chess lessons by patzers?!

That sounds truly awful. Were the wages good?

In 3 or 4 years of dedicated training (3-5hrs a week) one could start Judo as a white belt and end up with a black one. A few coaching courses later and they are ready to teach.

Now, here is my question: what is the typical rating of a complete n00b after 3-4 years of chess study?   (to use myself as an example: been playing for 9 years and float between 17-1800 blitz on chess.com {My OTB is ECF:160}.  SO 3-4 years is what? 15-1600?

and what about the guitar teacher you took lessons from as a kid? presumably, your teacher wasnt hendrix or halen, but a musician nonetheless that seemed competent enough at the time. Indeed, you learnt how to play, didnt you?

....If you think about the time required to study a disipline, it takes several times more effort to become a chess master than it takes to become a judo dan grade (I speak from personal experience)...but, and here's the kicker, the judo guy seems significantly more qualified to teach than a non-titled chess player, despite both having put the same amount of hours in. 

....thus here is my point:  dont underestimate the vast amount of chess knowledge non-titled players have. If it were any other disipline, they would be more than qualified to teach you.

The final thing i would say is that lower rated players should have a very different tone than than masters when they do decide to teach.  Masters can afford to be a little more authoritive, the rest of us cannot get away with that. Thus, we ought to teach by posing questions, rather than claiming to have the awnsers.

A high rated non titled player, true, but not a mere 1400 rated player.

I'd say it's up to the consumer to judge how strong he wants his coach to be. Obviously, the ability to convey your ideas in a clear manner, in a way weaker players can understand, is an important thing too, and it's not necessarily proportional to chess skill. I personally wouldn't recommend hiring a coach under 2200 due to the possibility of learning bad habits as some others have said, but anyone who thinks they can justify hiring one, for whatever reason, should be free to do so. I used to criticize people for "over-pricing" non-tangible chess services, but who am I to judge how much something is worth -- a given service means different things to different people.

So if you're 1400 and want to teach people for money, you can go and try -- but you probably won't find many people who want you.

like dan heisman once said if your not able to teach it simply then you havent mastered it or somethin like that.

right now, I am a 1481 player (online) and have been finally learning my game since last Spring.

I teach whoever asks me, and for free.

First off...I am more than sure that "masters" here are capable...maybe. Of course, then there are 2200 rated players who suggest to their vote chess group to vote for 3. ....h6 in a King Pawn's game.

So, it seems not everyone is as they appear.

Next, the able players here that are willing to teach others for free or money would rather NOT have to explain what it has taken me over a year to find. Simple things like the analyze button. Very useful tool when playing several paople simultaneously, to be sure.

As well, I also like to point out simple basics to players, and a fair amount of those basics are under the word "LEARN" on the green bar at top.

Far beit for me to take the money out of any "master's" pockets, but truthfully, as I learn...I share what I learn. Most times I wait until asked, but on occasion, I will butt in on things that nobody seems willing to teach.

SIMPLE things!

Like hitting "reply" when getting a message in notes. Trying to convince people in not moving the same piece twice unless they have reason. Pointing out that to prevent a threat is only good if there is going to be a threat.

So far, when I have questions, I ask, and many have been right there to point out my mistakes. THAT is worth more than any argument about rating points. Patzers teach? It will become painfully obvious early in a student's game chart if that is occurring, I think. But, if a "patzer" had stepped up and explained the analyze button... I would still thank him OR her for their help.

Ah...and I saved the best for last...

Some of the best players here are playing unrated games. Does that tell you anything? You think a master like Judit Polgar or Hikaru Nakamura have a need to gain "points" at a online chess club?

Or are they maybe just enjoying the greatest game ever?

and very possibly helping others on the way by...

It depends where you want to end up.  If you want to beat the kid down the street or that guy at work in an occasional game, then sure, hire anyone who knows more than you.  You may even learn en-passant, castling, and stalemate correctly if you're lucky.  Like with your guitar example, if you just want to be able to strum a few chords and sing along then your teacher doesn't need to be great.

If you aim a little higher then because you risk learning bad habits or technique then you'd need someone who knows a bit more.

marial arts is different from chess although they have the same "think and move" basic foundation. A judoist or any martial artist develops skills that become instinctively natural to them. They dont have to memorize moves, an attack or defense has to come natural to them the options are limitless and comes natural (bob, weave, slide,faint, parry, lock) and all are fatal depending on the amount of power they put into it.In chess there has to be lots of schemes and variations to understand and memorize aside from plain logical moves plus the basic (lucena positions, bishop endagmes etc.). In guitar you have to just know the chord patterns and you can basically play any music ex: In Chord C (C-D -G-Em- A ,although a bit lower in octave or higher than the original song you prefer) but still playable.

A common factor amongst all of these lower-rated players offering coaching etc. is that they are all in complete denial about their actual playing strength. 

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/check-out-these-chess-youtube-videos

I don't think chess is that different...

A connection to the student and, simply put, ability to teach is more important than one's rating. However, a certain level... say 300 point gap is required. Very often strong GMs are so gifted that they never need to learn many things the average player needs to learn, they just simply know it. (For example, certain tactical themes they recognize without ever being expressly being taught the concept. )

When I first trained Krav Maga, I remember being surprised at how natural many of the moves were. However, the reason you drill them over and over is to internalize them so in a life threatening encounter with multiple armed attackers the moves to instantly simultaneously disarm and decapacitate the attackers became reflex.

The last thing you want in a truly life threatening situation is to have to deliberate about what you're going to do and "lose a tempo" so to speak. 'Cause doing that in combat often means losing much more than the initiative.

You're comparing apples and oranges. Chess is a game of "perfect Knowledge" ie there is no random element, only moves you didn't anticipate.

The most relevant learned skill to compare it with is programming, then maybe written language.

Let's not forget there's an opponent on the chessboard : you're not merely solving a puzzle...

I prefer to compare chess to a spoken language (you have to answer your opponent's moves in a limited amount of time), with some features of a martial art.

Ask the mods, if they dont reply..theres a guy named NimzoRoy who could help you out here. Plus he makes great blogs.

or try this....

http://www.chess.com/sitemap

         Why would anyone take up chess ?

Ouch.  I need to engage the services of a class B player to teach me how the horsie moves.

I think this quote nails it right on the head.  Couldn't have said it better myself.  While I don't necessarily think you have to be a titled player to give lessons, 1400 is far too low to call yourself a qualified chess coach.  I'm on the brink of 1400 on live chess here and the thought of me giving lessons is completely ridiculous.

Well, I'm around 1400-1500, and most of my friends who dabble in chess are around 1000 or lower. I definitely don't have a "know-it-all" attitude -- I am very aware of how I compare to higher level players and I tell my friends that I am not a great chess player -- I'm just better than people who are not good.

What I do have is the knowledge of how to set up the board, how the pieces work, some tactical themes, mating-pattern knowledge, and a lot of good strategic concepts. With my teaching background, I take joy in consolidating and simplifying this information, with the goal to bring a player up to my level or greater. After all, if I can get a friend to consistently beat his friends who "dabble" in chess (let's say that level is 1200), well, let's be honest -- most people will be happy with that. If someone is going to pursue chess beyond a 1400 rating, at that point they will begin to seek help from books and online resources -- and possibly a "master" coach.

Remember, a 1500-level player may be completely average when it comes to competitive chess players in tournaments. But compared to the rest of the chess-playing world, 1500 is very very good.* It's all about how a 1500-player would approach the lower players if they are going to teach them.

*Except in countries where chess is very big and part of the school curriculum.

Also, see this writing on the word "patzer" by the KingPatzer himself (post #4):

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/patzer2

A patzer isn't simply a "bad" player, it means someone who is very cocky and thinks they are better than they actually are. So by that definition, taking a lesson from a patzer is bad. Some 1500s will be patzers and some won't. The biggest "patzers" I know are the ~1200-level players who think they are amazing because they can beat people who barely know how the pieces move.

(Btw, I never charge people for "chess lessons")