The only way to get smarter is by playing smarter opponent
- Chess fundamentals, 1883
Playing stronger players is by no means suicidal. More often it may be better for your improvement. True, you maybe won't win the tournament but you might learn a thing or two. And sometimes you can push yourself to do better results when you know your opponent is higher rated.
If you want to win, play the under 2000. If you want to play among the elite and gain a bunch of experience, play 1800 and over.
It's your call, really. Though, if it were me, I'd play in the U2000 first.
Then, once my rating has improved, I'd play in the stronger section for the next tournament.
Unless you plan for this to be the only tournament you ever play in? If so, I'd go with the stronger section, for experience against tougher opponents.
If you plan to play in more tournaments in the future, though, I'd stick with opponents in your strength class, and move up sections as your strength improves.
Depends on what you're going for. Best of luck, regardless!
Depends on what youre after.
If you want a chance of winning - Play where youre at.
If you want to improve - Play up.
Personally, i would prefer the experience, and playing better players.
Depends on what youre after.
If you want a chance of winning - Play where youre at.
If you want to improve - Play up.
Personally, i would prefer the experience, and playing better players.
Agree. I would add, this is chess, not boxing, you know.
It's normal to want to play higher rated players... people play up all the time... it's actually a little annoying sometimes.
Depends on what youre after.
If you want a chance of winning - Play where youre at.
If you want to improve - Play up.
Personally, i would prefer the experience, and playing better players.
Agree. I would add, this is chess, not boxing, you know.
Yea...the whole "suicidal" thing is taking a game a bit to serious.
Yeah it's not suicidal when you're not just jeopardizing your life, but your friends too! How would he feel when he finds out you got white washed? Probably so low he might quit!
My friend and I are preparing for a tournament. Our rating is about 1900, and he chose to go to the under 2000 section, while I chose the above 1800 section, where I would also meet some people rated as high as 2400. My friend said he would not go there, as there would be no chances. No chances to win the tournament, I totally agree. But isn't there a better chance to learn from better players by going to the upper section?
Should I gain more from losing to more experienced and technical players than from winning persons who would make the same mistakes as I could make myself?
Firstly, thats interesting, i have never seen a tournament where the upper and lower bounds were like that. <2000 and >1800. Ive seen <1800 and <2000 obviously, but this way is neat.
Secondly...no its not suicidal..i know someone at our club who is rated 1100 or so and he plays up all the time....i mean way up...like he plays in the opens with GMs. and yet, he has not died yet...so id say no its not suicidal.
Actually cardiac arrest is possible in view of the high level play and depending on how fast you get "checked", you could die.
ok true...you could infact die....perhaps consult your physician to see if playing up is right for you before you register
Playing people a bit better than you--one class, possibly two--is really useful. It helps point out weaknesses in your game that you can fix.
Playing people 3-4 classes above you tends to be demoralizing. They will exploit weaknesses you're not well prepared to recognize or fix yet, and you can end up learning bad lessons like "nothing I do ever works" and "my openings are all worthless."
I personally think the optimum for improvement is a mix of playing people at your level and people one class or possibly two classes higher.
If the goal is fun, on the other hand, you'll have to judge your own personality. Playing in your class is more fun if you mainly like winning and competing for prizes. If you love upsets and are excited by the chance to play strong players, then playing up is better.
Finally, at least in my area a *lot* of players play up, so you will not necessarily face only 2000+ opponents in the 2000+ section. If you lose you'll get paired with other losing players, and may end up with reasonable opponents anyway. (This reached its ludicrous extreme in the last WA Class Championship, where in the Expert section I think 7/9 players were below Expert. The TDs cleverly charged extra to play up, so essentially this was a Class A section where everyone paid extra!)
A couple of tournaments ago I drew a master and gave a bad scare to an FM, and I have promised myself to play up in all tournaments from now on--I think when you've had some promising results is the best time to push yourself and look for a breakthrough.
Both are win.
And there is no guarantee as to the calibre of opponent you will come up against in either. Start with a loss in the 1800 plus section and your next three rounds could be against lower rated opponents. Start with a couple of wins in the under 2000 section and you might have tough opponents from there on in.
Plus, if there are money prizes, it is far from unknown for a couple of the players to have massaged their rating to qualify for the under 2000s.
My tip is, try to ignore rating. Focus on your own play and the position on the board. If you had a magic day and found the best move everytime for a bit you would get a draw out of Komodo!
Thanks, everybody, for your valuable input! I am playing this weekend, so will report on the outcome soon.
Sorry for using the strong "suicidal" word. I didn't see the negative connotations, being a Russian speaker, probably "masochistic" would be better?
Playing against IMs when you are 1900 would be like playing against Stockfish, you would lose all your confidence and rating points. There is no point on it.
I think that after 2200+ you will probably get nothing from your games.
Better is to go where you are, playing against people at your rating range does not mean it will be easy. That way you can stay motivated, as you have real chances of winning.
Are you really about 1900? As per your rating here i think you may be 1500 rated or so. Anyway, playing against stronger opponents is better.
@michaeltakhell, yes, my OTB results are much better as I started OTB playing this year with a more dedicated attitude than I have on chess.com. Here in chess.com I spend only 5-20 seconds a move, so I am mostly playing by intuition and move-by-move. In normal tournaments in the club or outside I perform better with calculation and planning. But I am still learning, both theory and how to handle tournament situations and making choices like the one I started this topic with 
No. Playing both in your section in some tournaments, and up in others, will prove when your rating is where it should be. The ratings system is supposed to be representative of one's location within the population statistics. If you play a player 400 pts higher, then they should score something like 92.5% against you (I can't remember the exact number, but there are tables available online); and you should likewise score 92.5% or whatever versus players 400 pts lower --statistical variant yet to be considered. In short, it makes no difference, except to eliminate some sort of inconsistencies in ratings created by artificial cutoffs in tournaments. (For example, someone playing down regularly could become overrated/underrated, depending on whether they are having sustain success against non-improving players, or playing lots of up-and-coming kids.)
I played in the U2200 at the World Open and played pretty close to my rating, scoring 2.5/9.0 with a performance rating of 1825, while my rating was 1783. If I couldn't do 2.5, I didn't deserve my current rating. On the flip side, I had two draws that opponents refused to let me walk away with, because they were much higher rated, and took their chances in a 6 hour game that was reduced to a bullet game (and lost, because I'm not as good at bullet as a 2100 or a 2030). I also had a win that turned into a draw (vs a 2060), because we were sprinting toward the control in a very sharp position, in which I was up a pawn. Anyways, playing up can tell you how close you are to moving up. In my mind, I'm about 30-40 minutes, distributed evenly across those three games, away from cracking 1900. There's always something to learn in playing lower rated players, but all too often, player change their style against lower rated players, in fear of opening up and taking risks, choosing to allow weaker opponents make mistake. In those cases, it becomes too easy to give draws to undeserving lower rated players.
My friend and I are preparing for a tournament. Our rating is about 1900, and he chose to go to the under 2000 section, while I chose the above 1800 section, where I would also meet some people rated as high as 2400. My friend said he would not go there, as there would be no chances. No chances to win the tournament, I totally agree. But isn't there a better chance to learn from better players by going to the upper section?
Should I gain more from losing to more experienced and technical players than from winning persons who would make the same mistakes as I could make myself?