Why Iam not getting students

I agree, I don't know how to do that, I just think that I am good at explaining concepts and want to get noticed by someone who might be interested.

First of all I would say that it depends on the student how much time is needed for the improvement because everyone is different, and secondly, lessons are supposed to be a weekly thing because it is not all lesson that wins you elo directly you have to apply your learnings to the games and your coach should know about it and I don't understand the point of that calculation because 5$/hour is pretty cheap if you compare ,it is as I said 20 dollars a month.

Iam not saying premium is bad but it simply cannot be compared to a coach who can let you see your weak points accurately. What it does instead is worth mentioning, imagine yourself in a position where you have to sacrifice your knight in order to save your rook from being captured. That move explanation just says "Dropping a knight like that? not ideal". I can understand those things at my level but I think it can be confusing for beginners. I have seen some of them yelling at themselves not playing the top engine move everytime they see a miss. It is a completely different service in short that has other numerous benefits like insights from a coach's point of view.

I agree in most of the points with you but it is not about ratings at all if someone is below 1000 all I need is to be a good teacher and yeah that's completely true that there's so much stuff available for free on YouTube but one means of learning cannot work for everyone I myself reached this rating with yt only but what if someone needs a push and a little personal guidance, that are the people Iam looking for currently. I can teach them same or maybe better than titled players at 20$/month.

I don't agree that one should not consider coaching beginners without a title. I mean you don't need to be a scientist yourself to teach basic concepts of science in schools and infact the main thing is that being a titled player does not makes anyone a great teacher you need to achieve that separately. And it should not be insulting if iam investing my time and efforts + my student is improving.

Maybe people just don't know you can't find you. Maybe ask around on a forum or two if people need coaching. And also don't advertise just ask.

I must have missed something. I didn’t think I’d spark such a debate. I didn’t mean to cause a row. I should have kept quiet. My apologies.

The only measure of chess knowledge is rating

How can someone with a lower rating be as good at teaching if they objectively have less knowledge?

2000s are not the same as some titled player they also lack positional understanding. But beginners don't need those things, for example if someone is 500, he will firstly want to reach like 800 then 1000,1200 and so on and a 2k player can definitely help them because they can see their mistakes.

I have to disagree here. As someone who is 2400 Rapid and 2500 Blitz, I can tell you there is a massive gap between 'knowing how to play' and 'knowing how to teach'—but you can't teach what you don't actually understand yet.

At 1800, you're still making fundamental mistakes that you might unconsciously pass on to a student. The reason people aren't biting at $5/hour isn't just 'trust,' it's the fact that a 2000+ player or even a titled player provides significantly more value for just a few dollars more.

If you want to coach, you should probably get your own rating up to at least 2100-2200 first. At that point, your understanding of the game becomes stable enough that you aren't just 'the blind leading the blind.' Right now, you're competing with YouTube GMs who offer better advice for free.

I still think the same but yeah I also think that I need to improve which iam trying to do, I want to reach 2k blitz first and then focus on rapid I don't play rapid alot.

I think teaching, coaching and chess ability are 3 different things. The quality of coaching isn’t linked to knowledge of chess. A chess player with a 2500 Elo rating won’t necessarily make a good coach, even though they may have more knowledge to share. In my view, a good coach must be able to put himself/herself in the student’s shoes. Simply giving one's opinion on a move that’s already been played isn’t coaching. A player with a 1800 Elo rating might be a better coach than a 2500 Elo player, with many titles. I came across a player with 40 years experience, many titles who was offering totally free coaching, but who turned out to be obnoxious and self-centred. His rating for chess : about 2200-2300. His rating for coach : 100. In fact, he didn’t find a single student.

Mangalgrahi, i’m sorry because I feel as though I’ve started a legal case, which wasn’t what I wanted. And when I mentioned that I’d taken out a premium subscription, I didn’t mean that it can replace a human coach. It’s just a tool, a supplement. Nothing can replace a human being. I’m French and my English isn’t perfect, so some of the translations might not be perfect.

Same goes for me buddy, English is not my first language, I dont want to argue or something just sharing opinions sorry if I hurt you

Don’t worry, I wasn’t offended. When we’re using a foreign language, confusions happen.