Only playing higher rated players?

I started several new turn based games recently.  Usually I go through and set the search paramaters myself, but I was felling lazy and just banged the "find game" button a bunch of times.  So it set up an open seek for anyone within 300 points of my rating, 3 days per move.  By chance, i got mostly games that were with lower rated players, several quite a bit lower rated than myself.  In those games with a wide rating difference I am moderatly to massivly ahead right now.  Which is fine, I don't mind winning, its nice to be the one on the good side of the combo once in a while, but I also know that I haven't learned anything from those games.

A bit of background on my.  I have dabbled in chess off an on for years, but without seriousness or much skill.  Three months ago I was playing around 1200 turn based.  With a lot of tactics pratice I have pushed that up to the mid 1400's, where I have been floating.  I am trying to find some time for actual "study", but  most days all I have time for is to check my games a few times and to do 15 or 20 minutes of tactics problems.  Now and then I play over an annotated game or try to read an article, but with work, family, and other activites I have made commitments to I will never be more than a casual player.  Still, I would like to get better. 

I am thinking of setting a policy of setting all my game seeks to my my rating or higher (setting aside team matches or tournaments, which I do sometimes play in).  The idea is that if I am playing stronger opponents I will have to (a) really push myself in effort and understanding, and (b) be exposed to more complex play, thus hopefully learning something usefull even when i lose.

I see two problems with this.  The first is that it may be discouraging to loose so much, as I know my win loss percentage will take a nose dive, and the second is that I am not sure it is ethical.  Just as I would like a chance to learn from stronger players, shouldn't I give a weaker player a chance to play me and perhaps learn something?  If everyone only took games with stronger players no one would ever get a game outside our a tournament.

Anyway, must musing.   Any thoughts?

Buy some good books, you don't learn much from just playing.

At the moment I'm reading:

-Silman's complete endgame course

-Chess words of wisdom - Mike Henebry

-Chess exam and training guide - Igor Khmelnitsky

Playin games isn't a big part of learing for me annymore, I need input from others to really getting annywhere. Playing games is the fun part, not the learning part.

Don't get blind looking at your rating, it's better to analyze your own games, why do you win/lose? What part's can you improve, what are you good at?

 I have silman's endgame course, and have read the first couple of chapters.  I am also slowly working my way through Chernev's Logical Chess Move by Move.  I also have Silman's Reassess book, which might be just slightly advanced for me.  I can understand the concepts he is talking about, but trying to take all those elements and turn them into something meaningful over the board is quite the project.

But anyway, what I was really curious about was the idea of only playing rated players as a learning exercise.  Anyone have thoughts on that?

Playing higer ranked than yourself is a good idea, but it could be hard work and many losses too, so when (if) you feel down, play some live games against weak opponents and have fun!

Just remember that there is value for you personally in player lower-rated (presumably weaker) players: you get practice at a) winning won games, and b) efficiently carrying out tactical combinations. It is useful to practice these skills in such games, as we don't always get the opportunity versus the stronger players.

you consider ethics (letting lower rated players play you so they can improve) when playing higher-rated players, and that influences your judgement?

wow. such a goodie. why care about other people on a chess site?

 If you lack the ability to care about people on a chess site you lack the ability to genuinely care about anyone.  Do to the anonymity of the Internet I should act like a schmuck?  If so that means I when I do treat someone well its only out of fear ofreprisal or desire for personal gain, which destroys any possibility of genuine relationship.  I have a greater spirit than that.  Perhaps you are content with the small, petty, and selfish.  Personally, I aspire for more.

I can identify with much of what you said in your original post, sofademon.

Allow me to suggest a resource right here at chess.com that's been very helpful to me. Have you seen the Daily Columns that are a part of this site? Sunday's column by GMSerper is outstanding. Check out the recent archives for all of his 'Mona Lisa' series. As you read through each column, do as the author intends; try to figure out the next move in each of the games (presented as a puzzle). Being exposed to these great games in this way is an exceptional way to learn, IMHO.

Playing stronger opponents is important (how shall you improve when only playing weaker ones), but not exclusively - apart from "chess ethics" and giving weaker players the opportunity to play you, it's also important to play winning games - not only because of motivation (it just ain't no fun to lose all the time) but also to learn the specific act of winning a game. Getting into a winning position isn't enough if your opponent won't resign, you have to mate him - and if you only play strong opponents and seldom get into a winning position, it could happen that you play a weak opponent in a tournament, end up with a big advantage (material or otherwise) and are not able to convert it into winning the game under the set time controls.

I like playing against stronger and very strong opponents, even as far as 2000+. The satisfaction of beating one or even almost beating one will last for the next 10 losing games at least. I learned from it, mostly that I must not make a move within seconds but really think it over and analyze each piece. Second plus is that when you lose you hardly lose points but when you win oh boy!

Playing against lower rated players I also do because I volunteered as opponent for new members. Just try the mix of tournaments on your own level, Let's play games against stronger players and the newbies. It's fun.

Just play and enjoy, stronger players and the newbies doesn't matter, have fun!!!

If all players adopted a policy of only playing players higher rated than themself, no games would exist. I have played many games against many different level of player. Some lower some about the same, some higher.

If all I did was play much higher rated players my rating and record would suck, the best way is a mix of different level of player skills imo.

Treat all opponents regardless of rating as an even match. Everyone starts in the same position, and it is not over until it is over.

Do not be intimidated of a player with a higher rating, you will play too defensively, and you will lower your chances of winning.

Do not be over confident against a lower rated player, even a broken clock is right twice a day, so don't get to comfortable and make a blunder.

Remember chess is a game, so try to have fun.

The biggest mistake a noob chess player makes is playing 16 pieces... your opponent also has 16 pieces so you gotta play his pieces too! If you figure out his plan before he figures out your plan you have have a big advantage.

Frankdawg speaks chess wisdom twice. Games exist because higher rated players deem it acceptable to play a smudge like me (my words, not Mr. Frankdawg). And all of us are smudges to some one.

And I couldn't agree more about not focusing on 16 pieces. I play my best, most enjoyable, bragging rites games when I'm playing my opponents position about 60% of the time I'm thinking about moving. This gives me great insight in to the weakness of my position and helps me anticipate bad things.

I play anyone. Anytime. Always rated. I couldn't care less what that number says. Enjoy the game. Have fun.

Playing against higher rated players is a better idea than to play lower rated players. I like playing higher rated players, and I have gone up by 300 rating over the last 6 months on chess.com. So I reccomend you to play against higher rated players, though you will lose alot, you will be able to win after some time. And of course, solving puzzles, analyzing games and reading books also helps you to become better as well. Of course, if you dont have much time, then try to improve your weakest part of the game, like the opening part, middlegame or endgame. I have the biggest problems with the endgame part.Well good luck... just dont give up.

hold on a sec. "If you lack the ability to care about people on a chess site you lack the ability to genuinely care about anyone." <--- personally I that to be faulty logic. The other members on the site are someone you will perhaps never meet. They probably wouldn't extend the same courtesy to other players, and certainly wouldn't be expecting them. If a 2300 deliberately challenges me in blitz I would be quite shocked, wondering why he would challenge me. Be courteous to them in game, chat with them a little after the game, and continue playing your games. If you happen to build a friendship with them, congratulations.