How much do you think chess coaches should charge?
Should they charge based on the skill of the player?
Do you think that chess coaches are worth the money and time?
I would like to hear people’s opinions on these questions and please be honest. There is no right or wrong answer. I myself charge low but affordable rates because I believe all people have the right to affordable lessons but not everyone agrees with me.
i think it’s like anything else in a consumer-based society - charge what the market dictates. but, if you’re happy doing the lessons at what you charge, why not continue? as others have mentioned, just because one is a skilled player, does not equate to being a skilled tutor.
i think it makes more sense to charge adults a bit more? maybe?
i have given group lessons and individual lessons to kids but paramount is just getting kids to play the game!
…scot…
I would think it depends partly on your purpose for coaching. If you’re trying to earn a living, you have to charge enough to do so (if the market won’t bear that, you need a new plan). If, however, you are coaching for different reasons, you may choose to charge less, particularly if you are seeking to serve a population who can’t afford more.
The questions are for players and coaches to see how people feel about coaches and their prices. I charge low but affordable rates based on the talent of the student. I do group discounts as well. The biggest thing I see among coaches is they accuse each other of charging too much or too little. I say go with what the market will bear and charge based on a goal you might have for chess in your area. My goal is to give affordable lessons to players of all levels from beginner to around 1600-1700. After that, I have a list of coaches I refer them to depending on how much they can afford.
The unanswerable question is how much a lower-rated coach is teaching the players that they’ll have to be retaught by a stronger coach later on in order to advance beyond some level of play.
But I agree with the statement upthread that the most important part for beginners is getting them playing (and having fun.) Active play is what makes for a long term commitment to chess, not achieving some level of proficiency, whether that be C player, Master, or somewhere in between.
Those who have the talent to advance further may want stronger coaching later on, but there’s also a risk that they get pushed to improve to the point where they stop having fun and lose interest in chess completely. We have seen more than a few pre-teens work to achieve a 2200+ rating and then pretty much give up the game.
I would argue that Mr. Antonucci’s “low but affordable” rates are meaingless without numbers.
Alex Relyea
This isn’t all that unusual. My (now somewhat vague) recollection of physics is that you learn the “basics” in the first two years of college, then the next two years show why those basics weren’t fully correct, and then in graduate courses you learn how even those advanced undergrad courses weren’t quite right, and so on.
He quoted his rates in the other thread on lessons (which I started.)
I will always believe that chess should be affordable. Unfortunately, not everyone agrees with me on that. I think we will see chess lessons cost more and memberships go up with the change in the game.
Everything else is going up, the costs of running the national office aren’t immune to those increases.
Chess lesson fees vary substantially by region. I dare say an hour class in New York City will cost twice as much as in the South or Midwest.
Many students have found quality yet affordable coaches online. No doubt the pandemic has expanded the market to instructors all around the country and overseas.
Michael Aigner
I’d consider that a success. They “did” chess, they succeeded, then they realize that (unless they’re GM’s by the early teens) they also have to learn a skill to earn a living. We have trouble retaining young players into adulthood, but I suspect it’s because chess is a different thing to a kid who is serious enough to compete in rated tournaments, and an adult who plays at the level of weekend swisses.
2200+ coaches don’t necessarily do anything to overdrive kids, in fact I would imagine the kids who improve quickly are less likely to drop out with such a coach feeding them things that work, that have depth, and that are interesting. My rating is slightly over 2200 (extremely stale, so if the Rating Committee ever implements “confidence bands” I’ll get busted down to effectively 1600 myself lol) and I got $80 an hour with a few students for a while during a burst of local popularity of school chess teams, when I also happened to have some time. I think it depends on the area though. I don’t think many 1600 players could have given the same lessons even to kids rated below 1000. Not because of technical accuracy, but because they would probably be reciting from a book or article rather than simply expressing what they know to be true (or would at least bet on, via their play in a game that matters) by experience and seeing applications of things in many ways. A 1600 player won’t recognize as many errors in the student’s play. But I don’t think lessons from a 1600 player are harmful, because the lesson is no more than the motivation and direction on where to look and what to think about. (The student who tends to follow through and actually think and work over a lesson on his/her own becomes what we call a “talented” player.) A wrong lesson, in chess or many other fields, can even be useful if it makes the student figure out what’s wrong with it.
Antonucci’s rates look like working for free though. In some states entry level work at McDonalds pays more. Has he tried charging twice as much to see what the market would bear? Or is that not his goal? Recall Fischer’s efforts to improve the prestige of chess generally and playing conditions for top players – I suppose he would have encouraged a higher rate, unless it’s presented in the context of charity. I thought it was a good thing when I was charging twice as much as some tennis pros for lessons. Our little game shifting wood chips around a board, going for more than tennis!
I remember a comment by Nakamura saying he enjoyed chess the most when he was rated around 2200, before he professionalized his approach to the game. BTW he’s one of the few who made it to the place where chess is clearly cashflow positive, without looking like a super-prodigy as a young kid.
Artichoke, my rates are low because I am teaching so people can learn chess at an affordable rate. I have had many people said that rates are not fare but all chess coaches have different missions and mine is to give people affordable lessons and enjoy learning chess.
This topic was automatically closed 730 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.