Playing folks 200 points better than you

Why do they say this is a good idea? As a tennis player I understand how much you improve playing folks better than you. But chess? All it does for me is lower my rating and show me how little I know. Granted you can appreciate how they move their army toward you and set up beautiful combinations to trap you. It does open your eyes a bit, and makes you wish you could do the same. But how does this really help? Stwils

quit wishing.

The only reason you play somebody 200 points above you is for the post-mortem, just like the only reason you would play somebody far superior to you in tennis would be for the tips they give you after the match.

don't worry about rating. rating is just a number. 

rating will come slowly but surely if you get better than you are now.

it is a good idea to play someone better than you because they will punish you for playing a bad move.

if you just play someone you can beat. you might think it is ok to play like you do now.

I play against one of the best in my chess club 25 minutes play I only win 3 out of 12 games. But I learn what I should avoid.

Let's be clear ... playing the +200 point person who "LOLz, noobZ, losersssssssssssss" you on live chess is not what the good advice is meant to steer you towards; More likely the +200 point player who is decent enough to offer his critique (if you ask him) as to what your big  mistakes are.

There are a ton of things he may know more than you, but rather than add to your knowledge (which may not be feasible with a 1-2 line comment), he can sure as heck subtract any bad chess behaviors from your game (such as "Don't do X, X is bad for you in this type of position")

Additionally, a stronger player forces you to play your best ... he can punish your mistakes better than people lower or at your current playing strength.

Finally, the first thing you need to do before beating strong players is "losing" your fear of them. They are human and they will make mistakes.  Once you play enough of them, you just might sponge aspects of their playing style through osmosis!

Because they'll punish your mistakes in a way you can understand.  The way they beat you may be just outside your current ability, but it wont be completely outside of your ability to understand.  Someone +500 strength will just crush you and you won't know specifically how or why, but only 200 points isn't so far above you that it will be a mystery.  For example you'll score about 3 out of 10 against that strength. 

If you only ever play equal or weaker players, you wont learn much because they'll hardly ever punish your mistakes in ways that you didn't know about already.  If you're playing for fun and not too interested in improving then don't go out of your way to play better people (we all get there eventually).  If you're currently looking to improve then to do so you're almost forced seek out players better than you.

it's more important   to play higher rated players once you reach say the 1700 mark

then you should play people only 100+ higher rated than you till you get to 1700 mark as i said or at least the 1400 (also the ratings i'm speaking of I mean reall life rating so for online try this till you reach 1800(online) and the 1700mark would be 2000(online)

Another way of looking at it is to keep raising the bar until you are winning NO MORE than 35-40% of your games and no LESS than 20%.

 Those are the waters you will "need" to swim better in if you want to get stronger without ever getting complacent.

I think this is usually a good idea, but for chess.com online games, 200 is probably a bit much, I'd say 100 will do.

I disagree with you here. I play tennis as well, and I consider players more consistent than I in both games to be better. When I feel well and confident, playing someone better than I is a nice test of concentration and skill. Not a reason for the better player's advice. Language is 400 points below experience.

That's good, I hadn't heard that before.  Do you mean, for example if I tried to coach someone rated 200 points below me about the best I could do is just play practice games and point out a few obvious errors?  Whereas someone rated 400 points above you could just look at one of your games and give you a lecture?

I don't think I understand you, orangehonda. If someone asks for advice, fine. Post-mortems, and tennis tips are many times in my experience, not asked for, just given. What I meant by "Language is 400 points below experience", is that playing, competing, and learning on your own throughout the game and in your own reflection upon the game, transcends putting that experience in the language of advice, in every way.

Because they slip up sometimes-keeps them humble

I think I see what you mean now, a sort of learning by doing is better than trying to learn just by listening?

Yes. You seem to have put it better than I very easily