Coach-Student difference in rating

That's a question that's best answered by USCF 2000 or better players.  I am 2116 USCF, but that's my correspondence rating for the pre-home-computer 1970's - I'm much worse OTB.  I would not think I'm particularly qualified to be a paid chess coach.

But I clearly know a lot about chess. I coached a high school chess team in a competitive county (usually 3-4 of the top 10 teams in the state scholastic tournament) and we were usually county champions and in 3 consecutive years finished 3-4-5 in the state.  I brought several players who were not chess fanatics into the 1400-1500 range.  One applied to college at Princeton Univ. and, when he schedule a visit to the campus he was welcomed by the chess team and played a couple quick games and they pronounced him "promising."

That depends. You can always learn something from stronger players, but the ability to teach comfortably goes down if you start to close the 300 rating point gap. A 600 point rating gap is very comfortable. I have personally never had that, unless you count when I was very little (being taught) or when kids I was helping were very little. There's also the issue: You don't know how strong people get even if you give them the same material. Some children surpass their coaches even though they got the same lessons as other kids and the coach. So, the coach still has to teach the kid, even though the kid is technically stronger. Imagine that. So, you are lucky to have a rating gap like that. I've had to stretch more than that simply because there weren't any stronger coaches. If the rating gap IS big, you can teach but you need to be careful. Training matches against pupils are not that great, but prepared material is OK as long as you stay in touch with what pupils know at that time. That means you need to set back the clock and ask yourself: What would I have asked when I was younger? If you have trouble with that you will talk over their heads. 

Normally a coach/partner a class level above is sufficient. If you're nearing 2000, you'd be fine working with players up to 1700-1800. You may not be the person that could maximize training for an 1800 player, but you could probably spot weaknesses that they can't or holes in their thought process. As far as being comfortable and practical, probably up to around 1600 would be your target players.

 Difficult question to answer because as rating increases, the subsequent improvement needed to further increase that rating becomes higher. ex/ the difference between a 2200 and a 2500 is much greater than between a 1500 and 1800 player.

That said, I think 300 points would be enough that the coach would be able to teach the other person something in a lecture form (as opposed to just doing analysis). 

The rating diffeence isnt as important, as the ability to explain things well.  

A teacher, as opposed to an analyst, needs to look at a game of a pupil, preferably several games, and see what that player does well and what that player needs to improve on.  That’s not an easy thing to do, especially if you are not a universal player.  For instance, I am rated over 2000 online, but that doesn’t mean I’m 2000 level at every element.  My tactics are decent, I’m good at simple positions, but my endgames are weaker and I’m pretty poor at defending.  If I were to coach a student who needed lots of work on simple positional chess, I could be a great teacher; if a student needed help with endgames, I’d be a waste of money.

Beyond the challenge noted above, a teacher then needs to communicate the needed information in a way the student can absorb.  That’s not easy, especially if you have no experience in teaching.  Without proper communication, a teacher is essentially worthless.  This is why you can find hundreds of tutorials online from titled players, and yet few give you any real improvement.  Being a master at chess doesn’t automatically make you a master at teaching, just as being a master at a sport doesn’t automatically make you a top-tier coach.  Indeed, it’s rare for a world-class athlete to become a world-class coach, precisely because they were trained to be athletes not coaches.

So, long story short, rating isn’t necessarily a good indication if someone can be a good coach.  A serious student should likely seek out a master, just to ensure the coach is proficient in every stage of the game, but a well-spoken amateur may provide more benefit.  And if you ever happen to find a titled player that can communicate clearly and make a real difference in your game, hold onto him or her and never let go.

I've had 2 coaches almost the same rating as you. I found their insights very useful, even at 1600, 1700.

Precisely! Entirely different skill set involved.

Look at the history of coaches & trainers for elite GMs: they're never as strong as the player they work for, yet they must be a big help to earn a salary for it.

Dvoretsky was one of the most successful and sought-after trainers of grandmasters, yet he was only an IM (very strong one, but not as strong as students like Kasparov, Anand, or Topalov).

The rating should definitely be about 200-300 points higher for the coach, but that doesn't tell the whole story because some people were born to teach and others are just not very good at it.....it takes patience and empathy to be a good teacher.

How about simply hiring a coach who's at the rating level that you aspire to?  

Dvoretsky was supposed to be one of the great chess teachers and he created material useful for many grandmasters but was only an IM himself.

Not that my "2 Pawns may make cents" I'm wondering if the rating is even a contributing factor if you are a Master Coach with the abilities and certain teaching tools to arm these young students to greatness. Let's face it Chess is hard to teach to some young Jedi lol. No disrespect Micheal Jordan was a Legend on the court however not at all even a "Good Coach." Either way,  with all due respect to all Coaches here at the end of the day; if we can make Chess relatable with patience and plant the concepts if they stray away they'll always have you and Chess in the back of their mind.

Well said Elite7. So many people have rating blinkers on and think the only requirement to coach is a high rating.

Absolutely, coaching and teaching are more about your ability to break concepts down, explain ideas and identify or point out areas for improvement. Of course, in many scenarios, a higher-rated player may be more suitable, but not all everyone has the patience and explanatory skills to become a teacher.

When I first started down the road of coaching, I really thought it would be best to have students at least 400 points below my rating level because that's where I thought I could help the most.

However, strangely enough, most of my students are above my level significantly. One of my students is a 2400 on chess.com and makes sure to post great reviews (without me even asking)

He's actually been a coach with a successful business in India for the past 7+ years.

So what I've learned is that (as we all know) chess is way more complicated than most people give it credit for. There are many intricacies to the game and most of us don't know our own blind-spots.

Having just an extra set of eyes with a unique perspective that can communicate the concepts clearly enough that someone can put them into action is really all it takes.

The 2400+ rated player I was coaching simply wanted help with a bullet opening that could combat the Catalan without having to memorize tons and tons of theory to keep up.

I had never studied the Catalan, but I learned a lot about it (I mean a lot, the Catalan is insanely sharp opening) within a very short period of time and created an opening system that he could use against many variations of the Catalan and other d5 openings with a high success rate.

To test it, he created a new account so he could play it against different levels of players, see how they reacted, and try to find some common themes he could use against higher level players.

After 20 games, he was already around 2400 using this opening system on the new account.

All this to say, try to find a coach who is dedicated to your success as their top priority.

Avoid coaches who try to offer one size fits all solutions.

And anyone who says that you have to have a coach that is higher rated than you means well, but they may not fully understand the purpose of hiring a coach.

P.S. I give free consultations for anyone who is interested (and dedicated) to improving their game. Shoot me a message and we can see about getting you on the schedule.