I mean seriously, how do stiffs like us learn from good players? All 2000 plus players beat me in like, under 20 moves, so it's not like I get the chance to learn ANYTHING because of this! All I learn is, ok, congrats, you're tactics are better then mine (obviously seeing that you are 2000 plus rated), and you beat me by playing moves, early tactical moves that break "chess principles", that Pandolfini tells us noobs not to do, lol. If there is one thing I have learned from playing 2000 plus players, is that you are better off giving your chess books to a recycling center so they can use the paper to help schools get paper they badly need. Knights on the rim, isolated pawns, backward pawns, premature queen developments, overextension with uncastled kings, etc. . . these 2000 players are guilty of all the "cardinal sins" of basic chess, yet they beat me in under 20 moves. I guess the key to being a good player is to know how to break the rules as much as possible.
I can't wait for Marauder to tell me I lose because of "bad positional play" when it's obvious if the dude is going to win significant material in the first 20 moves by breaking opening principles, it's a tactic. Let the humor begin, lol! But I mean seriously, what do I learn from 2000 plus players who beat me in under 20 moves? I get beat so quickly, the game has hardly started and I simply don't learn anything. I think learning from top players is overated, you can't learn geting schooled easily in under 20 moves, no way.
i was going to start a thread almost identical to this one:
me versus player a lot better than me ... i learn my tactics stink ... and nothing else.
me versus player a little better than me ... big time struggle, and big time learning for me ... but it is very draining ... and can sap the ego.
me versus similar player ... to hell with anything this is a streetfight ... i would kick them under the table if i could!
me versus slightly less experienced player ...i feel good about how cool i am ... regain some of that sapped ego.
me versus much less experienced player ... their tactics stink.
I'm just getting my head handed to me on a platter by someone 100 points below me. OK, I made a blunder, but he played careful, didn't panic when I had two connected passed pawns etc What can I learn from this? DON'T PANIC!!!
As far as losing to higher-rated players, I'm all eyes, bring it on ...
I've learnt plenty by playing higher rated players. Last time I was at the chess club I played 30 games of 5 0 against one of the top players. I lost every one. I learnt plenty though. As we were setting up the board again he would point out where I went wrong. At first it was in the 5-10 move range (and my first 5 moves or so were book) then it slowly moved deeper until in the last couple of games I played to an equal position before either giving him a won game because of time trouble.
If I am playing a player much worse than me my play suffers, I get careless. If I'm playing someone approximately equal to me I play pretty close to my potential. If I'm playing someone who I'm expected to lose against I find I play better as I don't have to worry about the result as much instead I can concentrate on just finding the best move.
There is no point whatsoever in challenging a player rated over 600 points above you, as you have roughly a 1% chance of winning,according to the way ratings work. Likewise if you play someone over 600 points below you they only have a 1% chance of winning. It's a complete waste of time to play such an opponent when you virtually know the result before you start.
I completely disagree. I play alot of people rated much higher then me. I delight in getting my butt kicked. It boggles my mind how they just dismantle me when I am trying my hardest to stop it. The games I play against David Tebb are the funnest ones I have played. He crushes me of course, but it's all in good fun.
Originally posted by Peter XWho cares if i dont have any real chance of winning. If some 2400 IM challenges (or i him/her) me of course i play with him. You learn much more from your losses than wins, so i would play, say, 10 games against IM and see how he/she crushes me completely.
There is no point whatsoever in challenging a player rated over 600 points above you, as you have roughly a 1% chance of winning.
In my opinion you won't learn too much from playing a game against someone 600 points or so higher than yourself.
However, if you can get them to discuss it afterwards (especially in an otb game), then there is a lot to be learned. Of course this depends on their ability & willingness to take part in such a discussion.
Next best thing is to spend a bit of time looking at the game yourself and what went wrong. Even do this with an engine.
Originally posted by RedmikeAgreed, if the good player takes time to help you, it's all good I suppose. But in RHP they simply play you, demolish you, and that's it. Me playing a 2100 rater is like a 1100 rater playing me, theres no point behind it. And even if the good player does help you and you ask, "where did I go wrong", whatever he says, his opinion may be different then other good players.
In my opinion you won't learn too much from playing a game against someone 600 points or so higher than yourself.
However, if you can get them to discuss it afterwards (especially in an otb game), then there is a lot to be learned. Of course this depends on their ability & willingness to take part in such a discussion.
Next best thing is to spend a bit of time looking at the game yourself and what went wrong. Even do this with an engine.
For example my harmless looking Caro positon against cludi were I lost to a deadly tactic early. I asked Cludi what I did wrong, he thought h6 was a bad move, Marauder thought something else was the bad move and not h6, other more advanced intermediate players who's rating is a bit better then mine thought c5 strategy was bad, etc. I can't really learn in these cases, all I learned is that cludi is simply more talented and I didn't really make a bad move/blunder, cludi's moves were just better and more deadly.
Originally posted by mateuloseOh how I laughed. You lost in 14 moves. Of course you blundered. 4. ... h6 wasn't a great move and it takes you out of book however you do transpose back in later. 4. ... e6 would have been better. 7. ... c5 the novelty in the game was a move that gives white a slight advantage. Better would be 7. ... Ne7 or 7. ... Qc7 both book continuations.
Agreed, if the good player takes time to help you, it's all good I suppose. But in RHP they simply play you, demolish you, and that's it. Me playing a 2100 rater is like a 1100 rater playing me, theres no point behind it. And even if the good player does help you and you ask, "where did I go wrong", whatever he says, his opinion may be different then o ...[text shortened]... d and I didn't really make a bad move/blunder, cludi's moves were just better and more deadly.
8. ... cxd4 was bad too however cludi missed 9. Nxd4 with a clear advantage.
The real blunder however was 12. ... Qb6 which Fritz gives a double question mark. A horrible move. Much better was Be4 with a slight advantage to white. White's response gets a double exclamation mark, a rarity, but is only winning because of your horrible blunder.
While good players often have differing opinions I can almost say with absolute certainty all of them are better than yours. When they lose they look at the game and ask why rather than naively believing they didn't make a mistake.
Originally posted by !~TONY~!I recently came up against a player over 2200. Got dismantled completely - I could *sometimes* see it coming, but was powerless to stop it.
I completely disagree. I play alot of people rated much higher then me. I delight in getting my butt kicked. It boggles my mind how they just dismantle me when I am trying my hardest to stop it. The games I play against David Tebb are the ...[text shortened]... have played. He crushes me of course, but it's all in good fun.
What is enlightening, is the fact that they *always* seems to have position - my pieces cannot move 🙂
oh well
exactly. position = memory. you're cranking out as they 'know'. don't feel bad. you're working, paying taxes. I play this time and again. I look up sometimes, sometimes i 'know' while they calculate and i feel WORSE. I think, "you actually play like you will beat me and this will matter". I pay taxes and work. If they are experts, then le tthem find the winning move.
Originally posted by Redmikei reckon:
In my opinion you won't learn too much from playing a game against someone 600 points or so higher than yourself.
However, if you can get them to discuss it afterwards (especially in an otb game), then there is a lot to be learned. Of course this depends on their ability & willingness to take part in such a discussion.
Next best thing is to spend a bit of time looking at the game yourself and what went wrong. Even do this with an engine.
if i play someone similar or 100 points above me then i can see their tricks that i do not have ... and learn.
if i play someone 600 points higher, then i need them to talk baby-talk to me ... i can understand their babytalk ... some high rated players are no good at babytalk ... and cannot help me.
i can never learn just from their play .... for example look at this by steveC Game 872239 we were settling into a nice attack by stevec - where he has the advantage - where he can teach me a few tricks ... then he goes and wrecks the whole thing with Nf5 ...
Originally posted by flexmoreI agree - some of these people just can't speak at our level.
i reckon:
if i play someone similar or 100 points above me then i can see their tricks that i do not have ... and learn.
if i play someone 600 points higher, then i need them to talk baby-talk to me ... i can understand their babytalk ... some high rated players are no good at babytalk ... and cannot help me.
i can never learn just from their play ...[text shortened]... ge - where he can teach me a few tricks ... then he goes and wrecks the whole thing with Nf5 ...
I've played a couple of IMs and GMs in my time. One GM in particular seemed incapable of discussing the game afterwards - a handshake and a mumbled word is all you get.
Others, though, are more helpful, and are happy to patiently point out the stupid moved you've played (in baby-talk if required).
In this form of the game, I think the onus is on the weaker player to ask for advice after the game.