Has chess mentor help your playing ability?

It's helped me in just one way.

Yes, but I left him anyway.

 You seem to have a bit of chess talent. You should use it.

 I have no chess talent whatsoever, woodshover. I got in an accident and was stuck in bed for a spell, so I really started learning the game. Then I lived with a guy who was chess-obssessed, so I played and learned some more. Then whenever I was on the computer reading, listening to interviews, lectures, and the news, I played. And I don't like drinking so much in public(too dangerous), so I drink at home, so I play chess. I've played thousands of games for years and years, and that accounts for my rating. I think I told you before, it took me about 5 years just to break 1300 on the internet. So, no talent, just lots and lots of playing

Chess Mentor still might help. I see people on here who have played thousands of games, and are still rated 1000 or so.

Really? I still can't believe I have any talent for the game. Maybe I just had a good teacher, while they have no one to teach them?

Could be, or perhaps they're not ambitious.

Could be. Could be a number of reasons. But being between 1800, and 2000 rating on the internet, doesn't speak "talent" to me.

Edit: After playing for eleven years, that is

What do you think of those complete idiots on here who claim there's no such thing as talent in anything, it just depends on how hard you work at it. We're all as talented as Fischer in other words, we just didn't work at it as hard.

I hope to obtain your lack of talent one day...the chess gods have decreed that the game begins at move 1!!!....

I agree. I'll probably be where I am forever.

I believe that "talent" is a word used to denote two things: First, that a person is doing things in a way that is more difficult for others to do. With more ease than others demonstrate. From this, there are other words added to focus on the apparent "ease", like "pure", or "natural" talent. It's basically a compliment. The spectator may find the supposed "ease" in which the person does things, to be aesthetically pleasing. The spectator, in awe of the experience, compliments the individual by saying they are very "talented".

Second, there are those who say an individual is talented because that spectator wishes to excuse themselves from the responsibility of the hard work involved in doing something so well. They call an individual "talented", as a disguised insult. One competing with the individual, for instance,  has not put in the hard work involved to achieve a similar result, so they have the ready-made excuse of calling one who has, "talented".

So, yes, "talent" does exist as a way of expressing one's admiration for what they see: 'That person is more aesthetically pleasing to watch.' And, "talent" exists as a way of hiding the work involved in achievement: 'That person beat me because they have "talent", whereas I don't.'

Beyond the aesthetic, or psychological use of the word "talent", I don't know. I have not read much about the biological reasons for that word being asigned to people, woodshover.

 All I have to say, and I won't argue about it anymore, is that it's obvious that some people are gifted in certain areas, and reach levels where somebody else putting in the same amount of work would never reach.

Go through GM Wolff's tactics series enough times that you can see each answer from the first position and you'll soon find it harder to keep your rating down.

We'll never know how much work beloved Bobby put into his chess playing, so we can't say someone has put the "same" amount of work. These things can't be measured. But "talent" does exist, as a word used by a spectator to express their perspective. So, anyone who says "talent" doesn't exist, would have to explain how they are using the word, woodshover. I don't believe "talent" exists as a "gift from the gods", but if you want to say dear Bobby was talented, I'll understand it as an aesthetic compliment to his games. Nothing more.

chess mentor or any trainer  would be a lot better if its analysis was supported by a

chess engine so the user could explore the consequences of sidelines

 I guess I must argue about it again. Let me give you an example that I presented in that dumb thread. This is just one of many MANY I've seen. I had a sister who studied art the whole time she was growing up. She drew, traced, painted, you name it. She took many years of art classes as well. To this day she isn't much better than me or anybody else who has never studied art in their life. I have a friend who has never had any formal art training in her life. She EASILY whips out beautiful paintings she can sell. She can draw a very good likeness of people in just a few minutes, where as my sister fumbles around for an hour in the attempt, and never comes close to getting a good image. My friend is obviously more talented than my sister. I don't understand why so many people don't seem to realize people have different abilities in different areas. It's obvious to me.

 I'm taking one now.

 I don't think we are in disagreement, based on your example, woodshover. You find the other girl's paintings more aesthetically pleasing to you than your sister's. You also see the ease at which the other girl paints in comparison with how your sister paints. So you compliment the other girl by saying she is more "talented" than your sister in painting. It's your perspective you are expressing. I may look at your sister's paintings and like them more than the other girl's paintings, so I say your sister is more "talented". Neither girl possesses an ability which makes them objectively better than the other. It just depends on who's judging them, what they are looking for, what criteria they are using, etc.

So I agree with you that "talent" does exist. Picasso, for example, did have "talent" in my eyes. But, it did not belong to him, it was assigned to him by me and many others.