You're kidding right?! LOL

Ok, I am getting tired of wasting my time on some of these tactical puzzles!!

What is it I should be learning?

I am presented with a "warmup" tactical puzzle. White to move. Now everywhere else, a tactical puzzle with white to move means that white has a way to win something by means of tactics... right?

Well in ICS, WRONG.

I spend 20 minutes looking at this puzzle and I cannot find a way for white to win anything.

What's their solution?

"In this position, black eventually wins."

GAH!

VERY annoying!

And the lack of PGN/FENs to go and analyse a line that you think might be the solution only makes it worse!

Just a frustration I am finding on month 11.

BTW, I am starting to get the positional challenges correct! I must be learning something!

I've started to have my doubts about the ICS course as well tbh, when I first began it I had nothing to compare it to. However I recently bought some of the Artur Yusupov training books and have been very impressed by them, basically it teaches you a new concept each chapter then has some excersises at the end of the chapter to see if you understood it, personally I've found this method really works for me.

I'm currently on month 12 of the first year of the ICS course and have 1 more month to go, but I doubt I'll be continuing into the 2nd year. I'm hoping the Yusupov books will take me to 2000 Fide and then the Dvoretsky School of Chess excellence and School of Future champions series get me to master. Also add in a few endgame books as well, but that's basically my new plan.

That said, I don't think the ICS course is bad, but what do any of us know about the guys running the course? Where as with books you know who wrote it, but anyway that's just my opinion.

I have the same thourghts. I recently got the book "chess lessons" by Yusupov and like his teaching method. However I'm still just in month 3 of ICS and will give the cource a few more month more before making up my mind about how to spend my time and efford. I think the people behind ICS have given the training methods serious thourght and that the combination of excercises/theory on different areas every month must be effective.

I suppose ICS can take some perverse satisfaction in giving a problem like that - it certainly is a real-life situation, and they do say they are making an effort to make the training lifelike.

At the same time there is no excuse for outright errors, especially in this age of computers. Just take a look at the third tactics problem from month 9 Set 1. The solution is dead wrong! They merely copied the game score from Akesson - Dlugy 1982 with superficial analysis missing the best defense.

Still, the course is unique in approach, and most books are worse when it comes to their own analysis. I plan to continue the course into year two, and suplement it with Nunn's Chess Endings Volumes 1&2 (which are computer checked) for calculation training.

That is pretty funny. PawnCustodian's concern is worse in some ways: that just seems lazy.

BorgQueen wrote:
BTW, I am starting to get the positional challenges correct! I must be learning something!

There must be some kind of "mind state" or mental cycle to this. For some reason I am missing even the easiest tactical exercises the last couple of weeks.

Yes, the positional decisions are a very different way of thinking to the tactical decisions. I can't wait to find a good balance!

Even tactical ones when the goal is for example a draw. I always find difficulties in ct-art when the proposed position let think there may be a tactical thing to try (i mean you are not in material inferiority, and your pieces have targets), and that in final none of them really work and you have to tactically play for a draw.
Anyway, even there, the way of thinking is different than the way to handle a common calculation.

Yes, those particular problems are exceedingly difficult. I usually try to "make" a tactic work and fail the problem -- only because it's a tactic puzzle and I always assume there is a way to WIN.