@Diakonia,
In one word, no.
Criticism of Chess.com University Prodigy Program
Sort:
GeniusKJ wrote:
@Diakonia,
In one word, no.
Thats actually what i figured, so bascially they have no idea what they are talking about. You gotta love the interwebz...who needs facts!
To those putting in the time and effort to insult the program. Please post things that will make it better, and or actually enroll in the program, and then give and honest assessment.
@totalnovice12
You do not understand.
I am not part of the program.
I am a person who has read what the OP has said and was aggressive in the way he made false assumptions on a program with out any evidence.
I have not talked good or bad about the program simply because I have no knowledge of it, I do not attend it, and I am not an instructor.
However, I have every right to demand that a person who insults a program shows the facts that the program he is insulting does have flaws. The OP has yet to provide any evidence.
My stance on the program is 100% nuetral.
My stance with the OP not so nuetral simply because of his allegations.
He has no proof.
I do not like people who tear down programs and different people who are trying to help others.
I am friends with Samantha and she has said it has helped her. Check out this forum you will see her comment she said.
The OP is tearing down a program which is helping another person and he has no evidence at all.
That does not sit well with me. I do not approve. An I may be clueless about the program. However, I never said anything bad or good about it I have stayed nuetral.
Diakonia wrote:
Thats actually what i figured, so bascially they have no idea what they are talking about. You gotta love the interwebz...who needs facts!
Exactly! Now you see what I have been saying.
They are tearing down a program with out ever attending it. They have no right to do so.
I may not have attended that program. However, You do not see me tearing it down.
In fact, I am objecting to people who tear it down with out attending it or being an instructor of it!
Aug 21, 2015
0
#86
GeniusKJ wrote:
@totalnovice12,
X_PLAYER_J_X is not even in the Prodigy Program. Samantha and Chris were the only students in this forum if I remember correctly.
I've been considering it, although I may not be willing to swerve from my current program. I also tend to work on weekends.
Naturally, I'm still waiting for the 2000+ section.
Aug 22, 2015
0
#87
Does the program give students some individualized feedback (ie. some analysis of their games) ? Or is it all group-contents.
And what's the plus over other similar programs such as the ICS curriculum ?
Aug 22, 2015
0
#88
@hicetnunc,
As described in my detailed Chess.com University announcements, students can submit two games for emailed analysis each month. One of our instructors goes through these games to provide analysis as well as tips and guidance for improvement. We also occasionally go through students online games and send them a message with feedback.
ICS is not really a similar program. As far as I know, ICS has no live lessons, no simuls, no tournaments, no emailed game analysis, no email support for chess guidance, no coach you can access.
In the Prodigy Program, our core team collectively is the chess coach for all these students.
Fair enough. Thank you guys for taking the initiative so i as well will take a step back as i think the same person got everyone riled up in this forum :P
Sep 8, 2015
0
#90
I am quite fed up with repetitive promotional scam messages I receive from the so-called "Chess University".
1) It is totally laughable that some patzer Kairav Joshi thinks he could teach me anything. I am already master compared to him.
2) It is impertinence to ask for such huge sum of money for this snake oil. $150/"month" (i.e. for 12 hours) might be an appropriate sum for professional renowned titled coach or second like Mark Dworetsky or Igor Zaitsev working in one-to-one personal contact, but not for some handpicked "team" working online with many people at the same time.
3) Those who intend to buy this "product" should keep in mind chess is just a game. There is no money except the very top and 99% players will never overcome the amateur club level. These lessons will not push anyone above that, "Beginner to Master in 5 Years" is just a promotional slogan and lie. But even real experts and masters have no regular income from chess and either they must find another job or offer dubious lessons to gullible parents.
To sum it up: buying chess lessons is waste of money and time, even if the lessons were good and useful for real little improving, which probably isn't the case here.
Sep 8, 2015
0
#91
I can see that it is mostly directed for beginners. I wonder where can I find a similar thing for 1800-1900 level players?
Diakonia wrote:
Has anyone that is being negative towards chess.com's Prodigy Program actually taken it?
Well since it's quite a lot of money, this will almost certainly be a factor in some cases.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
(tl;dr: if someone spends a lot of money on something, they will often convince themselves that they are getting their money's worth, even if they aren't, as the other option is to accept they've wasted lots of money)
P.S. Not saying the Prodigy Program isn't worth the money, I have no idea what it involves, and don't really care to be honest!
I think the creator should take his own program and get to master first before he charges others to do so.
This thread makes me laugh!
Every time I come here I find someone who says something that is completely funny.
You know what Polar_Bear you are absolutely 100% correct!
Kairav Joshi is not qualified to teach you about chess.
I went to your home page and read your about me section.
I have discovered you SIR are a Self Proclaimed Correspondance Chess Grand Master!
It is obvious Joshi is so underqualified.
In fact, No one on Joshi team is qualifed to teach you about chess.
The only people qualified to teach a self proclaimed CC Grand Master.
Is a self proclaimed CC Super Grand Master.
No one on Kairav Joshi team meets such requirements. It is obvious you should stop getting lesson's.
Just because someone is not or has never been a professional athlete doesn't mean they would be a bad coach. One could understand the sport much better than someone who has the talent. I don't see quite how this argument would carry over to chess, but I still think it is valid and that I probably just fall into the category of people who don't really understand what's going on.
Therefore, one's credentials shouldn't be fully placed upon their performance in an area. Too many people are dogging this coach because of his rating and it makes them look ignorant (regardless of whether this guy could help you or not).
possibly, but short term memory capacity exists just as one's athletic capacity exists
Sep 9, 2015
0
#97
totalnovice12 wrote:
Just because someone is not or has never been a professional athlete doesn't mean they would be a bad coach.
In this case, KJ is more the athletic director who hires coaches. He also coaches very ably those who are striving to reach his level.
Sep 10, 2015
0
#98
PaulEChess wrote:
Why is there no Ray Gordon on USCF's ratings list?
Because it's a sock puppet account wherein he can make whatever claims he wants and there is no way to verify the truth (or, more likely, otherwise) of his statements: probably as much as his criticism of the program.
BettorOffSingle wrote:
Human coaches are 2800 at best. Computers are 3300.
A true prodigy will learn by example from the computers, without need for explanation, and will eventually be able to force a draw or better every game against the machine.
I did it to PacMan, Space Invaders, Centipede, Ms. PacMan, Asteroids, Defender, and can sure as hell do it to chess. If I can do it, so can others. Carlsen is going to be a joke in five years tops.
You solved PacMan?
PaulEChess wrote:
BettorOffSingle wrote:
bb_gum234 wrote:
CensoredReality wrote:
The difference in coaching chess versus a physical sport (or music, art, etc) is that a physical sport has such a high element of training your body's muscle memory, and thus a trainer can be a good trainer but a bad player due to academically studying the field. Chess on the other hand is purely academic. One's rating and performance reflects one's level of understanding. Therefore, to be a good chess coach, you need to be a good player. I think its obvious the creator is more of a business person than a sincere chess player.
Chess is certainly more knowledge based than a ball game, but there is also a performance aspect to chess. You can know a lot and still be a bad player. Top players often work with players of lesser rating. Kids who know little but analyze well can beat adult amateurs who have read many books but fail to apply lessons during the game.
The creator may be a business person, but that's fine. He's offering titled players as coaches.
Math has all the answers but none of the questions. A flawed coach will ask flawed questions that his flawed students won't even realize are flawed.
Math doesn't make one any smarter than using the alphabet makes them a better writer.
Chess is nothing BUT "muscle memory" at this point. All the theory is there, just waiting to be plucked by someone who can meld their mind with Fritz's, and I know how to do this.
I'm 48 years old and starting to think I could take ANOTHER decade off and still become world champion, but I'm on a roll this time and won't quit until I'm at least 2400 USCF.
Why is there no Ray Gordon on USCF's ratings list?
Oh, but there is. He played in one tournament, a Scholastic one in 2005 and came away with a rating of 640:
http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlMain.php?13114278
@totalnovice12,
X_PLAYER_J_X is not even in the Prodigy Program. Samantha and Chris were the only students in this forum if I remember correctly.