Playing up in OTB is hard

So deciding which sections to play in at big chess tournaments is difficult. The conventional wisdom is “play up, you’ll learn from the games, you’ll gain rating with 1 or 2 wins… etc.” 

On the other hand, I’m not getting any better, and I get my ass handed to me in the open/top section of these tournaments. I wonder if I need to start playing down to make myself feel better, or continue playing up, and trying to make the most out of it. 

It’s easy to feel like I’m going to “enjoy losing” in the context of learning from the games, but actually losing games ain’t fun. 

Thx for listening to my rant!

I have the same issue. Because of my age(48) and some very significant life events I fell to my rating floor of 1600 about 4 years ago. Since then my rating hasn't lowered( that's how floors work), but my performance rating is probably 1300s to 1500 or so(no actual calculation done, just my guestimate). I have gone +11-33 in the last 4 years. My best OTB tournament during that time I went +3-4=0 and only remained on my floor. My wife tells me to just enjoy playing. But it's hard after 4 years of beating on my floor to still care.

OP, whomever gave you that advice was being less than helpful, that is terrible advice. You need to play OTB at a level that both challenges you ( punishes gross mistakes) and lets you put into practice what you have learned; constantly playing up only allows the former. Play up to the next ratings floor, once you start getting somewhat close then start playing up about 1 tourney in 3. Constantly playing too far above your rating is worse than a waste of time,it's self-defeating.

If you're going to play up, play up one level! For example, if your rating is 1540, and you're ambitious, play in the under 1800 section, where you will find challenging opponents. It probably doesn't make a lot of sense to play in the open section and get crushed in most of your games.

What is your intention?

If you want to try to win money, you play in the lowest section you qualify for.

If you want to improve your play, you play in the highest section you stand half a chance of drawing in, probably just one section higher than you were otherwise qualified for.

This is definitely the right approach if you're going to play up. You really don't learn much by losing to players 400+ points higher most of the time, as even if you do understand what they did better, there are so many basic things that you need to learn before you get to that level that whatever skillful chess techinque they showed will quickly be forgotten and not applicable in your games for several years.

For instance, when I play Grandmasters, I get crushed and for the most part I know why: They outcalculate me quite decisively and find nuances that I miss. If I had to keep losing to them in that same way all the time (and it happens pretty much every time!), it would not only be demoralizing but I'd be trying to learn grandmaster intuition immediately, which I can't do when I don't even have the skills to be an FM or IM, both of which would be prerequistes. It's just like if you beat a novice. For them to improve they hardly need the understanding of chess that you do, they have to stop blundering and playing players their level gives them a better opportunity to focus on that rather than advanced techniques. There's a reason GM's aren't usually the best coaches!

And from personal experience, I can promise you that you can certainly improve by only playing lower rateds. I was always greedy to win as many cash prizes as I could as a kid, and I've only played up 1 time my entire life (last year at the NAO, when I played in the Open instead of U2300. Even here though, I was still in the top half since everyone else played up!) I was very frequently the top seed, and while this may have kept my rating down in the short term, there were definitely some benefits:

1. You actually have to try to win every game. This should push you to play your best chess, rather than trying to get draws.

2. You don't feel terrible. Even in a bad event, you generally finish with a plus score and everyone pretends to respect you. I can't say I felt great when I finished 0.5/9 in the Washington State Championship! But when I get 4/6 against lower ratedsand lose rating, I don't feel completely terrible. And obviously if you feel unmotivated and miserable about your chess, that's going to bleed into your results and make you lose interest.

3. You become a more consistent player all round: I definitely had this as a benefit of playing lower rateds. In order to beat them consistently, I had to be better than them at every area of the game. I generally blundered a lot less than other players as a result, even if in some areas of the game I was weaker than my rating equals.

So overall, obviously a mix of all levels is good, but if I had to say whether it's better for your chess for your opponents to be slightly higher or lower than you, I'd probably say the later. So get rich and dominate those patzers!

Wow, my man @Joseph_Truelson chose to write a dissertation! In all seriousness, that's very helpful advice. I agree that playing up one section is probably ideal, and as you also said (and I remember my coach telling me), part of getting better at chess is proving yourself against lower-rated players. Also playing to win rather than playing to draw has to help with your chess. Thanks for the insights, everyone!

I just don't understand what the OP is talking about at all. Is there some weird tournament form where you can pick your opponent? How does that even work? I'm lost.

You pick what section you enter. Usually in the US tournaments are broken into rating categories that prohibit higher players from playing in a lower section BUT do not prohibit lower players from playing in a higher section.

For example, at 1849, I was able to play in the under-1900 section, though I would be near the top of that group, or I could play in the U-2100 section. I did the latter and got one win, two draws and three losses. Since I never imagine I'm going to win prize money, the decision is usually to go up.

I think going up is the best option if u have no intentions of getting some of your entry fee back. For experience and rating points playing upper is better

Oh yes, I get it now, thanks.

But isn't it a no-brainer to play in the lowest section that allows you in? You might win a prize, and if you don't... that means that you played against better players.

Losing is often as much about my errors as my opponents being better. Let's say I'm 1849 and playing in the U-1900 and I get a kid in one round who is 1680 and improving rapidly and playing very good chess. I make a bonehead error in my game and now I am out of the money and my rating tanks.

There's more to life than rating, just don't ask me what!

What's MHFM?