Why can’t some high rated chess players teach chess successfully?

Some players simply arent good at explaining things.  

I am a USCF A/B player (depending on the day/month/year/how i feel/ etc.)  But as others have told me, I have been blessed with the ability to explains things well.  I make the game seem simple for people that want to learn.  

Me and simple go hand in hand.  Im still not sure if i should be offended or not.

Not everyone can teach. 

I don't necessarily believe this, but it's kinda funny and too often true:

"Those who can, do.  Those who can't, teach."

Do you want Einstein teaching you Beginning Algebra?  

nope

I used to teach chess. Back in the 1970s I used to make about $400 in a weekend teaching groups... that was pretty good money for the '70s.

Teaching is a skill that not everyone posses. 

I can think of three reasons off the top of my head.  First, teaching is difficult.  There's a huge difference in being able to do something and to show, step-by-step, a novice how to do the same thing.  Most chess players have far more experience playing chess than in teaching, whether it's teaching chess or anything else.  They might be masters, but their teaching elo is 1200.

Next, it's possible to be a good teacher but only to a particular type of student.  For example, Valeri Lilov is an experienced chess coach, he does it professionally and there are numerous positive reviews of his work.  When I watch him, though, I get absolutely nothing out it.  I'm not sure if there's a problem with him or a problem with me, but for whatever reason, Lilov can't teach me.  No one can teach all the people all the time.

Finally, most experienced players forget what it is like to be a beginner.  This applies to all skills, not just chess.  Beginners have a lack of chess knowledge, but there is more.  They know some things and not others; they have bad habits; they try to use one or two tricks they've learned in every game (eg, castling Queenside and attacking with the h-pawn, or attacking f7 as early as possible).  A good teacher needs to look at these sort of moves and not only show the right move, but to highlight why the beginner's thought process was wrong/mistaken/incomplete.  If you don't remember being a beginner and only knowing two types of chess tactics, this is extremely difficult.

I've taught martial arts for many years, and I've taught new blackbelts how to teach, and these are some of the things I've seen.  They apply equally well to chess.  Of course, there's also the fact that some people just don't have the knack for teaching for whatever reason, no matter how much coaching they get, and that's not a fault.

About 3 years ago a bunch of us were in Reno, Nevada for a tournament.  We were sitting in the skittles room discussing a game.  This tall young man comes over and listens, and watches.  After about 30 minutes, we finished and he says to me: "That was some really nice analysis.  But i dont recall seeing you playing?"  

I said i am, and he asked: "What section?"

I said in the A section.  

He said: "Really?  I assumed you were playing in the Open?"

By far...my most appreciated compliment.

As long as the unlearning dopes are paying, the high rated teacher doesn't mind.

Ever hear the expression "Those who can't do, teach."

I think Bobby Fischer, in his prime, summed it up best. When asked how to get good at chess he replied "Read 1000 books on chess, then read them again" Fischer, who was self taught, became a Grandmaster without a teacher. He did, however read 4000 books on chess. 

Today, with computer programs to show all the infinite opening lines, it's much easier to learn. 

Top rated players don't have the time nor should they be expected to teach, unless they have the desire. However, bear in mind top rated players are so far above the average player, it's like asking why Michael Jordan doesn't teach basketball. The things that average players need to learn are second nature to them. They can throw out cliches like 'Don't bring your Queen out early" or "Control the center", but knowing all the opening lines for 5 to 10 moves isn't something you can or should learn from a teacher. It's just too time consuming. I have been playing for 50 years, but never had the patience to learn all the openings. I will say this though.. TACTICS is the best teacher I ever ran across. 

OG_ ManMan share a video " backyard professor, non-title players teaching is like asking a blind man can he see that beautiful woman. I prefer a title player like CM Coleman teaching me chess than learning from the backyard professor, its obvious this backyard professor is patzer, in his video he show a game full of blunders ( he  had a chance to win a rook but miss it, he miss many opportunities) and how you can learn from a poor game. Title player have knowledge, some of them are good to great teacher and others might not explain it clear but they can prove it their through analysis and when they share a game they played its very instructable, in that game there some lesson to be learned but never from duffer game.

I think the usual version of the story is that he told the author of Profile of a Prodigy to read all of MCO and then read all of it again. I also think that it is generally assumed that he was joking.

I believe it could be because they have forgotten what it's like to be on our level or on the level of lower rated players.  Knowing something and teaching is two different things,I watch alot of "Chess" videos,games and such on youtube and most of the annotators go way too fast.  Often at times I find myself rewinding and pausing alot just to absorb a lesson.  I'm not depending on them,I know real improvement comes through real over the board study.  I'm simply saying they should really slow down,for folks learning these concepts for the first time but they just end up saying line after line really fast and before you know it,you're lost.   

So in conclusion it's about knowing your material,your core audience and then being able to convey that to your audience in layman's terms.  Just my two cents

We forget how mortals think.

I have this problem myself. I think this is an unfortunate presentation flaw that has become an issue with the rise of technology. A benefit of the technology is that you are able to generate accurate analysis much more quickly, but often the selection of lines does not adequately represent the struggle for human understanding. When someone is clicking through variations in Chessbase, they are sometimes not speaking about the variations from their true understanding in terms of the actual thought processes required to justify the sequences. It takes additional time and effort to put words to the variations and address the common pitfalls that would likely occur in human play. The top engine lines can often be difficult to understand on their own without seeing the consequences of suboptimal play. Recently, I started making some videos on a tactical line in the open games with the goal of showing all the variations over the board from memory. This forced me to provide concrete explanations at every point, so all the variations had a logical flow in my presentation. This is something I am experimenting with, but it is a demanding process that takes time.