Other tactics courses there go all the way down to complete novice level. Though note that if you buy several of these courses, you will see quite a few famous combinations repeated in two or more of them. The prices for that are barely noticably higher for instance CT-Art 4.0 is USD 7.99 for one platform (Web or Android or iOS) and USD 8.79 for all three!Ĭhess King also have good courses on checkmates and lots of general tactics courses, like the Manual of Chess Combinations and the Encyclopedia Chess Combinations by Informant (which is split into three parts based on difficulty). But the Ct-Art module is actually better than it was on the PC.Īnyone considering this or any of the other Chess King courses should strongly consider getting the "Ultimate" version, which includes access on both the web, Android and iOS. The Chess King interface is a little "commercial" for my tastes. Again, you can try for free a sample of 173 puzzles. I paid way more than that for version 2.0 back in the day. CT-Art is what De la Mazza used, and US$7.99 seems like a bargain for this highly praised software. For those who can't be bothered with that, simply following Chessable's spaced repetition schedule should be fine too. You just need to ignore the system's suggested reviews and keep track of when to stop and start the problem set again from the beginning for each cycle.
There was some talk about implementing a true "Woodpecker schedule" option just for that course, but it hasn't materialized yet.Īnyway it's entirely possible to use the Chessable platform but implement the real Woodpecker method manually. Chessable is very much geared towards spaced repetition, which is not exactly the same as the Woodpecker method: In the former the reviews become rarer with each sucessful try, while in the latter they become progressively more frequent no matter how well you've done (if I understand it correctly). I have the Woodpecker course on Chessable, but I haven't started it yet. I hear some good things but I can't verify as I am no member (yet).
0 kommentar(er)
