elo

when you play:  you prefer against same elo ,lowest ,highest,I don't care

Usually I enjoy playing people at around my playing level and people rated up to 200 points higher than me. Any higher and I feel that I don't learn from the epic thrashing I receive, lower and I still don't really learn anything and the game is unrewarding.

To me, anyway. I have no doubt in my mind that other people prefer different things.

I tink that playing against people lower than yourself doesn't do you any good.  It'll inflate your rating and then whe it comes time to actually play people of your rating you'll get blown out because you haven't been playing at a high level.

I think almost-infinity hits the nail on the head.  200>= above your rating. 

I think that playing against people lower than yourself can be interesting

I explain:

 if you lose ,your first reaction is why ;either you have played a bad blow, or is your opponent plays a good.Or while your opponent is under rated his elo only reflects not its true value

If you win,you can analyse the game(onlyor with a programm) just to see if you dont miss a better move or line.It is not this means that the next parts will be as easy

 However, it works the same way against equal to stronger opponents. I think you would get more out of studying = to +200 opponents. For a consistent learning experience, I think playing against people that are so much weaker than you just doesn't yield enough good feedback to be something to count on.

When I'm playing against weaker players, I spend very little time contemplating my moves, there's very little depth, I play impulsively. So while I learn squat from it, someone else may.

It is true that the tactic or strategy is not as deep, however it allows to review the fundamentals
Return to base, it is not evil on the contrary

 Once you reach a certain level, then I think the fundamentals are pretty much a part of your LIFE. I'm sure a player who is still trying to get all of the fundamentals down may get something out of a game against a player who knows even less fundamentals, at that stage they probably aren't learning much anyway, if they're even making an effort to improve.

It has pros and cons, but I think the quantity and importance of the cons are what make me reach the conclusion that it's a waste of my chess time.

This "x+200" style is a fairly popular opinion - what it seems to lack is the idea of being mutually beneficial. Therefore if everybody is looking for x+200, then the only way to really get mutual benefit is to have people play the same strength.

It is has each to find the good compromise between players of meme value and those who are a little more hardly. You should not abuse either the one or the other one

Fortunately, every chess player is not just looking for x+200 exclusively, no exceptions.

There's enough players with their own unique preferences that x+200 syles will be okay trudging along as they will, or they should. I'm sure in the near future there will be a shortage of opponents ranging from my rating to 200 points higher and that you will be there with a timely and always worthwhile: "I told you so."

Edit: There's so many players with so many different ratings and skill levels that it just doesn't seem like a significant problem.

About the same. If not possible, I never want to play against someone > 200 lower than me. I can play with anyone higher than me. (Current biggest upset: 1,177 (me) beats 1,667). Hard to tell when your rating climbs. Also, in some clubs, the people only plpay at the club and their ratings are deflated/inflated. I ususally don't ask my opponents' rating.

The ratings on this site can be rather deceptive for some odd reason - or maybe it's just the players general 'game state' of the day that varies, I know mine does anyway.

Anyway, I'm also interested to know how you guys filter your seeks? I usually go 0 below and 2-400 above, depending on aforementioned state.

I like to play higher rated peaple, becouse he's the one that should be afraid (of losing rating), and if i lose, i learn something from him.

I agree that playing opponents 200 points above me doesn't help much.  I do play weaker players, however, because they need to play stronger players, such as my wife, who I just begin teaching chess, and grandchildren and neighborhood children. However, too much of such play weakens me somewhat because I also spend too little time contemplating my moves and I get sloppy. 

My wife tried playing a game on chess.com and her opponent lost patience with her and told her, "Go back to playing checkers!"  She does move slow, but I am patient with her, because I want her to learn without pressure. Later I will encourage her to move faster.  

 Estragon   Maybe it's a subtle psychological acting-out of my deep-seated hostility towards authority, combined with the aforementioned unhealthy attitude.

You sound like an interesting personlaity to share a cup of coffee with at Starbucks!

It doesnt matter to me, Ill play anyone.

 I'll play anyone, too, just to play chess.

 I love Electric Light Orchestra  

Anybody heard that ELO Cellist Mike Edwards died recently in a freak accident when he crashed into a rogue hay bail rolling down a hill... RIP

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-11195393

[EDIT} The hay bail was rolling down the hill, not Mike Edwards, before anybody asks....