22-12-2011, 04:28 PM
Another interesting and vital point for you and Paul to consider Robin:
"How much more highly graded do coaches need to be than the players they are training?"
My view: It depends on the level of ability.
I'd say that a coach doesn't neccesarily have to be higher than the person they are training in order for the person to take something valuable from the lesson. I know this from my own experiences. I started playing Chess in the summer of 2008 and now my grade is around 1720-1750. When I lose to guys graded around 1600 I often find that it's because I started out badly due to my inferior opening knowledge, and was never able to recover. More often than not these guys tell me where they think I went wrong; and I listen - because clearly there is something to learn if I lost. It would be arrogant of me to think that just because my grade is higher that I'm somehow better at every part of the game than someone who has a lower grade, and have nothing to learn from them. Simply not true. I excel (comparatively) in the middlegame, where tactics and strategy are probably more important than theoretical knowledge, and my decision to choose a coach for opening theory would not be based entirely on their grade, but more importantly it would be based on their teaching style. More often than not it's the teacher which makes a subject interesting (again from my experiences of school), and Chess is no different in reality.
When teaching young juniors, a charismatic guy graded around 1200 might be a far superior coach to the world champion (for instance).
"How much more highly graded do coaches need to be than the players they are training?"
My view: It depends on the level of ability.
I'd say that a coach doesn't neccesarily have to be higher than the person they are training in order for the person to take something valuable from the lesson. I know this from my own experiences. I started playing Chess in the summer of 2008 and now my grade is around 1720-1750. When I lose to guys graded around 1600 I often find that it's because I started out badly due to my inferior opening knowledge, and was never able to recover. More often than not these guys tell me where they think I went wrong; and I listen - because clearly there is something to learn if I lost. It would be arrogant of me to think that just because my grade is higher that I'm somehow better at every part of the game than someone who has a lower grade, and have nothing to learn from them. Simply not true. I excel (comparatively) in the middlegame, where tactics and strategy are probably more important than theoretical knowledge, and my decision to choose a coach for opening theory would not be based entirely on their grade, but more importantly it would be based on their teaching style. More often than not it's the teacher which makes a subject interesting (again from my experiences of school), and Chess is no different in reality.
When teaching young juniors, a charismatic guy graded around 1200 might be a far superior coach to the world champion (for instance).