Are we at a high for # of 2300+ rated players?

Personally i think we need a range of games for varying reasons , i have played Atticus2 - got thrashed ( as expected ) he kindly game some feedback on defending a position - that lesson stuck and today i still heed his advice .

I like to play banded tourneys as i reallly want to win one or two , but i also like to play chess gods ( 1900 + ) as i believe this helps me learn - after all these guys play chess at the highest level - that can only help me to improve.

When i joined here over a year ago i did not even know the basic openings let alone their names - " i just played chess "

Now through playing a variety of games i have gained confidence by playing equal rated players and i have gained advice from helpful chess gods like Atticus

And i studied openings and strategy from books and comparing the books to the games i have played and the games of the top 30 players.

So for me i would gladly play the very top rated platers - i would never expect to win - but i will learn !

Originally posted by theonecolin
Personally i think we need a range of games for varying reasons , i have played Atticus2 - got thrashed ( as expected ) he kindly game some feedback on defending a position - that lesson stuck and today i still heed his advice

interestingly enough, this rings true with other (good OTB) 2200+ players on RHP, i.e. giving advice/feedback bit.. one being Mike Perkins and there was one more (in my case) whose name is escaping me now.. I think it's cool..

I would have liked to play atticus2 in the octet. I know going into most tournaments that I have little change to win. I really just want to control the # of games I have. Does it bother me that I'll likely lose to a player 500 points less than me in this tournament - a little. But with 600+ point swings in my rating - I've given up caring. I actually really love watching a good combination that crushes me. Do I learn from it - unlikely. Once the game is over, it is on to the next.

Originally posted by aquatabby
I sort of agree with atticus. Playing stronger players is the best way to improve, but playing *much* stronger players is just pointless. At our club I played a GM, and I have no idea how or why I lost - it just seemed like his pieces converged in the right place without warning and it was all over. Fascinating to watch, but not partcularly instructive! On ...[text shortened]... of RHP as far as I'm concerned, so I'd be up for atticus' tournament if someone arranges it.

I think that you may not learn something immediately from a game vs a GM, but if you write the moves down and really spend time dissecting the game at home, I think you can learn much. I think I have learned most of my chess knowledge from GMs in books, and if I were to actually play one and lose, I think I could really get a great insight into what is wrong with MY game- their play would probably strike at the heart of my shortcomings.

to the original point of the thread - having been playing here for 9 years, I have seen a big increase in the population and what appears to be a higher top end to the rating scale and the number of top rated people. I would guess that the average rating is much the same today as it was before. Seems to be a natural progression - despite the engine use, banned players and the like. Still the game is for fun and enjoyment.
dave