Any Successful Untitled Coaches out there?

EOGuel

Hey guys.

As many of you may know, my goal is to one day get to National Master (2200 USCF), and I would love to become a professional chess coach... or at least do some coaching on the side. wink.png 

I feel that it would really help if I got a title, however, I'm not entirely sure if I will end up getting the master title. I'm still not giving up that dream, though it would take a lot of work to get there. My peak is 1828 USCF (Class A nationally), though it has plummeted since. frustrated.png

I currently have four regular local students. Two are 400-700, my others are 1300-1400. I'm curious if there are very many successful coaches out there who do not have a title? In my opinion, I think you should be able to get students if you present/advertise yourself well and are consistent with your teaching, even if you are a strong untitled player.

I could be wrong though. I know there isn't a textbook answer or formula for this, though feel free to discuss and debate. Thanks! happy.png

LouStule
I suppose you could charge more if you were titled?
jjupiter6

I'm not a chess coach but I am a teacher. What will get you students is the ability to effectively communicate ideas and concepts to somebody with no idea or concept of what you are teaching. Being titled definitely helps, however it doesn't mean you can teach. Carlsen himself said he "just knows" the best move in a given position. I don't doubt him, but this doesn't mean he would be any good trying to show me how to find a best move when he doesn't have to consciously do it himself. The opposite, actually.

FangBo

Firstly, @EOGuel I think that if you keep at it, there is no reason why you can't become a master. There is no limit to how strong a chess player you can become, unless you decide upon a limit. Why be an NM over a GM? 

What I believe is that you shouldn't fixate on a particular rating, but instead assume that you are already a grandmaster, and think like a grandmaster, and one day you will look back and say ' I remember when I was only "X" rated'.

On the topic of coaching, I think that players of our current level are definitely qualified to teach anyone rated below 1400. 

Probably as a rough guide - I made this up by the way -

Teacher rating - Student rating (maximum)

1600 - 1100

1800 - 1400

2000 - 1650

2200 - 2000

2400 - 2250

2600 - 2450

Magnus - Fabiano (joking wink.png)

michaeltakhell
FangBo wrote:

Firstly, @EOGuel I think that if you keep at it, there is no reason why you can't become a master. There is no limit to how strong a chess player you can become, unless you decide upon a limit. Why be an NM over a GM? 

What I believe is that you shouldn't fixate on a particular rating, but instead assume that you are already a grandmaster, and think like a grandmaster, and one day you will look back and say ' I remember when I was only "X" rated'.

On the topic of coaching, I think that players of our current level are definitely qualified to teach anyone rated below 1400. 

Probably as a rough guide - I made this up by the way -

Teacher rating - Student rating (maximum)

1600 - 1100

1800 - 1400

2000 - 1650

2200 - 2000

2400 - 2250

2600 - 2450

Magnus - Fabiano (joking )

Magnus - Fabiano.. ha ha 

 

SeniorPatzer

"n my opinion, I think you should be able to get students if you present/advertise yourself well and are consistent with your teaching, even if you are a strong untitled player."

 

I know of untitled players who coach scholastics.  They do very well and charge less than what a NM will charge.  

FangBo

what is scholastics?

Stephen_Stanfield

@logozar is an incredibly successful untitled coach.

EOGuel

@FangBo, I do really appreciate your encouragement as far as getting a title goes! happy.png I feel that I have a lot hindering me from getting a title, though I'm not giving up yet. I just feel that I have to recognize that I may never get one, and if I do, it will require work. 

 

I did recently ask Sam Copeland on stream if anyone could make NM. His theory was that most people can make Master if they work hard enough (unless you are a young natural talent, unlike me tongue.png), though very few people actually put in the work. It also simply gets harder to gain rating the higher rated you are... if you happen to be reading this Mr. Copeland, feel free to elaborate or correct me. happy.png 

 

And as @jjupiter mentioned, Magnus might not be the best coach anywho. wink.png

 

And a scholastic is a kid. happy.png

AlisonHart

You can always teach the next level down from where you are, and - although we tend to focus on world class chess on this website - it's healthy to remind ourselves that many schools (in the US) have a 1300 sitting on board 1. If that's the case, a 1500 should have no shame in stepping up and saying "I have a stack of puzzle books that can help." If one of your kids surpasses you, great - tell them to seek stronger instruction.

 

That will be the exception.

michaeltakhell

Having a title for yourself will of course bring you a lot more students and better fees. happy.png  But as of now, I think you should carry on with what you love  to do (=coaching students). Your strength/rating seems fine for beginners to 1300/1400. Meanwhile, keep working for yourself too and you can definitely earn a title in the near future. That will make everything super super fine. Good luck.

simaginfan

If it helps, I used to coach, despite not being titled. Points made here are perfectly sensible - the primary qualifications in my view are understanding what you are teaching, and being able to communicate that understanding. I would only recommend that you prepare each lesson properly, so that it is targeted at the student(s) concerned and you yourself understand it 100%. You will also find that it will help you, yourself, as a player . Cheers mate - have a great 2019.   

IMBacon
EOGuel wrote:

Hey guys.

 

As many of you may know, my goal is to one day get to National Master (2200 USCF), and I would love to become a professional chess coach... or at least do some coaching on the side.  

 

I feel that it would really help if I got a title, however, I'm not entirely sure if I will end up getting the master title. I'm still not giving up that dream, though it would take a lot of work to get there. My peak is 1828 USCF (Class A nationally), though it has plummeted since.

 

I currently have four regular local students. Two are 400-700, my others are 1300-1400. I'm curious if there are very many successful coaches out there who do not have a title? In my opinion, I think you should be able to get students if you present/advertise yourself well and are consistent with your teaching, even if you are a strong untitled player.

 

I could be wrong though. I know there isn't a textbook answer or formula for this, though feel free to discuss and debate. Thanks!

I'm an untitled scrub that coaches.  I have been blessed with the ability to explain things so pretty much anyone can understand it.  I know guys that are titled players, and cant coach there way out of a wet paper bag.  Like you, I am a former A player.  Absolutely you can coach, and coach well, as long as you have the ability to explain things so its easily understandable. 

I work with a couple of guys on Fridays teaching chess.  There is a kid that is roughly 1800 USCF, and he cant teach worth a lick.  One night he was going all in depth on the theory of the Sicilian dragon to someone that knew how the pieces move, and thats it.

Know your audience.

If you're working with kids, know how long they can pay attention.  If their eyes start wondering, you have either lost them, or they are bored.

Keep the explanations simple.  Trying to coach someone is the wrong time to try and sound important.

Keep the lessons at an appropriate level.  Always be willing to push them out of their comfort zone, but don't overwhelm them.

kaspariano

 

Having a chess title or any academic title/diploma doesn't automatically make you a good coach or a good teacher on the subject you have the title/diploma on.  Some people think that teaching and coaching is about showing off what they know (one of them is Kasparov) and that is exactly what makes them terrible coaches and teachers.  I had some of those kinds of teachers in college, and I had to keep dropping their courses because they were so terrible at what they were trying to do. (yes they were trying to teach, but not actually by teaching, but by showing off)  

Laskersnephew

"There is no limit to how strong a chess player you can become, unless you decide upon a limit. "

Many people say things like this, but it's completely delusional

IMBacon
Laskersnephew wrote:

"There is no limit to how strong a chess player you can become, unless you decide upon a limit. "

Many people say things like this, but it's completely delusional

lol...thats more of the "life coach" crap.

Joseph_Truelson

@EOGuel, just admit it, you’re not good enough to coach. 

But with the RAR and some donations to it, you might finally get the coveted Master title!

FangBo
Laskersnephew wrote:

"There is no limit to how strong a chess player you can become, unless you decide upon a limit. "

Many people say things like this, but it's completely delusional

My point is this: If you say " I will never be that good " you are guaranteeing the fact that you won't be good. 

People who do become good didn't get where they are today by saying "maybe" with some lukewarm approach.

Laskersnephew

"People who do become good didn't get where they are today by saying "maybe" with some lukewarm approach."

You are absolutely correct about that, but the fact is that you can be totally dedicated and become the best that you can be, and still not become a grandmaster, or Olympic gold medal winner, or Nobel Prize winner. 

[EDIT] To be fair, most people don't become "the best that they can be," so believing in yourself and keeping on trying is usually the best course

FangBo
Joseph_Truelson wrote:

@EOGuel, just admit it, you’re not good enough to coach. 

But with the RAR and some donations to it, you might finally get the coveted Master title!

I completely disagree.

Much of what a really strong player knows is not accessible to a lower rated player anyway.