Regarding whether a grandmaster is better at teaching beginners, this is addressed by considering the analogous question: should you have a Ph.D. to teach elementary school mathematics? The answer is "no", in fact, there are very few Ph.D.'s teaching High School mathematics. Similarly, the entire conversation does not take into account academics and the academic field of Education, which is a systematic study of teaching. GM Noel Studer's opinions are pretty much entirely based on his personal experience in chess, so essentially rebuilding the wheel. More generally, chess improvement has had almost no systematic analysis, apart from de Groot's book on the psychology of the chess player, which is almost completely ignored by the chess community, apart from the recent "Move First Think Later" by Willy Hendriks. de Groot's study contains the single most important result in chess teaching, which is therefore almost universally ignored by chess coaches. Some more studies seem to me to be critical in advancing chess teaching. For example, a statistical analysis of the correlation of various skills, e.g., Puzzle Rush vs rapid rating vs slow rating. It seems to me that chess teaching is in large part a scam in which the teacher is more motivated to keep his student happy, than for the student to improve.
Almost 4 min on (payed!) Spotify before the Interview starts.. I mean I respect the hustle, but over a minute Spotify commercials, and right away jumping into several minutes of product placements is starting to annoy me slowly but surely I must say.. As interesting as the Interviews are but squeezing every bit of money Out of this podcast, leaves a bit of a sour taste by now..
