Looking for a good coach(controversial topic)

prime8

Hey guys, im looking for a good chess coach. I'm a new streamer/content creator ,but i want to take my chess to the next level. Highest peak rating 1684 on a different account on this account 1641 I'm looking for around a mid 1800 or 1900 who hasnt peaked past 2050ish... i find it very strange that pogchamps are asking for gms to teach them. Normally when learning chess I think the ideal coach would be a few hundred rated above you. So they can relate to problems you have without assuming you know something. Currently im 1580s i think idk maybe 1579 or 1592 idk. If someone is willing to coach let me know but what do you guys think about 300-1200's learning from gms is this a mistake ive been playing against other streamers and they say well im doing this because gms say its good they are missing basic principles?! thats my hot take whats yours and hopefully i find a great coach from this thread thanks!

prime8

?

prime8

guess it isnt a topic

RAU4ever

I think there's a lot to say on this topic. In some sense I agree with you. A certain strong player might not understand the problem that his/her pupil is facing. A GM probably hasn't consciously struggled visualizing a knight's move. The GM learned that at an early age and didn't need to learn how to cope with it. Is the GM then the best tutor for the absolute beginner? Probably not. But the same goes for a lot of levels. A GM does not usually know what 1500 chess looks like or what their mistakes usually are. 2000-2200 players that frequent smaller chess clubs will have a much better view of what the typical mistakes could be at that level. 

At the other end, I disagree with your view that it is probably best for a chess trainer to be only a few hundred points stronger than you. From chess training I think you'd want: 1. someone who relates to your problems and can help find a solution; 2. someone who can teach you the right things; 3. someone who has good teaching skills, so that the teaching experience is a nice one. In this sense I would worry about a 1700 player teaching a 1400 player. A 1700 player has big holes in their chess understanding. Can they really teach you the right things? Or would you learn things that you'd have to 'unlearn' later. It might even take you much longer to unlearn it, because of the fact that you were 'taught' that it is good chess. 

But I think the most important aspect of a chess teacher is how well they teach. I know some 2100+ players that would make dreadful coaches. They can't explain their ideas well enough for another person to understand what they mean. I also know some 2100+ players that would make better teachers than most GM's. Rating does not necessarily matter too much. Top 100 players also use teachers. Those teachers are usually not top 100 players themselves. Dvoretsky was a strong player, but not world championship level. He was an elite chess trainer though. Same goes to Aagaard. He's a worldclass trainer. Wrote some brilliant books and worked with really strong players. But he also taught players stronger than himself.

In that sense, for kids starting out with chess, a 1500 player can be a wonderful coach. A 1900 player could be a great coach for a 1600 player if they are a great chess teacher and the 1600 has limited aspirations (reach 1700 or 1800). If the goal is to improve beyond 2000, I would argue that it would make more sense to get a strong teacher with 2200+ skill, and finding a new teacher when you start to reach 2100, unless the teacher is just an exceptional trainer.

sfft

My point is around 1550 . İ need a chess coach. İ dont know how can i find a good coach

B1ZMARK

you can start looking in 

https://www.chess.com/coaches

DonRajesh

Well, IM @AttilaTurzo is searching for students. And he is an amazing coach.

laurengoodkindchess

Hi!  My name is Lauren Goodkind and I'm a chess coach based in California.  I feel that I'm not strong enough to coach you, but you want a training partner to play and go over games, let me know!  

Blindsbury23
RAU4ever ha scritto:

I think there's a lot to say on this topic. In some sense I agree with you. A certain strong player might not understand the problem that his/her pupil is facing. A GM probably hasn't consciously struggled visualizing a knight's move. The GM learned that at an early age and didn't need to learn how to cope with it. Is the GM then the best tutor for the absolute beginner? Probably not. But the same goes for a lot of levels. A GM does not usually know what 1500 chess looks like or what their mistakes usually are. 2000-2200 players that frequent smaller chess clubs will have a much better view of what the typical mistakes could be at that level. 

At the other end, I disagree with your view that it is probably best for a chess trainer to be only a few hundred points stronger than you. From chess training I think you'd want: 1. someone who relates to your problems and can help find a solution; 2. someone who can teach you the right things; 3. someone who has good teaching skills, so that the teaching experience is a nice one. In this sense I would worry about a 1700 player teaching a 1400 player. A 1700 player has big holes in their chess understanding. Can they really teach you the right things? Or would you learn things that you'd have to 'unlearn' later. It might even take you much longer to unlearn it, because of the fact that you were 'taught' that it is good chess. 

But I think the most important aspect of a chess teacher is how well they teach. I know some 2100+ players that would make dreadful coaches. They can't explain their ideas well enough for another person to understand what they mean. I also know some 2100+ players that would make better teachers than most GM's. Rating does not necessarily matter too much. Top 100 players also use teachers. Those teachers are usually not top 100 players themselves. Dvoretsky was a strong player, but not world championship level. He was an elite chess trainer though. Same goes to Aagaard. He's a worldclass trainer. Wrote some brilliant books and worked with really strong players. But he also taught players stronger than himself.

In that sense, for kids starting out with chess, a 1500 player can be a wonderful coach. A 1900 player could be a great coach for a 1600 player if they are a great chess teacher and the 1600 has limited aspirations (reach 1700 or 1800). If the goal is to improve beyond 2000, I would argue that it would make more sense to get a strong teacher with 2200+ skill, and finding a new teacher when you start to reach 2100, unless the teacher is just an exceptional trainer.

As an instructor, I share every word!

Fenil1995

Hello! I'm International master Fenil Shah and I'm a chess coach based in Indiana. If you're interested in improving chess and becoming a better player, consider DM'ing me. We can take it from there, thanks!

Gambit_Man

Hey there, prime8. I fall into a lot of that criteria, and been looking into coaching more intermediate players like yourself. I've been coached in the past myself and realize the disparity or confusion a high rated GM or IM might have when they cant figure out your needs and weaknesses. I am USCF rated 1972 in classical Chess with lots of over the board tournament experience ( USCF ID# 13060087 ). I will teach you to play aggressive, attacking openings. DM me for more info.

Drakon96

I'm an 1800 USCF, so I think my ratings are a bit inflated on here. I prefer to play in an aggressive and often unpredictable manner. Direct message me if you're interested. 

ponz111

A player who prefers to play in an aggressive and often unpredictable manner and also is rated 1800 USCF is not strong enough to be a good chess coach.

using that kind of coach---when you become stronger--you would have to unlearn much of what you "learned"