The perfect opponent

Sort:
Graw81

Sometimes we get matched with players rated below us and sometimes rated above us, Sometimes we lose and other times we win.

 

 For example

Playing against a much higher rated opponent you find yourself in a familiar opening variation and understand the middlegame adequately allowing you a possible win. It works, you beat the guy rated 2100+ yet your only 1800. (The perfect opponent!)

 

The next game, you are matched against a 1600 player. He plays that opening you hate and you cant seem to handle it at all. You are either freaked out by it and puts you off for the whole game or you simply play a bad game and lose. 

 

Has this ever happend you? Maybe your the 1900 player who beats 2100`s but loses to 1700`s, or are you the 1300 player who beats 1500`s yet loses to 1100`s? Surely most people experience this at some stage?  

 

P.s. i am not implying wins/loses against either lower/higher rated players all the time but the odd one or two players now and then. Eliminating the possibility of a 'fluke' rating or under/over-rated players.

  


ozzie_c_cobblepot

This is one of the classic arguments that there is chance in chess. People who don't play chess don't understand how much opening preparation can matter in affecting the outcome.

Theoretically, it is all taken into account when the rating system puts the probabilities to the various outcomes once the match starts. A 1500 sits down across from a 1700 -- there is some chance that the 1500 will win, some chance of a draw, and some chance that the 1700 player wins.


rajeshbuddar

the perfect opponent is the one who tackles our steps and make us lose

 


Chesser777

If someone is good at chess, and he joins a chesscommunity his rating will be 1200.

So if his rating in real life is like 1800 he first has to win some games until he reaches the rating on the chesscomunity.

Sometimes you play players having a 1400 rating on chesscommunity but 1800 in real. 


Graw81
The last two comments are missing the point. ozzie_c_cobblepot is right i think.
u3021025
No, the belg has a point. There is for new players on this site a large difference between how strong they are and how many rating points they have. When I played my first couple of matches I suddenly was 1800, but after almost 50 matches I'm back at +-1600 which suits me better. The opposite can of course also occur. There are indeed some odd games where your opponent somehow has an (dis)advantage while having a (higher) lower rating, but there are quite some people who are not adequately rated...
BaronDerKilt

The perfect opponent: Anyone you can put in a position they do not understand, or they find uncomfortable, or even "just" distasteful. Anytime you are happy in a position but they are not, you can consider yourself "winning" even tho objectively it may be pretty even. Players simply do not play as well in positions that frighten or discomfort them. That is why you can have big payoffs from study of your opponents other games before starting your own game, besides the finding of any specific weaknesses in their theory or play.

It sounds to me like that is pretty much what Graeme is saying in his first two paragraphs.

Besides specific discomforts, there are some that will be more general. One example, it is an exception player under perhaps 1500 or 1600 who can handle a pawn roller coming at them without flinching or error. Discovering such generalities can be productive as well.


KillaBeez
I would just like my opponent's rating to be super inflated.  That way I will win rather easily.
MapleDanish

Being a highly tactical player... I find that my 'best opponents' are the ones who play the 'proper' moves... the more confusing they make the game the harder time I have.  By playing against opponents who play the moves I expect and avoid the novelties (?!/!?) I am able to analyze much deeper accurately (I've accurately gone 26 ply (13 moves) deep accurately before, and in a non-forcing position at that!).

 

I find that these people are usually in the 1600's and I rarely lose.

1700 through to 1900 is tough again... a lot of these guys are okay with letting you attack for a while... they defend brilliantly.

1900-2100 is always fun to play against because if you know your openings you can get a good game against them since the majority stick to the book.

After 2100 isn't even worth playing at my level...

Below 1600 is usually decided by a blunder and NEVER by the opening.

 

My favourite opponents are probably those who play the french as black and the italian as white... I see a lot of that in the 1900's..  


Graw81

Thanks for the feedback but once again im stressing that i am excluding the possibilty of players with inflated or deflated ratings, inotherwords; only players who have sustained a rating for at least some period. This also excludes 3021025`s case in which his rating was based only on a small number of games.

 

Anymore thoughts/ideas? 


farbror

 

Hmm, How about polite and sharing after the game?


Graw81
farbror wrote:

 

Hmm, How about polite and sharing after the game?


 That too! but... what about the ratings issue? (re-read original post)


farbror

 

Sorry!

Well, from a training perspective I think most, say, 75% of your opponents should be stronger but still not too strong and the other way around.

 

Dan Heisman has some ideas on the exact mixture.


seuss68
Chess ratings are no different than a bowling average or a golf handicap.  The rating is a comparative number so you can play opponents roughly your skill level, or a little better so you can push yourself.  If you were to beat an opponent who was rated 200 above you then lose to an opponent who was rated 200 below you then your rating would still be at roughly the same.  That is why it is an average and over time it all equals out.  That is why as your rating goes up, over time, you feel good about yourself because of the accomplishment.
Graw81

So, do you count winning games against stronger opponents as signs of improvement, kind of like making personal best times in athletics? If you can do it once, surely you can do it again!? But, what about those loses against people 200 approx. below? Do you look at these as mere slip ups and learn from the mistakes?

 

Food for thought: would you prefer to be 1800 and never lose to anyone more than 100 points below but never beat anyone 100 points above or 1800 and have some wins against 2100+`s and some loses to 1500`s? 

 

My opinion would be being able to get some honest wins against much stronger opponents is a step forward even if you lose to people below you. It shows just like personal bests in athletics that you have the capability (or potential) to become a better player.

 

By the way, at first i thought the idea is somewhat unrealistic but after thinking about it there are some very solid clubplayers who never lose to anyone rated too far behind them but never seem to get much better. (like; players who have given up studying the game; older players, businessmen etc). 


seuss68
Here is a thought to ponder.  How many times when you have started a game here on Chess.com, and seen that your opponent has a higher rating than you.  So you mentally buckle down and play better chess, because you know you you can not afford any mistakes.  Conversely if the opponent is of a lesser ranking you might approach the game a little more nonchalantly due to the fact that the player is weaker.  When you combine the last two statements you get the weaker player winning, or at least giving the stronger player a much tougher game than was expected.