Chess - Play & Learn


FREE - In Google Play

FREE - in Win Phone Store



  • #21

    That most likely means that your tactics need work. I got a diamond membership so I could get unlimited access to the TT and CM and after about a month practicing My ratings on them are about 2100!My USCF rating is only 1488 so I hope once I go to some tournaments it'll go up! Fingers are crossed!Laughing


    Good luck 


  • #22
    macsys wrote:


    I am just new here, and really love the site.....

    I wonder why i score better at the chess mentor (+1800), compared to the tactics trainer (between 1200-1400)?

    Is it me??



     I'm right at 2000 on CM, and still suck at chess. You practically can't help but go up on CM. It mainly shows you're just progressing through the CM courses. Definatly does NOT indicate your actual chess rating!

  • #23

    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.

  • #24

    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.

  • #25

    Tactics trainer works on tactics and Chess Mentor works on strategy. I'm not a very good strategic player which is why I prefer fast games because I just don't know how to make great positional moves.

    My bullet rating on Chess.com is around 2050-2200 and have serious problems in positional play so I play sharp openings.

    My tactics trainer rating is around 2350-2450 as I get plenty of tactical practice using the tactics trainer and through my bullet games (and some blitz games).

    My Chess Mentor rating is roughly 2000-2050 (set to adaptive, so I'm getting a mix of it all) and I find this very difficult because tactics is a lot easier as its calculations, with a concrete material count but I'm finding the subtle positional moves the most difficult to find which is perfectly fine as I'm learning a lot.

    To sum it up, the two challenges different aspects of the game.

  • #26

    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. 

  • #27

    You're missing the distinct differences between strategy and tactics. Tactics require observation (calculating lines) and strategy requires thought (thinking of a plan and approaching the position in the correct manner). If you seriously want to improve your game, you'll take the time to go through the notes.

  • #28

    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.

  • #29

    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.

  • #30

    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. 

  • #31

    Initial Score: 9%
    Current Score: 9% on 1/11/2011
    Number of Attempts: 1

    Rating Change: -72

    My Current Rating: 2525

    Click here to do this lesson again »
    Feel free to explore this lesson and all its hints as your rating will not be affected.



    Heres my worst drop in score on Chess Mentor.


Online Now