I had been doing the exercises this past few days, and noticed that the problems had begun to be too easy. Too easy in fact that it gave me a quesy feeling. There must be something wrong here. I dont solve problems this fast. Then it finally hit me. I had done the exact same set of problems for the past three days. Thats why it became too easy. I've solve it before. Three times now in fact. Somehow, I forgot to move my bookmark, and ended up starting over again from the same exact spot.

And yes, this means I'm really delayed. Arrgh!


Satisfaction Guaranteed
I read fussylizards paper on his experiences and his remarks are consistent with the other graduates. Hmm, if enough people finish the program, and we find that the experiences and perceived effects on playing strenght is the same, then we will have a solid basis on which we can say "You do the program, this is what will happen". Almost like a guarantee.

This may turn out to be important later on for those who is only starting to research the MDLM method. I bet they will have the same questions like we did, including the all important "Can this program raise my rating points?". The conclusions drawn from the graduates will be a major source of information. And if a lot of people had already done it, the information will be reliable. For example, reading thru reviews of chess books in amazon, one frequently comes up with comments like this - "I read the book, and it added 50 points to my rating" Really? The validity of statements like this are doubtful. We cannot be sure that the reading of the book is the direct cause of the rating increase. Why? well because of the simple fact that we cannot be sure that during the time taken to read the book, the reviewer isnt reading anything else. Or undergoing any other training program besides. And why is he the only one? Why does some say something like this about the very same book "Nah, didnt help me improve. Just another rip-off"

This is an exagerated example of course, but the point is, claims to increases in rating points are very hard to take at face-value. We need hard facts. Facts corroborated across a broad spectrum of the human population. The good thing about the program is it requires focus, exclusivity. My personnal experience is that doing anything else (Even playing chess games) is impossible at the later circles. So the data gathered from it is more "pure". And if enough people does it, dare we say more "trustworthy"?

Do the circles, this is what will happen, satisfaction guranteed!