chess lessons by patzers?!

Only "some"? lol  You're lucky. 

Sounds like the backyard prof. to me...eh?

I would take lessons from anybody higher rated than me.. When I was below 1000 rated a 1400 helped me get to 1300, then I took free lessons from a 1650 and he has now just helped me get past 1600... Show a bit of humility and accept the fact that people who teach other people lower rated than them are probably better than you... Bursnly u r 1450 and hate I know it alls.... Dude would u accept lessons from a 1550? I would take lessons from a 1700 why? He might still be a patzer but he is still better than me and can give me tips to reach his level... It's all about recognising that u aren't the best and could accept lessons from not a mighty one but se body better than you...

I agree with the humility part.  People need to understand that they are rated what they are mostly because they play like a player of that particular rating.  It may be different when someone was 1000, reads appropriate chess books, gets coaching, then steps out of retirement, but then since he no longer plays like a 1000 rated player he'd quickly skyrocket in rating.

  But on the average what I say still stands: a consistent beginner rating reflects that one has beginner skills, so someone who wants to improve should ask themselves what to do about it, and this usually entails basic endgames (simple rook endings, king vs. pawn, passed pawn breakthroughs, and mates such as B+B vs.K, QvK, B+NvK, etc.) plus tactics, usually one move forks and pins that easily win material and obviously mate and work their way up from there. 

A 1700 may be better than a 1500 because they can calculate a little more cleanly or know tactics a bit better.  The problem with a coaching relationship between non-maters is if the higher rated player starts telling the lower rated player their evaluations.  A non-master will have many holes in their understanding and inevitably give bad advice.

If they stick to the basics then that's fine.  A 1400 could coach an 800 about not making 8 pawn moves in the opening or about forgetting to castle.  But once they move beyond the basics you run the risk of learning their bad habbits and misunderstandings.

ScorpionPackAttack wrote:

skinnypurpleducks wrote:

I would take lessons from anybody higher rated than me.. When I was below 1000 rated a 1400 helped me get to 1300, then I took free lessons from a 1650 and he has now just helped me get past 1600... Show a bit of humility and accept the fact that people who teach other people lower rated than them are probably better than you... Bursnly u r 1450 and hate I know it alls.... Dude would u accept lessons from a 1550? I would take lessons from a 1700 why? He might still be a patzer but he is still better than me and can give me tips to reach his level... It's all about recognising that u aren't the best and could accept lessons from not a mighty one but se body better than you...

I agree with the humility part.  People need to understand that they are rated what they are mostly because they play like a player of that particular rating.  It may be different when someone was 1000, reads appropriate chess books, gets coaching, then steps out of retirement, but then since he no longer plays like a 1000 rated player he'd quickly skyrocket in rating.

  But on the average what I say still stands: a consistent beginner rating reflects that one has beginner skills, so someone who wants to improve should ask themselves what to do about it, and this usually entails basic endgames (simple rook endings, king vs. pawn, passed pawn breakthroughs, and mates such as B+B vs.K, QvK, B+NvK, etc.) plus tactics, usually one move forks and pins that easily win material and obviously mate and work their way up from there. 

Whenever I see a person in main hall live chess asking for help I offer them a game.. If they accept I will just give them tips...many 1000s don't know to how to mate with K and R I mean if we all get better we will play higher rated chess.. We want to improve right? So we play higher rated people in order to learn tiny or maybe huge mistakes in our game...

1400 coach > psychological help? 

Your chess tips are good estragon, but not so much your psychology tips  : /

Estragon wrote:

People pay psychologists hefty fees every day, and there is no real quantifiable science behind what they do (easy on the torrid responses, folks, there is "scientific research" on any number of areas, just no direct way to apply it therapeutically).

It's no worse than going to a witch doctor or root doctor, just less likely to be successful.

So if people pay psychologists and fake psychics/mediums like John Edward, and lose all their money, what is wrong with hiring a 1400-rated chess coach when they might even gain something from it?

Absolutely right +10000

Automatic quotes make it easier to read:

One account each!

I am on iPhone pretty hard to do that... :)

Oh, ok sorry ;)

Doggy_Style wrote:

skinnypurpleducks wrote:

+10000

One account each!

The reply was so good I voted for 999 random users... ;)

I haven't been able to get the quote function to work properly when posting from my iPad.

If I was going to spend money on a chess coach, it would be somebody far higher rated than that. Paying a 1400 rated coach would be ridiculous.

easy if I was 1000 getting coached by a 1400 id think thats awesome once i reach like 1300 and then start getting coached from someone 1600 id still think its awesome and once i reach 1500 do the whole  thing over with someone stronger thats how my brother did it and im slowly starting to do the same. (my brothers in the 2000s so I usually try to get his help whenever).

If the person knows what they are buying, what's the problem?

Only problem I can see is if someone is misled about the rating of the person offering coaching services.

True. If somebody is honest about their rating when they advertise their coaching services, it's not chess.com's fault if somebody is dumb enough to buy.

Were I to have the ability to communicate what I see in a game, I might offer to instruct novice or beginner plaers in as much as I were able to but unless I had some credentials to vouch for my veracity, I would not offer my services for sale. That would almost be like people taking advice from a mechanic on how to sustain a marriage. It just would not make sense.

I agree. There's no way I would pretend to coach someone either. I have given advice to some people who were truly beginners along the line of "Use Opening Explorer, " or "Take Control of the Center" but there is no way I would consider myself to be advanced enough to be paid for coaching services.