RoadMap for achieving 2000 Elo rating in 1 year

I really love this comment, because I keep experiencing this (maybe you're done with it, but I don't think I am).  The advice beginner books are packed with is much more useful and implications farther reaching than I could have possibly imagined when I was beginning chess.

Hmm, I don't agree that you can learn any piece first and it doesn't matter.  In fact I can't quite imagine any area of learning this would be true.

Certainly learning things "out of order" as it were won't prevent someone from becoming an expert in that area, but it may make it much more difficult.

In particular opening study is fairly useless at U1800 USCF IMO.  I'm only just now intigrating advice like "don't move too many pawns in the opening" and "complete development before undertaking operations" into my actual evaluations.  Honestly how many games do you have where your opponent makes 1 or 2 too many pawn moves and now you can prove a lasting advantage?

Once you can handle middlegame evaluations and have some experience in navigating the transition between opening and middlegame, you can start to appreciate opening theory (which I still don't appreciate myself really, I mostly try to get playable positions where clear ideas exist).

Endings have lots of good nugets in them for beginners though.  Harmony of pieces (need to work together to accomplish anything), visualization and calculation (endgames often require calculation), other than the useful knowing where your efforts in earlier phases are headed.

And does this person speak fluent english, and coach online?

I'm sure that those who can afford to travel to that club would agree it's quite affordable

As for the going rate of chess coaches (and the implications that follow), it seems acivilized is unaware.

As has been said, it is possible to learn the game with inferior methods (as I had done) and still improve, but that doesn't mean it's the ideal way. Certainly you can learn middlegame positions more than other positions, but you're always going to have that annoying thing where you calculate a possible sequence and wonder if the position you're going into is any good (and thus ultimately, whether the sequence is worth playing). If you don't understand the ending you might go into, you may never be able to answer this question. And imagine you had 4 major continuations in a critical middlegame position, and you were stumbling around with the resulting endgame positions. If in that situation you are not experienced with endings, evaluating that stuff on the spot would make your thought process very inefficient indeed. It's easier if you first know the position you want to achieve; then you can just execute the tactics to achieve it, with nothing else to it.

Recently I had incorrectly evaluated lots of endgame positions against a national master; although I had been under pressure, I could have forced a perfectly drawn, though worse, endgame. Instead, I assumed the ending was lost because I was down a pawn, and I kept queens on, getting counterplay, but significantly increasing his objective advantage, which at that point had become sufficient for a win. If I had just knew the possible endgame positions the game could have turned into, I would have had a clear path to draw the game, even though I had been outplayed!

I do think that once some learns how the pieces move, they can start with an opening and memorize it and the variations before attempting to study tactics. I do agree that it is better to study tactics first before memorizing openings, but if you have a photographic memory I am sure it is possible. We all learn differently.

If I learned my abc's backwards instead of forwards, would that really make a difference in a bad way? Other than needing to make a new song for kids and being at odds with established methods, I don't think it technically matters. There are plenty of dislexic people who think backwards and manage to find a way to function amid established systems of order.

It all depends. If people on the internet have access to your coach for lower prices, then they might go for that. Also having a higher rating does not necessarily make them a better coach, especially a small difference from 2200 level to 2300 level. Perhaps streetfighter has been coaching for many years and is simply better. Plus the fact that he is allowed to charge whatever price that he sees that he is valued at. In different countries, services are valued differently.

Unless you have had bad experiences with someone's services, it pays not to comment with disdain. Instead what you could do, is simply mention this situation to your coach, and see if he could do a better job online.

The thing about chess on the whole is that many people that are trying to understand the game do not know what to do. It is part of something that we all go through. But give them options, and they might take one.

Streetfighter the video game?  Or learning how to start and win street fights?

You have to keep in mind that chess coaches have to devote a certain amount of their time; if they are not professionals, then they have to do this with their free time, which might not be very copious. If they are professionals, well then they have to make a living! (not to say that there is some intrinsic rule that professional chess is supposed to be profitable) I think it's reasonable for both the teacher and student to try to meet each other in the middle.

@AcivilisedGentleman:

You are insulting someone who is only offering to help people improve their chess.  For $20 dollars an hour.  Calling him a leech is like calling any person who collects a salary a leech because they are being paid.  You have a coach who gives lessons for less money? Great! Enjoy! But that's no reason to insult a good teacher for offering his services

Your username could not be further off...

You are entitled to think what you want, but I believe you are being extremely disrespectful to someone you (likely) have never met, for no reason other than that he is offering a service for a fee.

He's just trolling.

No I have never been a coach, beyond teaching the basics.  Even if I was a coach, would it matter?  Verbally assaulting someone over the internet doesn't require any title.  Similarly, pointing out that someone is being rude and disrespectful requires no title.  I have never been a coach.  Does that mean I have no right to post?