The Coach

When I first joined the chess world, I was told by many people that I had to learn to play chess before I could teach Mark. When I was trained as a Coach by UNDP I was informed that I need not know the subject matter before I can be a Coach.

Which is true?

Lets examine the arguments of both. I am a businessman. I studied Optics and I was the Group project director of a multinational company. I had 5 construction subsidiaries directly under me that was capitalised at around RM40 million. I am not a technical person. But I had many technical people who answered to me. So how did I get there? I learned to ask questions. I learned how to join the dots. I learned how to cross reference and I learned about people and how they think. I dont think I need to go further into this. This is self apparent.

Why am I saying this? I know many parents who defer to the technical people and get blinded by the jargon. Many seek to disempower the parents by blinding them to the fact they do not need to know chess in order to guide their kids.

So how do I coach Mark? I get him to read the technical and then explain it to me. This works on many levels. The first is it now becomes his knowledge, not mine. I do not waste my time trying to learn a new subject. (Can you imagine me trying to learn quantity surveying, architecture, engineering etc. before I can question my subordinates?) If it is done this way I can then add my knowledge to his. I see the bigger picture, I understand the structure of arguments. I can see when his conclusions are valid and when they are not. I question him, see if he has considered all the variables. And I know when he is giving excuses. I challenge him to defend his arguments. (The same thing I did when I was in construction.)

There is some truth to understanding the technical. To drive a car you need to know how a car works, but you do not need to know how to design the engine. You just need to know enough to send it to a good mechanic and get advice.

Look in the real world. The technical people are part players. They do not know enough.

Chess is similar. It is a good subject to see how thinking works. The game is in the open. They cannot hide their thinking if you know how to read it. The thinking that goes on behind the moves. If we are not careful we begin to accept their reasons for the loss. The ego is very inventive. They try to give you technical reasons for the loss but really, many times it is not. More often its lack of trying, lack of preparation, lack of understanding, failure in courage.

Their excuses will not stand in the real world and so they have created a bubble. And in doing so they have stopped progress. I have been told many times that chess people are weird. I have also written about it on this blog. In a way that is true. The reason is that the part players who cannot join the dots are on top. And the people who can see the bigger picture is suppressed.

Nevertheless, it is an instructional game. It is instructional if you remember this. You can learn from the negative example too. But if we really want to be the best we can be, we need to turn this around and put the head at the head. The technical will need to be relegated to where they belong. This is apparent. Get real.

PS: Of course this argument begs the question, how come Dato Tan didnt bring us to the top? I will leave that question unanswered. There is enough information on this blog to answer that. So think about it. Btw the assertion that he spent millions is in his book. In his book he says he spent 10 million.

PPS: This also depends on what you want to get out of chess. To be the best technical person you can be or you just want to be the best that you can be, period.