Play Someone You Know You Can Beat Easily or Don't Play at All?

Is it more beneficial to play someone you can beat easily, or not play at all if you want to improve as a chess player?

for you, it can help a little but not a lot

but I would still play because the other guy will be helped greatly

you should always play stronger opposition. However, if a certain opponent would have some sort of insurmountable ridiculous advantage for whatever reason then...  I mean would you play poker against someone who has stacked the deck or has x-ray vision? probably not.

It's good to play higher opposition, just not ridiculously higher opposition. Even then, though, you would still be learning from their style of play.

I wasn't comparing handicap chess to playing poker against someone with x-ray vision.

I'm against using x-ray vision in poker. I don't see any advantage to x-ray vision in chess. Those glasses are pretty easy to detect so I can't imagine enforcing a ban would be a problem. I think the use of ESP presents more of a problem.

Its still very much of a challenge for me not to make mistakes even against a weaker opponent, game after game. The goal becomes reducing my error rate over time.

just the truth.

When you want to develope your opening repertoire, play someone stronger and steal theirs :).

The real benefits of playing someone stronger is if you can get them to discuss the game afterward and explain their moves.

(X-ray vision in chess is good when playing against sexy women.)

Time handicaps are good ways to balance out playing levels for people ~600 rating points apart. Start both sides with 7 minutes and subtract 60 seconds for every 100 rating points difference.

The problem is that if the real playing difference is greater than 600 points, the stronger player will win every game even if they only have a minute to make all their moves.

So, rather than play someone who is much weaker than you, teach that person! Teaching will strengthen both your understanding and your opponent! Soon you'll have helped to create a real sparring partner! If you don't like teaching, study some positions together.

FIDE will start requiring glasses tests as well as aluminum foil mind sheilds to be worn at all times.

I play vs 2 pals locally OTB and neither one of them is very challenging (usually) but I do so because it's one way of socializing and not everyone takes the games as seriously as a lot of us do here at chess.com. It does tend to make me sloppy OTB but since this is about the only OTB chess I play I'm not too concerned here, however if I was playing other serious OTB games I'd probably treat these casual games more seriously, ie start using a clock and recording the moves.

Some responses have recommended always playing "stronger" players which I disagree with - I'd say usually do so, but keep in mind that "weaker" players don't always lose to "stronger" players and if you're going to concentrate on playing stronger opponents you should also give weaker opponents the same opportunties you have - to play someone better.

I think you should play any one who is willing to give you a game. Regardless of their talent. If their good, you play hard and learn. If they are beginners, they learn.

Its more an issue of courtesy than strategy.

I don't believe there's any benefit playing people you beat easily if you study and train hard you should play with opponents that are really good fighters and play a good game to develop your skills and keep them sharp.

Yes. See post #14.

I suppose the notion of studying chess with a friend is depressing to some.

It's important to phrase all choices as binary, and irrevocable.

That keeps life simple for the (slightly) pinheaded OP.

With dozens of ways to improve your game, why post a binary choice?  Duh?

I think you can learn a lot from playing someone you can beat easily.

by knowing why you can beat the other person, if you can see what errors lead to your victory. you may even realize some mistakes that you make yourself if the other person makes them even bigger.

as a rule always try to players other +200
always play people lower than you -200 or more to see that you can capitalize on their errors.

Thanks to all who answered my question appropriately and genuinely, and even offering new ideas of how to deal with my advantage (namely handicaps, I hadn't thought of that), though me playing a stronger player is simply not an option at my school team meetings as I can beat everyone consistently (HaHa, I know, you're probably thinking we're gonna suck, come tournament weekend, you're probably right, but chess is fun and improving as an individuals and a team is all that matters to us)

As for the following comment:

This is actually not true, I would love to teach and help my friends get better so we could at least have a small chance of getting a trophy at the tournament.

As for the following insults to me:

"It's important to phrase all choices as binary, and irrevocable.

That keeps life simple for the (slightly) pinheaded OP."

a completely unnecessary statement, considering I'm not a pinhead and can obviously handle more than 2 choices at once (how else would I still be a sane, functioning man), I just wanted to keep the thread title short.

and...

"Ok, maybe the poor bast*rd needs a fourth choice.  The top three lead to him taking his own life".

Why would you even say that, it's just plain stupid. 

 I just want to do the best I can to improve as a player.  So either answer the question appropriately (I'm open to new suggestions, I just didn't want the thread title to be too long, and keep in mind playing better player is not an option in this situation) or just don't comment, seriously

Thanks,

Mr Bob

Set your "open seeks" on plus and minus 150 points.  That way you will at least get 5 rating points from the lowest rated players who accept.

If you want stronger opponents, choose their "open seeks," when possible.  Nuff said?

Still a mighty dumb original question.  Sorry.

It's not dumb, you just don't understand it.  My question is regarding playing otb where internet is unavailable