The 'prices' thread seems to be moving slightly off subject so I thought I would start a new one!
What would subscribers like to see in the future:
More strategy, more endgames, more opening explanation?
More complete games, more puzzles, or something else entirely?
Incidentally, Alexandria Kosteniuk offered an annotated game of hers each month - would you like to see this?

? The 'prices' thread seems to be moving slightly off subject so I thought I
? would start a new one!
? What would subscribers like to see in the future:
? More strategy, more endgames, more opening explanation?
? More complete games, more puzzles, or something else entirely?
? Incidentally, Alexandria Kosteniuk offered an annotated game of hers each
? month - would you like to see this?

Tony,

I read your final posting on the 'prices' thread and really like your viewpoint on the billing being annual. I am presently an annual member and like it that way.

At first I dutifully did the tactics problems and found myself slacking off. I know I should get back and disciplined at that. Keep that in please.

I think more strategy/how to think through a game would really be good. Of course endgame work is also good.

I also think that if GM's and IM's could annotate with the content being what their thoughts were through the game, that would be great. Following the games of GM's is invaluable. Bieng able to follow their thought processes would even be better.

Ron Suarez

? The 'prices' thread seems to be moving slightly off subject so I thought I
? would start a new one!
? What would subscribers like to see in the future:
? More strategy, more endgames, more opening explanation?
? More complete games, more puzzles, or something else entirely?
? Incidentally, Alexandria Kosteniuk offered an annotated game of hers each
? month - would you like to see this?

Tony,

I really believe that you are trying very hard to resurrect this site and I appreciate your efforts, you are to be applauded.

The things I would value as a mere 1400 player is guidance in favoured openings, given an understanding of the underlying principles, aims and advantages of various lines. I know that chesspublishing .com is available, but I feel the information would be overwhelming for someone of my status.

Perhaps one opening a month could be taken on with an interactive Q&A session in the forums for those interested moderated by a GM or IM.

I find opening books to be difficult to follow and they don?t answer back to what ifs? or why nots?

Also I like the idea of annotated games maybe not as previously done on IYC but as more interactive chessbase files.

How about this one, , an annual subscriber is pitted against a strong player say on ICC or playchess etc in a training room the other subscribers are invited to view and a kibitz session takes place in a virtual coffee shop.

There are a few idea?s to think about, there would probably be logistical problems with the more interactive live events due to time zones etc, but I?m sure we can start sowing seeds.

Euclid

? The 'prices' thread seems to be moving slightly off subject so I thought I
? would start a new one!
? What would subscribers like to see in the future:
? More strategy, more endgames, more opening explanation?
? More complete games, more puzzles, or something else entirely?
? Incidentally, Alexandria Kosteniuk offered an annotated game of hers each
? month - would you like to see this?

Yes to everything

? What would subscribers like to see in the future:

Tony, I really appreciate your efforts to keep this site going. I have been a subscriber almost since the start and place most value on the tactical training. Would it be feasible to start a set of monthly exercises similar to the tactical ones, but focused on endgames? One could imagine a series extending over at least a year that would start with basic K+P endgames, and then move on to more complicated endgames. It would be like working through Fine's endgame book from cover to cover, but in an interactive way online.

Yes, why not?

So, I think the site is strong on tactics, and HGIYC and Glenn's strategy are also good, and will definitely stay.
My immediate plans to improve the site are:
I like the idea of having an introductory text on a particular endgame theme, with some examples, followed by a series of tests.
I will also bolster the strategy bit.
And invite opening experts to explain the strategic themes behind a particular opening, with links to thematic examples.
More annotated games, too.
Am I missing anything important?

? Am I missing anything important?

The list you have provided sounds great, but I have a few more suggestions, which would not require too much development and which may be of interest to other club level players.

1. Some of the annotated games from the coaching section, particularly those showing typical errors and misconceptions from players below 2000 would be nice to see as well as annotated master games.
2. Some visualisation exercises (along the lines of a position, some moves to play without moving the pieces and perhaps a simple tactic at the end?).
3. Find the blunder. A position with a number of choices, one of which is very bad. Identify the losing move. I think this format is useful in developing the alarm bells for bad moves which I certainly lack.

However I feel safe in your (and ChessPublishing's hands) and I'll certainly be renewing my subscription.

? So, I think the site is strong on tactics, and HGIYC and Glenn's strategy
? are also good, and will definitely stay.
? My immediate plans to improve the site are:
? I like the idea of having an introductory text on a particular endgame
? theme, with some examples, followed by a series of tests.
? I will also bolster the strategy bit.
? And invite opening experts to explain the strategic themes behind a
? particular opening, with links to thematic examples.
? More annotated games, too.
? Am I missing anything important?

Looks good!!

I too am looking forward to continuing as a member.

Ron Suarez

Hi Tony,
I really enjoy the site and beleive it has helped me a lot.
The tactics exercises and 'How good is your chess' are the keepers for me.

I would just encourage you to be consistent in whatever you do. It is no accident that the two things I liked best were the two things I could count on weekly and monthly. It just seems silly to have the same content up for month after month. It is better to be a good finisher than a great starter!!

Take Care
Hank

? Hi Tony,
You ought to take a good look at the tactics content: I usually get between 60 - 76% in all sections! But my intermediate results are slightly better than the other 2 sections.
The TASC tutor is a CD for all levels & the different abilities are well sorted out. Level 1 is dead easy, level 5 is hard. For this site I'd recommend taking exercises like level 3 - 5. The beginners should clearly be easier than the others, don't you think?
Take care, siegrun

You might be right, they all look easy to me! I have got someone else to do the 'March' ones (which will be online Monday) to compare.
I will then put the April ones online near the beginning of April and by May we will have caught up!

? You might be right, they all look easy to me! I have got someone else to do
? the 'March' ones (which will be online Monday) to compare.
? I will then put the April ones online near the beginning of April and by
? May we will have caught up!

you could consider having some volunteers of diferent abilities rate the tactics level of difficulty (possibly in return for a discount!)

also, if it were possible, I would like to see the solution to one puzzle (or group of related puzzles) before I go onto the next one

? The 'prices' thread seems to be moving slightly off subject so I thought I
? would start a new one!
? What would subscribers like to see in the future:
? More strategy, more endgames, more opening explanation?
? More complete games, more puzzles, or something else entirely?
? Incidentally, Alexandria Kosteniuk offered an annotated game of hers each
? month - would you like to see this?

What is it that makes some players, better than others ? When I have discussed games I played with better players it seems to me to be 3 areas - and these are where the content should go:
1) Calculation - what you work out at the board: tactics / ability to calculate variations - keep the tactical exercises. Better players are better at tactics.
2) Knowledge - mainly what you know about openings and endings. I like the idea of learning endings interactively. Openings is more difficult because we don't all play the same ones. Better players know which endings are won/lost and I have to work it out.
3) judgement / intuition. I have sometimes used up lots of time looking at variations in order to decide if I should play a move or not and after the game I find that the higher graded player I was playing didn't really analyse it much at all and just made a judgement based on intuition. e.g. I felt I had enough compensation for the exchange. Any ideas how we improve our judgement of a position ?

One thing you can do on a web site that you can't do with a book, is for students to be able to ask questions if they don't understand - a forum for questions on the content would be good. I think you should concentrate on the things you can do better with a computer than with a book - the tactical execises being one example.

Also IYC could do with a more transparent problem reporting mechanism. If there was a forum where we posted bugs with the site then you could see if someone else had already reported the same problem, and it was being worked on.

? ? The 'prices' thread seems to be moving slightly off subject so I thought
? I
? ? would start a new one!
? ? What would subscribers like to see in the future:
? ? More strategy, more endgames, more opening explanation?
? ? More complete games, more puzzles, or something else entirely?
? ? Incidentally, Alexandria Kosteniuk offered an annotated game of hers
? each
? ? month - would you like to see this?
?
? What is it that makes some players, better than others ? When I have
? discussed games I played with better players it seems to me to be 3 areas
? - and these are where the content should go:
? 1) Calculation - what you work out at the board: tactics / ability to
? calculate variations - keep the tactical exercises. Better players are
? better at tactics.
? 2) Knowledge - mainly what you know about openings and endings. I like the
? idea of learning endings interactively. Openings is more difficult because
? we don't all play the same ones. Better players know which endings are
? won/lost and I have to work it out.
? 3) judgement / intuition. I have sometimes used up lots of time looking at
? variations in order to decide if I should play a move or not and after the
? game I find that the higher graded player I was playing didn't really
? analyse it much at all and just made a judgement based on intuition. e.g.
? I felt I had enough compensation for the exchange. Any ideas how we
? improve our judgement of a position ?
?
? One thing you can do on a web site that you can't do with a book, is for
? students to be able to ask questions if they don't understand - a forum
? for questions on the content would be good. I think you should concentrate
? on the things you can do better with a computer than with a book - the
? tactical execises being one example.
?
? Also IYC could do with a more transparent problem reporting mechanism. If
? there was a forum where we posted bugs with the site then you could see if
? someone else had already reported the same problem, and it was being worked
? on.

A per point number three, judgement /intuition, I believe this to be my weakest area. To judge a move/ course of action, you have to know what your judgement of your current position is. You then have to compare how your position has changed after the move/course of action. It sounds ridiculously simple but knowing/acknowlegding/grading the positional/dynamic elements to judge the position is the tricky part in my books. Maybe more detailed focus on that would be benficial to us all. I mean with verbal explanation (e.g."exploiting the new weakness blck created on e7 avoiding the first threat on e6"), not with signs like +=/ -+ .