The Audacity of the Underqualified: Why a 1450 FIDE Player is NOT a "Great Chess Coach"

"I am a 1450 FIDE rated player and a great coach."

Lie or truth?

Lately, I've seen a disturbing number of posts like this on LinkedIn and Facebook. People are marketing themselves as chess coaches, even mentors for other coaches, despite barely scraping by with a minimal FIDE rating as players.

Where does this unearned confidence come from? How can intermediate players, whose modest tournament results clearly show they don't understand chess well enough for themselves, let alone to teach others, put themselves forward as chess instructors? Is it simply pure greed?

I wasn't born yesterday, and I don't begrudge anyone for wanting to make a living from their work. However, I believe that fundamental ethics in chess coaching, in many professions, have completely vanished. People shamelessly offer services, even though they should, with even average judgment, be aware of their own lack of qualifications.

By doing this, they are stealing from their clients. Not just their money for chess lessons, but also their chess future. Out of their own ignorance, not necessarily malicious intent, they can pass on incorrect ideas or fail to introduce them to the proper way of chess thinking.

The Limitations of the Under 1800 Chess Player

Players with a FIDE rating below 1800 are generally those who are still missing many basic chess principles, let alone advanced elements like planning and positional evaluation.

Perhaps they can function within a large system where they are only responsible for the absolute basics: rules of the game, piece movement, castling, en passant, center control, relative piece values, pins, skewers, forks, checkmates in 1 and 2 moves, etc. But anything deeper is beyond their level. As for independent work that could lead a player to an advanced level, that's entirely out of the question.

I believe that such "chess trainers," once they get their hands on a student who knows less than them, primarily focus on opening variations, traps, tricks, and tactics. In essence, a chess coach is almost unnecessary for this. They certainly aren't the authors of these variations, nor did they independently discover the traps they show students. They are superfluous, because these same students can read the same books on openings or tactics themselves, without paying anyone but the price of the book.

The Easy Bluff: How Beginners Get Duped

It's disturbingly easy to bluff a complete beginner. By analyzing their games with a chess engine, these fake coaches can present themselves as chess wizards, miraculously "discovering" missed wins and ways a loss could have been avoided. The beginner, unaware they're being robbed, might even feel happy, believing they're being taught by an expert. This fills me with both sadness and outrage. Just give these so-called "experts" the task of strategically analyzing and providing written commentary on their victims' (or as they call them, students') games without an engine, and you'll quickly see their utter helplessness.

Let’s be specific! What is it that they don’t know but should? For example, they’ll rarely understand what the side with an isolated pawn should aim for, and what the side playing against it must do. They won’t know the difference between a passed pawn and a pawn candidate, nor will they be familiar with Botvinnik’s rule regarding the latter. Capablanca’s principles on the relationship between pawn structures and bishops will be unknown to them, as will the idea that a queenside majority can compensate for giving up central control. They won’t know how to handle semi-closed positions lacking tactical opportunities.

They’ll have no clue about Steinitz’s principles of positional evaluation, or what true overprotection is—not to be confused with the concept of coverage. They won’t understand when the f3–e4 pawn barrier is effective, why rooks belong on open files, or how and why the principle of two weaknesses works. They’ll be unfamiliar with the method of converting a minimal advantage, or with Tarrasch’s guidelines for playing rook endgames—let alone Fine’s rules on endgame play.

My Journey: Earning the Right to Offer Quality Chess Lessons

Why am I saying all this?

To even consider becoming a chess coach, I waited until my rating was equal to or close to those who were teaching beginner chess at the time. These were all experienced tournament players, rated over 2000, many with master titles. These people had read many chess books, some had even written their own textbooks, they had extensive chess libraries, and they developed their curricula based on the recommendations of the Soviet and Yugoslav chess schools, which were superior in the 20th century.

I followed in their footsteps. Through competition, I earned the national Candidate Master title and a FIDE rating of 2058. Slowly, I acquired books; now I have over a hundred. I devoured them, and by combining what I found there and consulting with other chess trainers, I created my own curriculum and lesson materials. I believe I'm qualified to work with players up to a maximum of 1600-1700 FIDE, though only for a short time, because as they improve, they need to seek a better coach. When higher-rated players contact me, I thank them and politely recommend more advanced, and more expensive, colleagues.

My favorite students are those who start around 600+ in the Chess.com rapid section. I can truly mold them, as they haven't learned much yet, and therefore haven't learned many wrong things. They simply absorb what I explain, and yet they are talented enough to reach that 600 Elo themselves. I often guide such students to 1500+ rapid on Chess.com, which is roughly equivalent to a FIDE 1400 player.

The True Cost of Incompetence in Chess Coaching

Then I wonder, how dare these people present themselves as chess coaches when my intermediate chess students could very likely beat them sometimes?

I am keenly aware of how much more I still need to learn about chess, yet these patzers, scrambling for dollars, offer their services, shamelessly calling themselves coaches, and even "mentors."

I admit, it's not just playing strength that makes a good coach. Patience, communication skills, and the ability to transfer knowledge are also crucial. But the core is chess knowledge. If it's absent – and among 1400-1500 FIDE players, it's definitely absent for anything more serious than basic chess lessons – then no interpersonal skills, sweet talk, or pedagogical knowledge can teach a beginner to play and think about chess correctly and well.

I was shocked when these so-called "online chess coaches" repeatedly begged me for a few lessons, just to see how it's done, preferably for free, because they come from "third-world countries" and find my prices too high. They even asked for my teaching materials, also for free. There were even requests to hand over some of my lower-rated students so they could get an easier start to their "coaching" careers. The funniest of all was one who hadn't even reached 400 on Chess.com yet and wanted to be a coach in some Indian elementary schools, just teaching the rules, so he could quickly prepare for a job interview.

Perhaps these are cultural differences that lead to patterns of behavior that are incomprehensible and unacceptable to me. But I lean more towards believing it's rapaciousness, without any regard for the potential harm to those who fall for their hooks.

What are your thoughts on this? Have you encountered similar situations in the chess coaching world? Share your experiences in the comments below!