Thank you for your critics! Your feedback helps to improve the Chess Mentor program. Your thoughts regarding this Chess Mentor course will be considered in improving this Chess Mentor course.
As for your specific points, my thoughts are as follows:
1) The reason this lesson only goes through two moves is to illustrate a thematic idea in the London System which is the main goal of the course "Understanding the London System". Many of the lessons in this course are used to illustrate positional and thematic ideas for this opening system so that you will understand the plans and ideas you should focus on when playing the London.
2) You are right. There are no semi-files in this lesson and therefore the opening text of the lesson has been adjusted. Also, a wrong move commentary has been added for the a4-a5 move as to why this may not be the best choice.
3) Some commentary has been added for some of the moves you suggested which were not included in explanations. Again, this lesson was not treated as an exact science trying to find the absolute best move but to illustrate a thematic idea in that structure so that you will better understand the ideas behind the London System.
4) For the Kovacevic- Fressinet lesson an alternate correct move response was added for the Ndf3 move as this is a good move in the position as well.
Again, thank you for your feedback on this Chess Mentor course as it helps us to determine how to improve the Chess Mentor program overall.
Hi, i was making the Nigel Davis course about the London System and i have a few critics to make.
1) The explanations are really short like on the game Petrossian - Christiakov the game should go on to see how it goes.
2) On the game Hartston - Lawton he says Semi open files tend to be useful for the outposts but there are no semi open files, i 1st tought a5 would be interesting and i dont see why is wrong and what's so great about Ne5? i like the move but what's white's advantage?
3) On Kovacevic - Martos he reccomends the move e4 witch is fine but gives the bishop pair and he gives wrong to another ideas, Nd2 to play e4 and take with the knight, i tought about g4 too getting some space on the king side or Re1.
And well what i want to say is that i dont think we are seeing how the Gm thinks here with really short comments for ex Kovacevic- Fressinet with g4 the logical continuation, but what's wrong with Ndf3? and the point of Chess mentor is to say what's wrong with our moves, i did not see that in most of Mr. Nigel Davis lessons, at least on the London system and i think he should give much better explanations and dedicate more time making his courses or chess.com should go for some alternative.
Thanks
Leonardo