Any tips for a slow beginner?

Tell me that you understand everything when you watch stuff on youtube... there are obviously stuff that you wont, coaches are there to help

Hm... of course I don't understand all stuff in details... when I'm watching the chess lessons on youtube.

But they are for free over there.

I think that you should pay a coach his fee ... only post-factum if he raised your rating on chess.com tangibly. 

For example give him 100 dollars if your rating is 100 points up over here.  I think that it would be fair.

Or your FIDE rating... is this not what matters after all?

One american also told me that he paid a coach but his raiting remains the same as before.

What sense to spend money on the lessons then ? Not all people are rich.

You need to choose your coach correctly and it takes time to improve

So does it mean that you found the coach who raised your raiting... really ? )

No I did not hire a coach yet... reason? COVID-19

I am seriously thinking about a coach. But I think of it as a specialized feedback partner and specific training advice dispenser. Ultimately I want a coach that will help me be better in the way that I have decided to play chess, not one that will try to mold me into his/her way of playing chess.

Hmm, then you shall find a coach that plays the way you play... Btw I Think the way you play chess should change,.... If you want to know the reason play me... You play the Modern Defense

I think a man with your raiting should learn the main principals of Chess game before developing his (her) playing style. 

You are not even an advanced player.

Yeah, especially if the playing style is hyoer-modern

Fair enough. Keep in mind a coach can coach beginners.

The OP may or may not benefit from a coach. My reasons to look for one would be very simple: qualified feedback and specific advice. But it has to be personalized. Also, when I resume playing/studying chess seriously, I'll see who's out there. I have some ideas about how the coaching would go and I would like a coach that will graciously accommodate.

There's way too much talk about the principles and whatnot. Too general, too abstract, if you ask me (not that you would). My "serious style" has relatively little to do with the way I play here. And that's purposefully why I'm likely to wait until I go back into the right frame of mind to look for a coach

I like a lot of things about some hypermodern setups with black, among them the ability to transpose. I also like the fact that some of the hypermodern setups for white have simple plans that resonate with me. An added benefit, is that the resulting positions tend to make it harder for opponents to go all tactical against me. I'll gladly concede equality to black in a closed game with lots of maneuvering rather than keeping a slight edge in a position that is rife with tactical shots.

Op... I agree.  This your thought is very wise.

I myself thought about that not long before. I notice that in some Chess openings I play more bravely and free than I do in another ones.

It happens that I like closed... not open... positions.

I can help you for free. send me a message on chess.com. i can't guarantee i'll be available all the time, but I'll give you advice on any games you send me/any questions you have

for now - practice tactics, they're key to improving 

i don't think i can mold you into my playing style, since i don't really have one lol. i'm generally more aggressive, but i'm not terrible at position concepts in rapid/classical.

Can you post some examples of those games? Which openings have you been practicing?

The problem is that, at your level, games are mostly tactical, and it's something you need to work on. Against my first coach (a 2300 FM), who was extremely positional, I just deviated from theory, opened up the game and won. I have a plus score against him now in rapid and blitz (which means I've beaten him more times than I've lost - we never played a classical game, but the rapid game was 15+10). Obviously, I'm far from FM strength, but the reason I won was because I played to my opponent's weaknesses.

I'm 13, just got a bank account (so I now can create a paypal account), and I offered originally free lessons to a complete beginner, but he insisted that he pay me, so now I am getting $10 for 1.5 hours--and I'm only 1650 rated. 

I have a bank account, with all my earnings from winning chess tournaments, but my parents won't let me touch it, since it's for college/when im older.

I just don't want to charge someone if I know I can't fully commit, and consistently provide feedback within 24 hours. I would rather just do my best to help for free.

Also, if there isn't any drastic improvement, I would feel kind of guilty charging money, and knowing that I didn't help much.

We all have weaknesses (I'll readily admit calculation and deep tactical awareness is mine). I am very fond of closed games and tactical minimization. These days as I'm not playing seriously, I play more classical openings in an unsuccessful effort to like them. But just take a look at this game (bypass the obvious "mistake" of b6, which was played so that we went off theory).

https://www.chess.com/live/game/5628999291

If you compare it to many of my other games here, you will notice 3 things: a) I played a bit more seriously (for instance, taking more time per move), b) I didn't go for any risky tactical shots myself, c) in closed structures my play can be far more intuitive, as well as way more forgiving of my shortcomings.

I don't have a style, but I do have preferences. I want quiet games, I want simple plans and positions that don't require deep calculation while discouraging tactical shots. My rationale is simple. If I win or draw on MY own merits at my level (and not opponent's obvious blunders/mistakes), possibly even beyond that too... it will most likely be because I managed to make easy calculation almost non existent for my opponent.

Yeah, I understand that. I also never spend my money.