$10 an hour is wayyyyy to low.....me, as a parent, would have second thoughts to pay you that little thinking maybe you are not that good of a chess teacher? although you said is your first time teaching chess.....did u tell them? (they dont need to know!).........$20/hr per kid as a group....if any kids wants private classes make it $30/hr
I agree - this isn't daycare, this is a valuable service being provided to the kids - right?
Indeed Timothy.....I pay $25/hr for my son's lessons and is a group of 6.....if I want private lessons is double....Chess is defenetly a valuable service that will help my child in many ways
Many of the best chess coaches of all time never earned a GM title. Many of the best chess coaches at the national level in the US never broke master.
USCF believes that the minimum level for a national level coach is around 2000 strength, not master strength.
Don't confuse playing strength with knowledge. The difference in playing level between 2100 and 2500 is so small that few people could tell the difference without an engine running. I've told the story before. A +2500 player gave a simul and afterwards said that only three players in the tournament hall could have been able to tell any difference at all in playing strength between myself (~2100 at the time) and his play. And that included both of us.
smyslov that says more about how weak i am then the real difference in what they know.
Many of the best chess coaches of all time never earned a GM title. Many of the best chess coaches at the national level in the US never broke master.
USCF believes that the minimum level for a national level coach is around 2000 strength, not master strength.
Don't confuse playing strength with knowledge. The difference in playing level between 2100 and 2500 is so small that few people could tell the difference without an engine running. I've told the story before. A +2500 player gave a simul and afterwards said that only three players in the tournament hall could have been able to tell any difference at all in playing strength between myself (~2100 at the time) and his play. And that included both of us.
what was the measure that made them best chess coaches??
because as far as i know many top player had master level coaches from the very beginning. or very close to at least
what was the measure that made them best chess coaches??
That's an excellent question.
For me, there are three general criteria to find out whether a coach is good:
One of the very best chess coaches I ever saw was rated about 1400 USCF. But he managed to create a powerhouse chess team with over 100 every year. Many of those kids continue to play even as adults. What he gave those kids was passion for the game. He brought in local experts to help his best students and his students won national trophies.
what was the measure that made them best chess coaches??
That's an excellent question.
For me, there are three general criteria to find out whether a coach is good:
Do his students succeed in setting realistic goals and then reaching them? Do his students continue to play chess after they have finished with their coach? The last is the least important, but perhaps easiest to measure: How many state/national/titles (including master's titles) have his students won?One of the very best chess coaches I ever saw was rated about 1400 USCF. But he managed to create a powerhouse chess team with over 100 every year. Many of those kids continue to play even as adults. What he gave those kids was passion for the game. He brought in local experts to help his best students and his students won national trophies.
Now you convinced, never take a master level coach, now i will look for a 1400 rated player.
Just as long as I also convinced you not to go into coaching unless you have a passion for the students' learning. It's not enough to be passionate about chess, you must care for the students first.
Shouldn't be more than 20$ per hour which is usually what I charge.
Just as long as I also convinced you not to go into coaching unless you have a passion for the students' learning. It's not enough to be passionate about chess, you must care for the students first.
ofc i care for the students you really think i can become a coach??
If you gained enough chess knowledge, earned a teaching certificate and worked hard to improve your students, yes. But those are three difficult criteria. The prime ingredient is passion for the students' learning.
The ~1400 level player that I spoke of was a licensed teacher who taught chess in the schools to underprivileged kids for about 40 years. Most of his students literally didn't know the rules of the game when they started with him.
He gave the students the resources to succeed. When he didn't know enough to help the student, he did know who to contact.
Sure, if you don't want to be an overnight millionaire take Randomemory's advice. I've helped hundreds of coaches make millions... some of them at half your rating! Just take a look at these e-mails I get...
"Waffllemaster is the greatest. I was giving lessons at $10 an hour because some guy said it was a good start for both sides... I couldn't even afford toilet paper, but look at me now, I own 3 vacation homes and a private jet. Thanks again waffllemaster!"
Anyway, I left out the most important part of the secrets to millions... send a money order for $10 and I'll mail you a DVD with all the info. Money back guarantee* if you're not a millionaire in 3 months.
$70.00 postage due upon delivery. E-mail was fiction. *Money back garuntee does not guarantee money back.
My chess school charged me $53 for 3 lessons (per month), and a rated game(costs money to play a rated OTB game in my country) against other students.
Don't confuse playing strength with knowledge. The difference in playing level between 2100 and 2500 is so small that few people could tell the difference without an engine running. I've told the story before. A +2500 player gave a simul and afterwards said that only three players in the tournament hall could have been able to tell any difference at all in playing strength between myself (~2100 at the time) and his play. And that included both of us.
I think it is really a matter of perspective. It's funny because the difference is actually quite large in terms of time spent playing/studying chess; you can go from a complete beginner to 2100 quicker than you can go from 2100 to 2500! From the POV of a low rated player you are comletely correct though; my guestimate (with no scientific methodology) is that you have to be no more than 400-600 points lower than a rating to somewhat accurately judge it (and it might even be less than that).
If the player is brand new then I would take a great teacher rated 1200 rather than a GM with no teaching experience. The problem lies in when the student is too strong for the player, like 1600 in the previous example. The 1200 teacher simply cannot help the 1600 player while even a bad GM (bad at teaching, not chess!) can help in some way. I think this is fundamentally the reason why titled players can charge more because as the student gets higher rated then there are fewer potential teachers (i.e. higher rated players, usually) to learn from.
The real point is that anyone with a passion for the game and some functional knowledge has 2 of the 3 components for being a good coach/teacher for someone. At some point rating starts to matter, but that depends on the level we're talking about. For the average scholastic player a 1900 is more than strong enough as a player to be a very good coach.
But the third leg of that stool is teaching knowledge/ability.
It is fairly easy to learn how to teach. Go take courses, teach classes, and constantly critique your perofrmance as a teacher. Keep copious detailed notes about your methods and what works/doesn't. Track results in your students and keep making changes in yourself based on those results.
That's all pretty easy stuff. But it takes commitment, dedication and a real investment of your own time and money.
There are a few people out there who are natural born teachers, but they are a lot fewer and far in between than the people who assume that teaching is just showing up and spewing forth their knowledge.
Good teachers became good teachers with experience and hard work. Great teachers are good teachers with obvious passion for the material and a true love for their students.
Take the time to work on being a better coach/teacher, and you'll see the dividends pay off for your students.
Don't confuse playing strength with knowledge. The difference in playing level between 2100 and 2500 is so small that few people could tell the difference without an engine running. I've told the story before. A +2500 player gave a simul and afterwards said that only three players in the tournament hall could have been able to tell any difference at all in playing strength between myself (~2100 at the time) and his play. And that included both of us.
I think it is really a matter of perspective. It's funny because the difference is actually quite large in terms of time spent playing/studying chess; you can go from a complete beginner to 2100 quicker than you can go from 2100 to 2500! From the POV of a low rated player you are comletely correct though; my guestimate (with no scientific methodology) is that you have to be no more than 400-600 points lower than a rating to somewhat accurately judge it (and it might even be less than that).
If the player is brand new then I would take a great teacher rated 1200 rather than a GM with no teaching experience. The problem lies in when the student is too strong for the player, like 1600 in the previous example. The 1200 teacher simply cannot help the 1600 player while even a bad GM (bad at teaching, not chess!) can help in some way. I think this is fundamentally the reason why titled players can charge more because as the student gets higher rated then there are fewer potential teachers (i.e. higher rated players, usually) to learn from.
How much of a knowledge difference is there between 2200 and 2600? (Not talking about opening prep/research).
It's interesting to hear you two say this because I've suspected that after around master level it's not about knowledge but only performance... how well you can spot tactics, how well you can calculate, how well you've researched your openings, etc. I may be very wrong though (which is why I'm asking ;)
How much of a knowledge difference is there between 2200 and 2600? (Not talking about opening prep/research).
It's interesting to hear you two say this because I've suspected that after around master level it's not about knowledge but only performance... how well you can spot tactics, how well you can calculate, how well you've researched your openings, etc. I may be very wrong though (which is why I'm asking ;)
If we are talking in FIDE ratings, that is going from making CM (~20k players at this level or stronger) to being in the top 250 worldwide; that difference is astronomic and, for example, even took Carlsen 4 years of complete devotion to make that jump.
You are right about a large difference being calulation and research (openings), but there is also a large difference in knowledge. This ranges from pawn structure to how to win a KQ vs. KR endgame (it's super hard btw; I failed to do so OTB once with a few minutes on my clock). Endgames might be the biggest difference (in terms of playing knowledge) here as you would be surprised how bad, relatively speaking, most players are at trying to convert their advantage to a win.
Heh, I forgot when typing that that endgames all by themselves can provide a lifetime of study and learning.
I suppose there are always more positions to dig into. Also I wouldn't expect a master to know many games... some games yes, but a 2600+ player I'd expect to know many historical games and important positions of course many modern games as well.
How much of a knowledge difference is there between 2200 and 2600? (Not talking about opening prep/research).
It's interesting to hear you two say this because I've suspected that after around master level it's not about knowledge but only performance... how well you can spot tactics, how well you can calculate, how well you've researched your openings, etc. I may be very wrong though (which is why I'm asking ;)
If we are talking in FIDE ratings, that is going from making CM (~20k players at this level or stronger) to being in the top 250 worldwide; that difference is astronomic and, for example, even took Carlsen 4 years of complete devotion to make that jump.
You are right about a large difference being calulation and research (openings), but there is also a large difference in knowledge. This ranges from pawn structure to how to win a KQ vs. KR endgame (it's super hard btw; I failed to do so OTB once with a few minutes on my clock). Endgames might be the biggest difference (in terms of playing knowledge) here as you would be surprised how bad, relatively speaking, most players are at trying to convert their advantage to a win.
I was really wondering what the actual difference on the chessboard is. That is, how many moves of a 2000 would a GM improve on / find problems with?
Could it be that the difference betwen an expert and a GM on the board translates only in few moves, few positional inaccuracies that an expert does but a master doesn't and these few moves are the ones that decide the game in the end?
In other words, I don't think an expert would be outplayed every move...just like even a beginners does perfectly good moves like half the times.
What do you think, am I just wrong?
Many of the best chess coaches of all time never earned a GM title. Many of the best chess coaches at the national level in the US never broke master.
USCF believes that the minimum level for a national level coach is around 2000 strength, not master strength.
Don't confuse playing strength with knowledge. The difference in playing level between 2100 and 2500 is so small that few people could tell the difference without an engine running. I've told the story before. A +2500 player gave a simul and afterwards said that only three players in the tournament hall could have been able to tell any difference at all in playing strength between myself (~2100 at the time) and his play. And that included both of us.