How good at chess does your coach need to be?

When I made the decision just over a month ago to post in this blog weekly, the first topic I chose was to highlight why getting yourself a human coach will be more beneficial than trying to learn from computers alone. Although computers far out-match us humans when it comes to playing chess, they are not as good as humans are at coaching humans to get better. At least, that is my take, and the linked post goes into detail why I'm of that belief. In what might be a "twin" to that post, I'm removing computers from the equation and exploring how much a chess player's strength matters when it comes to being a coach. In particular, this house believes that just because Player A is a better player than Player B, it does not follow that Player A is a better COACH than Player B. In fact, it may well be the case that Player B is a superior coach. As I said in my post about computer coaching, the skillset is different. Yes; in the above (bold) example hypothesis, one might expect Player A to be a better coach, because they understand the game better than Player B. However, coaching isn't just about what you know. It is the ability to communicate what one knows in a manner the student readily understands that is the mark of a good coach. Exhibit A:

This is former World Champion, and according to some, the Greatest Player of All Time, Magnus Carlsen, trying - and failing - to explain the rule of the square. Don't believe me? Watch the video for yourself. You tell me if you believe that anyone would understand the Rule of the Square just from watching that video. If you do think Magnus Carlsen explained the concept effectively, check out the comments, and you'll see you're probably the only one. It's not as if explaining the rule is hard.

The Rule of the Square is an endgame calculation "hack" that allows you to easily tell whether a King can catch an opposing passed pawn or not. Simply imagine a diagonal line (drawn on the board above) from the pawn to the promotion rank. (Alternative read: Imagine the pawn reached the promotion rank by capturing every time, in a straight line. What square would it end up on?) Use that square and the square the pawn is on to mark opposite corners of a square. IF the opposing King, on move, can get inside that square, it can catch the pawn. If the opposing King is not on move, it needs to already be in the square in order to catch the pawn. Thus, in the example above, the Black King needs to be able to enter the red area. Since it can't, the pawn cannot be stopped. That's basically it, but just to cross the "t"s and dot the "i"s...

If the pawn is on its starting square, assume for illustrative purposes that the pawn is one square further forward before you draw the square. By doing this, you're adjusting for the fact that a pawn can move two squares on its initial move. Thus, in the example above, whether or not the King can catch the pawn depends on whose move it is. Anything else?

IF your pawn is close enough to promotion that you could reach the promotion rank by drawing a diagonal line in either direction, you could make two squares and call them a rectangle if you wish - but all you NEED to do is use the diagonal line that goes to the same side of the pawn that the opposing King is on to make the square. That's the square the King needs to get into. In the latest above example, Black's King cannot catch the pawn. If you didn't know the rule before, you do now. I'm reasonably confident that you understand. But let's have some fun testing it, shall we?

Here, it is Black to move (obviously). Can Black stop the pawn? I haven't drawn the square for you this time! The answer is "no". Although Black is one square away from entering what in the other examples would've been the "red" area, he can't legally move there. The best move would be 1...Kf5, but as long as White recognises that it is not necessary to save the knight, and continues 2.b6!, White has an easy win.

So there you have it. I'm reasonably confident I have just explained to you, within a few minutes (let's say five) what Magnus Carlsen couldn't explain within 7 and a half. And I wasn't just showing the basic rule; I went through the exception, and then added a knight to the equation when it is a rule that specifically deals with King and Pawn endings Why? A good coach, having explained the concept, will expand upon the theme if possible when asking the student to demonstrate, to see if the student can not just regurgitate, but practically apply the lesson they were learning.

Quick disclaimer: Yes; I'm well aware that anyone who stumbles across this blog post probably already knew the Rule of the Square; I doubt anyone has learned the rule from reading here. That said, on the off-chance that someone who had no idea what the rule was did read this post, I'm pretty sure they know what the rule is now. Further disclaimer: I'm not saying I'm a better coach than Magnus Carlsen. Given the gulf in our abilities, it seems unlikely, but I've never seen him coach, so I wouldn't know. What I do think I can legitimately claim is that this blog post explains the Rule of the Square better than his video. However...

Here is another example of Magnus Carlsen "teaching". You can actually find quite a few videos on YouTube entitled things like "Magnus [Carlsen] teaches ... ", and in most of them he isn't actually explaining whatever-it-is in any great detail; if anything it's a teach-by-demonstration scenario. In the example above, the opening trick doesn't play out, and he briefly mentions it in passing. While (unlike the previous video) he does actually explain what the video title is claiming he does, to be honest you could discern the wisdom he is imparting about the opening trick just by looking at the thumbnail.

Yes; I recycle visual gags from previous posts. My computer doesn't have unlimited storage space, OK? So, what inspired me to write this post was a debate I came across in the forums a couple of weeks ago. I'm being charitable by calling it a "debate"; not everyone in the chess.com forums would win awards for politeness. I also can't find that thread now, which is maybe for the best. As I recall, the whole thing blew up because a 1600 ELO player was offering to give lessons.

In the Red Corner... we have those who believe that a 1600 shouldn't be giving or offering lessons, period. "If you're 1600, you're not good enough to tell other players what they should be doing" is the gist of the argument. "You'll give bad advice, which your student will have to un-learn".

In the Blue Corner... we have those who believe that a 1600 has something to offer, and depending on the level of student, it could be a good match. After all, if you're trying to coach an 800 ELO player, you don't have to be a titled player to point out things like "you hung a piece on move 6".

It probably won't surprise you to learn that my sympathies stand more with those in the blue corner than the red one. Like with most disciplines, there are levels to this game. A 1600 knows little when compared to a titled player, but has a wealth of knowledge compared to someone as far down the pecking order from them as they are from CM. If said 1600 is willing to share that knowledge (yes, even if they are offering it for a fee), with players below their level, then I don't see the problem. After all, coaches are hired at the discretion of their students - the student decides if their coach is good enough; not some third party that is neither the student nor the coach in question. By the way, most coaches (myself included) offer a free lesson to potential new students, to give them an idea of whether this is someone they want to work with. I'd be somewhat suspicious of a coach that didn't offer that, although it wouldn't be the reddest flag I'd ever seen.

The above puzzle is one that I often give my students. There's nothing especially advanced about it, which is not the same thing as saying one shouldn't take pride in solving it. But I could absolutely see some 1600s setting this puzzle for their own students, and being able to explain the concepts behind it. I could also see some 1600s struggling to solve it. After all, my opponent in the game (as Black) is much better than 1600, and he played into this position. Although, it didn't play out as per the puzzle; he played 1...Rfb8, sacrificing the Queen for an attack (which didn't work). Now, someone that struggles to understand the above position maybe shouldn't be setting it or trying to explain it themselves, but that wouldn't disqualify them from coaching a certain range. If you're completely new to the game, do you really need a GrandMaster to explain to you how the pieces move?Sorry, Magnus; it feels like I'm picking on you today. (And yes, I know who Andrea Botez is!) At least you did sort of answer the question that time. Although really; how are you supposed to explain in brief terms how the knight moves? "Any combination of three orthogonal steps, such that the knight is no longer on the same rank or file as the square it is moving from" is (off the top of my head) the best I can do in one sentence on the fly. Although that doesn't cover the jumping allowance. Conversely, how would a GrandMaster feel explaining the game to a complete beginner? Picture it: you've put yourself through years of hard work and potential financial hardship, studying your hobby every spare moment for years on end, plumbing the depths of an ancient game so that it may reveal its wonder to you - only to feel like you're beating your head against a brick wall explaining to a blank-faced student that yes; even though you moved your pawn two squares, your opponent's pawn can still capture it as though it had only moved one. (No; this is NOT based on MY experience; all my students know the en passant rule... although I have had the experience of converting a losing position into a winning one just by the fluke of my opponent not knowing it). Surely your time and talents would be better suited to teaching more advanced stuff to those who had already grasped the basics? Could someone who is sufficiently far advanced (but not an expert), not take on the task of teaching the beginners, so you can teach everyone else?

Now, this is an admittedly crude illustration, but an illustration nonetheless. Let's say that anyone within this cross-section of fictional players can only take on a coach or student if they are also within this cross-section. Let's say they all wish to improve at least one bracket. The GMs don't need a coach, and the triple-figure ELOs don't get to coach anyone. Each player can take on a maximum of three students. The made-up numbers, by the way, are chosen to be roughly representative of the actual bell curve of real players distributed by rating range. Except, I've added another GM. Anyway, the lower rated players vastly outnumber the higher rated players. If only the titled players do any coaching, it will not be mathematically possible for everyone below GM to have a coach. OK, so maybe the next bracket down (or two) can take up the slack. Now, I'm no mathematician, but I'm pretty sure just by eyeballing those numbers that if the titled players divvy up the lowest rated players among them, you're going to run into problems real quick. Most obviously: Who is going to coach the IM? The ONLY way everyone can get a coach is if every player that isn't in the lowest rating bracket takes on at least one student. Now, those in the red corner may justifiably point out that this is all very well, but professional coaches can take on more than three students. Indeed; some of them can. My argument doesn't rest on "there aren't enough titled players to go around". I can only maintain my sympathies with the blue corner if I can be satisfied that a 1600 is a worthy coach in their own right.

This is a position I like to introduce to my students when we're covering basic endgames. Now, it's been a while since I was rated 1600 on chess.com (and honestly, without being mean, when I was, I was just passing through) - but I'm fairly sure most 1600s would be able to explain how White (to move) wins. Yes, I'm sure there is the odd 1600 that would need the position explained to them. But I'm also convinced that once they understood it, they could impart that wisdom for the benefit of anyone else that didn't know. So, spare me the elitism. Anyone sufficiently far advanced can (potentially) be a coach; it is a different skillset from playing the game. By the way, I also side with higher rated players on the rare occasion that anyone takes their anti-elitism too far:

This was something else I came across in the forums. Someone, to whom I have done the courtesy of keeping anonymous (although I don't know why I bother; it's not difficult to find this thread) wanted to advertise themselves as a coach. Nothing wrong with that... except they decided to do it by dissing what I'm sure they saw as "the competition". The player in question was not a titled player (the player calling them out for what they said was), and decided to take a shot at all titled players in a bid to further their own goals. I get it: it is frustrating if you're a quality coach with the capability to help players below your own level (or even AT your own level), and you're getting overlooked because potential students are gravitating towards people with a shiny title. ARE there titled players who sell their services, that actually suck at coaching? Um... yeah, probably. It's statistically likely. But that doesn't mean us mortals get to complain about ALL titled players. People who suck at coaching won't be in the market for long, because they won't get positive reviews. Or, they will learn from their failures, and get better at the job. To respond to one of the points this person said, the "it doesn't help to say whether you are doing something wrong" - that depends! If my student hung a piece on move 6, they probably don't need me to point it out (if it got captured, they'll have realised!) - but we would need to look into why the blunder happened. Alternatively, if they are routinely swapping off their rooks for one of their opponent's minor pieces, that mistake will need pointed out - along with a conversation about piece evaluation. I've been coaching in various capacities for twenty years; not once have I had a bad word to say about another coach (at least, not for chess... and if I did criticize another coach's methods, it was with the benefit of personal knowledge of what that coach was doing; I wasn't denigrating a random I'd never met).

Now... here's a position that'll sort the wheat from the chaff! Or will it? Sort of... OK, here's the thing: White to move wins. Actually, even I'm not certain of that. I'm pretty sure. I'm just as sure that a 1600 doesn't know how to win from this position - at least, couldn't reliably do it. I'd be amazed if a 1600 understood this position so well that they could not only execute the mate flawlessly, but teach it to someone else. But does that mean the 1600 can't coach? Of course not! How many people below 1600 are going to need to know this mate? Or to put it another way: how many people that are at a level where they are getting coached by a 1600 are ready to study this position? That would be none. So, is a 1600 good enough to coach?

It depends what they're bringing to the table. (Ba-dum tsch!)

If the student asked their 1600-ELO coach about the NNvP position above, and their coach said: "Well, Black has a threat to win the game if they promote that pawn, so the first thing to do is capture the pawn, after which you have fifty moves to force mate" - then those in the red corner rejoice in their righteousness, because that 1600 level player is not a suitable coach. They're talking about things they don't understand. IF, however, they said: "You know what? I don't know. I'm pretty sure this is winning, but that's not something I can teach you right now", then that coach is (rightly) accepting their limitations. They could be coach material.

The last refuge of the red corner is that it is futile to be taught by someone so lowly, because the student will eventually progress, and then they'll have to un-learn all the bad habits that their sub-standard coach taught them. Well, firstly, I'd have to say "what bad habits?" Much like I described above, a good coach will carefully avoid teaching any. That's not to say they won't, but also: bad habits, at a certain level, are not necessarily bad. When getting to high levels, some unlearning is always going to be necessary.

When you're teaching a beginner to deal with the Wayward Queen attack, one of the things you will warn them off of playing is 2...Nf6. White is (probably) going for Scholar's Mate, but they haven't set that up yet, so the actual threat is to the e5 pawn. Black should play 2...Nc6 or 2...d6, to develop while defending the pawn, and THEN deal with the mate threat by moving the Queen. There's a very good reason you'd warn them: 2...Nf6 will lead to 3.Qxe5+, whereas, if White builds the threat via the bishop's opening (2.Bc4), then after 2...Bc5 or 2...Nc6 for example, and 3.Qh5, 3...Nf6?? loses to 4.Qxf7#. The knight attacking the Queen did nothing to repel the attack. However...

This is a line that I might show to more advanced students. Gambit the e5 pawn for development. After three moves, Black has developed two pieces and is ready to castle. White has moved the Queen twice, developed nothing, and will inevitably have to move the Queen again, as Black can attack it whenever they want. Now, this may not be the best example, as 2...Nf6 is not exactly the engine's favourite move - but it is playable. An advancing student may have to cast aside any prejudices they had about playing 2...Nf6, but the warning will have served them well historically - probably preventing a litany of quick defeats. Sometimes, the inaccurate things we are taught as we are learning the game serve a purpose. Once the purpose has been served, we can be disabused of such notions. You want a more basic example? The guidance points that we assign the pieces!

So... how good should your coach be?

At chess, or at coaching? Because the latter is more important!

Unless you're aiming to be a titled player, your coach doesn't necessarily need to be titled themselves. Even then, you might start off with a non-titled coach, and change coaches at a later date. A good coach will be honest about how far they can take you, and as a student, it is up to you to determine if that matches your ambitions.