I can't teach chess

Those who can ... do.

Those who can't ... teach.

Those who can't teach ... teach others to teach.

I used to coach chess quite a bit.   I've got plenty of pointers for anyone interested in learning how to do it themselves.

One of the more interesting things I tried was to start with king and pawn endgames.   I'd start by teaching the kid how a pawn moves and how a king moves.   Then I'd put a black pawn on e7, a king on e8 and a white king on e1.   I'd say "let's play a game.   If you get that pawn to the other end of the board, you win.   You can restart the position as often as you want."   After enough tries I'd start giving advice, but the first lesson never ended till the kid figured out how to promote that pawn.

This had two huge advantages.   For one, instead of having to remember how six different pieces moved, the kid only had to learn one piece at a time.   For two, as they're learning, they're also picking up practical knowledge like how to win king and pawn or rook and pawn endgames, as well as developing an understanding of relatively advanced chess concepts such as opposition and zugzwang!  

As a third (semi) bonus, the kids I coached were always better in the endgame than their peers.  This meant they could often pull a win out of a drawn or lost position, simply because they understood the endgame better than the other guy.   Unfortunately this often lead to them deliberately leaving a balanced middlegame to head for a losing endgame, since they had the experience and confidence to believe they had an edge anyways.   Great strategy against people who don't know endgames, and a great way to lose a lot of otherwise even games against someone who does!

I've tried to teach people vacuum cleaning. ...

I've also tried to teach people guitar playing and driving. In the first place, the two don't mix well. Secondly, when an enthusiastic amateur teaches something, it's generally building a foundation on sand - as OP implied.

first of all, i hate this saying with a passion.

it should read:

"those who can do. those who can't don't. those who can teach do and teach."

makes much more sense. people who suggest the original "saying" obviously have no idea what teaching requires.

and to the OP: i find teaching chess (or whatever) to others greatly helps me learn along with them at the same time. i'd love to teach someone chess if they were interested. obviously i'm not an amazing player and i could only teach them so much, but it would be a learning experience for both of us. imparting my (limited) knowledge onto others who are eager to learn is such a great feeling. i am eager to learn and i wish i had someone willing to teach/coach me in this same manner.

 There are a lot of crappy players on here who I'm sure, would be willing to have you teach them.

if by crappy you mean "1800+" then i'm all for it. please point them out to me.

They muck you up: your chess amateurs

They may not mean to, but they do.

They fill you with the faults they had

And add some extra, just for you.

OTOH, for 99.9999% of the population, what does it matter if they learn chess imperfectly?

I think the problem in teaching people chess is they often have unreasonable expectations. Or maybe they don't, maybe they are just trying to find out how convenient the process can be by challenging you to 'just do it'.

The main obstacle to this task, especially with beginners, may be that before you can start learning anything, you have to acquire some basic tactical skill, which can only be done through practice. 

If your 'student' was modestly able on a tactical level and you are at least 100 - 200 points higher rated, then I think teaching chess is very possible. You could point out strategic things, which many people aren't aware of.

The fact that you teach something doesn't require ultimate skill in the subject.

Oh and the best way to go about it might well be a post mortem after you've won a game against your student. Point out what kind of things occupied your mind. I've found that this is very helpful because sometimes the strategic objectives pursued by your opponent just never crossed your own mind. 

I know you don't like post mortems, but you said you couldn't teach chess. I think you could teach people things about chess in post mortems, possibly in other ways as well. 

Oh, and if the guy tried to pick you up (with chess, mind you) then hats of to him. Plenty people are afraid of leaving their comfort zone, and I think a bit of flirting helps the world go round ;).

The hardest part about teaching chess is finding an apt pupil.

"Vertigo" Jimmy Stewart to Kim Novak: "You were a very apt pupil!"

swift reply 

I teach chess to small boys.  Teaching makes one work at preparing lessons. That increases understanding. It all flows from there.  The trick is not to assume that thepupil understands either what or why.  Show them how, tell them why and give an example or several if possible.  I am not a strong player, but I love the game and am happy to pass that on to kids who want to move the pieces around. Perhaps a few of them might get the bug.  You can teach.  All you need to know is the basic principles of openings and endgames (King and pawn) plus of course the tactics used in both phases.  There is enough online to get started, and in the process one learns so much new stuff.

I can't teach anything! You can teach, bobmitchnz I'll just sit back and wonder(and drink)

nice story, maybe you're just too modest.
He doesn't ask you to teach him the essence of chess or anything, surely you can add a great amount of useful information to his chess encyclopedia.

I have taught some people to play, even though I understand only a very small part of the game. 

I actually don't understand the game at all, bastiaan, hence my fascination with it. Of course, I know why I win games, because of an obvious error. And I know why I lose games, an obvious error again. Therefore, how do you teach a game where one takes advantage of errors? How do you say to the pupil, you have to rely on errors? You have to play in anticipation of errors? For some, I know, this causes no problem in their being able to teach. For me it is baffling! Verily. Perhaps you said what I can't get around: Teaching the "essence of chess"...

I've always been interested in the learning process, specifically how I learn as I'm learning and to some extent how I can learn better.  I also enjoy teaching because I get to go through that learning process all over again with a student.

To those who say a sub-master can't teach, of course they can, they just teach the basics.  If you're not more than 200-300 points higher then all you can do is play analysis games and in those cases both players get to learn.

Teaching is it's own skill so the OP makes sense .  Also, I could also see how this would be difficult if a player is more an intuitive type where it would be about impossible to verbalize the process you use to find your moves.  Are you an intuitive type of player Trysts?

Since I correlate intuition with habit/lightening flash of the mind, then yes, you have pinpointed accurately why I can not teach this bloody game, orangehonda! Why I am moving this piece here, or that piece there is inchoate