Extreme Opponents

So I've been having this somewhat insane idea lately about after reaching the 1400 barrier weather or not I should only play CM-FM opposition. Inspired by this blog http://blog.chess.com/demetrios18/my-games-against-gms  I got my resaons from this point of thinking. When you reach Class C to most if not all your considered a average player so it's pretty hard to most to get out of this bracet since everything you might know so does your opposition so you will need a little more flair to get out of this bracket and what better way than playing players who have all that and more and no not Class B or A but the big dogs themselves (You can't be the best unless you beat the best right. My second reason is I'm always hearing people say play stronger opponents and when your winning most of your games (doing above average) why not the masters and I'm not pushin it by playing SM IM and GM's anyway like my inspiration did. My 3rd reason is when your at a 1400 rating and playing average chess and it takes above average to get to the next level why not play the best so I can use what they used to beat me up to beat up the people I play in OTB. Please Suggestions by anyone I mean anyone is appreciated. Thank you to those who answered.

400+ points is very strong opposition, but I'm not sure how much you can safely assume that their winning techniques will be readily absorbed.  More likely you'll find yourself in tough or frustrating positions without knowning how it happened.  The finishing blow will be a tactic you yourself see coming, but can't avoid it anyway.

The plus side of playing very strong opposition is it's good motivation to keep you honest with your moves.  Anytime you play a move you think is not best or play a move that you haven't carefully considered, you're cheating yourself of a means to improve.  So being forced to never play for traps, and always expect the best move as a response is certainly a good thing.

So for my 2 cents I'd say go for it, but don't make it an exclusive training technique for month after month.  Maybe just 2-4 weeks, and then go back to your rating+200 opponents.  As I said the point being the most beneficial thing you'll learn is a certain work ethic behind each move because I don't think their specific techniques will be noticeable due to the gap in understanding.

And of course this may or may not work well psychologically.  If you're too frustrated then you wont improve much so keep it flexible and be willing to play someone your own level now and then too.

Hi chessmaster,

The reason that playing a titled player as a C-class player is not very useful for you to improve is that their level of chess is, simply put, too strong. They will not make many mistakes and their moves will not make much sense to you. It is much more useful for these reasons to play players who are slightly stronger than you (such as A and B class players). The games will still be competitive and you will have a greater grasp of your opponents plan, and, in turn, learn more from the game afterwards. I hope this makes sense and if you have any further questions, just message me!

-Zach

I agree with both of you which puts me at dead end since one says go and the other says no so here's another proposal about combining both you guys ideas. How about playing the Class B's and A's like zach said 3 times a week 3 out of the 4 weekends of the month and CM's-FM depending on how I faired the last 3 weekends on the last weekend of the month. During the weekdays I would be playing my own opposition. Would this be acceptable.

That sounds fine. I would really focus on analyzing the games rather than the results however. 

As I see it there are two primary problems the average chess player faces in regards to study plans.

First is flexibility.  The point of a study plan is to... study or practice.  IMO often plans are too ridged which misplace the value of a study plan in the combination of components, seeing a plan as a sort of magical combination that gives rise to skill.  In truth the most valuable components of study are time and effort.  So in short it doesn't matter if you play masters 3 days a week for 3 weeks or two weeks a month for a year.  What matters is you practice serious play whenever you play, and analyze with an open mind afterwards.

There's no way around calling this hard work, because it is hard work.

The second problem with study plans as I see it involves time.  If you play a series of games or study a book intensely for 3 weeks it is not likely to help nearly as much as if you had spent months doing the same.  So it doesn't so much matter if you play FMs twice a week or B players 4 times a week, but what matters is you continue to play serious games and analyze them afterwards over the course of many months.

The only effective combination to study worth remembering is time * effort.  And yes it stinks that no matter what it's work.

^This super strict time frame is not useful. I would study your games for an equal amount of time you spent playing them. This will help you to become a better chess player.

Of course wouldn't play just to get my butt handed to me and get frustrated and not learn anything I learned the hard way after playing a 3 game match against a FM and lossing all 3 games just to analysis the games months later and findout in all 3 games there were moment I could have simply won or drew.(One move or thought makes the stregth I always say).

Analysis is a skill in itself.  It would be useful if you have a chance to analyse with a stronger player now and then, and try to pick up good analysis techniques.

I hate to sound like a broken record, but the main problem with the average chess player's analysis is time and objectivity.  Spending a day or two finding the blunders is only scratching the surface.  The work you do in analysis, even if some of it is wrong, is wroth the time spent searching for the "truth."  The time spent pushing yourself to be objective about evaluations and consider different lines has great practical application in OTB play.

Try to catch those funny times when you say to yourself:  17.[notation]  "I think I'm ok in this position, it's pretty equal"  then come to 20.[notation]  "This was a tough decision, my position isn't easy/good/there's ___ problem"  This is a big clue you need to go back to move 19 and figure out what your mistake was and when the evaluation changed.  If it wasn't then go to 18, then to 17, and often you'll find you have to change your evaluation of 17 and go back to 16 etc.  In good analysis this should happen multiple times.

Even simpler ... stop putting yourself into containers like classes and JUST keep playing up until you win no more than 50-60% of your games (logically assuming that half of the games are white and the other half are black, which is usually the case on most online servers and tournaments)

Like cardio and other forms of "incremental training", this becomes your "zone" of improvement....if you are beating  "X" rated players 60% of the time, play those who are a bit stronger (100+ pts) and then try to keep your "win %age" to the same value.

If you're playing too high, your %age will drop. If too low, it will be higher than 60% indicating that you're not being challenged.

As you get better ... you will find yourself seeking stronger opposition. After the intermediate classes (1600 ELO), this will be a gradual and often slow progression  as the skill levels get exponentially tougher once you cross this barrier.

Until you can ... there's really no point in trying to pick a fight with somebody 400+ points ahead of you. Besides, you'll win less than 10-20% and once again using the cardio example, this is analogous to sprinting uphill at 45 degrees until you collapse and belch in 1/10th of the time you could have invested if you were working in your "improvement zone".

Wafflemaster: That is a very good point what articles or books talk more about this subject.

Shivsky: That seems very effective but I also know that people have different ways they get better. I find that I almost subconsciously play with about 70% or of my focus when playing people in my rating class and 100% when playing people who are towering over me (400+) so another point of this study plan is like what wafflemaster said earlier force myself to play with focus on 100% till I subconsciously do the same with other games. Do you still think I should go with your suggested guideline I hope I'm not sounding offensive I'm just trying to stay as opened minded about this idea as possible.

Whatever works ... as you pointed out, we all perform our best differently.

Though with your "stated flaw" of operating with less than 70% of your focus against players not stronger than you are   ... there's going to be issues when you play open tournaments (if you ever plan to play competitively).  You will have to face players across the rating spectrum in most Swiss tourneys.

If it were me, I'd still make sure I had keep my technique in shape to make clean wins against weaker players (with offbeat openings right from move #1)  and could hold my own against equally strong ones.  Been following the 60% rule for a while and I can say it's worked for me, atleast.  Though at the advice of my former coach, I play the board and not the rating. 

Who are these CM/NM players who are going to agree to regularly play against you?? I assume you would also be hoping that they stick around to explain to you/coach you on why they beat you easily too?

Shivsky: yes I see what you mean I do play competitively and I do make sure I'm able to beat people in my rating class if you look at my status I recently came 1st about a week ago in a U1300 tournament I entered with all wins and the lowest rated was someone in the High Class E range (1154) but everyone else was Class D which made the tournament feel more like a respectable U1300 tournament. And before that tournament I finished second in a tournament I was one of the lowest rated in the event.

Wafflemaster: a 1600 player can play the opening like a master the middle game like a expert and the endgame like a patzer. When I heard this quote it sorta touched me in a way of just showing how important analysis is I now try to play everyone equally meaning not being ambitious towards someone just cause there lower rated and not accepting a draw against someone just cause there higher rated.

 I do know masters like this and if there busy I don't see a reason not to adjust my computers strength but I do see your point even with my computer I want the majority of the masters I play to be human that way the game has more of an instructional value to it.  

 trust me I've taken this into consideration and most people I play at this level around were I live are more than happey to go over it. And I don't get pumbled by people higher rated than me like I beat 2 1700 player in a 3game match each in the last 3 days (serious) I even beat the first player 2-0 (It was a 2 out of 3 match) and the other 1700 I didnt lose a game (+1,=2,-0) So I am taken into consideration my own limits. What suggestions do you have about lowering the blow though I am interested. Thanks in advance.

Nice post.

Yes I see so what is a good way of softening the blow. I once drew a CM 3 times in a row and won the fourth game  (still lost the overall match because of a horrible start) but that alone gave me so much confidence for a while. By the way all games with the 1700 players even the CM I just talked about were standard 60min games.

May we have proof of your 3 draws against a Candidate Master?  I have a lot of respect for these guys and they don't (as a rule) draw players with your current USCF rating 3 times in a row.  Either they are drunk, you are a prodigy who is going places or there's something iffy about your statement. 

Giving you the benefit of doubt here. Really hope it is B) and if so, kudos to you.

Sure it was a computer anyway could you give like a day or 2 though since this took place a year ago but I always record my games so I should find it my pile of chess papers in  no time but it's 1am and the only thing I fill up tp is just typing hope this doesn't sound fishy if so sorry it's the best I can do.