" personally, but whatever you choose you should probably stick to a continent :-)

*"Minor piece simultaneously attacking with an own pawn one of the 4 centralmost squares: e4,e5, d4,d5"

I think it sounds better for 'simultaneously' to go after attacking.

Should be 'with a pawn on one of the four"

There should be a space between central and most. However, most isn't needed at all. Neither is the 'e4,e5, d4,d5' part. The central squares are defined as such already.

So: "Minor piece attacking simultaneously with a pawn on one of the central squares."

Even this is cumbersome though, more concise is "Attacking simultaneously with a pawn and a minor piece on the central squares".

*"Inchoative pointed chains of 2 pawns"

Inchoative?! Really? It's like there are basic grammar problems and then you throw in a fancy word like 'inchoative'. I don't think it's used correctly here, as 'inchoate' is already an adjective, inchoative is sometimes a noun. It can be used as an adjective, but it usually refers to something very specific in the field of grammar/linguistics such as inchoative verbs.

I'm not sure what you're trying to convey exactly here though. How can a pawn chain be 'inchoate'? Because it's on the 2nd and 3rd ranks as white for example? That's the only thing I can think of.

Also if you have a "chain" of two pawns, they inevitably point one direction or the other so 'pointed' seems unnecessary here.

So maybe something like "chains of two pawns on the second rank", which implies that one of the pawns is on the third rank.

*"Own minor pieces controlling a weak spot"

The way you are using 'own' here is really super slang at best, but it's not even necessary. You can just say 'minor pieces controlling a weak spot'. The chapter itself can specify whether you are discussing your own pieces, or that of the opponents. In fact, your own pieces will be assumed unless otherwise specified.

I really don't want to continue with just the table of contents section, as it is quite long. I'll move on to the 'In lieu of a forward'.

*"You will not find many like this, or even a few ones."

Would be better worded as "You will not find many like this if any."

*"Allows us to look deeper into the game of chess."

Better is 'deeper into the game of chess than ever before'.

Ugh yeah, I think I'll try to stick to grammatical issues as I would write this entire thing completely differently.

*"One centipawn is one hundred of a full pawn."

Should be 'one-hundredth".

*"As very small terms, with values smaller than 10 cps, are indeed very difficult to make sense, in the book I have included just terms with larger value than one, though, there are also a few features with a bit lower value, just to spice things up.

This is a mess. Something like 'Since values smaller than 10 cps are difficult to make sense of I have chosen to often use larger values, though in a few cases I show values less than 10 just to spice things up'

*"Split between mg and eg"

Already talked about those acronyms. They especially have no place in a forward!

*"quite natural what concerns refined evaluation factors"

Yikes.

Yeah I thought I had the patience for this but I mean, the thing just needs to be rewritten. There is repeated material, a lack of conciseness, questionable idea expression mechanisms, dubious grammar, and overuse of adjectives and commas. This is really stuff that should be covered in college writing classes (they were in mine anyways!).

I suspect that if you do more reading of literature in English it will probably help a lot. I think that to be a good author you also have to be a good reader, and reading plenty of books exposes you to correct grammar and various ways to approach expressing ideas.

>No, that is not true, as said, the Chapter title is 'Material and major corrections to piece values', and the specific piece values are under the heading 'Material'.


What does 'major correction' mean to you?

>That already surprises me a lot.


I asked the question for a reason. See it as a writing exercise. What exactly is the new idea?

>If, more or less, half of the terms are unknown to chess science, what would you think?


If the author doesn't make a very big deal about the necessity for so many new terms from the beginning, it leads me to suspect that the author is using their own unnecessarily unique language to describe things and as such may be unfamiliar with the language already in use. That, or they are breaking concepts into categories that are really too small to necessitate categories.

>This guy copied and pasted from somewhere, or he came up with these ideas himself?


I think you are too concerned with the appearance of originality. The main concerns for potential customers are what I mentioned in the last reply in regards to the three questions. There's a lot of overlap in chess material, so I don't think prospective buyers are super concerned about originality anyways.

>completely original and new, not mentioned anywhere else


That's great if true. There are a few problems however:

1. As mentioned before, prospective chess book buyers are not necessarily looking for originality. A lot of the knowledge that top players have can be found in many, many books. Chess book customers want that knowledge in their brains, and they want to get it there in the most efficient way possible. They are looking for fast and effective assimilation, and if it isn't going to be 'fast', they want a lot of assurance that their time will be well spent. Studying 'encyclopedic' type books like Muller's endgames or MCO is a brutal grind but some do it because doing such a thing should warrant a big payoff in chess ability/understanding over the board.

2. Original ideas are not automatically good/useful just by virtue of being original.

3. Said ideas still must be successfully imparted to the public for them to have any use, and depending on the ideas, this may be very difficult and require communication skills that the author may not possess. Shinichi Mochizuki comes to mind, as after 5 years mathematicians are still scratching their heads over his papers that supposedly prove the abc conjecture, and his efforts to remedy the situation have thus far been woefully inadequate.

I think if you are looking for more sales you will have to do a better job of putting yourself in your customer's shoes. Consider any subject that you do not know much about, or have only an intermediate level of knowledge on (botany? geology? philosophy? programming?). What would you would want from a book on the subject?
Parent - - By Lyudmil Tsvetkov (**) [bg] Date 2017-11-18 21:02
Sorry, Labyrinth, thank you very much for the feedback, I guess you spent couple of days on it, but it is simply
tooo long for me. :) (oops, 'too' is written with just 2 Os)

I respect you very much, I am happy about your attitude, I am certain you are very intelligent, but I guess the main
problem with our communication are simply different levels of, how to say it, understanding.(but that reminds me that I can not expect much
from that book)

I will try to answer some of your concerns, you will excuse me, if I leave many out:

>From version that I just checked the page with (07:56:36 UTC November 18, 2017)


The version date and the real version might be different, in any case, I have not made updates on the 18th.

>First page: *"without prior permission of theauthor"    


this is an issue with the ebook on Amazon, and the fault is with their file convertor, in the original doc/pdf there is a space.

>Contents:


>*The spacing doesn't look good, each entry should be double spaced. For example there should be a spaced line between "Chapter 1" and "Material and major corrections of piece values".


Have you seen other chess books, man?
Some are full of spelling mistakes in the description even, not to mention double spacing.
Irving Chernev's 'Move by move' features zero spacing sometimes, and still it sells incredibly well.

>*There are some strange underlines that are not even in the Table of Contents. No apparent rhyme or reason to them.


Not mine, sorry, I guess this is a problem with all paperbacks on Amazon, but this is just the preview.
Amazon KDP is still just beta.
The book itself should be fine.

>*"In Lieu of a forward", could just be 'Forward".


>To be in lieu of is to be in place of, so you're kind of saying that there isn't a forward, but something else in its place. Kind of odd since it clearly is a forward, but I guess not outright incorrect.


I don't know what you have been reading, the introduction is called 'In lieu of a Foreword', so I don't know where you get that 'forward' from.
Concerning forwards, I know about forwards and backs in football.

>*Pawns on squares the colour of the own bishop"


>Should read "Pawns on squares the same color as the bishop" (it's understood to mean one's own bishop, but to state it explicitly would have to be something like 'Pawns on squares the same color as one's bishop')


I guess this is a bit pedantic; I always like to underscore rhyme, even in prosaic text, it might not sound well in English, but that is how I like it, that is my inner nature.

>*"Central d4/e4 isolated pawn, blocked by an enemy minor outpost"


>I don't think 'minor outpost' is really a thing. When people hear 'outpost' they usually think of outposts for knights. So, don't need the 'minor' part.


Nope, if you had read the whole text, you would have known I enumerate different types of outposts, uncluding rook outposts,
so it is obligatory to specify.

>*"Special rule for the imbalance knight and bishop"


>Would read much better as "Special rule for the knight and bishop imbalance"


There is no such phrase; the title reads 'Special rule for the imbalance knight versus bishop' and I see nothing wrong with it.
As said, your suggestion lacks rhyme.

>*"Special rule with bishop on more advanced ranks"


>Not technically incorrect, but reads really weird. Why not "special rule for bishops on advanced ranks". The 'more advanced' seems like overuse of adjectives. When you say advanced ranks I'm going to think of the 5th-8th ranks for white for example. If you're specifically talking about the 7th and 8th ranks, then put that in the title.


Again, rhyme.

>*"Available double pawn pushes"


>Not incorrect, but sounds quite strange. What double pawn pushes are 'available' is determined by the rules of the game, so clearly you're talking about something else here, and that something else should be the title >instead.


Don't understand you; on the chess board, sometimes double pushes are available, and sometimes not(for example, when the pawn on its 2nd rank is blocked by an own
or enemy pawn/piece, or there is a pawn/piece on the relative 4th rank.
So that, my phrase is technically fully correct.

>*"White knight on b1, trapped by enemy pawns"


>Would the same information not also refer to 'black knight on b8 trapped by enemy pawns"?


Correct, but you have not read the whole text; in the introduction, it is specified that all terms are from white's point of view, so you have to do the reversal
for black.
It is meaningless to enumerate all instances, as the board locations are fully symmetrical and mirrored.

>*"White knight on b1, a2, a3, or c1, trapped by own and enemy pawns"


>Is the case of the b1 knight trapped by enemy pawns not already covered per the title of above previous chapter?


Nope, this is a different scenario, and you would have known that, if you had read even the above titles more carefully;
One says 'trapped by own and enemy pawns', while the other just 'trapped by enemy pawns'.
2 different scenarios.

>*"Chapter III"


>When you mention levers, sometimes you use the plural 'levers', and sometimes you don't. I think the plural should always be used, because we're hopefully talking about knowledge that can apply to countless similar positions.


>*"Pieces attacking the square in front of an own or enemy passer"


>Should read something like "Pieces attacking the square in front of a passed pawn", and leave the section itself to talk about both cases.


Again, rhyme.
I am not certain passer is that colloquial, or that colloquial expressions have no place in books, for example,
I frequently use 'sac' instead of 'sacrifice'.
For me, meaning comes in first, verbal etiquette only in second.

>*"Restricting passer"


>Would be better stated as "Restricting a passed pawn". The term 'passer' is a slang in chess.


Nope, if you had read the text and seen the diagrams, you would have known that it is the passer that restricts the enemy pieces
rather than vice-versa.

>*"Spearhead connected passer"


>Not sure what this refers to, but should probably be something like "Spearheading a connected passed pawn".


Again, should have read the text and seen the examples; a spearhead passer is the head of a long chain of pawns that is simultaneously
a passed pawn.

>*"Passer-makers"


>Maybe "Passed pawn generation"? Again not sure what this is referring to.


No, Kmoch calls this 'hidden passers', but I prefer to stress the making function, as the pawn that goes forward to challenge the enemy pawn
blocking the future passer is more important in the process than the newly-appeared passer.
'Passer-generators' might be acceptable for a substitute, but the, I have many 'makers' in my book, so this is simply more natural.

I wonder, have you read Kmoch?
But then, he does not get good reviews, either.

>*"Passer"


>In general use 'passed pawn' as opposed to this word.


>*"2 pawns controlling"


>If the number is less than 10, spell it out. So should be "Two pawns.."


Too pedantic.

>*"Vertically isolated pawn"


>Not incorrect, but really strange. A pawn is isolated if it cannot be protected by other pawns, there is no directionality to it. It's like saying 'vertically square': either said object satisfies the properties of being a square or it >doesn't, it cannot be 'vertically square' but not horizontally as that wouldn't make sense.


Nope, vertical isolation is a term present in many chess books, and it is a very real term, referring to a pawn that has other friendly pawns on adjacent files, but those are not on an adjacent rank.

>*"Tripled pawn"


>Should be 'tripled pawns", ditto for the other singular uses of 'pawn'. It would suck if we were only going to refer to a unique position. I mean that might be appropriate for a puzzle book, but otherwise no.


>*"Unbackwarded pawn"


>No way Jose. If you're talking about the process (before the fact), try 'mending a backward pawn', 'remedying', or even 'correcting'. After the fact would be incredibly bizarre, which 'unbackwarded' implies. If the situation >has been corrected, then it is not a backwards pawn anymore.


Nope, fully the opposite, the situation has already been corrected, and that is why this pawn is already not backward, but still a special pawn.

>*"Backwardmakers"


>At the very least, this needs a space between Backward and Makers. It's still quite ugly though. Maybe "Backwards pawn creators".


For me, 'backward pawn creators is extremely ugly'. :)
As said, I have many makers in my book, so this is part of a series.

>*"Unopposed backward-maker on the 5th rank"


>I don't know what this is supposed to mean so it is difficult to rewrite. Definitely needs to be stated differently though. "Backward-maker" is a highly idiosyncratic term, I don't even know what it means for it to be opposed >to unopposed in this case.


Right, you can not know, if you have not read the text.
Backward-maker is any pawn that makes an enemy pawn backward in some way, and an unopposed pawn is a pawn that does not have an enemy pawn
on the same rank.
I guess you can do the maths.

>*"Backward long chain pawn blocked condition"


>This sounds like google translate from Chinese. It's just bad. I can't make heads or tails of it. What's a "long chain", how can it possess the quality of being 'backward'? Or is it a 'backward long chain pawn'? If so what is >that? If the pawn is blocked that would be a "blocked pawn", why is "condition" necessary here after so many adjectives? I mean this may use English words, but it is not English. It sounds like a robot that has a short >circuit somewhere. Maybe "blocked backwards pawn that is part of a long pawn chain", but that's an awfully specific scenario for it to have its own chapter.


This is the only one with which I fully agree; I simply could not think of something better.

>*"Control of center"


>Small nitpick: I find it a bit odd that you use the American spelling "Center" instead of the British "Centre", when you used the British "colour" above as opposed to the American "color". I would prefer "Center" and "color" >personally, but whatever you choose you should probably stick to a continent :-)


Again, rhyme and elegance of perception; I can use colour, as it writes good, but no 'centre', as there are 3 consonants one after another, and that is ugly.
I guess you have forgotten your British origins. :)

>*"Minor piece simultaneously attacking with an own pawn one of the 4 centralmost squares: e4,e5, d4,d5"


>I think it sounds better for 'simultaneously' to go after attacking.


My phrase requires less breathing effort, so I will stick to it.

>Should be 'with a pawn on one of the four"


>There should be a space between central and most. However, most isn't needed at all. Neither is the 'e4,e5, d4,d5' part. The central squares are defined as such already.


>So: "Minor piece attacking simultaneously with a pawn on one of the central squares."


>Even this is cumbersome though, more concise is "Attacking simultaneously with a pawn and a minor piece on the central squares".


Nope, there are 2 central definitions in chess: the innermost center, the 4 central squares, and the extended center, so a distinction is just
obligatory, especially in a title.

>*"Inchoative pointed chains of 2 pawns"


>Inchoative?! Really? It's like there are basic grammar problems and then you throw in a fancy word like 'inchoative'. I don't think it's used correctly here, as 'inchoate' is already an adjective, inchoative is sometimes a noun. It can be used as an adjective, but it usually refers to something very specific in the field of grammar/linguistics such as inchoative verbs.


>I'm not sure what you're trying to convey exactly here though. How can a pawn chain be 'inchoate'? Because it's on the 2nd and 3rd ranks as white for example? That's the only thing I can think of.


>Also if you have a "chain" of two pawns, they inevitably point one direction or the other so 'pointed' seems unnecessary here.


>So maybe something like "chains of two pawns on the second rank", which implies that one of the pawns is on the third rank.


Again, you have not read the whole text with the diagrams.
I am not that stupid, I have learned 6 languages before I wrote this book, so I have a very subtle understanding of words and meaning.

'inchoative' should be derived from Ancient Greek, meaning 'starting', 'beginning'.
The is a chain and an inchoative chain; and inchoative chain is a chain that has started being built, but is not yet fully built.
You are also not right about 'pointed', as 'pointed' has a very specific meaning, namely the head of the chain being located on the side
of the board where the enemy king is.
So, chains could basically point in 2 directions: towards, and away from the enemy king.

Labyrinth, sorry, but I have to write my new book and that is simply too long, so I will leave it here.

Ok, a couple more points.

>Yeah I thought I had the patience for this but I mean, the thing just needs to be rewritten. There is repeated material, a lack of conciseness, questionable idea expression mechanisms, dubious grammar, and overuse of >adjectives and commas. This is really stuff that should be covered in college writing classes (they were in mine anyways!).


>I suspect that if you do more reading of literature in English it will probably help a lot. I think that to be a good author you also have to be a good reader, and reading plenty of books exposes you to correct grammar and >various ways to approach expressing ideas.


see above, I have always hated formal classes, but my family has a long tradition of writing/education.

>I asked the question for a reason. See it as a writing exercise. What exactly is the new idea?


The new idea are the 150 new evaluation terms.
Why should I see as a writing exercise something that is to primarily deliver chess knowledge base.
You are not concerned with the chess aspect of the book, are you?

>I think you are too concerned with the appearance of originality. The main concerns for potential customers are what I mentioned in the last reply in regards to the three questions. There's a lot of overlap in chess material, >so I don't think prospective buyers are super concerned about originality anyways.


They are not, and that is the pity.
Still, in the past, all the big names have been original writers, suggesting something new.
It is true, nowadays, Nobel prizes are given to people who have discovered nothing new, and that is THE REAL PITY.

>2. Original ideas are not automatically good/useful just by virtue of being original.


Right, but more than 20 of my evaluation ideas have been incorporated into Stockfish code, so they have passed their verification.(please note, that it is
extremely difficult nowadays for an evaluation idea to succeed in Stockfish, the likelihood is something like 1%)
Parent - - By Dr.X (Gold) Date 2017-11-18 21:54
Hi, Lyudmil, let me first state that I like the overall idea you tackled and the apparent energy you put into putting this into presentation. One of the major problems isn't the "idea" it is your attempt to translate that idea into English. I haven't read the book just a smattering of the excerpt . Also I would have like to see more of your ideas on piece values as related to the transitioning position presented -that is,  why those values changed. That is just my humble opinion.
Of course, when one gives their  inferences of understand the strategic and tactical elements of a given position you will be suggesting to the reader your own level of understanding of the game of chess!
There is where the sand separates from sea, when an International Master like John Nunn or , Susan Polgar, who in one of their books is giving instruction and someone like myself can only  attempt to report back from a limited understanding what I've gleaned.
Up Topic The Rybka Lounge / Computer Chess / The Secret of Chess
1 2 3 4 5 Previous Next  

Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill