Hello,

I really like the idea of chess mentor. Also the curses look really interesting and a lot of other good things...just in most in the curse I don't understand more (and so never finish the curse and the others). Not easy to explain sorry (and more in english,^^) so i take an example with the curse weak color complexe.

I start it, a very nice choice from IM D. Pruess, start very well so nice and really attractive positions to introduce, excellent job from him.

But then as usual we fall in no explain. In paralyzing domination, ok we can see which squares are weak. But no explain why it is important to use it. The exercice finish with Rc7 and free moves, ok we go on a weak square but how is it helpful for white ?
The aim of the course is to explain this, no ?  if yes why no explain why it is important to lost 2 pawns (if queen take a2 and not Nf7, not important) but to be able to put a rook on c7 ? I suppose it is here the idea to understand because if not why white do all of this to put control on c7 ?

Perhaps less lessons with more deep explains will be better (and so the time the player spend to build the curse is the same). I prefer just 3, the 2 lessons at the beginning to introduce the aim of the curse (as D. Pruess had done very well) and the third lessons with deep explains of the idea.

Most often i find the lessons really attractive, with a player who is able to show us something but never finish the job about the explains.

Alone front of a screen, I am very anthusiatic but it is not easy for low player to understand, I need a lot of explains more than lot of exercices. (well according to me). So at end of lesson 3 in the example i am disapointed and not really hurry to open the next because most of lessons the same feeling come.

Thanks to have read