How many points should a chess tutor ideally have? - Chess Forums - Page 2

RorschachTest1

Mar 5, 2021

0

#21

Steven-ODonoghue wrote:

50kg wrote:

Steven-ODonoghue wrote:

Maybe 500 points higher than the student would be a good general rule. Although I have a student who is only 300 points weaker than I am

Also not true. On higher levels higher rated player can even learn from lower rated player. For example, 2400 can learn from 2300.

It's quite possible that lower rated player is very strong in one particular area(opening prep, planning skills, etc) where higher rated player is weaker.

A begginer can learn alot from a 500 player, and a 500 player can learn alot from a 1000 player. Jeremy Silman once said that some of the greatest chess teachers in the world are between 1400 and 1500 elo. Also, I struggle to belive a 2400 would hire a 2300 as their tutor. Most of the cases of a lower rated player working with a higher rated one are only at the very top level, and even then the lower rated player usually takes the roll of a trainer or second, rather than a "tutor" which is what the topic asked.

jeremy knows my secret

Coach_Kashchei

Mar 5, 2021

0

#22

Steven-ODonoghue wrote:

50kg wrote:

Steven-ODonoghue wrote:

Maybe 500 points higher than the student would be a good general rule. Although I have a student who is only 300 points weaker than I am

Also not true. On higher levels higher rated player can even learn from lower rated player. For example, 2400 can learn from 2300.

It's quite possible that lower rated player is very strong in one particular area(opening prep, planning skills, etc) where higher rated player is weaker.

A begginer can learn alot from a 500 player, and a 500 player can learn alot from a 1000 player. Jeremy Silman once said that some of the greatest chess teachers in the world are between 1400 and 1500 elo. Also, I struggle to belive a 2400 would hire a 2300 as their tutor. Most of the cases of a lower rated player working with a higher rated one are only at the very top level, and even then the lower rated player usually takes the roll of a trainer or second, rather than a "tutor" which is what the topic asked.

1) I donno, may be it's personal. But for me ... it's hard to imagine how 1000-rated player can tech ANYBODY! Also, hard to understand, how 1500 can teach 1000? I had an experience when players improved their rating from 1000 to 1300 in two months ... Then what? Change coach every two months ??? Sounds ridiculous! And, as I mentioned before, and B1ZMARK as well, bottom line is around 1800. Below this level people simply had a lot of missunderstandings and bad habits.

2) Can you please explain difference between "tutor" and "second"? You meant "tutor" is the teacher for complete beginners and "second" is strong player which helping another strong player to be better?

Meanwhile, did you know that:

"Usually chess players have seconds who are grandmasters, or at least International Masters. However, Hikaru Nakamura has a second who is rated just 2156. His name is Kris Littlejohn and he is Nakamura's second at just about every major event. "

IM imivangalic

Mar 6, 2021

0

#23

In chess taking coach for begginers doesnt mean that higher coach has elo that he will be better teacher, that is like someone can be great profesor at college and bad techer for kids.

But definitly for taking someone to coach you should go over 2000 elo becouse if you take 1500 player to coach you, you can learn lot of things wrong.

Best regards

drmrboss

Mar 6, 2021

0

#24

The_economist9 wrote:

I would argue that a tutor should be a solid player (rarely lose).

Rarely lose to who?

2000+ rarely lose to 1000 but Hikaru rarely lose to 2000+.

drmrboss

Mar 6, 2021

0

#25

B1ZMARK wrote:

1800 bottom line - anything lower would have misconceptions about the game that may be wrongly taught to students... things such as "never move the f pawn!"

Concepts in chess are constantly evolving when chess player improve!

e.g If a player has learned that "double pawns are bad" and keep that rigid concept, he will never explore lines behind double pawns.

Many player never improve as they never change concepts.

nklristic

Mar 6, 2021

0

#26

Well my highest rating here is a bit above 1 500, and I wouldn't consider coaching for money, at this stage at least. I know that I have a lot to learn before I could consider something like that (if ever).

That being said, I can still help out beginners a lot, and have some experience with some of them. For instance someone rated around 1 500 can teach a lot of basic stuff to his sibling or his kid. Sure, some of it might be suboptimal compared to what a stronger player can teach you, but it will provide a good starting point. But yeah, if you are a beginner and want to invest some money in it, you will probably try to find someone stronger than 1 500, though you definitely don't need to hire a titled player if you find someone who is a good teacher with say 1 900 rating.

As for the comment that you want someone who will rarely lose... well if you give that player a strong enough opponent he will lose a lot, except if he is an engine or a top GM.

sndeww

Mar 6, 2021

0

#27

drmrboss hat geschrieben:

B1ZMARK wrote:

1800 bottom line - anything lower would have misconceptions about the game that may be wrongly taught to students... things such as "never move the f pawn!"

Concepts in chess are constantly evolving when chess player improve!

e.g If a player has learned that "double pawns are bad" and keep that rigid concept, he will never explore lines behind double pawns.

Many player never improve as they never change concepts.

Exactly. I used to think the f pawn should not be moved because it weakens the king, but after getting stomped many times when my opponents would play some silly mcdonnell attack, I started doing it myself and even picked up the birds opening. And it definitely helped

JackRoach

Mar 6, 2021

0

#28

I'd say you should be titled if you want to make money.

Deranged

Mar 6, 2021

0

#29

I think 1500s can coach players below 1000 rating.

1800s can coach players below 1500 rating.

And 2200s can coach players below 2000 rating.

JackRoach

Mar 6, 2021

0

#30

I mean, you aren't going to make money coaching as a 1500.

JogoReal

Mar 6, 2021

0

#31

B1ZMARK escreveu:

drmrboss hat geschrieben:

B1ZMARK wrote:

1800 bottom line - anything lower would have misconceptions about the game that may be wrongly taught to students... things such as "never move the f pawn!"

Concepts in chess are constantly evolving when chess player improve!

e.g If a player has learned that "double pawns are bad" and keep that rigid concept, he will never explore lines behind double pawns.

Many player never improve as they never change concepts.

Exactly. I used to think the f pawn should not be moved because it weakens the king, but after getting stomped many times when my opponents would play some silly mcdonnell attack, I started doing it myself and even picked up the birds opening. And it definitely helped

I went a bit further than you, my friend. I developed myself the joke/theory of the "Fetish Pawn". Fetish pawn is obviously the "F" pawn, and the "theory" reads like this: "The player who First moves the "F" (Fetish) pawn two squares, has an higher probably of winning the game"!

KnightChecked

Mar 6, 2021

0

#32

2200 FIDE should be the starting point, in my opinion.

Any lower and there's a good chance that the coach will be teaching inaccurate ideas and/or incorrect ways of thinking.

This could instill bad habits in the student's play that a future coach will need to rectify.

The_economist9

Mar 7, 2021

0

#33

drmrboss wrote:

The_economist9 wrote:

I would argue that a tutor should be a solid player (rarely lose).

Rarely lose to who?

2000+ rarely lose to 1000 but Hikaru rarely lose to 2000+.

Just rarely lose in general.

The_economist9

Mar 7, 2021

0

#34

Vibhansh_Alok wrote:

The_economist9 wrote:

Vibhansh_Alok wrote:

Any 2200+ is an excellent choice for students under 2000.

I noticed that a lot of high rated players charge a lot.

I agree, high rated players who doesn't have any title, charges high amount for coaching maybe because they're not called for international tournaments, they don't have sponsors. Their income mainly adds up from there job earnings, prize money from local or national tournaments and from the chess coaching.....

But what's up with the titled player charging higher cost? They don really need it, they do have a valid reason for high pricing i.e. they are much better than untitled player. But believe me its mostly price for fame....

Yeah I noticed that too, but normally tutors who charge too much don't get as much costumers.

The_economist9

Mar 7, 2021

0

#35

imivangalic wrote:

In chess taking coach for begginers doesnt mean that higher coach has elo that he will be better teacher, that is like someone can be great profesor at college and bad techer for kids.

But definitly for taking someone to coach you should go over 2000 elo becouse if you take 1500 player to coach you, you can learn lot of things wrong.

Best regards

+1

The_economist9

Mar 7, 2021

0

#36

JackRoach wrote:

I'd say you should be titled if you want to make money.

This brings up a question I have, why do some non-titled players play so well? I thought titled players were the best, but I have seen many accounts on chess.com without a title and a very high rating.

sndeww

Mar 7, 2021

0

#37

It’s possible they’re either alts or just really good at speed chess.

Steven-ODonoghue

Mar 7, 2021

0

#38

The_economist9 wrote:

Just rarely lose in general.

All players should win and lose 50% of the time regardless of whether they are 100 rated or a grandmaster. If your tutor loses less often than that it means they are playing opponents weaker than themselves.

drmrboss

Mar 7, 2021

0

#39

The_economist9 wrote:

drmrboss wrote:

The_economist9 wrote:

I would argue that a tutor should be a solid player (rarely lose).

Rarely lose to who?

2000+ rarely lose to 1000 but Hikaru rarely lose to 2000+.

Just rarely lose in general.

Impossible for any human.

Just Stockfish rarely lose.

laurengoodkindchess

Mar 7, 2021

0

#40

Hi! My name is Lauren Goodkind and I'm a chess coach based in California.

Here's my opinion:

If you are just starting out in chess and know nothing about the game, I feel that a 1000-1200 rated player would be good to coach. I'm rated 1850 USCF and most of my students are rated above 1000. If I am looking for a coach myself, then I'll look for somebody who's rated above 2400 or above.

I hope that this helps.