How important are coaches, seconds, business managers and captains in chess? I have seen a few people trying to make questionable and absurd arguments that coaches, seconds, business managers and captains are irrelevant. Do you think that they are important or not?
Chess Daily News from Susan Polgar
Of course they’re important. Just look at Gata in Elista.
I think a second or captain is 50% of the player / team. A good second or captain can make all the difference in the world.
You must be talking about a few loudmoth obnoxious dufus on the USCF forums. One is a 1300 and the other has no rating with IQ of 50. But of course they know so much more than everyone else. No wonder why the USCF is in deep ….
Are their names Brenan and Harry? Forget about them CF. They’re nothing but a bunch of …. They’re even beneath Sam Sloan.
Yes, they’re all very important.
The USCF forums demonstrate the complete incompetence of Goichberg and Schultz. Instead fulfilling the mission of the USCF, they have no problem destroying people standing in their way. Their conducts and leadership skills are deplorable.
Don’t forget to add Lafferty to the list. It’s unfortunate that people like this have children.
Yes, the most important people in the chess world are posting at the USCF forums: Brian “I will sue you” L; Brian “I haven’t played a rated game in 10 years” Mott., etc.
I actually don’t blame Laffery, Brenan, Payne, Motto or even Sloan. I blame Goichberg, Schultz, Channing for allowing them to do it. They sit back and let people do as they wish for political reasons. Goichberg’s actions of late disgust me. Schultz is ruining his legacy because he wants to maintain his power another 4 years while he should have gone out as a legend.
It depends on the individual, but most would benefit.
It’s my opinion that all men and women are capable of achieving greatness. Even capable of being the best at something. Some need help and some don’t
I think Silman once said something like, “There are two types of grandmasters, ones that are naturals and ones who work very hard at it. I am not a natural, nor do I have the desire to work hard for it.”
I don’t think he meant he was lazy by the way, he just meant he wanted time left in the day to enjoy other things in life.
>>I have seen a few people trying to make questionable and absurd arguments that coaches, seconds, business managers and captains are irrelevant.>>
What are those arguments?
>>Do you think that they are important or not?>>
Well, if you’ve made up your mind that this is an absurd position (which it probably is, honestly), then why ask the question at all?
For high level players, the role of coaches or seconds is up to the player. Think of Bobby Fischer. For low level recreational players (maybe not counting little kids), they’re not important.
Opinions from a class A player who has never had (could never afford)a coach, etc.
Coaches: In my opinion (based upon all that I’ve read) a good coach can greatly eccelerate the rise of a player’s playing strength (assuming the player cooperates!) On the otherhand, a coach is not a necessity in order for one to enjoy chess. I’m even under the impression (or delusion 😉 that it’s possible for one to rise at least to the master level on one’s own – provided one is able to recognize and correct one’s own weaknesses, etc. (a task that is not easily accomplished on one’s own). Did Paul Morphy have a coach?
Seconds: I wish it were not so; but it has come to the point where , in my opinion, seconds (or computer assistance) has become a “near necessity” (for success) at and near the world championship level. It saddens me that chess is often no longer an “individual” battle at those levels. Frankly, I would like to see the use of seconds banned for all parties. A chess game should be a struggle between two minds and only two minds. Did Emanuel Lasker have a second?
Business Managers: This one I’m even more ignorant of. I suppose if a grandmaster wishes to make a living at chess and nothing but chess a BM “might” prove worth the expense; but much would depend upon the individual player and BM. A bad BM can easily manipulate a player for his/her own purposes. Do any active players currently have business managers?
Captains: I can only assume that the context here is that of the captain of a team. In this situation, the captain would be there to serve as the glue to hold the team together, someone who can end arguments over disputes concerning who plays whom, etc. — someone who’s opinion the rest of the team respects. In this situation, a captain is pretty much a necessity. Whenever a group of people unite for a common cause there will most likely be a leader (captain) or chaos.
They are all very important. Especially at the professional level where a coaches and captains get replaced if they do not get their teams to perform well.
Check out this website:
http://sportsmedicine.about.com/od/tipsandtricks/a/qualitycoach.htm
Although they refer to team sports, they can also be applied to chess.
Of course they are important but to what degree depends on the player. In general they help to do a lot of the necessary and time consuming work in the background:
1. Prepare analysis of opponents and search out prior games and opening lines.
2. Make sure travel and playing arrangements are in order.
Basically handle things so that the player can focus on preparing and playing.
Roger Federer doesn’t have a coach!
I think unfortunately seconds in modern day chess are too important. Looking at game results in todays top level tournaments, (almost every game is drawn), these seconds are using so much computer assistance for the slighest of advantages its ridiculous. But I guess with the advent of these super computers it was inevitable and will eventually ruin the game of chess for Professional players. Looking back at Robert Fischers scores of 6-0 6-0 over two super GM’s in candidate matches for The World Championship is truely amazing!
First, I do think that coaches are important. In the scholastic context, look at Hunter and Dalton which have won or placed 2nd or 3rd in virtually every K-1 and K-3 national competition for years. Or look at IS 318 which won the K-6 and K-8 nationals this year. Without Elizabeth Vicary (and Miron Sher, Irina Krush, the Shahades, etc.), you might have one or two outstanding players but not a championship winning team.
Second, the USCF issues has become a travesty. The middle aged boys who can’t play chess but have all day to take potshots at Grandmasters have taken over. The moderators have been intimidated into submission (if not resignation) by blowhards like Lafferty and Bogner as well as ne’er do wells like Sloan and the rest of us are disgusted. And I do think that the buck stops at the feet of the Executive Board who either lack the cujones (sp?) to just say no to mediocrities like Brenan or who are happy to let him post his ridiculously inappropriate remarks because it helps them to hold onto power.
From my perspective, a chess coach is extremely valuable. I’m very happy with my coach. She is an IM and a great person to interact with. “chemistry” matters a lot.
The real question regarding coaches and “seconds,” in my humble opinion, is to search your soul and ask yourself:
What is your individual chess goal in life? If you want to be a GM or an IM, then you need a certain type of coach/second. Maybe both.
However, for me, I merely want to improve and see what my true potential is. The key phrase on my part is “MY TRUE POTENTIAL.”
I simply love the sport of chess. My coach has helped me tremendously and, though I’ll probably never be an IM, nor even a “Master,” I just want to learn.
If my coach brings out “the best” in me regarding chess and, ultimately, my “best” is to be an “expert” or “Class A” player and not a “Master,” then I’m quite happy with that. Hey, a good “clas A” player is really good. But, I’m not limiting myself, I don’t know (in the years ahead) what rating I will obtain.
It all depends upon what you want out of chess. I already have a career. I have no desire to be a chess professional.
I will play in chess tournaments in the near future and see what happens. But, I know that win, lose, or draw, having a coach will improve my game. I also know that win, lose, or drae…I will always be a chess player. Even if I live to be 120!
And to “improve my game” is all I ever asked for. It’s up to me to put the effort in, the extra hours of study, to become an “expert” or to achieve whatever my true potential is….is really up to me.
A coach, just as a college professor, are guides to help you help yourself. Chess is hard work and that’s true with or without a coach.
I thank my coach for all she has done for me and the many future lessons we shall have.
Where shall I stand regarding “ratings” in 5 years? No one knows for sure since no person can accurately predict the future. Nevetheless, I have confidence in myself and I have great respect and tremendous confidence in my chess coach….
combine these two ingredients and I know that I will be a much better chess player. Period.
My coach knows who I am. To her, I say, thank you for being the best coach I can imagine. Keep up the good work.
Sincerely,
“Charlemagne”
I have always wondered why a top level chess player needs a coach. Kinda like why Roger Federer would need a coach in Tennis. I mean what are you really going to learn?
In response to anonymous 5:11:00 p.m., great players like Boris Spassky, Victor Korchnoi, Anatoly Karpov, and Gata Kamsky have been trained by Roman Dzindzichashvili. While Roman may not have been a strong as the aforementioned, he certainly has been “one of the prime movers and creators of modern opening theory for the past 40 years” – Chess Openings for White, Explained
The greats may hire more than one trainer and help them improve in certain areas of their game, or help them prepare for a major event.
While Roger Federer may not have a coach, whose to say he may one day become a great coach.
At the higher levels (IM, GM, superGM) coaching isn’t about the player learning something – they usually know all of the technical issues – often it is about how to deal with a certain situation or type of player or particular opponent. Seconds are very useful in dealing with things which require a chess player’s understanding but which the player himself/herself doesn’t need to deal with directly – e.g. some of the playing conditions, travel arrangements, and other obligations and duties of players at major matches and tourneys.
The coaches and seconds at this level need to mesh well in terms of personality and habits – a griding hard nose-to-the-grindstone worker like Botvinnik wouldn’t be a good fit with someone with a more congenial attitude. Bondarevsky got great things out of Spassky but later he was linked with others who really didn’t know how to motivate him or work with him. Koblenz had a long career with Tal, but understood that there was only so much he could get Mikhail to do on any given day before they would start playing blitz.
One of the best success stories is probably Semyon Furman and Anatoly Karpov – Karpov’s dominance with the White pieces and his latter switch over to 1d4 can in some part be credited to this alliance – they got along well and their sense and style of play meshed well.
Onischuk and Kamsky need someone they can feel comfortable talking about chess with and revealing how they think about positions so that they can have help at the bigger matches and tourneys. Likewise with Nakamura, but clearly the same coach or second won’t work with both! The latter needs someone who feels comfortable with Nakamura’s style and approach.
As for the claim that some tennis players don’t have a coach – don’t believe it. All of the top players work with various people looking to strength a part of their game or make a stroke more efficient. There is no official coaching allowed during matches, but none of the top players work in isolation. More than anyone they depend on a whole entourage to coordinate their travel, public obligations.
Yes, coaches/seconds are really useful!! They are able to look at the match situation or results OBJECTIVELY! That is something the player themselves can NEVER do!
Without Mr. Furman, Karpov wouldn’t have reached that amazing level! Just read Karpov’s autobiography and see how amazing the influence of Furman was! It was like a father to him!!
Name me 1 really good player without a second!? Doesn’t exist.
Kasparov always had a team of analysts working fulltime for him. So does Kramnik and all the other “gods”
It’s impossible at the top without decent backup! 🙂
If for no other reason, you need a
coach to teach the psychological
side of chess. You CAN defeat that
opponent if only you believe. A
good coach knows how to train and
motivate his student, regardless of
rating level. You have to keep
training fun, use variety, and have
clear-cut goals and rewards for
meeting those goals. Passion for
the game of chess is essential as
well. The best teachers are not
necessarily the highest rated
players, but those who understand
how to make the most out of a
given player’s talent.