Playing lower rated players.

Just out of curiosity (please keep this respectful) Do you guys and gals think it is a valid stradegy to only play lower rated players. (at least 100 points) to help improve your rating? I have noticed when a 1600 + comes to my table...I love the challenge but their games seem to only be against players around 1500 and below. Those of you that do this....in what ways will this help you improve?

no, I've recently switched my rating search criteria from -100 +100  to -10 +150

I noticed though that when I played -100 +100 I got a lot more lower rated players than higher.

Even if you play at -100, you will get somewhat higher rated opponents at some point. If you really think you're underrated, I'd suggest going for better players though... Adds a challenge to the game and gives more rating.

Well, since my correspondence rating has been steadily growing, my average opponent is lagging behind, but catching up when I played my first 20 games, my opponents were about 1100-1400, the next 20 were about 1400-1700, now my rating is 1930, and my average opponent (although now I play 1800-2100) is a low 1800 something.

Just can't get enough GOOD help these days!!!

I'm 1450 or so in blitz and my average opponent is 1550. I'm more concerned with a solid game than a great rating but I notice that if I play 5 or 10 games with a higher rated player then my play against a player of my rating is much more polished.  Although when I play a  higher rated player who only plays lower ratings I notice the difference immediately. If those guys played consistent games with on par or greater opponents their trating would deflate by at least 100 points.

Well Nate that's a completely different story. When I started this account 2 years ago I didn't take chess serious at all. Even when I started playing more competitively at the beginning of this year, I played a whole lot of games in the 1100-1300 range. So many in fact that it's very hard to get my average opponent's rating up. You really need to look at the average rating of the last couple of opponents you played.

It's around 1600 for me in blitz, while my all time opponent's average rating is 1330

I should have said that the topic is not a strategy I implement. I like getting beat and learning something...well I dont love it but you know what I mean. Some games I lose but still feel that put  in a solid effort just got outplayed. :)

Its kind of a hard spot though . Most of my opponents are almost 100 above but I'm only winning 39 percent of the time. Not a good number.  But Im concerned if I play only my rating or lower then I wont improve as much. Maybe not though.

I always try to play players higher than me. The stronger the opposition the more I can test my ideas out and know if they are correct or not. Playing lower rated players can let you get away with sloppy play and that can become a habit so I try to avoid that as much as possible. I only care about my rating here to the extent that the higher I am the more likely I can snag a game with high rated players (like 1800+ for me right now).

My average opponent rating is 1798 I think in Online Chess here while my rating has plummeted from around that rating to low 1700's so I expect my next batch of games will bring that average rating down as I'll be more likely to draw in low 1700 players than high 1700 and above. Hopefully I can increase my rating and after a dozen or so games I can begin attracting more high rated players in my games once more.

You want me to thank you  correcting my spelling in a chess forum? Thanks? No, Iv'e never heard of him.

Hey Becky, those are awesome ideas. I'm with you-some of the best games 'Ive played have been unrated. I am 1450 or so but pretty consistenty beat players much higher rated but my rating seems to hover in the 1400s because I care more abot improving than winning. I like what you said about practicing creative concepts in chess because that is what seperates an average player from a great one.  Doing that either in an unrated game or against a lower rated opponent  (who is much more forgiving in otherwise lost positions) is such a great way to do that. Thanks for your input!

I change my mind all the time all this idea.If your goal is to get the highest rating you can it should be fairly even whether you play abit higher players or abit lowwer since although you will win more against lowwer rated players you will also get a big bite out of your rating when you do lose.Most strong players seem to recommend playing the highest rated players you can and just not worry about your rating.If your ego is strong enough to take a rating drop in stride (as well as a good many loses) i will think that this approach will either make you a strong player or have you find a new hobby.

i think i search like -100 +300, i think its good to play people on both sides of your rating.

"Even when I started playing more competitively at the beginning of this year, I played a whole lot of games in the 1100-1300 range. So many in fact that it's very hard to get my average opponent's rating up"

It's only the average of opponents over the past 3 months, I'm pretty sure.

Aiming to play lower rated players is about the worse thing you can do if you want to improve your chess. You should try and play as high rated players as possible. And, even more important you should learn how to detect your mistakes and if you are unable to do this [which you really are not able to do]--then get a higher rated player to show you your mistakes

This means play less blitz and more games you can annotate.

The rating system is such that your rating will stay about the same regardless of the rating of your opponents.  Only when you learn more about the game will your rating go up.

If you are rated about 1450 you have a great chance to improve your rating as there is so much for you to learn if you can just know your mistakes and learn from them.

I think for optimal improvement one needs to play against players both somewhat stronger and somewhat weaker.  Stronger opponents teach you what you're doing wrong and show you new things.  (It can be painful, but that helps the lessons stick.)  Weaker opponents allow you to try out the things you learn from stronger opponents without being under pressure.  Equal opponents are good for exercising your chess muscles in general. 

Games against much stronger opponents are interesting if you can get them.  Lastly (and I don't at all mean this in a bad way), in games against much weaker opponents you get an opportunity to practice being disciplined and *NOT* let them drag your game down to their level.  I find that I play my absolute worst chess against players 500+ rating points lower because I get lazy and sloppy because I'm under no pressure at all and can get away with it.

When doing an open seek, I usually go for +/- 50 of my rating as I feel this gives the best game and you get a better idea of your level. I would probably consider myself a more positional player but when I play lower rated players (-200 or more) in tournaments, I play more aggressively looking for traps and tactics. I am confident they will not see some of the moves that I have planned. 

I'm very ambitious in Live games... typically -50 / +500