Playing folks 200 points better than you
Sort:
Not on here but chess on facebook my ratings 1600's an i played someone who were in there 1900's, i didnt win but battled all the way to the end, an instead of him saying nice game, all i got was "what program are you using" i couldnt believe he accused me of cheating when i played the best chess of my life, ya see playing people 200+ gives you some what a challenge, you learn from it an you dont lose many points for a defeat, your not expected to win so its a win win situation all round
Jul 1, 2010
0
#43
Musikamole wrote:
"Although no scientific tests have been done, inexperienced players use perhaps 95% calculation and 5% pattern recognition. For master-strength players the figure is more like 40% calculation and 60% pattern recognition." - Murray Chandler (How To Beat Your Dad At Chess)
Find that to be untrue ... even though he's right about the balance of Pattern chunking vs. raw calculation.
Dr. Adrian De Groot wrote the famous "Thought and Choice in Chess" based on fairly intense scientific testing to see how players of different skill levels think.
NM Dan Heisman wrote an interesting Novice Nook about this.
People rated 200 "points" higher than you don't start the game with more pieces than you do. They still have to be able to play. Everyone's rating includes wins on time, blunders, and just sheer luck, no matter how much better they insist they are.
Hom1ez wrote:
Not on here but chess on facebook my ratings 1600's an i played someone who were in there 1900's, i didnt win but battled all the way to the end, an instead of him saying nice game, all i got was "what program are you using" i couldnt believe he accused me of cheating when i played the best chess of my life, ya see playing people 200+ gives you some what a challenge, you learn from it an you dont lose many points for a defeat, your not expected to win so its a win win situation all round
Maybe he wasn't really accusing you of cheating, but trying to recommend some software you might like. 
Heh, best to ignore people like this and just move on with your life. Cheers!
I'd say that you really only notice an appreciable difference in skill at a rating difference of about 300. Most players that I play at that level often find an advantage during the game, but I don't notice big advantages in opponents <300 until the endgame, and even then, sometimes I'm the one with the advantage. 
Try playing a vote Chess game in a big group, with people who like to comment on their moves. That is a great way to learn.
Jul 3, 2010
0
#47
I think it is always worth playing people rated a lot higher than you for a very simple reason:
What do you lose in doing it.
Playing people better than you will at the very least not teach you bad habits, therefore it can't be too bad playing them!
Niven42 wrote:
Hom1ez wrote:
Not on here but chess on facebook my ratings 1600's an i played someone who were in there 1900's, i didnt win but battled all the way to the end, an instead of him saying nice game, all i got was "what program are you using" i couldnt believe he accused me of cheating when i played the best chess of my life, ya see playing people 200+ gives you some what a challenge, you learn from it an you dont lose many points for a defeat, your not expected to win so its a win win situation all round
Maybe he wasn't really accusing you of cheating, but trying to recommend some software you might like.
Heh, best to ignore people like this and just move on with your life. Cheers!
well. some of if not most of us would be rated higher than what were supposed to be because of the simple reason that some players lose interest and neglect to finish their games with us. for this reason some are rated higher but would not give much of a challenge. this also goes for the other part where some are rated lower than they should be because they dont finish some of their games but are reaaly good in chess.
folks? That term is out of style.
Jul 5, 2010
0
#50
Shivsky wrote:
Musikamole wrote:
"Although no scientific tests have been done, inexperienced players use perhaps 95% calculation and 5% pattern recognition. For master-strength players the figure is more like 40% calculation and 60% pattern recognition." - Murray Chandler (How To Beat Your Dad At Chess)
Find that to be untrue ... even though he's right about the balance of Pattern chunking vs. raw calculation.
Dr. Adrian De Groot wrote the famous "Thought and Choice in Chess" based on fairly intense scientific testing to see how players of different skill levels think.
NM Dan Heisman wrote an interesting Novice Nook about this.
A 10 page article! Thanks. 
I own Elements of Positional Evaluation by Dan Heisman and listen to his lectures over at ICC. He's a great teacher!
Just a few of the many things I found of interest.
"GMs know how to play roughly 100,000+ positions 
, while
masters know only 10,000+.
No matter what process they think they use, players rated below 1600 USCF almost all practice what I have called “Hope Chess”: they make moves without considering whether they can deal with all the threats their opponent might make next move. To put it another way, they often make a move without at all considering the consequences of what might happen when they do.
This was not a surprise to me; it is very difficult to have a rating that low if you have reasonable chess knowledge and play “Real Chess” every move of each slow game you play."
Time to start playing "Real Chess". 
If you don't have a repetoire and facing someone 200 above you, then you need to learn 'on the job'. The higher player is more likely to play main line theory for longer than someone 200 below. So get a few references and look up the theory! This way you will learn something about openings while playing stronger players.
At what rating does opening theory come into play?
My blitz opponents are rated between 750-850 with myself at 800. Main lines don't exist, even though I know a few.
In cc I'm rated at 1400. I see a little theory - most likely do to our game explorer - but not much past a few moves. Opponents tend to pick unpopular moves in game explorer, perhaps to get me out of book quicker in the hopes of beating me with tactics.
800 blitz to 1400 cc is too large of a gap for my liking. In blitz, I am working on pattern recognition in order to reduce the time spent on calculation, burning up precious seconds on the clock.
"Although no scientific tests have been done, inexperienced players use perhaps 95% calculation and 5% pattern recognition. For master-strength players the figure is more like 40% calculation and 60% pattern recognition." - Murray Chandler (How To Beat Your Dad At Chess)