I don't understand why GMs charge so much for lessons. It's not like
the average person can afford $60 an hour. I guess they are still
communist and think about making as money as possible at one time. If
they were capitalist, they would lower their rate to $40/hr and make
more money. For example, getting paid $40/hr for 10 hours is much
better than working $60/hr for 5 hours. Plus they would not have to
travel as much since they would have a constant job.

"Ivan" wrote in message
om...
I don't understand why GMs charge so much for lessons. It's not like
the average person can afford $60 an hour. I guess they are still
communist and think about making as money as possible at one time. If
they were capitalist, they would lower their rate to $40/hr and make
more money. For example, getting paid $40/hr for 10 hours is much
better than working $60/hr for 5 hours. Plus they would not have to
travel as much since they would have a constant job.

Congratulations on producing a textbook example of "proof by assertion."

You can find lessons by someone for much less. I found a teacher for 20 an
hour, and we frequently went over an hour. He had already achieved won GM
norm when I studied with him.

For parents, don't go the GM route, get a strong player to help (unless your
child is a Karjakin prodigy.) A player rated 1900 can offer much to a
player rated 800-1300. And , the 1900 rated player will be very happy to
make some money.

"EZoto" wrote in message
news:f93ca5b9dc40a9455ade5ac11f7f8fde@TeraNews...

Simple economics. GM's charge what they feel they are worth and the
knowledge they can offer. Unfortunately you have a lot of quacks who
are good players but not good teachers. It is rare to find a truly
good chess teacher and he doesn't even have to be a GM. Quite
honestly unless the GM isn't competing anymore I wouldn't waste my
time on a GM as a teacher. You can learn some things but GM's don't
have the time to spend to nurture a student. GM's are more for the
simuls and appearances.

EZoto

I'm just about certain one could learn more in an hour's lesson from a
non-competing GM like Bill Lombardy than from ten hours with the average
non-quack teacher. Some GMs, of course, are more equal than others.
--
Ian Burton
[Please Reply to Newsgroup]

Sounds like an old joke:

Q: Why do divorces cost so much?
A: Because they're worth it.

--
Less Paul

(Ivan) wrote in message . com...
I don't understand why GMs charge so much for lessons. It's not like
the average person can afford $60 an hour. I guess they are still
communist and think about making as money as possible at one time. If
they were capitalist, they would lower their rate to $40/hr and make
more money. For example, getting paid $40/hr for 10 hours is much
better than working $60/hr for 5 hours. Plus they would not have to
travel as much since they would have a constant job.

It's called a free market economy. As GM Larry Evans once said, knock
on the door and be prepared to pay the price. Anyway, most people are
not in a position to benefit from grandmaster instruction.

David Ames

If you don't have the discipline to study good chess books then you're
probably wasting your time and money on expensive lessons. Chess teachers
rarely impart anything magical. In my opinion the best they can do is teach
you what you need to do, during the 99% of the time you're not with them, to
improve. The rest is up to you, but I think most people (myself included)
feel "Hey, I've just spent 90 minutes with so-and-so and paid him $100.
That's good enough until next time!"

GMs can tell you, for example, how to study a master game but rarely give
better advice than Fritz 5.2 on specific moves. They can show you important
endings but then again so can a good $25 endings book. They can show you
middlegame themes and plans but you can get a lifetimes' worth of top-level
game analysis from $100 worth of books. (Of course you can have a $500
library like me, and if (like me) you don't read 'em, what's the point?).

I believe GM teachers' benefit is mostly psychological, although for me it's
reverse psychology (the more lessons I take, the worse I get).

Angelo DePalma

"B. G." wrote me. If you choose to become
disciplined and study books, I think it
might be more cost effective. But the discipline to study regularly is
very hard to attain. At least with scheduled lessons you feel some
obligation to attend (since you're paying, it's in your best interest
to attend and learn something).
job.

"Steve Grant" wrote in message ... (to Ivan):
Congratulations on producing a textbook example of "proof by assertion."

Unfortunately, crudely attempted "proofs by assertion" seem too fashionable
here, particularly when some writers make personal attacks on other people.

Here are two recent examples of that method:

1) On 24 July 2003, "Dr. Robert Faurisson" created the thread, "Macnab is a
liar and a snivelling coward!", in order to make a personal attack on
John Macnab. "Dr. Robert Faurisson" has provided *no evidence* that
John Macnab is "a liar" or "a snivelling coward".

2) On 13 June 2003, Tim Hanke created the thread, "Nick Bourbaki's many lies",
in order to make a personal attack on me. Like "Dr. Robert Faurisson"
with regard to John Macnab, Tim Hanke has provided *no evidence* of my
alleged "many lies" about him.

The creations of those baseless threads bring dishonour only to "Dr. Robert
Faurisson" and Tim Hanke, none to John Macnab and me.

--Nick

Nick (The Pedantic Twit) wrote:

"Steve Grant" wrote (to Ivan):
Congratulations on producing a textbook example of "proof by assertion."

Unfortunately, crudely attempted "proofs by assertion" seem too fashionable
here, particularly when some writers make personal attacks on other people.

Here are two recent examples of that method:

1) On 24 July 2003, "Dr. Robert Faurisson" created the thread, "Macnab is a
liar and a snivelling coward!", in order to make a personal attack on
John Macnab. "Dr. Robert Faurisson" has provided *no evidence* that
John Macnab is "a liar" or "a snivelling coward".

2) On 13 June 2003, Tim Hanke created the thread, "Nick Bourbaki's many lies",
in order to make a personal attack on me. Like "Dr. Robert Faurisson"
with regard to John Macnab, Tim Hanke has provided *no evidence* of my
alleged "many lies" about him.

The creations of those baseless threads bring dishonour only to "Dr. Robert
Faurisson" and Tim Hanke, none to John Macnab and me.

Nick, you weasel!

I called you a liar *and* I provided positive proof in support
of that assertion. When are you going to admit that you lied?
You are hardly one to be questioning the honor of others, when
you have been so dishonest yourself.