Yes, the ratings system here is something I struggle with. The ratings of the courses seem like ELO type ratings, but any time spent with the lessons quickly bumps your "Chess Mentor" rating beyond where it should be.
The problem with this is that the "Adaptive" setting, which in theory is absolutely brilliant, always serves up problems that are too difficult to be instructive. A real shame, as I'd love to use it that way.
Hello:
I am sure the scoring system is not suppose to matcg ELO or anythin like that. However, it still seems way too generous. Here is an example from Silman's 1st strategy course.
I only scored 86% on Botvinnik-Kan despite remembering the start of it from Silman's books. The lesson is rated a few 100 points below my rating. Yet my rating has increased.
Any thoughts?
Gerry