Chess Mentor Rant

I am more than a little tired of doing chess positions from mentor and feeling like I take nothing from it.

There are a lot of lessons out there that feature tactical combinations or strong strategic moves that I am not a good enough player to look for. I like playing positions that are above my level, but once I get a move wrong once or twice I lose motivation to actually think about the position and start playing any move that seems to have an idea behind it. After I've gotten it wrong twice I have more or less clearly demonstrated I don't know what I'm doing anyway, and finding the right idea for a specific position after three wrong guesses will not help me in an actual game.

What I am saying is I would like for more of the lessons to have constructive and helpful comments on the sidelines. I appreciate the history behind it and the information about the players and opening moves and all that good stuff, but there is a serious lack of help provided by the module itself. More that a little of the time I will get a move wrong in a lesson and the comment will say something helpful and motivational such as "This is not a bad idea, but you need to find a stronger move." I'm being generous, too - a lot of the other comments are simply "This move isnt good enough. Find something better."

I am supposed to be getting mentored.

I realize my move is not the best move. That is because I am not a 2800 rated player. That is why I am paying for a program which (supposedly) teaches me to play. Do not tell me my move is not the best, because I know that already. That is why it is "incorrect."

Similarly, the hints are often of little if any help.

To illistruate this point I will choose from the first lesson the start training option gives me.

A lesson from Daniel Rensch, 8. Nb6 Meises Novelties and Tactics #2. For the most part this lesson was certainly nothing to complain about so perhaps it isn't the best example, but the verbatim subtle hint was at a point "Go for it!"

I can understand that part of improving is being able to find moves for yourself, but I do think the lessons comments and hints could be much more focused on the "You teaching" aspect than the "Me learning" one.

That is all.

Edit: That was apparently not all.

There needs to be a significant increase in the number of "Alternate Correct Moves," unless the focus of the course is to play a particular strong combination. If there are multiple good ideas and I am expected to play one, I should not lose a significant percent of my score for playing another idea.

Also the number of steps should either be automatically given to you, or the system needs to be tweaked. In lessons that require one move losing 42% for one try without knowing it is a single move I need to find is a bit ridiculous.

Chess Mentor is a device not to see tactical positions, that's the tactics trainer. However, it supposed to change the way you think about the chessboard.

A suggest on doing mentor.  You may want to go through it fast the first time.  Then wait a week and go through the same lesson again.  If you haven't seen an idea before, it can be hard to see.

I have encountered some of the problems you have outlined here.

I have been using mentor for the last week or so in combination with trainer. Before this I had only a sparse knowledge of chess so I guess that makes me very much a beginner. I have the following suggestions for you:

1. Split your time evenly between trainer and mentor. Mentor is like your hard drive; trainer is like your processor. I like to use one then the other and partially rest each side of my mind. TBH just do what ever you enjoy most. You won't remember much if you don't enjoy it!

2. Mentor lessons should be done sequentially not adaptively (and vice versa for trainer). I believe mentor overestimates the ability of beginners like myself because you are only penalised for the first wrong move. If you are like me,  you sometimes can not see the move at all and furthermore have no comprehension of what is happening (except what you are being told) yet you are only penalised slightly. This means the next lesson you are put into is also unnaturally high for your true level and you will likely suffer a similar fate.

3. Decide yourself what you want to learn - openings, endgames, tactics etc. Then pick the easiest course related to this. For example I am currently on the Morphy gambit which is apparently used a lot by beginners. This suits me very well as being a beginner myself I expect to be competing with other beginners. I am learning something I expect to use and that I should be capable of using. The courses often include several lessons on the same motif and are best done together. Focus on specific courses and view them as weaponry in your armoury!

4. Use your rating in trainer - my best is only 1399 - as the true indication of your level. No doubt your mentor level will be higher but ignore this. I aim for mentor courses 1000,1200,1400,1600. There is little point in my attempting any courses above 1600 as they are at least 200 rating points above my understanding. I may dip into them out of pure interest but I don't beat myself up because I fail to fully comprehend their complexities. Your memory is a strange animal and you do not entirely know what will "stick" and what will not.

Your point about the number of moves being given to you is fundamentally wrong. The major difficulty I find (being a beginner) is that I am very poor at knowing how many moves there are to a problem or lesson. This is surely the measure of a decent chess player when they can assess the board and proceed with a mating attack knowing exactly how many moves it will take. After all, you would not expect your opponent to tell you how many moves your match will last before you play him, do you? Chess is free form and you have to define your own structure. I have tags enabled on trainer for just this purpose. Once I have failed a problem I click on show solution and reference the tags - mate in 3, skewer. Then I usually call myself a fcking idiot.

"That is why I am paying for a program which (supposedly) teaches me to play."

No chess program "teaches" you to play better, they offer lessons to HELP YOU improve you chess.

UnratedGamesOnly

It is called Chess Mentor... I infer the significance of "Mentor" to be essentially the same as teacher, or something similar. Is teaching not the process of helping someone learn?

Billfunk

My tactics trainer rating is just over 2400, which is obviously way over my level. I agree that doing what you enjoy is certainly very important, and I have also found that sequential lessons in mentor is better than adaptive. Your approach to mentor seems very similar to mine really, and the problem is partially in the rating system. I suppose a more appropriate approach is to just ignore the rating it gives me and rating changes and just do lessons that are under a catagory that I am currently interested in.

Either way, though, I would like for the mentor program to have far fewer useless notes in hints and the side box doohickey. Being told you are wrong but not why you are wrong isn't particularly instructive.

Its pricey but buy the chess mentor software, it gives you an answer to every move you make right or wrong.

To the OP:

I've read everything that you've said and find myself in complete agreement. 

I see mentor as an option that I may occasionally use. Shrug. But, mainly I can find better things to do with my efforts.

So, I don't condemn it. I'll give it another shot every once in awhile. And, sometimes there is a nugget or two.

P.S.: How can you play at 1502 live, standard and yet get over 2400 on tactical trainer? Just curious.

UnratedGamesOnly am I correct in assuming this is sarcastic or did you mean some other software?

e4nf3, my tactics rating is high because I am good at considering all the options a position presents when looking for something that is certainly best. Also the penalty is different in that if I get a tactic problem wrong, it is not usually because I didn't consider a strong response I allow from my opponent. Essentially, I can find "best" moves when one is particularly strong in my games, but I wind up making only slightly fewer mistakes than I used to, and when a situation doesn't have a "best" move I don't play as well. I'm using mentor specifically because I need to improve my positional and strategic play actually.

Given the vast database of games played by masters on the site I would have thought it was a simple task to find most positions in early/mid game situations and find the best move/s. Surely this is what experienced players do when they find a snag in their game? This would be entirely in keeping with your stated aim to improve your positional and strategic play.

Have you sought analysis of any of your games?

I just can't believe you rate so highly in tactics yet your rating is comparatively low in actual gameplay. Maybe you are one of those intelligent but painfully unacademic types. You are a good poker player perhaps?

My apologies if my post came across as sarcastic, that wasnt my intention.  I was being serious.  Go to chessmentor.com and take a look.

I partially agree with this complaint, although I have found that I have different results with different authors.  I score worst on lessons created by Sam Shankland.  Don't ask me why.  Silman for me is the backbone of CM and I learn the most from him.  It is true, as has already been pointed out, that it's best to do a course sequentially rather than doing CM adaptively.  A lot of information is given in previous lessons that will help one in further ones in the series.  My own complaint with CM is the lack of opening teaching.  I would like to see more lessons on the theory of various openings.  I often find myself following opening moves without really knowing what I should be doing and when I get out of book I'm completely without any clue as to how to proceed.

Chess mentor has made me a better chess player but I am with you .. I rarely see the "end game" from the first move.  Some moves make no sense in the world to me until its all over and done with.  In the same respect another issue I have is normal folks do not respond the same way a grand master would therefore the "Plan" is flawed.  For instance I was doing a mentor game and it told me to take my knight on f5 and move it to h6 with my opponent castled and three pawns defending.  Regular players would take the middle pawn and take out the knight but the mentor moved the king in an effort to not mess up their pawn defense.  Regular players do not think like that in my opinion ---

 Great post

 Except for it not being able to take the place of a real coach, i have to disagree with you.  CM explains every move you make right or wrong.  When you go through the end game lessons they explain the concepts of emd games.

I also have struggled with finding the best way to use CM. At first, I set it to the adaptive mode but was soon finding myself being given lessons that I couldn't begin to comprehend. I'm not sure but I think this was because my rating would be increased too much for the simpler lessons. What I ended up doing was moving to the sequential mode and finding courses that interested me or that I felt could help me in areas I was currently working on. Then, I would work thru the course, taking my time and not worrying about ratings.

So far, this has worked wonderfully for me and I really feel it is helping.

My Chess Mentor rating is in the 1700s, which is way over my level which is about a 900 or 1000.

Btw, look at the notes before you move. And, again, you're not gonna be given outside hints before you know it.