Too much of it would likely stunt your growth, in the on topic sense.
BTW, I have chaste, hairless palms.
does playing with a lower rated players increase your playing ability?
Sort:
OMG ! Playing with players higher than your ability only gets your rating put into the basement. LOL take my word for this! he he
yeah, your rating will be on the lower side of what it should be but your ability will be constantly improving. Higher rated players will punish you for your mistakes therby creating an incentive for you to stop making those mistakes, therefore, improving your ability (and usually your rating too... in the long run).
Of course, playing weaker players is important as they teach you how to play out theoretically won games and such.
Really its about a balance of both: I'd say 60-70% of your games should be played with opponents rated up to 150-200 points higher than you (that way you'll still be competetive but not ridiculously outmatched) and 30-40% of your games should be played with players 100-150 points less than you.
But this is all just my opinion of course =P
I think the vast majority of your games should be against superior players. Or those of nearly the same rating. Otherwise, even if you lose, it's the OMG-howcouldibesostupid type of loss, rather than the type where you concede you've been outplayed, and actually learned something from the process.
Case in point:
I think you need a variety. If you are studying how the higher ranked player played against you and can improve and know what to look out for it will be advantageous. Getting feed back from them into lines of thought would be beneficial but playing lower ranked opponets can be helpful for trying strategy and leaning to react to the unexpected.
Maia-M wrote:
OMG ! Playing with players higher than your ability only gets your rating put into the basement. LOL take my word for this! he he
Truthfully, I find my winning percentage is about the same if I play someone at or 100 points above me as 100 points below me.
Playing lower rated players, though will give you a boost in confidence if you win, only if they are about 100 points lower at max is it useful, after that there normally isn't much challenge unless someone is underrated. The best way to learn I think is to play people who are stronger than you. I have a OTB rating of 1985, and I love getting to play 2200+ as I learn alot from them after the game about their thinking habits and their ideas in certain positions (and sometimes I beat them).
All of you have great ideas and comments. LOL. I am not convinced ! I seldom play anyone rated lower than me ! I am in quicksand he he ...So come all ye high rated players and prove your point! I will be happy to play with you. I will honestly try to win! Lets see if my rating gos up. Take my word for this. It hasn't happened yet !!!
I think the idea is to be a better player in the long run, not increase your rating immediately.
But feel free to challenge me if you want to..
Lower rated players can play some very unexpected moves, so you should play a variety of different rated players within about 300 rating of you.
divljipirat wrote:
what do you think?
No - but it does boost your ego. For what else are you playing chess?
Mar 21, 2011
0
#14
In my experience drawing and losing to lower-rated players has been more instructive than most of my wins vs lower-rated players.
I occasionally accept match-challenges from lower-rated players on the rationale that I get to play matches vs players higher-rated than myself, so it's only fair to give someone else a chance too.
Overall though I prefer opponents to be near my rating or higher, so I usually prefer class tnmts to opens, although I like to play in all kinds of tnmts now and then.
Mar 21, 2011
0
#15
A healthy mix of both. I read somewhere that your win/loss %age in general should be 40%/60% to indicate that you're being challenged as a developing player. As you get better, you're evidently going to go after more stronger opponents to keep this balance steady.
Mar 21, 2011
0
#16
One obvious advantage we can think of for practicing on lower rated players, is that they tend to make more "omg where did that come from" moves. They are unpredictable a lot of times, which can force you outside your normal comfort zone and make you a be a bit more creative ;). This is espeacially helpful in openings, where a stronger player may have gotten into a habit of moving by memory instead of thinking through their moves.
El_Senior wrote:
All super strong players were lower rated at one time...you never know who you are facing based on rating alone. Don't fall into the trap of believing that lower rateds are automatically weak.
This is only true to some extent and depends some on the activity and age of the " lower rated " I believe. If I play a senior citizen thats been playing tourney chess for 40 years and a teenager who has been playing only a year and both are rated 1400 its a pretty safe assumption that there is more danger in underestimating the teen than the senior citizen.
Mar 21, 2011
0
#19
NimzoRoy wrote:
In my experience drawing and losing to lower-rated players has been more instructive than most of my wins vs lower-rated players.
This can absolutely be the case. While there is a rating range where playing the lower rated opponent might not be very useful (500 rating points less maybe), you can still learn things when playing people with lower ratings.
I lose and draw some game with lower rated players and in those game there is the opportunity to find weaknesses in my play. Even in games won against someone lower rated, there are possibly some lines/moves/positions where you could improve, things a stronger player could/would have capitalized on.
One of the most important things, especially if you play tournament chess (Opens), is that you still have to beat the lower rated players. If you win 100% of your games with players rated X points lower than you, then maybe you have nothing to learn from playing them.
what do you think?