Higher rated coach or one whose personality seems like a better fit?

Hello friends,

I have decided to get more serious about chess and try to make the push to USCF 2200. I'm 29, I play mostly bullet, and am ranked 1900 on chess.com and 2000 elsewhere. 

My slow game is certainly weaker than my fast game. My current provisional USCF rating is 1599. I would like to improve my otb skills to become a solid tournament player. I have therefore decided to reach out to a coach. 

There are a couple of coaches in my city who are well-rated, and I have reached out to two of them. One is ranked 2200 USCF, is about my age, and it seems to me like I would get along with him easily.

The other is a GM, rated 2472 on USCF, and advertises a few merits, like FIDE senior trainer, coach of medal-winning Olympic teams, etc. However, he is older and while I have no reason to think I wouldn't mesh well with him, it's always intimidating to sit across the board from someone who is that good.

I've heard that coaching ability matters more than playing strength when it comes to selecting a coach. Can anyone attest to this being true? I am wondering if I am crazy to not automatically select the GM who has coached Olympic teams, or if it's reasonable for me to find someone who seems more like a friend.

Any thoughts are greatly appreciated.

You hit the nail on the head when you said: "I've heard that coaching ability matters more than playing strength..."

It wont matter how highly rate someone is if they don't know how to coach. 

A friend that is a CM was my first coach.  I knew him, so that made it easier.  We just clicked. 

I worked with IM Valeri Lilov for awhile, and would HIGHLY recommend him. 

But my answer to your question is going to be based on your USCF rating you have on your profile page?  If you have a chess club that you attend.  Find a club player there, that is roughly 200 points, or a USCF rating class above you to start.

Hire the younger coach. If you didn't reach 2200 within 2 years, replace him.

And i would have suggested the older coach.  At times someone with more "life experiences" can add to the lessons.  The lessons do not always have to be chess related.

Whether the student isn't talented or hardworking enough, it's his right as client. 2 years is long enough to attain 2200 from his current level.

One follow-up thought: The older coach has not played a rated game since 2012, and he doesn't seem to have been that active for at least the past ten years. Maybe that doesn't matter -- I am not sure how much staying "current" matters in a coach.

The only thing that not being an active player is going to affect, is openings theory, and at your level it wont matter.

If money isn't a problem, hire the most expensive coach you can afford. But consider his fees for 2 years.

If I were you, I'd hire the coach who you are most comfortable with, and if can actually teach and engage with you... 

Does either one of them have a proven track record coaching people? (track record - not rated)

Speaking as someone who is 2200 and coached for 5+y...., ask what the experience of the 2200 coach is. It could be they are a specialist of getting students from 1600 to 2000, which might be ideal. For reaching 2000 the better coach will probably be one who has experience, and who you feel comfortable around. Past 2000 there is probably likely to be a limit on what a 2200 coach can really teach you, but then you can always change. And just remember, most of your improvement will be down to what work you put in away from the coach anyway!

Gary Kasparov, probably the greatest ever. Picture having someone of his personality as a coach. You would give up chess within an hour.

Thank you, everyone, for your thoughts on this!

I'm definitely leaning toward the coach who is closer to my age, but I am following up with him to find out more about his experience teaching people at my rating level after seeing @AllStarShark's helpful comment.

His hourly rate is somewhat high, but we live in an expensive city and I don't mind paying him for his time if he's a good teacher. And while I can get GM instruction for $40 online, I think there is no substitute for face-to-face, OTB play. 

Honestly, I suspect the person with more experience will be the GM, but I just feel drawn to a person who I can connect with on a more personal level. Maybe I'm thinking of this all wrong, I don't know. but hopefully either person will help me improve my chess, and as was mentioned above I can always switch if I feel like I need more advanced instruction.

I'm not looking for a friend, but I do want someone I can be friendly with. I play chess for fun, and I don't want that aspect to change. I don't need someone who is going to push me to the point of not enjoying the game.

More than anything, I want chess to remain enjoyable but shore up some of the weaknesses I've developed from getting to 1900 through nothing but playing games. One of my worries with the stronger coach is that he'll be too much of a "coach" and scold me if, for example, I don't complete my homework one week. I'm an adult with a high-intensity job who plays chess on the side -- so I am not as dedicated as someone who has coached Olympic teams might be used to.

For those wondering, I decided to go with the coach closer to my age. We will see how it goes, and I can always switch if I feel like I need stronger instruction.