I am curious as to the thoughts of others regarding how much ratings should come into play when choosing an opponent.   **If this issue has been beaten to death I apologize as I do not tend to post or read the forums, but this issue occured to me and I thought I would post about it to see what others thought.**    I tend not to challenge someone who is much lower or much higher than me due to the quality of the game I would like to have. I feel that a game, which is too easy or too difficult, is not enjoyable or a proper learning experience. I've noticed that some individuals, who have a high rating and a high amount of wins, have an average opponent rating, which is hundreds or even a thousand points below them. In my opinion, this approach, picking a much lower rated opponent, would automatically discount an individual with an extremely high rating, because it is obvious as to why they have this rating.    Out of curiosity, what is the a general consensus on picking opponents in the chess community?

I try to play the strongest opponents I can and not really concern myself with my own rating, i know where I am as a player, but I like to challenge myself. This leads to alot of losses but I also learn alot, i think its a good tradeoff

The problem is I often get challenges from lower rated players. If I never accept such challenges I am a chess "snob" which I dont want to be. If you check the games I currently have I have a mix (fairly balanced) of strong players and weaker players. I have noted that some of the high rated players here do as I do and mix their games with strong and weaker players. Some seem to play weaker players a lot and some only play strong players. A strong player that plays weaker players a lot will be accused of picking on the weak or "padding" their rating.....if they dont play them they are "snobs", whats one to do? 

chewybac5 wrote: I try to play the strongest opponents I can and not really concern myself with my own rating, i know where I am as a player, but I like to challenge myself. This leads to alot of losses but I also learn alot, i think its a good tradeoff

---

So you find that you are able to learn from playing a really strong opponent?  I will have to consider playing one once in a while.  I tend to feel more sideswiped when I play a much stronger opponent, which is why I found it tough to learn from those experiences. Perhaps I should make it a point to play a stronger opponent from time to time for some contrast.

 

Reb wrote: The problem is I often get challenges from lower rated players. If I never accept such challenges I am a chess "snob" which I dont want to be. If you check the games I currently have I have a mix (fairly balanced) of strong players and weaker players. I have noted that some of the high rated players here do as I do and mix their games with strong and weaker players. Some seem to play weaker players a lot and some only play strong players. A strong player that plays weaker players a lot will be accused of picking on the weak or "padding" their rating.....if they dont play them they are "snobs", whats one to do? 

---

I imagine that would be an issue for a higher to player to deal with. How about we'll compormise, I'll play you and you intentionally lose? That way we both benefit. Just kidding.  But I do see your point and how a stronger player would be viewed if they only played weaker opponents or if they only played strong opponents. So, mixing it up would be the best solution. Maybe I am actually a chess snob? .... that's insightful.  Something to reconsider. 

Personally I don't pick opponents.

Catch 22.  It has been said that people learn more my playing stronger players, and how can that happen if such "strong" players don't play the "weaker" players.  The ratings are just rough estimates; they become more accurate the more games we play.  Everything balances out in the end (Arpad Elo who developed the formula in computing the ELO ratings put all these factors, and the result should be a good estimate independent of the ratings of the players):

Strong player - risky because if he loses (or draws), more points will be shaved off; if he wins, only a few points are added.

Weak player - incentive because if he loses, only a few points are subtracted; if he wins (or draws), a lot of points are added.

To avoid these, I would rather play unrated games. 

The ELO? What does this stand for?

I can see how things would just balance out in the end like you said.

Sometimes I accept challenges for reasons other than ratings....maybe the person is from Georgia or Dixie, like me, maybe we share some other interest...etc, or maybe she's really great looking!  oops

I play anybody who challenges me.  If they are low rated, it may be I win easily, but presumably thats what they want to see - test themselves.  I'm certainly not very good at chess myself I dont think, but I can maybe give a few tips here and there.  If the general standard of all players increases, it is better for everyone, surely.  I have said before, the reason I play on chess.com is to improve my play for OTB games.  Now I want to reach a real strength of c. 1800.  Years ago I aimed for 1500.  Presumably, there are people playing here who are in the same place I was a few years ago.  I wouldn't avoid playing them unless I got too many games on.

Anyway, I think I'll challenge Reb.  P.s. Reb I dont take vacations and know when to resign.

mxdplay4 wrote:

I play anybody who challenges me.  If they are low rated, it may be I win easily, but presumably thats what they want to see - test themselves.  I'm certainly not very good at chess myself I dont think, but I can maybe give a few tips here and there.  If the general standard of all players increases, it is better for everyone, surely.  I have said before, the reason I play on chess.com is to improve my play for OTB games.  Now I want to reach a real strength of c. 1800.  Years ago I aimed for 1500.  Presumably, there are people playing here who are in the same place I was a few years ago.  I wouldn't avoid playing them unless I got too many games on.

Anyway, I think I'll challenge Reb.  P.s. Reb I dont take vacations and know when to resign.

---

Is that a threat Max?!  Fire when ready !

Christopher93 wrote:

The ELO? What does this stand for?  I can see how things would just balance out in the end like you said.

---

 [From Wikipedia]  The Elo rating system is a method for calculating the relative skill levels of players in two-player games such as chess and Go.

"Elo" is often written in capital letters (ELO), but it is not an acronym. It is the family name of the system's creator, Arpad Elo (1903–1992), a Hungarian-born American physics professor.  Elo was originally invented as an improved chess rating system although it is used in many games today. It is also used as a rating system for competitive multi-player play in a number of computer games, and has been adapted to team sports including international football, American college football and basketball, and Major League Baseball.

I'm glad Reb (an NM) is writing here; some chess websites boast that they have this GM or that IM or NM, but then you have to pay!?  There are also a number of other masters here.  Thanks Reb for your insights. 

I like to play weaker players because it makes me feel like a badass when I win.

I usually play anyone. My feeling is that i I can't beat a player rated lower than me, then I don't deserve to be rated higher. Paper champions don't help anyone but Don King :)

Yeah my average opponent is so low because they challange me but i play unrated mostly against players below 1600+. Mostly because winning 1-3 points is a waist of my thinking time i like to have fun and help them out, cant do that if i have to consider my rating as much.....

Personally I started OTB chess abit late at 28, I want to play through fairly standard openings and question / analyse heavily as I go along. So far four games have allowed me to do this, all >1400. While I'll give anyone a game, watching someone throw pawns at me in the opeining is disheartening.

Reb wrote: Sometimes I accept challenges for reasons other than ratings....maybe the person is from Georgia or Dixie, like me, maybe we share some other interest...etc, or maybe she's really great looking!  oops

---

Heh.

Charlie91 wrote:

 [From Wikipedia]  The Elo rating system is a method for calculating the relative skill levels of players in two-player games such as chess and Go.

"Elo" is often written in capital letters (ELO), but it is not an acronym. It is the family name of the system's creator, Arpad Elo (1903–1992), a Hungarian-born American physics professor.  Elo was originally invented as an improved chess rating system although it is used in many games today. It is also used as a rating system for competitive multi-player play in a number of computer games, and has been adapted to team sports including international football, American college football and basketball, and Major League Baseball.

I'm glad Reb (an NM) is writing here; some chess websites boast that they have this GM or that IM or NM, but then you have to pay!?  There are also a number of other masters here.  Thanks Reb for your insights. 

---

Thanks for the info Charlie and the link that lists the masters on this site. I had no idea that list existed. I didn't surf this site all that much, which may now have to change.

Magicmunky wrote:

Personally I started OTB chess abit late at 28, I want to play through fairly standard openings and question / analyse heavily as I go along. So far four games have allowed me to do this, all >1400. While I'll give anyone a game, watching someone throw pawns at me in the opeining is disheartening.

---

Throw pawns at you? Could you possibly reference one of your games or some other example of this? I found this point you made interesting and would like to have an idea of what you mean as well as what you would rather have as a player. Thanks.

My rating is totally inflated. When I first came on this site I accepted any and all challenges, within a games limit of 10. As I began to win so my rating went up, obviously. But it went up so fast it's embarassing. I've checked my avg and it's about 1400+ which is about 200 lower than where I put myself as a chess player.  This isn't because I only want to play weaker players it's just the way it panned out as I began to play on this site.

 I'm sure that over time it will fall as stronger players defeat me.

Red

i know he mentioned otb, but i dont think he means literally .  I guess he was referring to the game with Eagleeyed.  I wont post the game because it's only on move 5.  (4 black pawn moves though, only one of which, e6, was central)