Criticism of Chess.com University Prodigy Program

@tigerprowl I like your pic with all of those eggs. Are they representative of all your past accounts?

If I were an agent for the program I probably wouldn't have mentioned some of its flaws and probably wouldn't have said it's not for everyone. 

I'm not too sure how showing you a table of contents will help you evaluate if the program is good or not, but if people are interested in the topics themselves here are the major ones (note that I'm in the 1500 section). Hope I'm not divulging anything confidential by posting this...

Jan: How to think about tactics (forcing moves, thinking process at key points of the game, etc., R, Q+P, R+P endgames

Feb: Positional imbalances, advanced K+P endgames, visualization, how to make good use of chess engines

Mar: Petroff/Philidor/Alekhine defense. French defense Tarrash variation

Apr: Main Italian game systems, common opening ideas, Caro-Kann

May: Prophylaxis, dynamic compensation, positional imbalances (e.g. N vs B), IQP pawn structure

June: no program

July: Sicilian, how to use rooks and minor pieces in middlegame

Just a quick couple of questions for those who are in or around the Prodigy program.

I'm guessing that the program doesn't actually profess that ALL students who undertake will be master level in 5 yrs. Does it?

Is there an ability to get a question answered? For example, say on the topic of "hanging pawns", a student didn't recall from a lesson if playing them or against them is easier or harder with the Rooks and Queens on. Can the student get that answered or a direction to an answer from someone related to the program?

Just for information, I believe Lasker in his book "Lasker's Manual of Chess" mentioned something like it could take roughly 200 hours per year of various quality study, analysis and play for a beginner to reach master or near master play. Unfortunately, I don't recall what he said about the number of years it might take. Given today's game might be a bit more complex. Maybe aiming for near master play (or Lasker era master play) and doubling the amount of time are reasonable assumptions.

I dunno man...ask those who are in charge of the program. If you're interested in the March stuff I think you can retroactively purchase the content for that month.

I don't understand why you seem so upset at this - it seems like the marketing of the program isn't to your liking, but since you haven't paid them a dime why do you care so much?

I'm not a Prodigy Program student but i'm passionate about chess take 1 hour of private coaching per week here in Italy. My idea about this prodigy course is that it's a good idea and $ 150 doesn't sound too bad!

Maybe my experience is not a very good guide as I've only taugh chess for fifteen years plus history and literature for a bit over forty, but I think your approach is precisely the wrong way to go. 

SLP = Standard Learning Program

http://www.chess.com/news/chesscom-universitys-standard-learning-program-7615

pawnpusher.. bachelors degree really doesn't make you intelligent, most of an undergraduate degree is regurgitating information. in addition, flaunting phil 101 terms like ad hominem, again, doesn't put you on a higher plane intellectually, but rather flaunts your naivity in thinking that throwing buzzwords around makes one intelligent. don't be an ass

Be an asset instead!

What is the motivation behind the original post?

Something relatively similar to an editorial and constructive criticism so that the program could be improved perhaps to deal with the problems mentioned. That doesn't seem to be what wants to he done- rather these problems seem to want to be ignored but obviously some people can't handle criticism so I am sorry if I offended anyone but I'm not sorry that I shared my opinion.

How can one explain the discrepancy between perceived problems and the response from actual students?

As other more individualized systems haven't been statistically compared, it's hard to say what the discrepancy actually shows. All that it shows is that the program helps (which it logically should). However, it fails to show that it is the most efficient program that is possible. I made my suggestions. Now instead of insulting me, invest your (referring to any and all players who are taking the time to read this) in improving your game/the structure of the prodigy program.

PP3, your original post makes a case for a coach rather than a training program aimed at students being taught in groups. Had you titled your thread, "advantages of a coach," you might have made passing mention of chess.com's chess mentor program, its instructive videos, and the several programs within Chess.com University. However, it's abundantly clear that the constructive elements of your screed were never the focus.

Your pretension to some sort of objective analysis and statistical comparison now is an effort to paddle upriver and change the course of the stream where you have already sullied the banks.

It is not what you argue but how you argue which is a detriment to the argument itself

You think you are offering constructive criticism to help improve the program? Like I said before, you are in no position to do so. The Prodigy Program is not perfect but you don't know anything about it. You don't know our plus points and you also don't know in which ways we are working to improve. Only the students and instructors can provide constructive criticism or any kind of feedback. Someone like you, who knows nothing about the Prodigy Program, cannot have a legitimate opinion about the program. Yes, like Ziryab said, you could have titled your thread to discuss advantages of one-on-one coaching, and so on. Though, you didn't do that.

Go ahead and write a criticism for ChessBase 12 now (as long as you haven't used it before). :-)

It seems the criticism of the Prodigy Program doubter is a bit harsh. While the title of the topic probably could have been better phrased, the original posts general theme "Can the Prodigy Program deliver what is suggested?" seems valid. Especially in light of what's advertised:

"Note that this seriously is a prodigy program. Parents who sign up their kids can (and should) expect their children to improve at chess very quickly. We expect all students to become state champions for their age group and strong contenders for national and international titles. I myself have sent an 8-year-old student to the world youth championships and have numerous student competing and winning at the state and national levels. Let me tell you that we can certainly make your child a chess prodigy too!"

While I have no doubts that the program has the potential to develop just about anyone into a good player and maybe even a very good player (say for definitions sake, one of the top 20% to 10% in their region), the skepticism of whether an online program can consistently deliver chess prodigies (say top 3% to 1% in their region) certainly seems legitimate.

So as not to seem like I'm picking on the Prodigy Program specifically, I would be questioning very deeply any program, online or personal one-on-one that suggested like success.

Maybe a better way to lessen the seemingly legitimate skepticism is to, rather than criticizing the critic, have supporters provide info that describes how the Program is that much different than other top-notch chess instruction so "Prodigy" delivers the best 3% to 1% where the others might fail.

Hi there!

I'll quickly answer some of the questions you ask but if you want to learn more about the program, feel free to message me.

The Prodigy Program offers a high quantity of top-notch instruction at an affordable price. Our coaches are among the best in the world. Our students would naturally have a huge advantage over those who take private lessons from a coach once a week, for example. And even with four hour-long private lessons per week, the student will likely have to spend between $100 and a couple hundred dollars depending on who they are learning from. It is very hard to beat the value that the Prodigy Program offers. And because this program is well-funded, we are able to keep making it better and better. Two more of the world's best chess coaches will likely join the Prodigy Program as instructors by October. We're very excited for that. :)

@bb_gum234,

We have three rating sections: 900+, 1200+, and 1500+ Elo, which gradually evolve and become stronger sections each month. Our 1500+ section has some students near 1800 Elo but most are near 1600 Elo, I think.

Stronger players should wait until early next year to join the program. Although, we are launching a higher rated version of the Prodigy Program in a few months, which will be aimed at 2000-2200 level players.

I have figured it out.

I first thought the OP was trying to put down the Program so he could get more students of his own.

However, He doesn't seem like the type.

Judging from the post he has made he has not been harping/talking about how coaches are better than the program.

He only mention coaching a few times. In his original post he even showed examples of how coaches could be a negative effect on students. Which a person who wants students wouldn't do that.

They would show the benefits more often than not.

Which leads me to believe he has come here for acceptance.

He wants people to agree with him and he has kept all his statements very broad and more in line with generalizations.

I will use a metaphor so you can understand.

For Example:

If someone was going to tell you that you are going to die. They would be correct. No human will live forever. One day we all will perish. Most of us just don't know when we will die or how we will die but we know we can not escape the inevitable.

What the OP has done was bascially the same thing.

He believes the program needs improvement. Since no program on the planet earth is perfect. His broad view of the program needing improvement is correct. Even though he has no way of knowing what needs improvement or how it needs to improve.

He wants people to agree with him.

Pawnpusher3 I agree with you. The university prodigy program needs improvement.

I hope this fullfills your forum post Topic.

Have a great day.

Well I wouldn't say I needed to be agreed with, lol, but I actually think that your reading seems more accurate than others- I don't need students (I already explained this previously) but I was trying to point out that the program could use some improvement with some aspects. Kairav and I may not be the best of friends (evidently), but I didn't think giving some feedback based on what I have seen advertised and then applying a bit of logic was going to get my head bitten off. But that's ok, no good deed can go unpunished. Haha

@Pawnpusher3,

I don't think giving feedback was your intent. If it was, you would've had words such as "suggestion" in your forum title, not "criticism." There is a clear difference. And also, you can always message or directly email me with any suggestions.

Students and instructors who read your post thought you were trying to harm the program and alerted me. That's how I came to know about this forum and posted a response to the politically correct yet unfounded attack you had formulated for some reason.

You were not trying to help me/Chess.com University. But you ended up doing so! Whatever your intent, many Chess.com members read this forum and heard about the Prodigy Program for the first time. As a result, I received some emails and we got a few new students in the Prodigy Program. Hooray!

All's well that ends well, including this forum.