---

Unfortunately Chess Mentor ratings are massively inflated which seems to effectively break the Adaptive mode.  Many threads on this topic.

Sequential or chosen courses are still brilliant and great value though.

They had better fix it and all the other anomalies in Chess Mentor, which is the flagship for their site, soon or someone else will steal their thunder. That would be a pity. I like this site.

Tactics trainer is better and to the point.  Mentor is slow and cumbersome, and the manner of providing explanations for each line is further slower and cumbersome and not well suited for its intent.   It'd be better if you could play through the variations that are in the explanations, otherwise the efficiencies of a computer are wasted with chess mentor...it is simply a kindle-type book, and requires you to have a separate board and screen to play through all of the variations listed in the explanations.  You can thoroughly think through at least 5 tactics problems in the time it takes to do 1 similar-level chess mentor problem.  You can blast through 10 for pattern recognition purposes in the time you can do 1 similar-rated problem in Tactics Trainer. 

Chess seems no different than studying math, science, or any other cognitive field where the more complex decisions/relationships are based on a thorough understanding of simpler fundamental concepts.  In chess, piece relationships and shorter-move combinations (simple endgames and tactics) provide the fundamentals from which more advanced strategic thinking is based AND assumed.  You don't teach calculus before you teach addition.   If you are still "braining" your way through trying to avoid getting mated-in-2 or -3, you shouldn't be studying the vagaries of a positional set up that worked in Capablanca's day because of the "strong" bishop on f5 but is found in the modern day to be slightly losing because of a 14-move variation.  De la Maza is correct, though not completely, much like Steinitz was in his day.   Yes, I am comparing the 2, but pedagogically, not skill-level-wise or historically, where de la Maza methods are more in line with cognitive learning theory, though not perfectly.  Don't most GM's learn tactics/mates first as children, then later progress to more complex strategic thinking when their near-perfect tactical knowledge will not get them to the next level?  It would seem that in any field, but especially one that is completely logical like chess, that simpler concepts need to be repeated, reinforced, and mastered before moving on to more complicated themes.

Tactics is just a small pice in the chess puzzle! You need to know it all to be a good player.

-But tactics is a start.

i have never gotten a negative score on chess mentor.  which is a bit frightening based on the inaccurate moves, hints, and other gizmos i have used.  i completely ignore that rating as any judge of progress and just choose the lessons i want to play. 

i do gage improvement based on TT ratings, but not to try to equate them to anything tangible.  i just figure a 100 point jump in TT rating means i am actually improving on tactics.