Looking for Chess Coach

Sorry, I have a bad habit of complicating things....

In my example, X,Y,Z are vectors with

#1 = X

#2 = Y

#3 = Z

So my linear combination my would be aX + bY + cZ where a=0.

Or maybe a should not be zero.... now I am comfused.... cause I did not mean to rule out self study....

Oh well! Never claimed to be good at Math!

That makes sense to me now. I should have imagined that you would stretch the system to cover any additional unknowns that are negligible.

I was about to ask what the system would be solving for then I saw your next post...

EDIT: ... and yet you choose an ala-Matrix-rendered Pi as your avatar?

Curious.

You don't consider chess a technical discipline?

In the US?  Maybe just a hobby.

For one Bobby Fischer, chess was life!

Oh no, I never said that.

"...to me this is a normal way of talking."

This suggested to me everyday language. Chess certainly has its technicalities, when I say technical discipline; however, in my mind I generally think of Hard sciences and Math. Chess shares many elements with these. So I would have a hard time says that chess is not a technical discipline- at least in spirit if nothing else. After all, as I mentioned before- playing chess makes me a better mathematician.

I teach 8 year olds how to checkmate me, and some younger kids too. Some of their trophies are nearly as tall as they are.

Just to provide feedback. I finally bought this book (snuck it into a textbook order along with the new edition (11th) of Chessmaster- since I lost the 10th edition disks). I really like this book so far. The author seems to do a really good job getting his points across. I appreciate how he justifies his opinions about the proper ways to study and think about chess (instead of just being prescriptive).

I can't say too much more about it yet other than simply to comment that it is very readible and interesting. I will post more on a separate thread when I finish it.

Thanks again for the suggestion.

Very interesting post with a lot of information which is useful for learning players.

My two cents...

I think coaching is what you get when you hit a "brick wall" in your chess improvement... This person can see clearly your weaknesses and improve them immediately with an objective view and a wealth of knowledge...

But I do not think coaching is something you get just "to get good at chess" automatically...

This is why I say it is better as a tool to skip over the "brick walls" rather than an excuse for the student to not work in their own time.

A student has to work hard or the coaching will be for nothing but I do not think that all this fancy software,specialized books, etc are completely necessary.

I think once becoming familiar with the most basic endgames (perhaps from a beginner friendly book like "Silmans Endgame Course", a student should spend all of his time on tactics and combinational themes (maybe 50% of the time) and looking over WELL annotated (70/30 text to variations ratio ) games in depth (for maybe 40% of the time)...This will make you familiar with typical plans,pawn structures,tactics and motifs. Remaining time is spent with a coach building openings knowledge and looking over your games.

More on coaching:

I and others have the opinion that a player should not have coaching with somebody more than 500 ELO point higher than them because it is much too difficult for the coach to "dumb down" and simplify their material for the student.

I have seen a good friend of mine (IM Tibor Karolyi) trying to teach weak children and it is a laugh (for me) and a waste of time (for him).

So a player of Tiger Lilovs level for you would be like using a sledge hammer to nail in a thumb tack....or using a tank to shoot rabbits, too much power!

He does look quite good and in the future I might even consider using his services as I am FIDE 2100+ and he is about 300 points above me (a nice cushion).

By the way...I have just restarted to give online lessons too, so if anybody wants to improve a little...my online lessons are quite cheap. 

Is there a book, or source of annotated games you could recommend?

 Yes actually...

Any of Alekhine's books which he annotated are excellent.

Alekhine's annotations were pre-computer generation (which means ALL his own analysis) yet most of his ideas stand the test of time and are truly genius in themselves, also he didnt just fill a book with lengthy variations (there are some since he was possibly the greatest calculator in history), but have a large amount of very informative and interesting text, anecdotes and more.

He explains plans and ideas in all types of positions from Ruy Lopez's to Queens Gambit's and more...I gained maybe 200+ points years ago thanks to studying his work in depth.

Another book of course is Fischer's "My 60 Memorable Games" which is also a classic and which most GMs have studied and even Boris Gelfand said "When I first got it...it was a great treasure, I think my father traded somebody for it...I studied it in great depth" 

I will agree with Reb and say that 2200+ is probably a good level to start looking for a teacher.  It's too early right now.  You'll find that most of the groundwork (books, programs) to get to that point has already been laid for you if you poke around.

Have you tried to get into a group on here that does a lot of vote Chess games?  I'm in a few groups right now with games that have been fantastic learning experiences.  Perhaps one of the admins could send you an invite (hint, hint)...

You know, I've been hearing some good things about Fritz 12.  It supposedly has a lot of training material included in the program.  Can anyone vouch for it?

 Definitely not.

Fritz 12 is designed for strong players  for game analysis and sparring and is an inferior engine to Rybka 4 (which comes with the Fritz 12 interface as well).

It would not benefit a player of your level too much and I would recommend "Chessmaster Grandmaster Edition" for overall tutorials,sparring, rated games, tournament play, and in fact EVERYTHING for a beginner to get started and improve quickly...Chessbase has no such software so comprehensive for weaker players and there is a definite hole in the market here.

Another software which may compliment it very well is "Chess Tactics for Beginners" which is excellent for improving tactical vision and calculation.

I am SURE that with 6 months of training with these two programs a 1200 player could reach 1600 if using them intelligently.

Any more questions, feel free

I recently upgraded to Chessmaster: Grandmaster Edition myself. I definitely think it is the appropriate program for myself. I have looked at that tactics program as well (on websites, etc...) I would like to veture that was eventually, but for now the finances are not there.

One nice things about CM:GME is the Blundder alert in training mode. It alerts you when you are about to make a really stupid move like getting your queen traded for a knight, etc... I tend to make a lot of these errors- it has really helped to complement my tactics training (which currently accounts for about 80% of my chess study).

I could see both arguments having some practical validity to them. As an advanced math guy, I do find it hard sometimes to think on the level of a person not in advanced math- my tendancy is to explain math to people in a very proofy way, I do not do it on purpose, its just how I think about math. As a consequence, sometimes I tend to explain concepts which seem very crystal clear (and in laymen's terms) to me, but to others do not seem so simple(I am finding this in an article I am currently writting).

On the same token a person who understands a concept very deeply, although perhaps likely a times to provide a confusing explaination, is more likely to be able to understand and explain the deeper concepts- and to be able to identify which foundational concepts are missing. (For example, I may have a hard time tutoring people in a laymen sort of way, but very quickly I can identify where their problems lie. I have turned D students into A students multiple times). Also, a teacher that cannot "dumb down" a concept to a layman's level even after being asked to by the student, likely does not truly understand the concept(To paraphrase Richard Feynman). Generally, a brilliant person can break it down properly, they just need the student to teach them how to communicate with them on their level.

First and foremost, Chess- like Math, is a philosophy.

I agree with this idea that the coach shouldn't be too strong compared to his students : whatever his teaching experience, the main problem is visualization speed : stronger players just forget how difficult it is for newbies to visualize things on the chessboard, and are often unable to adapt, because it has become so second-nature for them.

No later than last week-end, I gave a lesson at the club on various tactical patterns. People in the audience were rated 1100-1500 elo. I tried to make them visualize a few short variations in their head (2-3 moves), but despite doing it slowly, I had to slow down even more so that some people in the group could give it a try. As I work mainly with young children and adults in the 1300-1500 range, I had forgotten that there is yet another gap with people in the 1000-1300 range.

On the other hand, I've taken lessons with teachers from 2200 to GM level, and I felt the best coaches for me were the FMs : I could understand what they were saying, and they could still relate to the problems I was facing.