chess coach considerations

I would have thought that opening choices were not the most important thing if you are selecting a coach for the long term.

My reasoning is that you can prepare with a database and computer program.  It is other parts of the game you need the coach for.  I would think you would look for someone with the knowledge and ability to impart it and a good plan for improving your game.

Also, I checked opening explorer, and 5. e3 is basically the only move. So I learned something as the result of this discussion. Normally when I get my ass handed to me in the opening I look up the line in the database right after the game to see what's normal. I didn't in this case for whatever reason.

Anyway, it also points out a problem I have in my thinking, especially in blitz games. I get caught in an opening variation that I'm not familiar with, and I have this bad habit of still trying to apply "normal" moves from a similar variation. This is a great example of that happening I think.

What are you saying? Was FiveofSwords wrong after all? 

Just be clear. I find it hard to even read what you're saying. 

yeah, but I try to be aware of when I exit my book/preparation, and then just forget book and play moves. Doesn't always happen though. Blitz is good for repetition on opening lines and finding gaps in opening prep.

Listen to what pfren is saying!

Speaking as a 2168 player (Over the Board), I can tell you, through having played many NMs, FMs, IMs, and GMs that there are MAJOR differences between them.

The difference between an NM and me is nominal.  An NM coaching you would be like me coaching you.  Most of them can give you a basic overlay of any opening (I myself know the general concepts of the Nimzo-Indian, Sicilian Dragon, and Leningrad Dutch, despite the fact that I don't play any of those openings).  So if you are a 1000 player, an Expert or an NM is fine because all you need is a high level overview of whatever opening you are looking to learn.

However, when you are higher, like 2000, unless you literally play what I play, my coaching you in openings wouldn't be a good idea.

However, if you take an IM or a GM, so we are talking more like 2500, while 2500 and 2168 is only a 332 difference, at that level, 332 points is lightyears of a difference.  There is a larger gap in skill between a 2500 and 2168 than there is between 1500 and 1168.

These IMs and GMs ARE going to know theory very deeply, even the lines they don't play.

So if you took a Replica of me who is 2500 (i.e. 2500 player that plays the Taimanov, Old Indian, and 1.e4 as White), HE WILL know the Nimzo-Indian as well like the back of his hand, and you can trust him to teach you the Nimzo-Indian.

^ Exactly, he could have listened to me as well. 

GM's know a lot about every opening and could give you a good repertoire whatever you play. For instance, pfren could tell you a lot about either the Benoni or the English, which are both quite different.

Yes, he'll know the Nimzo-Indian like the back of his hand....while I've never looked at the back of my hand twice.

Exactly.

The only thing I can think of (as an argument against) is that paying $80 an hour to have someone explain openings is a waste of money. There are way better things they can be showing you. I can buy into that line of thinking.

You realize the difference between your average master and IM pfren is like the difference between IM pfren and Magnus Carlsen right?

That is really sectionable stuff right there. 

You are 100% right.  Well, for people without tons of money.

But Fiveofswords argument is also that if a coach has a similar opening reportior they will know the kinds of positions that arise, and in that I am sure he has a point.

Karpov as a teenager was impeded by knowing less about the openings than many young players.  But he exceeded the strength of all of them once he learned.

I think that the defect in play that is easiest to fix, and easiest to fix without a coach, is a lack of opening theory.

What do you think of this set up against the Benko?

Not sure if I remember it well though.

What you say makes perfect sense.

But... there is another side of things.

2 of the very best players were Kasparov and Alekhine.  Both were natural tacticians and attacking players.  Both had to defeat the previous world champion to achieve the titale themselves, and both had to master simpler types of positions to do so.  This has a lot to do with why they became so strong.

This isn't just my opinion, why listen to a much lower rated player, but Kasparov says [well implies] this about himself in his books on the rivalry with Kasparov, and quotes Karpov's statements saying something similar.

To talk about me for a bit, when I was much younger and trying to improve, one of the best things I did was I decided I had trouble evaluating positions with material imbalance.  As a remedy I decided to play gambits in lots of casual games.  My one time weakness is gone and I may be better at that than most players my strength.

Coming to your comments, if my reasoning is sound, you should consider playing wild and blocked positions, casually not in important games at first, and studying that kind of position.  Navigating a complete mess is not something mystical, it can be improved by practice and study.  Ditto blocked positions.

It is at least something to consider.

@pfren: thank you very much!

Few can play like Alekhine.

But I think if you seriously want to improve, and are prepared to invest a lot of time to do so, that is the way forward.

I am at your services. Very reasonable price. Feel free to contact me.