Why are so many coaches related below 2000?

@WarrenS said in #16:
> No we don't all know that. So I would question that assumption. There are many, many bad elementary school teachers. Moreover someone who understands a subject at a very deep level is more likely to be able to convey it in a simple to understand framework. Example Richard Feynman in physics or as to chess think English GM Michael Stean's "Simple Chess".

Ok, of course they are exceptions, it was just an expression. I wanted to say that a good elementary school teacher is perfectly competent to teach elementary mathematics and that his/her lack of PhD doesn't mean anything when it comes to teaching beginners. Yes, someone with PhD in mathematics can be a good teacher as well, but his PhD doesn't have anything with do with it, there are other skills which are much more important when it comes to teaching elementary maths.

@LukaCro Point taken. Enjoy your YouTube channel BTW.

@WarrenS thanks.

Anyway, my criteria for choosing a chess teacher would be someone who went through a similar path like myself. So for example if my goal was to reach 2000 FIDE rating, I would try to find someone around that rating who is late starter and adult improver like myself. Someone who remembers what it feels like to be 35-40 years old and being rated 1200, blundering in every move, fighting with achieving and maintaining pieces activity, etc.

I would much rather have this kind of teacher than some super-GM who reached 2000 when he was 9. I just don't see how can he relate to my situation and struggles. Maybe I am wrong.

#20 slight nitpick on the topic of Dvoretsky - he was "only" an IM, but chessmetrics estimates that at his peak he was rated about 20th in the world, so he was no slouch in terms of playing strength!

In practice I'm sort of in the middle on this. I don't feel that stronger players are necessarily better coaches, and at some level beginners don't really need a coach so much as a light-up sign that says "learn basic endgames, don't neglect centre and development, play slower games, use the available time and don't hang tactics, try not to do anything stupid in the opening but don't spend all your time memorizing theory" that flashes after every game they play. On the other hand, once you start to want more in depth discussion - "what are the important things that you should be thinking about in this position" it seems odd to get lessons from someone relatively low rated if there are stronger players out there who also tick all your boxes for coaching ability but are less likely to just misunderstand the position themselves or pass on some questionable ideas.

@ballsmaster69 said in #1:
> I have seen a lot of forums with U2000 players offering coaching services, how is it that coaches can actually charge money despite being rated below 2000?

A 1200 player, unless is a 5 year old genius, is not worth the time of an IM, even less from a GM, unless you can pay him like Magnus camp Payed Kasparov, but again, he IS a genius.

I can guarantee you that i can raise a 1200 level to near mine in a few months if they actually follow my advice. I dont need a title, i know way more than them, and i can pass that knowledge in terms that they can understand.

@Alientcp said in #25:
> A 1200 player, unless is a 5 year old genius, is not worth the time of an IM, even less from a GM, unless you can pay him like Magnus camp Payed Kasparov, but again, he IS a genius.
>
> I can guarantee you that i can raise a 1200 level to near mine in a few months if they actually follow my advice. I dont need a title, i know way more than them, and i can pass that knowledge in terms that they can understand.

I see your point, and I appreciate your comment. I would like to disagree however.
Chess is much more than about learning and studying and having a good chess coach. There is psychology in chess, decay by age, physical well-being to reckon with. And things like imagination, good memory and so on are helpful elements to make progress in chess.
As an example, I have spend a lot of time trying to help a local chess friend get stronger. But they struggled with their own problems, one of them being the pressure (that they put on their own shoulders) in team matches.
Chess wise there was progress but otherwise they basically gave up, and now play on-line chess, casual games with no pressure. The good thing is that they enjoy themselves now, but my point is that not every 1200 rated player can become 2000+ rated, no matter how good a coach for them is.

@Alientcp said in #25:
> A 1200 player, unless is a 5 year old genius, is not worth the time of an IM, even less from a GM, unless you can pay him like Magnus camp Payed Kasparov, but again, he IS a genius.
>
> I can guarantee you that i can raise a 1200 level to near mine in a few months if they actually follow my advice. I dont need a title, i know way more than them, and i can pass that knowledge in terms that they can understand.

What's your advice? Avisame gueyyyyy

They should be in this business for a couple of years. Not those lichess Bullet kids with 2000, playing in the internet for two years.

@ballsmaster69
Anyone can coach anyone. It needs not to be specific. Just that coach should be more experienced than the player which is obvious reason. Also, this is unofficial way of coaching at Lichess. For official one, one needs to be titled player.
Just think that a 1600 can coach a beginner. That makes sense, indeed!

@achja said in #26:
> The good thing is that they enjoy themselves now, but my point is that not every 1200 rated player can become 2000+ rated, no matter how good a coach for them is.

2000 in lichess is not that much really. The pressure issue, they just need xp. Everyone can perform, but some require a bit more time. I am also inconsistent in tournaments, but that doesnt mean that my level went down, sometimes the pairings dont help, sometimes you just have a bad day, but they CAN increase their level of play.