ERPLI
Choose chess coaching software by testing a complete coaching week, not by counting features on a pricing page. A useful platform should help your coaches prepare a lesson, teach from the correct position, assign appropriate homework and review the result. An academy owner also needs to understand access, reporting, onboarding and the full subscription commitment.
This buyer's checklist is written for private coaches, head trainers and commercial chess academies comparing software. ERPLI publishes this guide and sells Chess LMS. The evaluation steps below can be used with any vendor; product descriptions are based on the linked documentation reviewed on 9 November 2026, not independent hands-on comparison tests.
Cover image: original AI-generated editorial illustration, not a customer photograph or an ERPLI interface screenshot.
First decide which workflow you are buying
A live analysis board, a homework tool and an academy management platform solve overlapping but different problems. A solo coach may need a reliable shared board and clear follow-up assignments. An institute employing several trainers may also need batch delegation, consistent curriculum and management visibility. Write down the missing workflow before replacing tools that already work.
| Buyer | First workflow to test | Evidence to request |
|---|---|---|
| Independent coach | Prepare, teach and follow up one lesson | A complete session using your own position |
| Head trainer | Assign work and review a batch | Individual attempt records and useful exceptions |
| Academy owner | Delegate coaches and inspect operations | Separate logins with appropriate visibility |
| Expanding institute | Repeat the process across more batches | Written limits, onboarding plan and support scope |
Keep chess academy management software requirements separate from general chess playing features. A large puzzle collection does not demonstrate scheduling, staff access or parent reporting. Equally, a polished administration screen does not demonstrate a usable live teaching board. Ask to see both when your business needs both.
Use a real batch in the demo
Prepare an illustrative batch of twelve learners, two coaches and one upcoming lesson. These numbers are a test scenario, not an ERPLI capacity claim. Include a returning learner, someone who missed the previous class and one person needing an easier assignment. Give every vendor the same scenario so differences in the demonstration are easier to assess.
Ask the demonstrator to show the coach's view and a learner's view separately. If every action is performed from the administrator login, you have not tested normal daily use. Write down which steps you completed yourself, which needed vendor assistance and which were only described. A roadmap explanation should remain marked as a roadmap item.
Check the live teaching board first
Open a position from your own lesson and ask a participant to make a move. Check whether the coach can reset the position, change whose turn it is and use arrows or highlighted squares. Switch between teaching and practice, then return to the lesson. The relevant question is whether your actual explanation remains clear through those transitions.
Try the intended devices and connection conditions. A board that looks good on the salesperson's desktop may be harder to use on a family phone. Test reconnecting after a brief interruption and establish what happens to the shared position. For ERPLI's documented approach, review the interactive board, visual annotations and video-meeting integration, then request the same workflow in a demonstration.
Make homework review more specific than “completed”
Assign a small set on a familiar tactical theme. Ask what the coach can see afterwards: completion, first attempts, retries, time spent or individual answers. Do not assume all of these are available because a dashboard shows a percentage. Identify which observation will change your next lesson.
For example, a learner who succeeds after several hints may need a different follow-up from one who finds the idea independently. Your academy should decide how those attempts are interpreted. Software can collect evidence, but it should not turn every puzzle score into a judgement about overall chess strength. ERPLI's daily puzzle and homework page describes its assignment approach; confirm the exact review screen for your plan.
The GreyChess coaching page documents class homework and progress tracking. Lichess Class documents class accounts, progress monitoring and shared updates. These examples show why buyers should compare the actual assignment-and-review process rather than treating every product labelled “chess software” as the same category.
Test coach access with separate accounts
Create a director, a regular coach and a temporary assistant in the demonstration. Ask who can view each roster, edit a lesson or access another trainer's notes. Then remove the assistant's access and check the expected result. If the product only offers one shared staff password, discuss how responsibility and access removal would work before relying on it.
The ERPLI coach-management page describes role-based access and batch delegation. Treat that as the starting point for your test, not evidence that every permission arrangement your institute needs is already available. An academy managing partner schools or franchises should also ask whether their required separation exists at institution and branch level.
Ask what a parent report actually means
Request a sample report with example data labelled clearly. It should help a parent understand the work covered, practice completed and suggested next step. A graph without an explanation may create more enquiries for the coach rather than reduce them. Ask how reports are shared and whether staff review them before sending.
Distinguish internal platform ratings from official competitive ratings. A puzzle or practice score is not automatically a FIDE rating. Avoid promising parents a particular rating gain based on software usage alone. Review ERPLI's performance-reporting description and ask which fields are included in the report available to your academy.
Compare the cost of one complete operating month
Request a written quote using the same student, coach and batch counts for each vendor. Ask about live-class limits, storage, onboarding, branding, support and any separately billed video service. Record whether inactive learners count towards a limit and what happens when enrolment crosses it. Do not substitute a headline starting price for that calculation.
An illustrative time-saving estimate can help your own budget. If four coaches each save fifteen minutes of administration per working day across twenty days, that totals twenty hours a month. This is arithmetic for your assumptions, not a measured ERPLI result. Check the assumption during a pilot before assigning it a financial value.
Plan migration and your exit before paying
Start with a small clean roster and one teaching batch. Ask how existing learner accounts, lesson files and records can be imported. Agree on who checks duplicates and who helps families log in. Avoid a full migration immediately before an important academy event unless the team has tested the steps and knows how to recover from problems.
Also ask which records can be exported if you leave. Specify formats and include your own teaching material, attendance and available progress data. A statement that “the data is yours” is less useful than a demonstrated export and a written support process. Export capability is a buyer requirement to verify, not a claim this guide makes for every product mentioned.
A scorecard you can use with any vendor
Download the chess coaching software evaluation checklist. Mark each item as demonstrated, needs follow-up or unavailable. Add an owner and a decision date for unresolved items. A checklist is most useful when it captures a working example rather than a sales promise.
For an illustrative weighted score, allocate thirty points to lesson delivery, twenty-five to homework review, twenty to staff and batch access, fifteen to reporting and ten to onboarding and support. Change the weights before demonstrations to match your academy. Treat any essential missing requirement as a separate decision gate rather than allowing unrelated features to hide it in a high average score.
Shortlist a workflow, then book the right demo
Bring one lesson position, one homework set and one reporting question to your next vendor meeting. For a small practice, start with the private-coach solution. For an institute with several trainers, review ERPLI for chess academies. Ask the demonstrator to complete your workflow and explain any limitations before discussing a rollout.
