Re: since you mention chess
I don't get why I'm being misunderstood. I said that the ability to play the game well is a pre-req to be a good coach in games where ability is not limited or increased much by genetics or health. If you are better than someone in a game like that then a coach you hire isn't going to be that effective unless he coaches on you the non-technical side of the game (Tilt, focus, discipline, keeping to a training regime, etc).
If the ability to do well in a game is based solely on knowledge then there is no reason why someone you can beat should coach you unlessthere are aspects of the game he is better at. IF he is better at those aspects then there is also no reason why that couldn't be shown.
There are plenty of valid reasons to hire a coach. I just think that in games based on knowledge if you are better than the coach then his services better be tailored to the outside and mental aspects of the game. Looking at TA's website this appears to be the major focus of his coaching package which is why it's probably why it's effective for everybody, even players he doesn't play much better than they do.
Do you think TA would have much to teach someone on blind defense theory if the person he was coaching did much better than him in that regard vs the same players over a significant sample size?
I'm going to admit I'm probably completely wrong on the chess example as it relates to Kasparov, but if a player worse than yourself can coach you well in that game then I'm offering my technical coaching servies in chess or any other game I'm bad at. I'll wait for my PM box to explode.
|