Has Chess Mentor Improved Your Game?

For those of you not in strong favor of Chess Mentor: What software would you recommend to a computer savvy (but new to chess) player who considers Chess Mentor the only real indispensible tool here at Chess.com right now other than the massive community.

You can find a couple of software recommendations for training purposes in my blog, although I think Chess Mentor is quite okay if you supplement it with regular revision of lessons failed.

Chessimo looks really intriguing...

What about engines like Rybka or Chessmaster, etc? They cost three figures and I'm wondering if they would just wind up being over my head for the most part.

It depends what you're looking for. Chess Mentor and the resources I have listed are training resources which give you puzzles to solve in order to improve, while chess engines are analyzing tools, that give you strong moves and evaluation from any given chess position.

I wouldn't recommend beginners to use chess engines for improvement purposes, because I think they are a source of confusion and make people very lazy 

Ah, I see.  I probably should then work through chess mentor before looking elsewhere.  Not as if there's any shortage of content .

No, there's way too much chess content.

The difficulty is to make a selection and use your tools correctly

A thorough study of the 300 lessons under the course 'The Roots of Positional Understanding,' would improve your game.

Sounds like a plan.  Thanks for the recommendation .

I tried out the chess mentor for kicks. I found it very irritating actually. I started with a simple one, the checkmate with two bishops. It kept telling me that what I was doing was wrong. The chess mentor has the property of trying to force you to do things in the fastest way even if not the simplest way. For instance, I'm very good at mating with two bishops, first I centralize my bishops and then my king and then march the opposing king into a corner... It may not be the fastest but it is the easiest and its not wrong, no matter what chess mentor thinks. Maybe some of the other training material is better but I'd wager all the endgame modules have this same flaw.

Why did you look up this old forum?

Has it helped my game? That's an interesting question.

I last played chess about 40 years ago, and not that well. I belonged to a chess club in high school, where the idea was to sit down and start playing, with little more than a chart on the wall showing the basic moves. Few were interested in playing a beginner, much less helping, so I never advanced much beyond the basics.

If you ever talked to a real teacher you find out that there are three ways people learn: reading, watching/listening, and trial/error (doing). Books are, obviously, made for the first group. CM seems to be aimed at group two. I belong to group three. Group three learners, to an extent, need feedback on what they did wrong and, more importantly, on what they did right. In the physical sciences you get that right away, just ask any chem student who mixed ammonia and bleach (raise my hand here). You get the feedback, but if all the teacher ever tells you is, "don't do that again", you have learned almost squat.

Now, onto CM. I knew the basics, so I jumped right into Intro to Tactics, that was a mistake. So, after blowing it pretty big in some lessons (did well in others), I went back to the beginning (sequential). I made mistakes, some because using a trackpad to drag (no mouse) sometimes ends where you don't want, and there's no "oops" button. Sometimes I did what I was told (Click on Key Squares) and found that doing so lost me points, even though everything else was perfect. What I have found is that CM does a good job at walking you through the beginning levels, but fails when you reach intermediate. It expects you to "know" what moves to make to go on with the lesson, rather than telling you what the next move is, then explain why that is the correct move...what is the thought process behind it?

Where it really fails is when you make the wrong move, then tells you "that's nice, but there's a better one". If (remember, you are learning) you ask for a hint, key squares, etc., it takes points away...and big time. In lessons where there are zero points gained, if you make the wrong move you can lose 10 points! That's a lot to recover when you are not earning any for making the right moves.

So, has it helped my game? Some, but not as much as I had hoped (after dropping $99). At this point, I'm not sure about renewing when the time comes.

What I would like to see is a "training computer game", where I play against the computer, and get feedback on why my move was good or bad. Sigh, probably not going to happen.

What I would like to see is a "training computer game", where I play against the computer, and get feedback on why my move was good or bad. Sigh, probably not going to happen

You can do that by analyzing your games with a more experienced player.

What about engines like Rybka or Chessmaster, etc? They cost three figures and I'm wondering if they would just wind up being over my head for the most part.

TheArtofWar: You can buy Fritz 12 for $7 on Amazon. Or download "SCID vs PC" for free.

True, they are a certain amount of trouble to learn, but otherwise they are quite remarkable tools at any price.

Fritz comes with some learning modules and videos I haven't bothered with. But the main thing is that you can single-step through games, yours or anyone's, and get a pretty good idea of where things go wrong, if not why, by watching the engine's rating of the position.

They are also great for checking tactics and opening lines.

hicetnunc wrote:

What I would like to see is a "training computer game", where I play against the computer, and get feedback on why my move was good or bad. Sigh, probably not going to happen

You can do that by analyzing your games with a more experienced player.

I do not have any available.

@PaHiker:

Sorry to hear you're unhappy with CM.  Some of your difficulty stems from the fact that CM is essentially 2 courses.  The first original part was purchased by chess.com and after modernizing the interface added to the program.  Those lessons are maybe 60% and tend to be a bit of a crapshoot; some lessons give great feedback and some don't.  The newer lessons are almost all written with great care to give accurate feedback to a student who strays.  I know you're committed to doing the lessons sequentially but I genuinely think you'll have a much better experience doing the newer lessons.  The older lessons certainly have value but as you've found out, they often do not fulfill the promise of having a chess mentor.  More of my $.02, and yes I do have a whole bunch of pennies. 

Well, then you can post your games in the Game analysis forum, and you'll probably get some interesting feedback.

Perhaps I misunderstand "sequentially", my assumption is that it starts at a beginner's level, then proceeds "sequentially", like a college textbook, through the lessons. No?

Is there something here to explain how to do that?

Do you capture the entire game, or just sections?

Up to you. Just have a look. People usually post full games and add their thoughts to ensure better feedback.

• Perhaps I misunderstand "sequentially", my assumption is that it starts at a beginner's level, then proceeds "sequentially", like a college textbook, through the lessons. No?

   

  Actually PaHiker, no.  It's a holdover from the original unupdated course and works on some other "logic" entirely.  To see what I mean go to chessmentor and click on "view courses".  Now that little box that says "newest first" has an arrow button?  Press that, choose sequential, and try and figure out the "logic".  As I said it's nonsense.  Just pick courses you're interested in and do it that way.  With the list on "newest first" try some on the first or second page.  I predict you'll be a much happier camper.

• 8 minutes ago · Quote · #60