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

frozeushook

Why can't students aborb the material taught by the accomplished.

DeirdreSkye
frozeushook wrote:

Why can't students aborb the material taught by the accomplished.

They can , unfortunately chess is not knowledge. It;s not a battle of who knows more. It's more a battle of who uses it more creatively.

    Knowledge in chess is like the colors in painting. You can learn the colors , You can learn how to make them but can that alone make you a good painter? What makes you a good painter? Obviously much more than just knowing the colors. Chess is even more complicated than that. 

TuckerTommy
The accomplished needs to teach it in digestible chunks; not huge indigestible pieces.
DeirdreSkye

Digesting the knowledge is a personal process . The role of the teacher is not to give chewed or digestible food but rather to make the student digest it himself. The more digestible is the food , the less the student works. The less the student works , the less he improves.

     Improvement has to do with how hard you think, not with how much you learn. The quantity of knowledge is actually secondary .The most important is the  effort and the personal work the student puts on the knowledge. Chess knowledge needs digging, lots of it. You have to go deep to find the "treasure". That is why it's much better to get a subject and go deep than study a lot of subjects superficially.

nighteyes1234
TuckerTommy wrote:
The accomplished needs to teach it in digestible chunks; not huge indigestible pieces.

 

Right. If an all-star baseball player shows up to some weekend softball match,Pr event, or otherwise and is asked by some stranger Joe Q Americana how to improve...he is suppose to do what? Give the same speech that he would give to teammates to prepare for a World Series game? But make it so we all can understand? I dont care if you are trying to impress him or her because you watched a video from them 10 years ago, the entertainment host is going to interupt the player if they actually did start talking specifics. Maybe they do know their audience? "How should I play against e4?" and by the time the time its answered the questioner is texting and laughing on the cell.

glamdring27

The ability to play and the ability to teach (as a general skill) are totally independent of each other.

TuckerTommy
😎
ilovesmetuna
SeniorPatzer wrote:
ilovesmetuna wrote:
not everyone can learn and some hig rated players are unlucky to have a bunch of dopes for students.

 

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

so true!

kindaspongey
"... Of course I am lazy and completely given up any hope or possibility of improvement(I haven't used my real board for more than a decade). ..." (~10 days ago)
DeirdreSkye wrote (~4 hours ago):

... Chess knowledge needs digging, lots of it. You have to go deep to find the "treasure". That is why it's much better to get a subject and go deep than study a lot of subjects superficially.

Is it a matter of treasure-or-nontreasure and deep-or-superficial, or are these things a matter of degree? What is wrong with being content with lesser treasure? Didn't you tell us that you consider yourself to be lazy? Yet, you apparently have some chess involvement? Don't you get something out of it?