how much should i charge to teach chess

Plutonia, I once read that a GM will make about 1 move in 20 that an expert wouldn't make. In other words, at least twice a game, a GM will outplay the expert. 

But iFrancisco is correct. More than individual moves, the GMs have a better sense for where the pieces belong. When I watch the top players, I am constantly amazed by their plans. They play at a different level of complexity and find ways to keep the fight going that are completely beyond me. I can often guess the correct move in a live game, (I do better guessing Kramnik's moves than I do Aronian's moves), but the plans are what really separate the strong players.

I once had lunch with GM Lein and Pavel Blatny. Lein argued that in order to play at Carnegie, you should be trained by someone who has been there. He thought IM coaches such as Dvoretsky, while successful, were not good enough to create a world champion. Perhaps he was right. But Dvoretsky's students have been good enough to play as candidates for the world championship. 

So, while there's room in the world for coaches who do not play particularly well, if you are looking for a coach to make you a champion, you may well want someone who's been there.

I'm +2000 Elo national (+1900 FIDE) and I play various games against +2100-2300 and I make points. They are better but I can Fight and draw or win some game. I play games against a GM +2500 of my zone and always I lost without any chance. In my opinion the diference betwen a expert and GM is really big.  

For sure the expert wouldn't be outplayed every move.  But when it does happen, that's the end of the game :p

In my state's chess bulletin I remember a game a GM annotated between himself and an expert.  The expert left book on move 12 with a natural looking (to me) development move and the GM's comment was something like this: "I've played this variation for 15 years and I don't think I've ever seen this move so I knew it couldn't be right.  I thought for 20 minutes and realized it's wrong because _______, and now I'm winning" and he went on to win almost 30 moves later lol.  So yeah, the expert was doing as best he could with the position, but supposedly he was already deep in a hole right out of the opening.

I've been told it's often in the transitions (between opening and middle game or middle game to endgame) that all sub masters are laughably bad.

So yeah, maybe it only pops up once or twice in a game, but if you put all the knowledge on a scale at once, I'm sure it would be extremely one sided... which is why I'd expect a 2600 GM to win 99 out of 100 games.

thanks for the anwers guys, it's really interesting :)

The amount of knowledge of pro players is staggering too. I remember a funny story 20 years ago : I read a comment of a game between a strong French amateur (~2200 elo) and a GM in the French magazine Europe-Echecs. The game was sharp and the annotator explained how well the amateur had managed to create lots of problems to the GM, until the pro found an amazing resource around move 20 and took the initiative before winning the game.

I thought - hey, GMs are resourceful... Then a couple of months later, I found the same game in Informant, with the GM comments. I go to the critical move ~20th move to see if the GM thought his opponent could have improved, and found this surprising comment : 20.g4!N <Lanka> followed by the symbol "clear advantage to white". The GM hadn't been resourceful at all : it had it all prepared beforehand...

?

Yes, but you don't need them.

If you try teaching 1200 players the concepts of minority attack or tricky bishop and pawn vs knight endgames, you are a bad coach and they won't progress. If you just go through their games and tell them not to hang pieces, then they will make progress.

To be fair, you would have lost to many other experts/masters if you blundered twice in 1 game, let alone a GM.

you really need a coach for telling you how to not hang pieces???

I imagine before that advice they were trying to hang pieces.

Telling players to NOT hang pieces is, frankly, not very useful advice. They know that they should not do that, but do it anyway. 

Teaching players how to get to the point where they don't hang pieces is extremely useful and some very good coaches have made careers out of basically learning how to teach this one thing very, very well.  

lmao

seriously that was probably the funniest chess.com post ive read

It was an over-the-top example to explain that no, the coach that suits you better does not need to know all kinds of strong concepts.

Ten gummy bears from every kid.

lol "its really sharlatanery" but you've read Siddhartha... how?

aaaand BAM, resurrection!

On a side note, to the OP if you EVER read this, how'd that teaching ever go?

it depends i mean ofc everyone can charge as he wants and there is no standard, it is a free country and everyone loves money...

But i personally believe that everyone who is not a titled player, shouldnt earn more  money per hour than a garbage collector gets in his profession.

Well...perhaps.

Take me for instance. I have a good understanding of how chess 'works' but am not yet considered even tournament level. Yet I have taught chess to students (free of charge, local High School) and have had noticable improvement from them to the point that some of them were either giving me a serious run or even beating me.

Saying that a less ranked player should automatically charge less is like saying a great painter should automatically make more because of his name and nevermind that guy over there who is obviously better...but has no name for which to price.

Or even better, why should I get the popular brand that costs more? This other brand does everything exactly the same, at half the price.

but if you were a great painter, why wouldnt you have a chess title??

Yes ofc i agree, maybe there are titled players who are not so well known who are strong, but if you were a good painter you still would at least have a title.

Second who says titled players are expensive, you can get free videos from great people like Seirawan and even Akopian.

LAst there is the term compensation in chess, compensation for something.

 A garbage man doing a hard job that stinks, a titled player invested half his life or sacrificed big part of his youth for getting where he is.

Why should just any random guy get more money?

anyway as i said its just my personal opinion.

Also  i for example, i could beat some players, if i would teach weaker players, i still would have holes in my chess knowledge i couldnt answer but a titled player probably could with ease.

First off, you don't have to work hard to become a garbage man. Ask around and I am sure that particular job will fall right into your lap, or something will I am certain. Secondly, there are plenty of aspiring artists with great talent who will never get noticed. The sad truth is many of them will get overshadowed by the apparent greatness of Mr. Oiweuofiuafh whose painting suck in comparison. Lucky breaks don't happen often.

Most titled players CAN be expensive. I am running on a generalized basis here and I will say that it is not human nature to give and not receive. Most will change and many will charge at least a toe or two. Anyway, what if a player at the skill level of an IM, but with no money to make it to tournaments or similar to gain a rank, wants to charge more than the average player? Rank should not dictate anything as they are just a title honored and a prize won through dedication. The same dedication many players achieve and whose same players never want a title. (huge congratulations to those with a title btw, it is one heck of an achievement).

A final point, and an important one. I am a university student. To that end, I have met a massive amount of Professors. Most of them good, a few bad. The bad ones I have noticed seem to have a huuuuge amount of publishings (exceptions abound I am sure). It seems to me that you can be a great player but not a great teacher. Just as someone can be a great writer and scientist, but a terrible speaker. Just because you are smart enough or talented enough to gain a title or position, does not mean you have the capability to instruct in a manner appropriate for those who can't follow a technical textbook.