What Rating Will You Play Against?

Capablanca, in his last series of lectures, exclaimed that one learns a great deal more from games lost than from games won, so if one is looking to improve one's game, a stronger opponent is desirable.

On the other hand, if you are looking only for a string of victories, then you will naturally seek out a weaker rival.

I'll play anybody. Im mid 1500 now, but consider myself in a slump, I feel comfortable with my rating at around 1630. My most frequent opponent is 2500 plus, dunno why he still bothers, he kills me everytime, but i enjoy the games, and some chat about cricket or motor racing during games : )

currently ~2150,and I find players 2000+ challenging.In general I only seek out players within 100 of my rating in open seeks.

as far as challenges go...I accept almost all of them.(possible exceptions are 1200 players with no games,people at my rating with very few games,high-timeout people,possible sandbaggers etc)

I don't mind outplaying lower rated players, but not so low that they're just throwing away pawns and don't know what they're doing. I'm willing to play anyone higher than my rating, including grandmasters, who I'd be honored to play against as well as other high ratings.

Why the pessimism? Everybody's capable of improvement, from the weakest to the strongest. Keep playing stronger players, take advantage of learning materials like Chess Mentor, Computer Workout, Tactics Trainer and all sorts of books. I'm currently reading Capablanca's last lectures, and his endgame instruction has already helped me to defeat an opponent.

My rating: 1456 USCF (I figure I may as well answer this question in an OTB sense...)

If it's a rated game I'd rather not play anyone under 1000, because they are either just starting to play and can whip me, or they aren't the best of players.

I'll play anyone rated higher than me, though. It's great practice, and you never know... Complacency is indeed a powerful ally indeed.

In the online sense, though... I'll play anyone and everyone. It's not a true rating, so I'm not all that bothered with it.

Generally 100 rating points lower to 300 points higher.

Anybody. My own rating is something like 1600-1700 on this site, though I haven't played Livechess enough to raise my other ones. In person I have no USCF or FIDE rating, which surprises a lot of people - I can't make it to tournaments to get rated. My sparring partners range from around my rating to slightly lower, to much, much higher. Always something to learn from a game.

Rating: ~1330

I Play: 1200-2100

Something nobody has mentioned is the fact that your rating decreases much less when you lose against a very high rated player than when you play against someone more equitable.  Why not give it a go?

Just don't win when playing someone rated higher because then they will accuse you of.... lol

http://www.chess.com/echess/game.html?id=30346967

I will play people of all ratings in rated or unrated games. I'm here to learn and have fun.

The mathematical theory behind the rating system says that there is almost 0 chance of an upset if the rating differs by more than 200 points, and I find that to be pretty accurate, except in cases where someone is clearly rising or falling quickly.  So, I go my own rating plus or minus 200.

I find blitz, and especially bullet, to rise and fall at much too fast a pace for it to have any true accuracy.  As such, you can't tell the opponents real skill by their rating.

However, I have believed, and still seems to hold true based upon every game I play, that CC's chess ratings have quite good accuracy. So...that's the one section where I REALLY will take into consideration opponent rating.

CC, I'll do 1400-1900, no lower, simply because I have been improving so rapidly lately that I want to keep pushing myself against tougher opponents.

Live, I'll do +/-100.

It's true that the rating system is simply a statistics formula, but you're a little off on the 0% chance.

When there is a difference in rating of 198 to 206 the higher rated player is expected to score 76% , putting the lower rated player at 24% ...  or about 3 to 1 in a 4 game match.

I'll play anybody that asks me for a game provided I have the time. As long as the person is not rude I find no reason to deny him a game - whe're here for playing chess, not our ratings. My rating here is currently around 2000, my OTB rating (Bulgarian Chess Federation) is 1908.

This isn't about denying anyone a game or being a jerk.  The question is...what rating range do you feel is challenging and productive for you to play.  When you put out a seek, do you put 500 - 2500?

No, there's nothing elitist about this at all.  I was merely wondering if everyone is doing what I do.  And I'd never think for a second that it's rude of a 1700 rated player to think I'm just not going to be enough of a challenge.  Have you ever watched two 900 rated players at a game?  I know this is going to get some people miffed but...It's outright hilarious, to be honest.  And I imagine my play to be hilarious to someone at 2000...if it isn't...then I guess they are just a much more decent and loving person than I am.  Whatever.  This thread wasn't to put anyone down.

The point is...there is a level for me...that creates complacency and frustration...and I would say that's just as true for me if the player is under 1300 or over 1800.  With 2000 rated players, I'm almost just moving pieces with very little invested thought. The chances of a nice return on a semi clever combination, if at all possible, is slim.  Maybe that's my nature and not human nature...who knows.  If Ozzie enjoys regular games with much lower rated opponents, more power to him. Hi Ozzie.

I don't generally put a seek - I play in team matches and tournaments only with a couple of exceptions.