I understand that 'doing' and 'explaining' are different things and that people who learn very young usually are not good at the latter (since they tend to be more intuitive and less verbally analytical)
- Still, with those and many more qualifiers admitted I'm just wondering if there is folklore about how much better someone should be to be useful as a coach.
(The motivation is that my local club gets requests for more chess coaches than there are available but we likely have a supply of experienced players who are retired from work and may welcome something to do. I'm not there yet but hope to be some day myself.)
- Thanks for indulging my odd curiosity, Bill
-ps- A related question is how much better is 'best' to learn from getting beat by someone. Myself I find about 200 ELO good for that.
- Still, with those and many more qualifiers admitted I'm just wondering if there is folklore about how much better someone should be to be useful as a coach.
(The motivation is that my local club gets requests for more chess coaches than there are available but we likely have a supply of experienced players who are retired from work and may welcome something to do. I'm not there yet but hope to be some day myself.)
- Thanks for indulging my odd curiosity, Bill
-ps- A related question is how much better is 'best' to learn from getting beat by someone. Myself I find about 200 ELO good for that.