lichess.org
Donate

Coaches vs analysing your own games

I heard someone (no names) saying that you can't analyse games properly without a coach. Which made me wonder just what analysing a game with a coach looks like. I've never had a coach so I wouldn't know.

I know you can analyse games alone, I've been doing it for years, but I wonder just how much better it'd be to go through it with a coach. What does a coach have to offer that you can't find yourself?

I heard someone (no names) saying that you can't analyse games properly without a coach. Which made me wonder just what analysing a game with a coach looks like. I've never had a coach so I wouldn't know. I know you can analyse games alone, I've been doing it for years, but I wonder just how much better it'd be to go through it with a coach. What does a coach have to offer that you can't find yourself?

@qpalzm123456 said ^

I heard someone (no names) saying that you can't analyse games properly without a coach. Which made me wonder just what analysing a game with a coach looks like. I've never had a coach so I wouldn't know.

I know you can analyse games alone, I've been doing it for years, but I wonder just how much better it'd be to go through it with a coach. What does a coach have to offer that you can't find yourself?

Well coaches see a lot of lines that you dont

@qpalzm123456 said [^](/forum/redirect/post/iSHGp6i4) > I heard someone (no names) saying that you can't analyse games properly without a coach. Which made me wonder just what analysing a game with a coach looks like. I've never had a coach so I wouldn't know. > > I know you can analyse games alone, I've been doing it for years, but I wonder just how much better it'd be to go through it with a coach. What does a coach have to offer that you can't find yourself? Well coaches see a lot of lines that you dont

Today, it is easier to analyze games than ever. Nonetheless, there are games, positions, that despite the help of engines, are really difficult to understand. Recently I bought Kotronias' book about equal positions, and despite SF and Kotronias' comments, I did not understand a lot of games. But then, Nunn, in several of his books, commented how difficult it was to analyze and comment someone else's games.

A coach is always useful: e.g., he will explain you why you should exchange the black squares bishop in the Dutch and French if you have the white pieces, and keep your white squares bishop; why you can 0-0-0 in the Sicilian if black has played Nc6 but should avoid it if he has played Nbd7, he will help you form a repertoire, etc.

But most importantly, a good coach will see your weaknesses and help you improve. It is even visible at top level chess: Tal and Morozevich would have achieved much more with better coaches; it was obvious in 1979 -- Tal worked with Karpov's team in Baguio, the previous year, than went to win everything he played for two years, until he lost that tragic match against Korchnoi; Moro never had a decent repertoire.

More recent examples are Carlsen, Naka and probably Fabi: Magnus is a Karpov-like player, but he trained with Kasparov, who was the complete opposite, and it helped him become what he is today. Had Nakamura work with, let's say, Kramnik, he would be a serious candidate for the title -- Garry was a similar player, he did not bring him what he lacked. Same with Fabi: some work with a dynamic attacker, and he would have achieved more. Even today, he is great in defense, easily beating top attackers, and, especially with faster time controls, not so good when he has to attack himself.

Today, it is easier to analyze games than ever. Nonetheless, there are games, positions, that despite the help of engines, are really difficult to understand. Recently I bought Kotronias' book about equal positions, and despite SF and Kotronias' comments, I did not understand a lot of games. But then, Nunn, in several of his books, commented how difficult it was to analyze and comment someone else's games. A coach is always useful: e.g., he will explain you why you should exchange the black squares bishop in the Dutch and French if you have the white pieces, and keep your white squares bishop; why you can 0-0-0 in the Sicilian if black has played Nc6 but should avoid it if he has played Nbd7, he will help you form a repertoire, etc. But most importantly, a good coach will see your weaknesses and help you improve. It is even visible at top level chess: Tal and Morozevich would have achieved much more with better coaches; it was obvious in 1979 -- Tal worked with Karpov's team in Baguio, the previous year, than went to win everything he played for two years, until he lost that tragic match against Korchnoi; Moro never had a decent repertoire. More recent examples are Carlsen, Naka and probably Fabi: Magnus is a Karpov-like player, but he trained with Kasparov, who was the complete opposite, and it helped him become what he is today. Had Nakamura work with, let's say, Kramnik, he would be a serious candidate for the title -- Garry was a similar player, he did not bring him what he lacked. Same with Fabi: some work with a dynamic attacker, and he would have achieved more. Even today, he is great in defense, easily beating top attackers, and, especially with faster time controls, not so good when he has to attack himself.

@qpalzm123456 said ^

I heard someone (no names) saying that you can't analyse games properly without a coach.

That's absurd (and was no doubt said by a coach). It's especially silly with all the engine access nowadays.

@qpalzm123456 said [^](/forum/redirect/post/iSHGp6i4) > I heard someone (no names) saying that you can't analyse games properly without a coach. That's absurd (and was no doubt said by a coach). It's especially silly with all the engine access nowadays.

I analyse by myself (but maybe that's why I'm not a GM!). During the game, I have a pretty good idea of the critical moments anyway. Afterwards, I go through the whole game with an engine. There will be some positions where we both thought a move was possible (or impossible) but missed something. And some positions where we missed a tactic. I look at the opening with a database to compare our moves with the popular choice at GM level.
If you know yourself well, then a coach is less important. But they can be really useful in giving you an outsider view, point out recurring themes and areas for improvement.

I analyse by myself (but maybe that's why I'm not a GM!). During the game, I have a pretty good idea of the critical moments anyway. Afterwards, I go through the whole game with an engine. There will be some positions where we both thought a move was possible (or impossible) but missed something. And some positions where we missed a tactic. I look at the opening with a database to compare our moves with the popular choice at GM level. If you know yourself well, then a coach is less important. But they can be really useful in giving you an outsider view, point out recurring themes and areas for improvement.

@MrPushwood That was me, dummy, and I am absolutely not a coach. I would think you would have been able to sniff that out with the number of times I've gone on record saying that around here.

And I'm taking my viewpoint on that to my grave if I have to, thank you very much.

@MrPushwood That was me, dummy, and I am absolutely not a coach. I would think you would have been able to sniff that out with the number of times I've gone on record saying that around here. And I'm taking my viewpoint on that to my grave if I have to, thank you very much.
<Comment deleted by user>

@tooepik4u said ^

@MrPushwood That was me, dummy, and I am absolutely not a coach. I would think you would have been able to sniff that out with the number of times I've gone on record saying that around here.

And I'm taking my viewpoint on that to my grave if I have to, thank you very much.

you are also taking your 800 rating to the grave

I can't quite tell if the guy is deranged or a troll.

@tooepik4u said [^](/forum/redirect/post/pjrGltqF) > > @MrPushwood That was me, dummy, and I am absolutely not a coach. I would think you would have been able to sniff that out with the number of times I've gone on record saying that around here. > > > > And I'm taking my viewpoint on that to my grave if I have to, thank you very much. > > you are also taking your 800 rating to the grave I can't quite tell if the guy is deranged or a troll.

Neither. It's speaking the truth because your progress will be stunted without the right coach. And I don't feel attached to my rating, so those of who have a problem with me being stuck in the 800s and below need to either take chill pills or do a coach search on my behalf. Your choice.

Neither. It's speaking the truth because your progress will be stunted without the right coach. And I don't feel attached to my rating, so those of who have a problem with me being stuck in the 800s and below need to either take chill pills or do a coach search on my behalf. Your choice.

I read online here and there that a coach in chess is completely unnecessary. Interestingly, I almost never hear that in the OTB chess scene.
With such things, it is usually more about not wanting to make an effort or pay money. That is fine. However, some people do not want to acknowledge this and talk down this coaching option in their mind. That is also fine. It only becomes problematic when one spreads this misinformation.

It is true that one can get very far in chess through self-study alone. However, it is also true that this is significantly more time-consuming than with a serious coach.

By the way, there is no law that requires you to pay another player money to be coached by them. Normally, as a beginner, you will also find a stronger player in a nearby chess club who will teach you a little something. But for that, one would have to accept that other players might actually know more about chess than one does, without them having to be GMs.

I read online here and there that a coach in chess is completely unnecessary. Interestingly, I almost never hear that in the OTB chess scene. With such things, it is usually more about not wanting to make an effort or pay money. That is fine. However, some people do not want to acknowledge this and talk down this coaching option in their mind. That is also fine. It only becomes problematic when one spreads this misinformation. It is true that one can get very far in chess through self-study alone. However, it is also true that this is significantly more time-consuming than with a serious coach. By the way, there is no law that requires you to pay another player money to be coached by them. Normally, as a beginner, you will also find a stronger player in a nearby chess club who will teach you a little something. But for that, one would have to accept that other players might actually know more about chess than one does, without them having to be GMs.