chess lessons by patzers?!

Get a room!

usually when someone starts bringing ratings into a argument (your ??? so shut up blah blah blah) its because they have nothing clever or factual to say but this topic sorta favors this argumental tactic

Well, you have to take into account who it is you're arguing against. When you notice it's just a troll, or a kind of failed attempt at one, it's time to stop arguing as it's really just a waste of everyone's time.

There are two views: One, you have to be a titled player to teach. And the other, you just have to be a better player than the person you're teaching. But you know, opinions are just that, and, if someone wants to take lessons from someone who's not titled, and hell, even if they want to pay them for it, I see nothing wrong with that at all. 

After all, hiring a GM to show you how to move the pieces would be a bit of an overkill, don't you think? And besides, everybody's free to do as they please.

PS: There are people who do teach for free, and generally, they are not titled. Are they any good? Well, that's not for me to give an opinion about, I'd have to know the coach. I'd suppose there are good ones and bad ones, as with everything.

I more or less agree that each individual should weigh their options and pick what's best for them. "what's best" may vary from person to person. Sometimes there are just people you work well with -- even the types of personalities you enjoy could be a factor.

i've heard people say that they have to be titled cause learning from anyone lower than that the student may develop bad habits that will show itself later on in that students development if thats the case its more a matter of goals cause if one plans to be a GM in life then even a FM coach can be harmful one also has to take into account WHO they play. If I have a GM coach yet i only enter in my own section and only play people 200 below me outside of tournaments then my growth will be ultra slow if I make any cause I wont be testing really what iv'e learned from the GM if your coaches ability steps you also have to step up your opposition as well ! 

so is a 1800 if he does the same the point I was making was its on goals and opposition plays a part in it.

I guess some people just cannot put things in perspective. So, for example, if you want to train your football skills, you would only consider Guardiola training you, or maybe Mourinho is more appealing to you? 

Of course, if you want to become a GM, you have to have a GM teach you at some point, but not from the very beginning. God I'm tired of arguing this, if people cannot see the logic, then, whatever. The argument is pretty much dead by now.

To nitpick your argument a little:

"Bad habits"  - Everyone has bad habits in chess, even titled players. If not, they'd be machines. And just because they have less "bad habits" doesn't mean that you will commit less. After all, a chess coach can only be a guide to your improvement, he cannot be the improvement itself. It's the student who has to put in the work, and erradicate those "bad habits."

And just because you get a GM coach doesn't mean you'll achieve his level of success. For example, I'm willing to bet Daniel Heisman, who is a National Master, is far better at teaching beginners all the way through expert level than most grandmasters. It's an opinion, and as I said, those are a dime a dozen.

I'm done with this.

agreed its only until I told myself in the past and still live up to it now that until I reach 1850 It doesnt matter who my coach is as long as they can help after that though i think a master coach is essential.

I think the idea about bad habits is true to an extent but at the same time I don't think it's something to be frightened about. It's hardly possible to not have bad habits -- even super GMs surely have some bad habits. Unless it is some fundamental style of winning games that is very shallow (simplest example would be people who play for traps -- works against weak players, but not at more serious levels thus dooming the player to a plateau), simply an imperfect way of thinking the stronger player has that influences you might not be so bad.

I mean, as I have gotten better and more experienced, I don't feel like I fundamentally drop certain ways of playing as much as I gently refine them, little by little. This could result in me playing in a totally different way after a few years but it's the result of tons of tiny changes adding up rather than constant paradigm shifts in search of the "true one."

In other words, if you have a decent framework of ability, it's not necessarily inflexible to little changes/adjustments here and there.

For example maybe a certain 2000 player is fairly aggressive, and he teaches you about the initiative. You eventually go on to move past him, maybe to 2200, and you have slowly weeded out any part of you that was too aggressive.

But I would argue you just cherry-picked the lessons from the 2000 that taught you the importance of the initiative, making small refinements along the way. It may have been through him that you were able to grab the initiative when you had the chance, even if you now do it in a more controlled manner than he does. You didn't necessarily have to redefine the framework entirely.

Sorry if that doesn't make sense . I just think some bad habits are inevitable and aren't normally so inelastic.

People play chess for different reasons.

I think a 1400 could possibly be more efective at teaching people how to have fun playing chess than a titled player.

Hell, I'd like to be a stronger player, but if it interferes with my enjoyment of the game, I'd rather wallow in my mediocrity. For me, games at my current level, are fun.

a 1400 rated player could also pass on his bad habits to the student...

I'm a 1400. Any young women out there looking for a father figure, I'll coach for free.

Succinctly put ; if you're Electra, I'm a lecturer.

Good tongue twister, ne c'est-pas?

does that include bad breath?

http://www.chess.com/groups/view/lionels-chess-coaching - Patzer teaching chess. (1127 online chess, 1071 standard, 1015 blitz, 1307 bullet, 1068 tactics)

Maybe, but looking at the subjects he's teaching, maybe the subjects are within his capabilities.

He's not talking about taking advantage of the dark squares in the Reti French, but a number of simple concepts.

Although I do agree in general that you should be a certain standard to coach, depending on what you are coaching. I definitely don't think he should do game analysis, but mating with K&Q, why not?

So do I, I'm perfectly capable of teaching a lot of endgames, tactics etc.

Those statistics don't quite tell the whole story. Did you notice that his USCF is 12000? He could teach God to play chess!

His marketing blurb seems consistent with his high rating:

"When i touch the board, i bring it. I am unstoppable, i am confident, i am THEBEST1992!"

Powerful words! where do I sign up?

I heard there is a rating deflation in USCF, I didn't know it went this far. :) 

I used to teach others.... I got tired one person didn't like to castle because it put his king into the corner and he wanted to centralise it... I decided to teach myself to get better...