Expert or Novice: What does that mean really??

What am I? The author was very good at laying down differences between experts and novices, however managed to do so without actually defining the terms. The first place I checked was the Webster Dictionary. "Novice" immediately sends you to the definition of "beginner" which is defined as 'one who is inexperienced'. After reviewing the entry for "expert" I found that to be defined as 'one who is experienced'. Immediately it comes to mind that degrees of experience absolutely have to exist and vary even among the so-called "experts".
According to DeGroot's research, expert chess players did not think through all possibilities and opponent counters though the experts did show greater breadth and depth of analysis, but the experts did think through the most important possibilities and opponent counters unlike the novice chess players. The physics experts were able to supply laws and principles to physics problems and explain how each would apply to the problem while beginners (students) would think of formulas and equations and explain how to manipulate the numbers. In both scenarios, is it possible that the experts were experts of a lower degree. By this I mean, are there higher degree experts out there who would in fact think through all the possibilities and opponent counters? Furthermore, in the case of the novices, "inexperienced" is defined as 'lack of experience'. Based on the reading and DeGroot's findings, I am not convinced that even the novices were 'inexperienced'. Someone who knows enough to think through any possibilities or opponent counters during a chess game shows even a little experience. Perhaps the physics experts that were immediately able to relate laws and principles of physics to the problem at hand are the true experts.
I love rollercoasters, always have, always will. Put me on the biggest, baddest, most twisted machine you can find, and I'll ride it. I have done my own amateur research and keep up with the industry constantly. I do not have a degree in roller coaster history, or in physics or engineering. But, I do possess a great deal of knowledge both about the amusement industry and trends, as well as roller coaster designs, mechanical makeup, engineering techniques, and design/programmable controllers. Does this make me an "expert"? I hardly consider myself a true "expert" however, I certainly do not consider myself a "novice" - or even an "amateur" for that matter. Perhaps this is not relevant to teaching entirely, but it sure raises a few questions in my mind. But I am also an accomplished musician, and when it comes to piano I would consider myself an expert. I have wanted to start teaching piano lessons for the last few years but I do not believe I can do it just yet. I have not found a way I am completely comfortable with to relate the material to a novice. I have not found a teaching method where I can teach effectively without losing my student in music terminology I have been using all my life. Even when I talk about music with my friends, generally my friends do not listen with the same active ear that I do. I often say this is my life, and I cannot listen to music as a novice. I listen for form, structure, undertones, overtones, harmony, meter, underlying messages in the lyrics even. I'm so used to being around friends at the renown music school of West Chester University where everyone speaks the same technical language.
This brings me to another great point the author made. This was the idea that an expert is not necessarily a great teacher - or even a good one. Perhaps this is why I have so much trouble relating music material to novices. I know the material, but because I'm so immersed in it, it is almost impossible for me to understand what it is like to be a musical novice. I am also taken back to calculus class during senior year of high school. My teacher was no doubt an expert, and a brilliant mathematician at that. Unfortunately, he could not teach at all. The author of our reading commented that experts often forget what is understandable and easy for students - or novices - or those inexperienced. My calculus teacher could not relate the material to us at all.
How does this apply to learning? Simple in my mind, we need to take into consideration who we are teaching. Are we teaching novices, experts, 'accomplished novices', etc.? If we lose sight of who we are teaching, how can we expect our students to learn. If we speak over their heads, how can we expect them to be able to acquire the same knowledge we have? If we speak down to them, how can we expect them to be challenged? I do not have a great answer being the 'inexperienced' teacher that I consider myself. But remembering who my audience is, certainly is a great place to start.