Are there opponents just not worth playing?

This probably will not apply to masters and such, but for us mortal chess players, do you think it is possible to play someone so much better (and higher rated) than you that you don't actually learn from that specific game anymore because you were just so utterly crushed?

Imagine trying to mount a kingside attack against a super GM and having it thrown back completely in your face. Or even just trying to force a winning combination on a regular GM only to realize too late that he has nullified any of your threats while presenting you with so many threats that you are just overwhelmed.

no I don't think so,

Everytime you lose it's because of a mistake. I've played a professional player once.
In the beginning I tried to see everything and it worked well for a while.
After some further ahead thinking from his side I didn't stand a chance. But I definately learned.

Only worse opponents can be useless to learning I think, and for that, only sometimes.

Even a GM couldn't crush if you pay attention well enough. He will win, and easily, but as you try to give him a hard time you can keep it up for a while.

[ps. it's not like most other sports, you can easily do what your opponent does. You only have to think of it]

bastiaan wrote:

Only worse opponents can be useless to learning I think, and for that, only sometimes.

---

I mostly agree with that.  Even games you win can be a learning lesson for you.  After analyzing a game afterwards, I have found that I often missed a better way to gain material or force mate.  Don't get into bad habits just because you are playing someone "worse" than you, by making moves that you wouldn't dare use against a stronger player.

I find it easier to learn from the games I lose because the mistakes become so obvious.

I do think that someone who barely knows the moves would learn little, if anything, from playing a master.  You're likely to learn more from losing to someone ranked a few 100 points higher than you than from someone ranked 1200 points higher than you.  But that may be because you're more likely to have only one or two things to concentrate on learning from those games as opposed to dozens.

I learn from every game I play. Playing better opponents helps me see deveopment and momentum. Playing lower rated opponents ensures that I don't get overconfident.

I do. My prime example is that I learn nothing from playing crafty except my game sucks. It has me down in less than 15 moves on a regular day. That's why I play against Bringer playing on 1800 elo. It's better than be, but only by 100-200 points so I can get better.

I believe this can be true. I believe that the players at the top of the game operate on a much higher level than we do. They have been studying and analyzing so intensely for so long that they really do see the chessboard differently than we mere mortals. If our minds are not yet ready to receive a lesson from these great players because we haven't conditioned ourselves to play chess at that level, then the lesson is wasted. It is like a first year college student wanting to take PhD level courses when he hasn't yet earned the lesser degrees required to get there. He won't have the background necessary to grasp the concepts being taught because he does not have the basic and intermediate knowledge that can only be acquired by taking the courses in their proper order. The same with chess. If we don't learn the lessons we should be learning and studying the subject matter that we should be studying at the lower levels first, how can we hope to grasp the more advanced concepts?