Wasted time playing vs. higher rated (rating = result)

There's nothing to learn from for example https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/live/32808536259?tab=review this game.

The moves that won the game was probably figured out from move 1 because the higher rated players can see longer and deeper into positions. It is a total waste of time playing vs. higher rated because chess is automatic, the higher rated player wins. 100 %.

You never see a 1000 rated win vs. a 2000 rated. And there is nothing to learn for a 1000 rated player because every thought from a 2000 rated in every situation is too difficult for a 1000 to actually understand, even in chess analysis afterwards.

So most of the time when i play vs. higher rated i don't play, it's wasted time for my development as chess player so i rather wait for the next game where i meet someone lower rated so i actually have 51 % chance of winning. You don't get better playing vs. better players, you get better playing vs. slighty lower rated and gain 1-3+ points every game, slowly getting better. Right?

The analysis shows that your opinion about higher rated players is mistaken. They can blunder the same as anyone.

You had your chances In that game.

/ Losing only cost you one point.

They don't have blunders a 1400 rated can actually see. Activating a knight into the game on a logic square or something is maybe a blunder if you play the World Championship, but not vs. a 1400 rated.

I played a 2 000 player in 30|30 game and he blundered a rook, he thought he had a tactical shot where he will take the rook back with a pawn check.

In any case, it can be fun and instructive playing against higher rated opponents. You can draw some conclusions from almost any game.

But in my opinion, this particular game was pretty low quality from both sides, most likely because it is 10 minutes per side.

For instance, at the very least, the conclusion from this game is to be very careful when moving your pawns in front of your castled king. There might be some instances where this is good, but in 90% of cases something like g5 is asking for trouble.


If you look at this game more thoroughly, you might be able to draw more conclusions from it.

You need to play someone who's rated higher by around 100-300 points . Not 1000

Sure, that is probably optimal. But to be fair, I have learnt some interesting things even from games I lost against engine users, let alone opponents 400+ higher rated than myself. On top of that, I am always excited when I play those games, even if I lose.

If you want to learn, then the stronger your opponent, the better.

K. I will just play against stockfish now

The computer doesn't suggest "activating a knight into the game on a logic square."  

It wants you to bring your bishop into the kingside with a tempo by attacking his undefended knight.  That would evidently be an acceptable trade for your knight.

The 2nd line says you might also have tried bringing your rook over to the h file as well. It backs up your knight and threatens his queen.

The third best line says that putting your knight into the F4 square wasn't a bad option either.

None of these things require you to be a world championship contender.

You launched a pawn storm with almost no pieces behind it. Your opponent's blunder just gave you a little time to help out your king.

There is a lot you could learn from that game.

I would think there is a point to playing higher-rated people. THey will punish your mistakes so you will hopefully do better next time. 

It is not really a trade, tactically white shouldn't take that knight.
If 27. ...Bg5 28.Qxh5 then 28. ...Be3+, and white has 2 options: If he moves the king to h file, then Rh8 pinning a queen to white's king, and black is much better. If he blocks with the rook, then g3 and black will take the rook with the pawn on the next move.

In any case, that is what he could check out here, and probably other things as well. Though to be fair, as I've stated previously, g5 here was a pretty reckless move, weakening a king, without additional resources whit which he could attack the enemy king there.

Yes, I agree. 

Starting the pawn storm was tantamount to suicide.

I understand it might have come out of frustration.

The main point is that there's a lot for the OP to learn from that game.   

:)

There is nothing to learn from this game? Really? There are plenty of mistakes in that game you could learn from! 

You have very flawed logic. I don't understand whether you want to learn or you want to win? Doesn't matter who will win. If you want to learn - you will learn! As far as I can see, you DON'T WANT TO LEARN. YOU WANT TO WIN! But, of course, if you'll not learn from your mistakes you'll not improve. It's very simple.

=============

You never see a 1000 rated win vs. a 2000 rated. And there is nothing to learn for a 1000 rated player because every thought from a 2000 rated in every situation is too difficult for a 1000 to actually understand, even in chess analysis afterwards.

-------------

Once again. Doesn't really matter who will win. In both cases, you have the possibility to learn something from your mistakes. If you can't explain to yourself why a particular move was bad - ask somebody to help you.

===============

So most of the time when i play vs. higher rated i don't play, it's wasted time for my development as chess player so i rather wait for the next game where i meet someone lower rated so i actually have 51 % chance of winning. You don't get better playing vs. better players, you get better playing vs. slighty lower rated and gain 1-3+ points every game, slowly getting better. Right?

------------

Once again. NO!

There is no correlation between learning and the chance of winning. These "points" you're talking about don't affect your learning process if you'd like to learn.

if you think like that you will always lose all the time against higher rated opponents

I can tell you for sure, the 1900 player makes many mistakes and blunders. I didn’t play against them very often recently, since I set my opponent rating to be not much lower than me, but it was around 3 months ago that I played a whole crap game against a 1900 player with accuracy 24% and still I won.

At least upto 2000 players are very far from being that good that you said. 

On the other hand I set my opponent rating upper limit to infinity, that means if I face GMs I’m happy to play with them and sometimes I beat them and sometimes I lose (most often), but I improve. But of course if you are not tactically alert and lose to some higher rated player tactically, then maybe you don’t learn nothing.

     You are confusing raising your rating with improving your game. You can steamroll a bunch of creampuffs to raise your rating a bit but that won't improve your overall game.

     I always prefer to play strong players because they have a plan and make logical moves to implement it. Play long time-controls so you can see what they are doing, and analyze the games afterward. You will find you actually learn something from those games.

no. they see the winning move in move100 from move 1. that to complicated for me to acually analyze afterwards. i see move 100 in move 100

comparing 1000 vs 2000 is meaningless.  That is a raw beginner who has mastered how the pieces move and little else against a local champion (local meaning a small club like at a university or  a rather small town etc).  

200 point difference, eg 1000 vs 1200, odds of winning are still rather low assuming these are established and correct ratings. 

So yes, I would not expect a 1000 to learn much from playing a 2000.  You should still review the game and see what you should have done in key places, but you were not going to win that one, OK.   

You can't learn anything from crushing a weaker player.  Ive been slated against some people too far below me lately and ... mostly they just keel over (a couple have pulled some surprises though, never underestimate someone, don't even look at their rating when playing).  Its fun, sure, but learning?  You learn more from losing.   Losing to people 100-200 points above you should be very instructive if you review the game properly.