Uneducated chess players frustrating?

I hate playing low rated players because I want to go further into book lines than 4 moves. But I'm sure higher rated players would say they hate playing me because they want to go further than 8-10 moves into a book line.

Maybe I'm missing the point (and I am a novice) but while experience and knowledge are undoubtedly important, chess is sure more than just following book lines? If that was all that was involved, then ultimately we'd end up reenacting old games and not developing ourselves, or the game.

I think what the OP means is whether or not strong players ( educated ) find it  frustrating to play weak/beginners ( uneducated ) players ?  I could be wrong, only the OP can say.  I think most strong players do find it frustrating and thats why you dont often find strong players playing much weaker players. Its just not challenging for the stronger player in most cases.

What is frustrating for me is playing against a beginner who starts with 1. e4. . . 2. Bc4. . . 3. Qh5.  It feels like they'd rather score a cheap win than try to learn the game.  I get bored chasing their queen around until I trap it and they resign.  I'd much rather lose a game than win these kinds of games. 

When one focuses on specific rating-based or score-based goals, one can do some illogical things. Take me, for instance. If my FIDE rating was 2298 and I was paired against some dude who played as black 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.e3 b5 4.a4 c6, I would be very happy. Or if this happened in the last round of a tournament where I needed a win to get in the money, I might also be happy.

But if it was in round 1 of a four-round Saturday tournament where I had awakened at 5:30am to get to the tournament in time after a 1hr drive, I might feel a little like why did I even waste my time to get there. Let's face it, tournaments are expensive, in time if not money. I don't play in very many. Looks like 2009 will end up being exactly one tournament for me. I was happy that I didn't play any dumb games in that one.

The disgustingness(?) of a move is a relative thing.

Bc4 and Qh5 annoy strong players, but it could set arduous problems for a 1100.

Objectivity is the key, if you dont know why he played that, he knows why he played that, he thought it was the best plan. So what if he's wrong?  Dont judge anybody for having less skill or knowledge than you do.

I think all players should try to play opponents at around their general level.

If you're willing to accept a game with a much weaker opponent, then there's no reason to be frustrated if they play below your level or if you blunder and hand them material.

I know what you mean, I had an opponent who gave his queen and a rook away for just my bishop. Wow...

suffice to say I am a big game hunter now, I have moved on to playing people an average 200 points more difficult than before.

My game standards are not very high. If you want to throw pieces away to me, I'm very happy to accept them without disdain.

If you're looking for tough opposition, on the other hand, try some of the other respondents to this thread.

Well, it's a simplistic attack, but it at least is an idea...eventually these people will find other ideas.  What I find amusing is that you, with your 1300 rating here refer to these other players as beginners.  What does that make you?