Saying "I think the position you're taking is utter nonsense" and calling somebody names ARE two different things. However, throwing somebody out for one callous comment would be pretty draconian. Everybody would be walking on eggshells, and afraid to post anything because somebody might consider it callous. Continued harassment, and name calling should be dealt with however.
Diamond Membership a Waste of Money and other things
Sort:
Utter nonsense?
Yes, it is a cool diagram, but that doesn't make me any cooler. If I post a nonsensical diagram (i.e. eight bishops) it does not make me any more nonsensical. Or does it? I wouldn't be offended if someone said the position is nonsensical. But I would be if the creator of the position is said to be a dolt.
OK you weren't talking about chess positions... sorrz
tonydal wrote:
Musikamole wrote:This site, sadly, is degenerating into something other than a place for good discussions about chess. I'm all for humor, and I have nothing against people wanting to post silly stuff, but please create forum headers like "Spam" and "More Spam" for these discussions. I'm NOT kidding and it can be fun for everyone. I belonged to another gaming forum where those topic headers were in place (Spam - More Spam) so people could feel free to ramble on about absolute utter nonsense. Even I participated when the mood struck. With topic headers like Spam and More Spam in place, the heart and soul of this chess site can be protected for on-topic, serious discussions about chess.
Also, having been a member of this site for one year, I am truly surprised by the rude talk on a chess site forum, of all things. I belonged to a site about five years ago where personal attacks (flaming) were NEVER tolerated. The moderators were all in their 20's and had zero patience for it and kicked people off the forum. Members did not even need to lodge a complaint. I've been the subject of personal attacks twice, and I do need to give credit for chess.com for removing those rude comments about me, but the members still kept their memberships. What does that teach all of us here at this place we call community? It teaches all of us that we can get away with attacking someone personally and get away with it. Personal attacks are not cool. Period.
Hm, I'm definitely detecting a mixed message in that first paragraph..."degenerating," "spam," "absolute utter nonsense"...are you sure you have nothing against people posting silly stuff?
As for the second, it never ceases to amaze me that people seem ceaselessly amazed at rude behavior in chess. Have you never been to a tournament or chess club? And this whole business about "personal attacks" is I have found in practice very equivocal (and hypocritical)...one cannot say "I think you're a doofus," yet one can say "I think the position you're taking is utter nonsense," and somehow the one is ad hominem but the other is a legitimate debate-club remark (it doesn't seem to me to require digging too deep to perceive that the latter is also a personal attack in some sense).
So if you're going to argue, don't be so sensitive. How's that for a solution? And regarding this "What does that teach all of us here at this place we call community" business...what does it teach everyone if you can be thrown out due to one callous remark? Is that your version of tolerance and better living? (it's the attitude that unfortunately does seem to rule the roost nowadays). Personal attacks may not be cool...but slamming the door on all those evildoers and thereby creating a chilling (in the old sense) atmosphere seems to me far less cool (despite the pun).
Oh yeah, and while I was looking up "equivocal" in the dictionary just now (to make sure that I knew what the heck it meant), I discovered that "farkleberry" is actually a word. How's that for silly?
I want to add at this coment that life, like chess, is a fight and finding rude people in a fight is "normal". Complaining about is not a solution but trying to deal with it is. If we would complain about all the shitz that happen to us all day we would not have time to play chess on this site.
heinzie wrote:
Utter nonsense?
Why would it be?
Sep 5, 2010
0
#28
I think Musikamole makes a good point about chess.com videos not catering to the real beginner's audience. The fact is : it's very difficult for master players to teach real beginners, because the master has forgotten how it was when he learnt chess, and he probably was talented above the average player most of the times, so didn't need a lot of help to understand what he saw...
In my club, players teaching real beginners are very seldom over expert level, and they still need specialized skills, the ability to break down and repeat examples as much as needed and a lot of patience 
I dont work with " real beginners" because I think they should get past that level on their own.... through studying books and playing, learning as they go, from their mistakes. If they are not capable and/or willing to do this then I think its a waste of time to work with such players as they show a lack of dedication/seriousness to the game. In general I wont try to help players under a certain age and/or rating ....
What age/rating is that?
I think that Chess.com should simply make it a matter of policy of deliberately making and crafting instructional chess videos for all levels of chess, say 1200 and below, 1200 to 1400, 1400 to 1600, 1600 to 1800, and 1800 to 2000 (or some such a spectrum) in all main areas of chess, and list the videos by level and content. Also, other elements of teaching should reflect the levels: lecturing and teaching pace, use of teaching aids and manner of teaching. All that would be a phenomenal task, but Chess.com, being the best site available could accomplish that task and make the site even better: more helpful to all players and more attractive to them.
Sep 5, 2010
0
#32
maybe, to the OP, could go the ChessKid.com instead ?
just my 2cents thought.
btw good points Reb I kind of agreed on that.
Chessy4000 wrote:
What age/rating is that?
Let me clarify some things first . I no longer give lessons but used to and will probably start back when I move back to the US this year.
I have found working with pre-teen kids very frustrating due to their lack of seriousness and/or attention spans , I simply cannot work with very young kids because of this and yes , I know there are a few exceptions out there. So, I won't work with pre-teen kids and prefer working with young adults or kids in their late teens. As for rating I prefer working with those that have otb ratings ( online ratings I have found unreliable to the extreme ) between 1400- 2000.
Sep 5, 2010
0
#34
I found all the discussion on this post very informative.
Only question I have is
What is the rating for a A, B, & C players?
Is there a place to see it?
Thanks
VLMJ wrote:
I think that Chess.com should simply make it a matter of policy of deliberately making and crafting instructional chess videos for all levels of chess, say 1200 and below, 1200 to 1400, 1400 to 1600, 1600 to 1800, and 1800 to 2000 (or some such a spectrum) in all main areas of chess, and list the videos by level and content. Also, other elements of teaching should reflect the levels: lecturing and teaching pace, use of teaching aids and manner of teaching. All that would be a phenomenal task, but Chess.com, being the best site available could accomplish that task and make the site even better: more helpful to all players and more attractive to them.
I agree, since we DO pay the same price as the higher rated players, it's unfair to favor them. I also agree with Reb that absolute beginners can learn a lot on their own before messing with a chess coach.
DENVERHIGH wrote: What is the rating for a A, B, & C players?
Is there a place to see it?
Is there a place to see it?
Thanks
USCF states it like this ...
Senior Master - 2400 & up
Master - 2200-2399
Expert - 2000-2199
Class A-1800-1999
Class B-1600-1799
Class C-1400-1599
Class D-1200-1399
Class E-1000-1199
Class F- 800-999
Class G-600-799
Class H-400-599
Class I -200-399
Class J -199/below
Sorry bout first post...it didn't paste right. Also went ahead and added the entire spectrum. Mom, I got a D in OTB chess..lol
Sep 5, 2010
0
#38
DENVERHIGH wrote: ...
What is the rating for a A, B, & C players? Is there a place to see it?
You may find this discussion about characterizing-rating-levels illuminating.
hicetnunc wrote:
I think Musikamole makes a good point about chess.com videos not catering to the real beginner's audience. The fact is : it's very difficult for master players to teach real beginners, because the master has forgotten how it was when he learnt chess, and he probably was talented above the average player most of the times, so didn't need a lot of help to understand what he saw...
In my club, players teaching real beginners are very seldom over expert level, and they still need specialized skills, the ability to break down and repeat examples as much as needed and a lot of patience
It looks like some here enjoyed all of my colorful words. 
First, thank you all, for the replies to my post.
Second, rude behavior on this site should never be tolerated, but that is my small complaint, not my major complaint.
My major complaint is spending my money, expecting to get something in return, and not getting it (video lessons for the beginner), so I will spend my money over at ICC where the beginner is taught how to play the game of chess.
I agree. It is difficult for a master to teach a beginner. However, with practice, it can be done. As an analogy, I'm a master musician, and at first I had a difficult time teaching children ages 8 through 12 how to play a musical instrument, something I am still doing and have been doing since 1989.
1. With practice, I did get better at teaching the absolute beginner. I'm starting absolute beginners right now, as the school year has just begun.
2. Having a master musician teach an absolute beginner is better than having a high school band student teaching the beginner. The high school band student (Class C chess player) still has some bad playing habits and gaps in knowledge.
I do believe that the F.M - G.M. video teachers at chess.com are capable of teaching an absolute beginning chess player. I did understand some of what they had to teach, even though it was targeted for the intermediate to advanced chess player. They are excellent teachers and I am confident that any one of them could sit down with a 5 year old and teach that child the game of chess, from square one.
Again, please look at the bell curve on the stats page and explain to me why the chess.com teachers are not teaching the under 1200 player, which is the vast majority of the playing membership?
I visited ICC late last night and listened to a few free pre-views of Dan Heisman's video lessons for the beginning chess player (Improve Your Chess series). He has a large library of videos targeted for the beginner, so I will drop my diamond membership here and pay for a membership at ICC.
Is there a staff member/titled player here at chess.com that could offer a beginning chess player/diamond member video chess lessons? Absolutely. Why they choose not to is something I don't understand when looking at the stats page.
Well done Musikamole. I think you 've made some excellent comments about chess.com and other chess players that can also be found amongst the chess playing fraternity in OTB clubs. I'm 50-50 about my enjoyment of chess.com and like you I will consider very carefully my continued membership level.
Generally I think that most chess players aren't willing to help those beneath them improve. I don't wish to insult the very few who give of their time freely without any financial reward whatsoever but, there are so few people like this. My wish is that one day I will find someone like this and that in return I can offer the skills that I have.
Good luck in your play Musikamole.