Does playing against week players have any benefit?
Sort:
[COMMENT DELETED]
theunsjb wrote:
If you follow IM Rensch's LIVE sessions (where he plays 15 minute games against fellow Chess.com members), he often finds himself "thrown off" a bit when the "weaker" players play some strange move in the opening, simply because they do not know the theory as well as he does.
In other cases they might start counter-attacking in situations where theory declares it a win for the opposite side (perhaps a player of the same level would simply resign), which forces the "winning" side to actually concentrate, and they might find themselves lacking in knowledge to win the position, which could ultimately lead to a stalemate or a loss.
So yes, I most definitely think player lower rated players at times does have an advantage.
No, not at all. As soon as they don't follow theory they get destroyed.
If an IM doesn't know a move there's only one explanation: that move is not good. Live sessions are extremely entertaining but for Danny it's just too easy to win.
Jan 4, 2013
0
#43
plutonia wrote:
theunsjb wrote:
If you follow IM Rensch's LIVE sessions (where he plays 15 minute games against fellow Chess.com members), he often finds himself "thrown off" a bit when the "weaker" players play some strange move in the opening, simply because they do not know the theory as well as he does.
In other cases they might start counter-attacking in situations where theory declares it a win for the opposite side (perhaps a player of the same level would simply resign), which forces the "winning" side to actually concentrate, and they might find themselves lacking in knowledge to win the position, which could ultimately lead to a stalemate or a loss.
So yes, I most definitely think player lower rated players at times does have an advantage.
No, not at all. As soon as they don't follow theory they get destroyed.
If an IM doesn't know a move there's only one explanation: that move is not good. Live sessions are extremely entertaining but for Danny it's just too easy to win.
I agree with you when your opponent is an International Master, but still...
http://www.chess.com/video/player/live-session-hybrids-hope-for-a-dynamic-future
His opponent did not play the opening 100% correct, and Danny missed a strong reply because of it. 
If he had an OTB rating of say 2000 (against his lower-rated opponent), things might have turned out differently... 
Jan 4, 2013
0
#44
We are all advised to play stronger players in order to improve. But how do we find them if EVERYONE is trying to play stronger players? Of COURSE we should play weaker players--to a point. I would certainly not waste my time with playing someone whose peak was in the 400s, just as Carlsen would not waste his time with me.
But in playing anyone--weak or strong--our goal should be to play the best moves, to get the quickest or most elegant win. I just played a game online against an unrated. I underestimated him and suddenly my two pawn advantage was whittled to one. Then I had to play slowly, carefully, and thoughtfully. I don't know anything about his strength other than he was unrated, but I learned a good deal about patient positional play in order to beat him.
It should help the weak players if you play against them. As for any chess player, if you want to improve, then play against the strongest players who will let you play against them.
If you do not like the word "weak" try "not strong" or "not so strong" or "even less strong than me" or "chess challenged" or best of all from Blue "Caissically challenged"
Jan 4, 2013
0
#46
That is the big problem of Magnus Carlsen - he has no other option but playing weaker opponents 
If everyone only played games against players stronger than themself, well then no games of chess would ever be played! (unless the two players have the exact same ranking, one by default has to be more highly ranked) In a sense, you're paying it forward-it's selfish to expect stronger players to want to play you while denying that same chance to somebody a little weaker. (You never know-maybe these players will pass you in ranking, and then when you want to play them they'll refuse-karma can be rough.) Plus, sometimes people are over- or under-rated: you may get more of a battle than you bargained on!
Most people aren't looking to take on somebody a thousand points higher than themselves-most are looking for somebody say 300 points or fewer higher. Higher than that, and it's hard to learn anything when you are just getting crushed.
Nobody is "expecting" to play all stronger players. Also if you play a stronger player and get crushed--do not tell yourself you cannot learn--there is a heck of a lot to learn even when you are crushed.
Learn from your mistakes. If you are crushed then try and determine your mistakes and learn.
Yoiu will learn very little from weaker players. That is just how chess works. If they are just a little below your rating then you can learn.
Jan 4, 2013
0
#49
ponz111 wrote:
Yoiu will learn very little from weaker players. That is just how chess works. If they are just a little below your rating then you can learn.
You can learn how to efficiently convert a won game. You can still pinpoint weaknesses in your own play; missing faster mates, additional decisive tactics, positional errors.
You can learn something from just about any game you play, if you honestly look at the right things. I had a recent OTB tournament game where I missed a mate in 2 (against an unrated player). I was winning by quite a bit but missed that particular mating pattern. I still won, but it took additional moves.
martin not to belabor but what you described you can learn from any player from weakest to strongest. I am just saying in general the weaker player will not make good moves that you have not thought of already.
The way to really learn-partly anyway, is to watch good players make good moves. However, of course, you can learn some things from any player weak or strong.
