lichess.org
Donate

Simul with strong opponent

Hello!
Want to inform you about possibility to play a serious training game against strong chess playe`r. I am FM Viacheslav Tilicheev, my current ELO is 2497.
Date: June 17. Time: 1 PM EST (approximiately, it can changed if agreed with all of participants). Minimum amount of players - 5. Control - 90 mins + 30 sec. for whole game. Price is the same like two years ago - more concretely via e-mail.

What the price includes:

One classical game against strong professional player;
Detailed analysis of the game in desired format (pgn, video or Skype call with live analysis);
Twitch stream with live commentaries.

If you are interested feel free to contact with me via e-mail sltilich@gmail.com and I will give you more information.

P.S. Please don't start the discussion like hikaru_nakamuru did. I have no reason to insult someone - so if you interested in proposal - just let me know here or via e-mail, if not - you can continue with another blog topics.
are you serious?
you want peoples pay you to train yourself in exange of things we find all here for FREE!
pgn file ty man, detailed analysis ( with the computer analysis + learn from your mistakes + forum where very strong players give advices and explainations for free), streaming ( a lot of chess masters do it), a lot of GM and IM do it for free ( because they are not morons, or because they look for money but a bit more subtly as you ...).
In fact you should pay us.
Or maybe add to your package a night with shakira or rihanna at choice, would make it more attractive.
Asking money for that shame on you. ( btw the person who has the most to win in a simul is the organizer).
Dont forget to create a chess coach profile where you gonna ask 100$/hour for chess lessons ( with pgn files of course).

Why you took away the price you asked for could play in your simul?
your 1rst post is not the same as when i answer you :)
and btw when you google your name, on the 3rd first links 2 of them speak about you cheating ;)
peace
Yes it was a big scandal with chess.com 2 years ago. They proved nothing but it is their policy. They can do what they want. Due to their incompetence this news are first in search and not the articles about my wins in quite strong open tournaments in Bulgaria. A plenty of strong GMs were on my side, including GM Shirov, but it is difficult to prove something against thousands amateurs like you who just believe in system without looking at games or reading something. Good luck for you.
"it is difficult to prove something against thousands amateurs like you who just believe in system without looking at games or reading something. Good luck for you."

Comments like this don't give a positive view of you FM Tilicheev, if you wanna sell chess services. Also I would be more interested in WHY your "famous" wins in Bulgaria don't appear rather than only the fact that they don't appear.

If you wanna sell chess services you should confirm you are a honest and serious player and not bragging, insulting others.

Take this as a hint and good luck!
Blackzombie - I have no reason to insult someone with my words and I am sorry if it seems like this. The only thing is that it is very unpleasant that only thing which another people could see in search - this scandal, caused by incompetence of chess.com stuff. I am not said that wins were "famous" only that it is much more seriously shows how someone can play, but unfortunately like in hikaru_nakamuru case - he saw only first links without even looking at articles. If he would do that - he would understand that there were two big camps, 50 on 50 - someone on my side and someone on side of chess.com. All what I wanted to say when I said about amateurs (I am sorry but most players here and at all chess servers are amateurs) that it is difficult to prove something when someone just see the link about cheating and he already has his opinion about it. There are some videos, articles when I explain my games but I am sure that hikaru_nakamuru didn't saw that.

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.