Cool you’re blocked go away
Y’all should coach people for free
Sort:
Jul 14, 2023
0
#83
Actually when I was like 1100 or so rated, i got helped out a lot by my friend who's about 1600 on chess.com....what he DID know was often very very insightful as he saw many things that I did not.
--
On the other hand, I played my friend once who was about 400 rated at that time. I did show her some stuff and I think it was helpful by her account; i told her some opening stuff like using your moves well and not wasting tempos but instead developing. I am a very bad opening player though so there were times when (as she was not playing a "normal" opening) I was unsure quite what to do...i mean it wasn't a bad opening on my part but a 2000+ will definitely capitalize on her mistakes rather than let them slip.
--
Would she have noticed the difference? I think not. Remembering back when i was U1200, I think any roughly sane opening would have been at least somewhat instructive. Would it be unwise for me to formally "coach" her and have her learn how to play openings for me? Yes, I think so.
--
All in all, I do think that the errors of less "strong" players are indeed a genuine concern. However, I also think OP isn't wrong to say the less strong player may gain from interacting, perhaps substantially so.
Jul 14, 2023
0
#84
cogadhtintreach wrote:
FavelaSwag wrote:
A 1600 could teach a 900 a ton no problem
You may think that, but personally, I think that a 1600, like @chessdude009 here, shouldnt teach a 900, as they are still blundering pieces all over the place, and dont fully understand the game, and cannot do proper positional assesment, which is something that many people below around 1850 cant do
Think @chessdude009 is so accustomed to fast tc's that he/she doesn't play enough rapid to have a meaningful rating. Looked at the rapids; my impression is that rapids aren't played frequently but more importantly are played uber-fast, blitz style, leading to lower quality of games. I've never (legitimately) reached 1800 in blitz ("peak" ratings at account creation don't count), and well, I think I'm higher than 1600 
Given the 1800 blitz rating I'd imagine that chessdude's strength would be similar to @cogadhintreach if he/she played rapid more regularly.
ya you don’t need to coach a 400 12 moves deep on 100 openings bc they don’t even know basic opening principles yet.
Sometimes I say hey idk if this is good or not but here’s what I’m thinking. And they’re not even thinking what I’m thinking. Who knows what the computer will say after it doesn’t really matter if we both missed some advanced tactic or something that a 2000 would see in a second. When someone’s 700 points lower than you they just have super obvious mistakes. I see the mistakes. A 2000 sees the mistakes. The computer sees the mistakes. They’re super obvious
I'm only a 1600 on chess.com. I don't take time in my rapid games, playing them like 3 min blitz. My uscf rating is much closer to my actual rating.
Jul 15, 2023
0
#88
ChessDude009 wrote:
I'm only a 1600 on chess.com. I don't take time in my rapid games, playing them like 3 min blitz. My uscf rating is much closer to my actual rating.
Haha, I noticed that when i looked at your rapid games 
A 1600 could teach a 900 a ton no problem
You may think that, but personally, I think that a 1600, like @chessdude009 here, shouldnt teach a 900, as they are still blundering pieces all over the place, and dont fully understand the game, and cannot do proper positional assesment, which is something that many people below around 1850 cant do