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

One guy that really clicks with me is MatoJelic...he explains at a comfortable pace. But some of the YouTube guys read 3 to whatever moves deep without any sympathy for those who can only see 2 moves deep. I’m not new to chess tactics. So I’m aware of the basics but not every expert can take me from point A to point B. I am a teacher(not of Chess), and I hear that cliche, “you can’t teach” from 1 or 2 students sometimes. When you know something it’s ez. But becuz you know it doesn’t mean you can make someone else know it. My whole point is, a good chess chess player teacher should be able to break it down into digestible bytes for the student. I ask my 2000 rated friend to show me move my move when going over the pgns. He responds that he plays by intuition and gets frustrated to stoop to my level. Of course he said he’s been playing for 4 decades every week/month. I, a mere 5 years!

 I believe that in order to be a good teacher, he or she needs to be proficient in the material he teaches by playing it himself many times.

good call re Mato , Tucker , very good vids by him and accesible for many levels of players

Stop crying. The world does not have to slow down for you guys. There are chess intellectuals that appreciate the content that is out there that you guys deem "hard to understand" and there is always a Mato Jelic (which I loved when I was starting out) that will players with a different level of ability.

Top players get to where they are by playing other top players. Teaching only works at lower levels where teachers can help to guide the learning, but eventually it is down to the calibre of the students and the opposition.

The importance of self-study increases with strength, but that does not diminish the importance of quality instruction. It is not a coincidence that so many titled players have turned to Dvoretsky's books for study. There's a lot of work that goes into playing at the higher levels. The play often motivates the work, but the work still needs to be done and a good trainer can help with devising an effective study plan.

Most of the posts in this topic are bad, but this one gets just about everything wrong.

 

@OP, the short answer is (as only a few have been able to point out) teaching itself is a skill.

So based on the post about Bobby Fischer, chess teachers could be bad or an hinderance for some as the chess books were the only way Fischer learned? What if he had chess teachers along with the books? Who knows?

Being also a musician, I’ve had a number of teachers. I knew when a teacher had exhausted their resources and I needed to get a more advanced teacher. I think remaining with certain teachers can prove a waste of time and money. I did move on from time to time to find more advanced teachers who could give more more help in improving. The same could be said of chess, except good chess teachers are not a dime a dozen. I spend much of time lately as a spectator trying to watch and figure out the intuitive moves my 2000 rated friend plays. Of course, watching chess isn’t always a good teacher. It’s like going over some GM games, without knowing why the player made the moves, sometimes a thought determined by at least 4-5 moves deep. You guys are right, some teachers don’t have the right teaching skills especially for lower level players.

Imo, not only some, but most and the answer to your question, is intuition. It is because they use intuition in their games and intuition isn't something that can be taught. Of course, they can teach a beginner, as we can, but basic principles can go you so far. At some level (which actually is very low), it is all about who has the best intuition and calculation skills and that isn't easily teachable.

 

I am a very low rated player, but I don't think that anyone can teach me much, not even good teachers. Because, nobody can teach me visualization, calculation and intuition. Maybe, if I was a 7 year old, but not now.

1) chess is skills. So, it has to be learnt by practice. 

2) titled players have no idea about the problems faced by beginners especially adult beginners. Their advice to beginners is counter productive most of the times.

3) at lower levels, coaches and books are more of a hindrance than help. So many people try so many coaches and books but their ratings remain unchanged.

4) chess knowledge(opening and endgame) is freely available. 

Dk-Ltd, you understand exactly where I’m coming from....maybe if I was a youth, but I’m past 40 and my cerebral cog wheels are not churning as strong. So it then follows that despite the many programs and books about visualization, calculation, and intuition, those skills are innate and their rates of improvement depends on the individual; not the teacher. That makes a lot of sense. Furthermore, teaching oneself with books can be less helpful. Not everyone is Bobby Fischer who taught himself with books.

 

Blam!!  Piercing.  To the bone.  Or heart.  

 

I think it was Botvinnik who said that teachers/coaches have to help students work it out themselves.  Or something to that effect.  

 

Chuddog says the same thing.

 

Woah! I agree with you! 

But, of course, some disagreements:

1) Actually, it is not really lack of determination...etc. It comes down to priorities and cost, benefit analysis. How much time and effort are you willing to put on chess? And what monetary benefit are you going to get out of it? Chess pays very badly. So, there is not much reason to put extreme amounts of time and effort into it unless you think you are going to be the top 10 chess player(who are paid well). Then, there may be some reason to put in the effort. Otherwise, it is a waste of time to put in too much effort by going out of the way.  So, people keep it at the level of a hobby. And at the level, there is only so much time and effort you can invest.

2) titled teachers and books at lower levels are not only not needed but are a hindrance. Frequently, the things they suggest are counter-productive. For example, the openings which are suggested as good are generally 'good' because they give an equal play. Openings which are suggested as unsound are the ones with one or two traps. But, these traps will work at lower levels. And thus they are very useful tools. Similarly, gambit play or even extreme gambit play is very useful at lower levels. These two things that I have pointed out could be applied to upto 2200 level atleast. In short, the things that don't work at higher levels work beautifully at lower levels. And titled coaches and books avoid these things not to appear cheap.

3) long formats are useless time waste for beginners. Bullets is also not good for beginners. Blitz and Rapid are the best way to learn for beginners. Even  in those two formats, Blitz is the best format for beginners. Beginners lose to basic blunders or opening traps. The best and fastest way to learn to avoid these two is blitz. (One of the mistakes of titled player coaches is they instruct low rated players to play longer games.)

Just wanted to say that I really like your post and all you say sound really logical and true to me.

Of course, the implementation of all those is really hard and impractical (if not illogical) for most of us. Willing to try (like avoiding bullet, studying some and analyzing some and not just playing), but certainly not to the extend you correctly portrayed.

Ashvapati, I find your last statement about the mistakes that titled players make is to tell lower level players they need to stop playing blitz and play longer games. The last chess coach I had actually advised me to do that...stop playing blitz and play longer games! Although I really didn’t follow it, I thought it was the best advice. Clearly, the difference is instruction between yours and his is an indication of how teachers teach differently. Not to mention the fact that either way could be destructive to any given student.

lol@God help you...not even prayers can help improve Chess...lol!

As i tell the students i work with, and the parents.  There is not a single person on this planet that can make you a better chess player.  All i can do is give you the tools, that you need to use, to get better at chess, and in life.

Fisheyed, I beg to disagree...the right teacher just needs to be found!

And its ok to disagree, thats what builds solid discussions.