Is a coach madatory?

I play chess for ages, but never took it seriously.

Lately, I began to study online resources and chess books about the game. Total addiction.

I'd like to ask experienced players their opinion and thoughts about becoming good (lets say an A class player, maybe a candidate master) only by studying books and playing with computers or do you consider a coach to be 100% necessary?

(In martial arts for example, book learning without a real life trainer is a recipy for disaster...)

thanks folks

A coach will really help.  Once you get into the 1400+ range you're probably ready for one if you can afford it.  On the other hand I know many class A players and experts (myself included) who did it without a coach.  In fact many masters can tell the same story.

PS: I just started reading 'How To Reassess Your Chess' by IM Jeremy Silman... phenomenal book (so far!)

I am also reading Silman's book - it is probably the best book on chess I have ever read. Thoroughly recommend it.

I'm glad to hear that there are masters who made it without a trainer

there are masters that have made it without a coach, but no grandmasters .

If somebody can (only by reading books and playing) become a master, sure thing, somebody else will be able to become a gm..

we'll see...

Yeah right, I'd like to know who was Capablanca's coach

There have been a lot of GMs who did not have coachs.  The first few to spring to mind are Morphy, Steinitz, Em. Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, Rubenstein, Fine, Reshevsky, Pillsbury, Tarrasch....I could go on, but I think I made my point.  If you have exceptional talent, you can make it on your own.  If you are a mere mortal like I am, you will progress so far, and then you need an outside pair of eyes to see what you are missing.  Good luck.

The hard part is to _study_ the books. Most people buy them, perhaps read them once, then move on to the next... Me included.

Hi,

I have a USCF class A rating, and I think I have the normal level of interest and (lack of) talent.  I have taken lessons over the years, and I found them to be very helpful.  I still have not broken through the present plateau, however, and I have made only modest progress over the last decade.  (Not finished yet, though!).

In my opinion, the problem with self-directed study is that it is easy to spend a lot of time working on chess subjects that do not make a big contribution to improvement.  It is also easy to end up entertaining yourself, disguised as chess study. Your example of martial arts self-directed training is a good example.

My opinion is that different chess training is required for different people who have different learning needs.  A good chess teacher will direct your work toward what you need to know NOW to improve the most. 

I believe that if I had good training from the beginning that I would be more advanced now, but that's just my unsupported opinion.

Bottom line is that I vote for having a good chess teacher.  Above all else, I believe it is important to keep sight of the goal that almost all of us share: to enjoy chess.  I am not sure that top players enjoy it any more than the lowliest beginner, in fact the beginner may enjoy it even more! 

So my advice is to get a good teacher, and enjoy the pursuit of improvement.  Never forget to enjoy chess as you go along, and do not let discouragement over mistakes and/or losses rob you of that enjoyment.

Thanks for the honest replies.

It's like athletics, you do not need a coach to make you run because you can run anyway, you might not even need a coach to make you get faster because you can train hard, but a coach will inevitably help get you to the best you can be.  This is important to remember, 'the best you can be'.  It doesn't matter how brilliant your coach is; to become a GM or any master you definately have to be gifted analytically.

I made it to NM ( USCF ) with no coach and/or teacher. It can be done but I believe if I could have afforded a good coach/trainer it might have taken me much less time and perhaps I would have gone further. Good luck no matter which way you choose to go.

 Coaches are a fairly new idea for the average player. Just figure that virtually all of the players through the 1970s didn't have one. What we did have was chess friends, likewise serious and chess-addicted, to play and study with. We were each other's coaches and it worked out fairly well. We also encouraged each other a lot and were stimulated to do our chess homework.

I am a novice player even though I've been playing for years on and off. Only in the last 18 months have I taken the game extremely seriously. I use tactic training software books (my library is at about 300 books) and chess coaching whenever I can get it. When I got back into chess, when I joined this site, I immediately got some coaching. I started with an online rating of a low 800. I worked with highly rated players and asked them to coach me. It helped. Some of the stuff I learned early on went over my head. This is why you may want to bring you rating to a 1400+ level. However, I wrote down whatever went over my head and came back to it later on. All chess knowledge (pertaining to playing) is useful. I relearned that game using the methods taught to Josh Waitzkin, which put less emphasis on memorizing opening patterns and more emphasis on the end game. While I lose points in the openings, I play strong in the end game and ofter (but certainly not always) come out a head. You should try to play stronger players, asking their advice as you play. Chessmaster has a good learning program as well as a decent chess engine. If you want suggestions on books let me know. Like I said, I'm still a novice player but I am willing to lend any help I can (I am a professional musician will allows me to sit around all day and play chess - which is why I enjoy playing music even more - IT GIVES ME MORE TIME TO PLAY CHESS).

Hahaha! Do I detect an addiction here?

I'll be reading what I've already bought first and then I'll ask u. Thanks for the offer.