Beating lower-rated players consistently?

Yes I really hate this. I have a rating of over 2000 and when i am playing youth tournaments i am always losing much of my rating because i cant win against those " weaker opponents". I think you should really prepare very good before the game to outplay youreopponent.

I think the worst thing you can do is worry about their lower rating.
The old advice about "play the board, not the opponent" seems to be fitting here... if you can play your best, your natural strength should usually be enough to win on its own...

I couldn't read the rest of your post without checking your profile first to see if you had posted your USCF rating. When I saw it I couldn't stop laughing. I certainly couldn't read anymore now.

You think that playing "perhaps well enough" to score exactly what you should against Masters is particulaly good??? You do realise that if this is true that your performance against lower rated players is actually better than it should be, right? Idiot...

The 1/4 or 1/5 against 2200-2300 masters is close to what he should be playing at given his 2010 rating.  But he also says he plays level games against other experts (2000-2199).  So if he were 2010 and winning 50% against an average 2100 player he could be gaining relative points there. 

So it seems possible that he could be about on par with has rating against masters, doing better than his rating would indicate against experts, and underperforming against lower rated players.  But its hard to know without seeing his USCF stats.

Do you memorize the openings you play, or have you taken the time to understand them and play by opening principles? I ask because the stronger players are more likely to play something closer to the book lines, while the club players will roll out the Grob and other chess atrocities. I recall seeing 1. b4 and feeling paralyzed. If you play your openings by memorization, then when you encounter unfamiliar territory you will crumble.

First you need to identify which is the cause and which is the effect. Do you play worse because you know you're playing a lower rated player? Or do you play the same, and just fall prey to an unsound swindle? In other words, what would happen if you didn't know the rating of any of your opponents? Would you still lose more than you should to lower rated players?

So to recap, MCFan is a [removed -- MS].

think there's your problem right there - not playing the same game you play with higher ranked players - anyone can beat anyone if you only play your best game with players you think are worth the effort

What a nice find. I learned so much just from first few post and havent even reached half the thread.

Where I really had problems with this is in Online chess.

In the 3day game, you tend to rise real high by Not Timing out, Not playing lots of games (so you have to make split second decisions), and using the analysis board to minimize blunders...

but chess is Chess- and my own feeble patzers skills can still sometimes miss stuff.  sometimes an attack just happens at a time when its NOT conveniant to use an analysis board or when I can't spend half an hour trying to get the analysis worked out. (or worse Iwork it out, and forget the key variation 2 days later)...

either way a 1200ish online players has LOTS to win against my 1600, while I have practically nothing to win. 

Its a problem, and the fact that online rating gets high because of things Other than real chess skills make it More of a problem in online, than in other kinds of chess....

I'll try to throw out some random knowledge of mine and be in tone with ideas in this tread, hopefully someone will find it helpfull. My perspective is this: (Excuse my terrible english, i am self learner)

They say something like this: Your game is strong not by how much strong moves you make, but how much (less?) blunders you make. And something about pawn chains - that you should attack not the head, but the base.

In other words you might have wins vs higher rated opponents and that is increasing your elo, but you should never pay less attention to lower rated opponents. You have to defend your rating by holding and winning vs lower rated. It's a test.

When you are in school and there is a exam. They are testing your knowledge that you learned in the past. They are not testing you to make something hard (to beat high rated opponent), so losing to lower rated opponents is the same as failing at exam. You have to prove that rating of yours is real rating by playing and beating lower rated opponents. Is not true that you don't learn anything, as one post before mentioned you never know what lower rated opponents know and don't know. So you might have general better skills, but not at all areas you are better than lower rated.

Also Is just building confiedence.

Also playing lower rated is more enjoyable if ofcourse you are not in huge stress/pressure. But if you want to improve and learn new stuff, then yes higher rated opponents are better for that.

Also to be at expert level, you dont have to necessary beat other experts, you just have to beat players below that rating.

The mistake i see sometimes with me and others is that when playing vs lower rated, we choose opening that is not our pet line, for example some gambits. The reason again is fear. What if we play our opening and still lose? We get too relaxed and it happens..The Ego pain will be huge. By playing some rare line or opening that you don't play much you pretty much have an excuse if something goes wrong and at the same time you are sharp and if you win, the benefit will be much higher compared with your main opening.

Other mistake is that we press too much sometimes ignoring his attack. Playing sicilian. The lower rated is attacking you, but you have ego.. you attack him thinking you have the bigger elo, your attack will be stronger and better, you will show him, how dare him to challenge you..

They say attack attack attack and they will blunder. It is true, but for lower rated opponent the best is to make the game complicated...

zezpwn44, I have had the same problem as you (only im 1700, so I do well against 1900-200, perform worse against 1600s etc) what I have noticed most is that lower rated players simply play openings that are sort of "bad" but not losing, and then become your equal via expirence in the positions they are farmilar with (c4 and g3, e6 d5 be7 etc) the english is particulary bothersome because its the SAME DANG MOVES EVERY GAME.  I personally think that I need to improve my tactics, but the solution may not be the same for you. everyone is different.  I also agree with the people who commented on having a fear of losing. that plays a critical role as well

*2000 not 200

Ha!  I knew it.

I had the feeling that having an expert play sicilian was one way to take some people out of their comfort zone.

on the other hand, there ARE high rated people that have really worked to understand the sicilian-- isn't it possible that a given expert is a Real monster in the sicilian??  can you master an opening like the open sicilian with a (lowly) expert rating (sarcasm intended)?...

I have difficulty for the opposite reason. My favorite way is to play an offbeat but solid line and just wait for a mistake. Sometimes there's too little play and it's just a draw.

Strangely, it's against my peers I'm mentally giving draw odds sometimes. If I think I see a way in the middlegame to do something boring into an equal position I tend to dismiss it immediately. I suppose my thinking is it's not enough to sit and wait for peers to make a mistake, I have to try to do something... in analysis sometimes I see this means I'm throwing away draws to get a loss

Like Hicetnunc said about himself, I guess I'm still trying to find the right balance.

I have to say, its SO off to see you high rated guys feel 'unbalanced'.

at my level, with your well thought out openings, solid ability to spot and calculatet tactics, and a far better idea what to do in the endgame- experts seem invincible.

then again. I'm not 1800.  and at perhaps a playing strength of 1200-1400; its very very long odds that I would beat you.

Play the board, not the rating.

It's odd isn't it  This happens for every level of player.

The way I like to think about it is, everyone has the point where they start to get confused (or start to make educated guesses if you like). Sometimes the point of confusion is just 1 move or 1 idea difference. If you're playing an opponent who knows just that little bit more, they might seem invincible. But if you had taken them just a little further, pushed them to the limit of their knowledge, and at the end of it, posed a question, they would suddenly be the confused one hehe.

@teichmann

there are examples of people becoming a master later in life. not many.  but some.

Don't forget OP, people use engines all the time on this site.