education and learning being viewed as a competition sport.Unless you consider competition as two people cooperating to help each other achieve their potential....which is a more positive way of looking at it...especially as we are talking volunteers in a leisure activity.
The problem with the english education system is the effect the measuring system is having on the measured. Teachers are forced to train the students to pass a narrow band of tests rather than provide the best all round education. I think it may have some positive effect on poor teachers but the talented teachers are being stifled.
I think this apprentice scheme is a good idea and will be watching with interest.
Maybe after games against us " humans " a few pointers of where we played badly against you better players would actually have the same effect.
I find I learn more from playing better players than guys of my own level. I'm not being offensive to anyone I've played/playing just stating a fact.
My biggest way to improve would be to stop playing at work in my office break and cut down on my blunders.
Originally posted by TyrannosauruschexCount me in. Traditionally fall into 1400-1600 category, know I am capable of 1700-1800 as been there for a very brief time. Personal coaching to maintain that level sounds class
I have messaged about 50 good players that I either have played against, or know to be active forum posters.
So far the response has been good, I have had two players already who were interested in coaching.
So, I think the next step would be for any other players interested in being a student for this competition to post their intrest in thi ...[text shortened]... s of this competition when people play each other so that we can see how well the coaching went.
Originally posted by DawgHausReckon it would be wiser to be unrated games that had commentary during games. I find that the problem for sub 1700 players tends to be in recognising the position and how to progress from a position
It's interesting. I don't have time for individualized coaching, except maybe if it was in the form of one-on-one games with commentary afterwards.
Originally posted by najdorfslayerI try to work with some of the players in my clan.
I'm back at work tomorrow after my 2 weeks off :'(
Therefore will barely have time to play my own moves never mind post in forums or coach anyone, therefore I must decline.
However it isn't a bad idea.
Coaching is tough and time consuming.
I agree with NS.
- Joined
- 26 May 02
- Moves
- 72546
Originally posted by TyrannosauruschexI'm far too busy with my own games to be able to coach anyone. In fact for several months I've been declining challenges from lots of players in order to cut down my game load.
I have a great challenge to any of the stronger (preferably 2000+ strength) players on the site, an interesting form of competition.
I propose that we each take a player between 1400-1600 and coach them until new year, trying to get their playing strength to about 1700-1800 in that time.
After this, the apprentices will play against each other ...[text shortened]... see how many other players were up for this challenge before committing to the training myself.
So I won't be taking part. But I'd like to make a few comments anyway:
To start with, I don't think it's realistic to hope that someone will improve by 200 or 300 points after just a couple of months of coaching. I keep telling people that there are no easy short-cuts to chess improvement. Becoming better at chess is a long term goal that requires a lot of hard work over a long period of time. In my experience, very few people are prepared to put in the work. Instead they look for a quick fix. They buy a book and expect to improve without even reading it! If you try to coach them, they expect you to do all the work, whilst they sit back and wait for their rating to go up.
I've coached several players in real life and also on this site. Most of then didn't have the right attitude. If I set them homework they didn't do it. I would play friendly training games with them and ask them to think carefully about their moves and then explain why they chose them. That should have been a great way for them to learn something. However they would either play the first moves that came into the head, which was usually a blunder, or they would find a move which was astonishingly strong but be unable to explain it! After the games were over I discovered that several had been cheating with engines.
Maybe I’ve just been unlucky in some of the players that I’ve coached. Or maybe I’m not as good a coach as I thought I was. Although I’m sure I’ve helped some players. The people who benefit most from coaching are the ones who are eager to learn and are willing to put in a lot of hard work – precisely the kind of players who improve without coaching! It’s very unclear how much difference the actual coaching makes.
Originally posted by TyrannosauruschexYou should coach me.
I have a great challenge to any of the stronger (preferably 2000+ strength) players on the site, an interesting form of competition.
I propose that we each take a player between 1400-1600 and coach them until new year, trying to get their playing strength to about 1700-1800 in that time.
After this, the apprentices will play against each other ...[text shortened]... see how many other players were up for this challenge before committing to the training myself.
I love the idea in principle, but I have to agree with David Tebb, from my experience of training people, not at chess, but in the workplace - only people who have the passion to suceed will benefit, and those people will improve anyway - the chances of say, 30 trainees having that passion is slim - in fact, I don't reckon you'd get any more than 4 or 5 who would be willing to put in the effort.
One way of improving that figure is to get trainees to prove that they want the training - 5 million word essay or such 🙂
I have had some interesting feedback here, and I believe that even with the criticisms of this scheme there are sufficient trainers and players wanting to be coached to make this work.
As with all chess ideas, I knew it would not please everybody but I still think that doing something is better then nothing in regards to improving the game.
Many trainers make the mistake of trying to teach somebody a complete game and attempting to explain complicated principles to them during a single session, however it is just as easy to break the game down into certain elements and teach one element at a time - that way the student remembers what you taught and you dont feel like your work is going nowhere.
Originally posted by TyrannosauruschexI need a coach.
I have had some interesting feedback here, and I believe that even with the criticisms of this scheme there are sufficient trainers and players wanting to be coached to make this work.
As with all chess ideas, I knew it would not please everybody but I still think that doing something is better then nothing in regards to improving the game.
M ...[text shortened]... hat way the student remembers what you taught and you dont feel like your work is going nowhere.