Economically speaking it makes sense to get diamond. Tactical training is just one tool and it comes at $50/ year. You may learn how to spot a tactic, but can you set up a tactic? The chess mentor is another tool which could easily be worth more than $50 in chess books etc. the videos are another tool, which I find very convenient if it is one of those days when I only want to get general ideas or to watch something interesting. If you're going to pay at all you should get diamond, you get more in return from the diamond package.
Is it worth it to upgrade my status?
Sort:
What? You can play people here without paying. And TT is valuable. You play rated so you get problems around your level. Take your time at first. There is a timer, but it counts up so you have as long as you need. You get many more problems much quicker in TT than in mentor. Mentor is good too, but it is not a workout. You get better pattern recognition when you see the same theme several different ways. Go over the ones you fail. Redo them and see the entire sequence in your head before making the first move. If you just guess and move on then TT will not help too much. Chess mentor is to learn and understand but TT is to practice and master. Do not abandon TT. It is a huge mistake.
chesstempo.com is free. Give that a try before spending any money.
unlimitedsnow wrote:
Why are you guys fixated so much on the yearly membership? Sure it's less money per month, but its also a year commitment.
Are you sure you've going to be interested in the features one year from now? What if you get banned from the site in a month?
OP asked for suggestions. There is no "fixation" as you describe.
I don't know what else I have to say to defend TT. You are going to get the important practice much more often with it than you will playing games. You need to still play games and go thru chess mentor, but TT is a very crucial part of getting better. Without it you could be one of those who studies a lot, feels they know more, but see little to no results in your games.
The diamond is worth every penny. 100 bucks a year is worth it for the videos alone. If you can afford it do it.
jadarite wrote:
"Tactical training is just one tool and it comes at $50/ year."
Which is why I would want to pay $50 for the chess mentor and keep the TT blocked. Right now, it's all or nothing.
"What? You can play people here without paying. And TT is valuable. You play rated so you get problems around your level."
If I play other people my level then I am also faced with similar problems. The point of paying wasn't to substitute the free service here. I know we can play for free. I was commenting on a business level.
The site could get money by holding events for people who purchased the chess mentor or paid like $50 for the year. You could play each other. I would prefer to play a human that has gone through the same material I have.
I am really not interested in what I have seen with tactic problems. I want to start a game from the beginning, with a human, and then arrive at a problem position. I am already doing that, losing when I can't get out and winning when the other person messes up.
But, that isn't helping either of us. I am stagnating at a level where I only win if the other person makes mistakes. If I were to study and become a better player I would be able to compete with higher level players. That is the whole point in getting better for me. I don't want to get better so I can play a computer at a stronger level (and pay chess.com $50 more to do this).
Easy, don't do any tactical training!!! However, I do see your point about just paying for chess mentor.
The biggest issue i have with TT is that it gives you problems that are hundreds of points below your rating. I have gotten as high as 1900, but then they Starr giving you 1300 level problems. If you get them right you only gain 3 or 4 points. If you fail em you lose 20 or more sometimes. Its frustrating because your rating takes a plunge. The TT should be set so it gives you problems that correspond with your rating. Despite this fact its still a great learning tool. I do at least 15 puzzles a day.
jadarite wrote:
Listen, I can't learn that way. I needto see how the position came about. I don't like being thrown into move 32 and asked to solve a position. I want see how that position evolved.
This is why I stopped enjoying chess. I was in the library or a book store, I opened a chess puzzle book and then I finished one book but was not any stronger and still lost games.
No amount of money will solve your problem here.
jadarite wrote:
"No amount of money will solve your problem here."
Game on, what are you talking about? Put up or shut up. Why is this a problem? You despise openings? Why is it wrong to want to play and see a game from move 1? Do you listen to music half way through?
That seems like a bigger problem. No amount of money will solve your problem here. Your move. What do you have to say next? I don't adjourn or take draws in this case. Either resign or disconnect.
Huh-huh, cruising for a ban ? Be sure not to cross any lines about "relevant, helpful and nice".
If you refuse to analyse positions ("without knowing how they happened"), you will not make much progress. Besides, you will still lose games no matter how hard you study. Failure to acknowledge this will result in frustration.
jadarite wrote:
"If you refuse to analyse positions ("without knowing how they happened"), you will not make much progress."
You are preaching to the choir dude. That is what I am saying. I want to know "how they happened", from move 1. Do you really understand my position bro?
I can read the words, and form a meaning out of them, but it does not make sense to me. How does that help you to know how they happened ?
jadarite wrote:
Your words do not make sense to you? Ok, I will have a nurse administer you some medicine shortly.
Oh. I see, you are just a troll.
Is there a vodoo guru that makes you refuse to analyse positions if you do not know how they came up ? Because that's the most rational thing I can think of to explain your position.
jadarite wrote:
If there is a move 1, then let's start from move 1. You are changing the goal posts. Before you were defending jumping ahead. Now you are realizing the beginning is important.
No.
Either you come up with some reason (synonyms : grounds, argument, argumentation) to back up your "knowing how the position happened is important", or I deem you a troll and the debate stops short.
jadarite wrote:
"Either you come up with some reason (synonyms : grounds, argument, argumentation) to back up your "knowing how the position happened is important", or I deem you a troll and the debate stops short."
So anyone paying for tactics training must do the research to surmise an opening? If you are correct, there are a lot of people who don't know the openings for the positions presented in the tactics training.
If I understand well, you believe that you should study tactics only if they have occured after an opening you practice.
That's just wrong.
jadarite wrote:
If I want to study Ruy Lopez positions and you bring up Sicilian stuff, then maybe I am wasting time. Anything else I need to clarify?
Oh no, it's obvious you are just stupid then.
You seem to be confused between "tactics" and "opening traps". The terms are not synonyms.
As I simply cannot understand what you are trying to say, here is a picture :
@jadarite
You'd probably really like Chess Mentor. Many of the lessons do just what you want. They present a position for you to solve but also give the moves leading up to the position. I don't always play the moves out (I'm old and lazy) but it's one of the reasons I keep a board next to the computer.
Even in Chess Mentor they do not usually show how the positions started. Some do. If you cannot learn without knowing the entire game, then a paid membership is not for you. I suggest you reconsider since you are just wrong, but it not, then go buy books with annotated games. It is an excellent way to learn as well.
Wow. What a ridiculous arguement lol. Jadarite I think you've missed the point entirely. We realize the fact that you want to understand and evaluate certain positions. However doing things like this is a different type of study. Looking at positions and the strategies and plans for both sides is more studying the middle game and imbalances. If you want to study openings and see how to reach certain middle game positions well then thats another form of study. However when studying tactics, and solving tactical puzzles, there is no need to understand exactly what opening was played and how the position arose. The point is to understand the tactical patterns, and the checkmating patterns in these positions. Recognizing these patterns is invaluable because most games at my level and lower, or even higher are decided on a tactic. Iron is absolutely correct, and either you are argueing with him for the sake of being difficult, or you really don't understand the point.
The TT should be called the tactics tester, not tactics trainer. You can get addicted to it pretty quickly, but how valuable it is is debatable. Much better to spend most of your time doing CM courses on checkmate patterns and other tactics. Only when you have a firm grasp of all the tactical motifs are you ready for a serious run at the TT. If you must spend serious time on the TT then do it unrated and take your time. Rated TT measures pattern recognition because of the timer and the CM course will teach pattern recognition IF you go back and review them over and over again. My 2 cents; good night everyone.