Not finished

Module 13 came available to me today and it is not complete! For those who suspected they (ICS)were writing this as they went along, is seems your suspicions are well grounded.

The main module is still worth the money but I am not happy with:
1. The material not being ready.
2. The Opening material is not worthy of the standard set by the main module.
3. The material is written by someone who clearly cannot boast English as their first language.

----------------------------
Admin edit: Month 13 is now complete. It is a final test with over 32 questions and detailed answers.

The opening module is just an intro into the openings i think, if you like some of the openings they propose one still can buy a book.

That english isn't the first language of the creator of the course i knew since the people behind the course are roumanians. I dont mind this 'not first language' since the course is good enough to step over this little mishap.

Since i paid in full i knew already that month 13 is still under construction, but be happy, two weeks ago month 13 didn't excist.

Wow. That is crazy. Well, hopefully they will work hard on it and improve it. They are clearly hard at work here, but if it turns to shit at month 13 hopefully people here will read it and cut off their subscription after month 12. My guess is they would find that very motivating in terms of improving it.

Hey, you are at the end of all things, it's time for the return of the king.
Even the smallest pawn can change the course of the game.

Bobby, what do you think? Has the ICS helped?

I am of the opinion that this is a great foundation. By the end of the course you have a good way to approach chess and practiced it. Broadly speaking we note the threat, CSQ, perform a positional evaluation, create a TO DO list and calculate. Within that concepts such as space, local superiority, coordination and so on have been introduced allowing us to perform the positional evaluation.

I think that it will take some time to turn this training into superior performance at the board.

I also believe that there is more to do. The stronger players rely on pattern recognition. Most us will need to fill out heads with more examples.

The emphasis of this course has been the thought process, which is fine. I would expect most of us will need to play through many many games to furnish our mind with practical examples of plans and schemes. You may or may not have signed up for the opening module. It does not matter how you do it. To succeed you will need a well rehearsed Opening rep.

The Ruskies think that the way to understand the middle game is through opening schemes and looking at the various plans for each side. So we can combine the two things - a need for openings and middle game understanding. The opening module is a bit sparse here, IMHO, so I think there is work to be done here.

Again with the emphasis on the thinking approach, I suspect many us need to work on calculating and tactics. Also the endgame is missing.

So plenty of work to do!

I played my first tournament for about a year and scored 60% (3/5 4 draws & 1 win) and lost about 40 USCF rating points. I am supposed to score 4.5 just to break even. Most were talented under-rated juniors. Tough world! However I held solid advantages in all the games but only converted one. I noticed I was much more aware of the threats and consequences than I had been prior to the course. I also played more against the opponents pieces with more emphasis on restricting their activity and searching for local superiority. It is really hard keeping an oppoent bottled-up. Just when you think you have supressed counter-play it pops-up on the other side of the board. This prophylaxis thing is not easy. I did get some very good positions in every game but did not demonstrate the technique needed to win them.

On a practical note the one win came was won in the opening and all I needed to do was press home a winning assault on the King trapped in the center. I have hardly started the opening modules (I thought I would so them at the end) So I guess results should improve as the opening rep is built and I improve my playing technique.

I think it will take a few tournaments to get up to speed and for the training to really make itself felt.

On reflection though I am sure I understand the the game better than I did
and felt the course was worth the time and money.

I am not sure I will raise my rating significantly as my age is against me and I mostly seem to play under-rated juniors. These two factors are a drag on ratings. However I do plan to get to 2000. This I will do because its my rating floor!!

Chess is so hard!

I don't think the final month module not being ready will ever affect me, at my current rate it will take me until around 2015 to finish this course

Bilbo wrote:I don't think the final month module not being ready will ever affect me, at my current rate it will take me until around 2015 to finish this course

Hang in there you can do it!

I'm still in month two, working on the King Safety theory (translate that to 'attacking the King'), and for me too it will be a while before I hit 13. However, it is unethical for them to advertise and sell 13 months when they don't have it finished.

I don't care if I get understanding from this course, I just want to win more games against better players. If it doesn't give me that, then the course is a failure.

The final few months of ICS, the analysis bits, will be the key I think. Especially for adult players, we tend to get caught up in "understanding" and thinking in words rather than variations. The analysis problems force us to concretely analyze, and the solutions force us to confront our biases and weaknesses. I don't remember if it was Bobby Blunder or someone else who said they are deferring working on the analysis bits. That seems a big mistake, as it is the most important part of the course I believe (at least if you buy Rowson's arguments in Chess for Zebras).

Hence, I'm trying not to get caught up too long in any particular month before the analysis phase of the program. I don't want to be doing this course for two years, and when I find weaknesses in my play after the fact, I can always go back and review.

My goal is to finish not more than a month behind. Right now, I think I'm about a month behind, but from what I understand the volume decreases some so I will be able to catch up some in month four.

Does anyone know at the end of the course will we have access to the material? Or at the end of the 13th month do we loose access?

I'm not surprised they are writing as they go, since the course itself is less than a year old. I don't hold that against them. Many chess books seem to end without a conclusion and without a sudden lightning flash of illumination at the end. Remember, this is all about process.

I'm not sure if people are expecting to suddenly be 2300 as they turn the last page and read the last word of the course. I expect I will be going over this material in the next year or two.

BDG : "The final few months of ICS, the analysis bits, will be the key I think. Especially for adult players, we tend to get caught up in "understanding" and thinking in words rather than variations. The analysis problems force us to concretely analyze, and the solutions force us to confront our biases and weaknesses. I don't remember if it was Bobby Blunder or someone else who said they are deferring working on the analysis bits. That seems a big mistake, as it is the most important part of the course I believe (at least if you buy Rowson's arguments in Chess for Zebras).

Hence, I'm trying not to get caught up too long in any particular month before the analysis phase of the program. I don't want to be doing this course for two years, and when I find weaknesses in my play after the fact, I can always go back and review. "

I agree with BDG in that exercises in M10-13 are where one can practise and apply everything in the course and make sure the thinking process and concepts has been absorbed. Every single month prior to 10 had important elements of chess thinking. Do the work, but I would advise against skipping ahead - unless you are strong enough where much of the course material is a review of similar material you have been exposed to before and are keen to test yourself. For the 1000-1800 players the course work should probably be worked through chronologically. I think IMHO most students will get more benefit from the course this way.

BobbyBlunder wrote:Every single month prior to 10 had important elements of chess thinking. Do the work, but I would advise against skipping ahead - unless you are strong enough where much of the course material is a review of similar material you have been exposed to before and are keen to test yourself. For the 1000-1800 players the course work should probably be worked through chronologically. I think IMHO most students will get more benefit from the course this way.

Yes, for sure! I wasn't saying to skip ahead, but I was saying I didn't want to get behind and end up taking two years to do the first ten months of course material. I want to do all the material each month, and not get more than a month behind, so I can start the analysis stuff in later months (close to) on time.

I agree when you say they are laying the foundation, a common language in which to examine the analysis problems.