This is an interesting debate.
I think that 1700 chess.com is a bit low to coach 1200-1500, because 1700s have a lot of bad habits and their thinking processes are not so good.
I think a 1700 can coach up to maybe 1200, but higher than that the 1700 is just going to make too many mistakes and thinking process errors to coach effectively.
[ALSO I am 2000 uscf so I know what I'm talking about.. I've seen 1700s make very simple errors lots of times]
as a general rule of thumb, you can only coach players up to x-500 rating (where x is your rating).
but i have coached an 800 before as a 900, just saying...
but i have coached an 800 before as a 900, just saying...
Ye...right.
as a general rule of thumb, you can only coach players up to x-500 rating (where x is your rating).
Depends at what level.
A CM going for norms can have a titled coach and be 100 points apart.
Personally, I would be hesitant to coach anybody under 1200, who needs the headache?
Ever analyze two 800s going against each other?
as a general rule of thumb, you can only coach players up to x-500 rating (where x is your rating).
Depends at what level.
A CM going for norms can have a titled coach and be 100 points apart.
Personally, I would be hesitant to coach anybody under 1200, who needs the headache?
Ever analyze two 800s going against each other?
It's more of comical than being annoyed and angry. People have different perspectives after all.
as a general rule of thumb, you can only coach players up to x-500 rating (where x is your rating).
Depends at what level.
A CM going for norms can have a titled coach and be 100 points apart.
Personally, I would be hesitant to coach anybody under 1200, who needs the headache?
Ever analyze two 800s going against each other?
Everyone could use some guidance, my concern would be less about their rating and more about how quickly they were able to grasp and remember concepts and techniques that I teach
but i have coached an 800 before as a 900, just saying...
That's like the blind leading the blind 😂😂😂
but i have coached an 800 before as a 900, just saying...
That's like the blind leading the blind 😂😂😂
So long as you are even a little bit more skilled you can help them improve. Also it is good encouragement and training with someone relatively close to your rating. Getting beat up on by a coach that is 500-1000 point higher rated than you can be helpful in learning mistakes but you might be at risk of losing confidence to "actual play good/strong moves" or at the very least feel worn out and tired after trying to just survive past the opening or middlegame against such and stronger opponent.
but i have coached an 800 before as a 900, just saying...
That's like the blind leading the blind 😂😂😂
So long as you are even a little bit more skilled you can help them improve. Also it is good encouragement and training with someone relatively close to your rating. Getting beat up on by a coach that is 500-1000 point higher rated than you can be helpful in learning mistakes but you might be at risk of losing confidence to "actual play good/strong moves" or at the very least feel worn out and tired after trying to just survive past the opening or middlegame against such and stronger opponent.
I have had some experience coaching as I was the captain of our school chess team. I am 500 points higher rated than our second player (it is a team of 6). I found that they picked stuff up easily without any trouble so I mean in some cases, I agree, but I disagree with you in most cases.
yo What is this argument about?
Multiple people are claiming I'm not worthy of being a chess coach, and throwing random questions and challenges at me, its catered to all the stuff most 1700's don't know or understand plus all of the openings I care fairly little for and rarely ever play or come across in my own games. In addition to this they argue I should be able to explain these opening and positions to beginners
exactly we are questioning your legitimacy and many easy basic things that apparently "you dont understand" your only 1700 on the dot how would you be able to coach? you have to be really good and know a ton to get peoples hard earned money
It's a nice whole number to look at. Makes me happy and content with all I've done to reach it. I am well aware of how easy it is to lose a game of chess, I haven't touch it since mainly because if I lose then I will have to play god knows how many games to get back to 1700 rating.
I understand the sentiment you have about this rating (with regards to it being a rounded number) but it's an online rating. Online ratings don't count for ANYTHING. It's not like as soon as you hit 2300 ELO+, you will get the FM title and the chess.com reward of lifetime premium that comes for all titled players.
It's your personal choice but this is my humble opinion....I'm not trying to attack you on this forum.
Now, I was rated 2000 about 2 months ago but look where I'm sat now...I'm at 1850 and to be honest, to quote a certain Hikaru Nakamura, "I literally don't care".
OTB, I have a national rating of 1800 and I'm happy (though I am yet to reach my peak...I am comfortably beating players with a national rating of 1900-2000)
There is some quote I remember Hikaru saying "your rating and performance changes, but your class doesn't". Also each day a rating below around 2400 become even harder as all the player lower rated improve their skill and level of understanding.
@pipking get off your cp and get a job instead of scamming noobs
Hey be nice, don't call newer player that. We want welcome them and encourage them to learn more about chess.