I have a question, what is the difference between a 1300 > 1400 player who has more wins than losses, and a 1300>1400 player who has more losses than wins?
I feel trying to get to 1400 by playing higher rated players (which is what I am doing) is somehow more worthy than just playing lower rated players all the time and winning.
I have a win loss ratio of about 5-6, but I'm rated 1350.
Any thoughts?
I will get to 1400 this year, and stop making stupid mistakes!
simply
1. The person that plays easy meat may well improve their ratings albeit on a decreasing scale as the wins becomes worth less rating points due to the difference between the opponents ratings grows.
2. The person playing higher rated opponents will have a greater struggle to increase or even maintain their rating initially but over the long term they should storm ahead of the easy meat player as they gain more knowledge and understanding of the game.
Originally posted by MctaytoEven better then that - you only have to score a few wins and draws here and there and your rating still goes up.
simply
2. The person playing higher rated opponents will have a greater struggle to increase or even maintain their rating initially but over the long term they should storm ahead of the easy meat player as they gain more knowledge and understanding of the game.
No matter who you play (barring extremes, like only playing people far, far above/below your skill level), your rating should come out about the same no matter if you play more people lower or higher rated than you. It's the whole point of the rating system.
As someone mentioned though, playing better players tends to help your game more than playing those rated below you (though you should play some games with those a little lower than you too, to get experience taking advantage of the small differences between your game and those just a level below you).
1 win (or 2 draws) against a player graded 500 points above you earns 32 points whereas it will take 32 wins against a player graded 500 points below you and you only need 1 small careless slip to lose 32 points.
Against weaker players I regularly make careless slips whereas against stronger players I tend to raise my game.
Originally posted by Dragon FireSo the answer is to play people higher than you, and play well! It is frustrating when you get those points against better players, then play someone 200 points lower than you and make the mistake that loses you the game, then all those points slip away...
1 win (or 2 draws) against a player graded 500 points above you earns 32 points whereas it will take 32 wins against a player graded 500 points below you and you only need 1 small careless slip to lose 32 points.
Against weaker players I regularly make careless slips whereas against stronger players I tend to raise my game.
Originally posted by matzusdogI think you need to get the balance right. Certainly playing better players all the time helps improve but so does playing weaker players and doing your research and not rushing it. Of course if you constantly play opponents who significantly outrank you you will lose much more than you win so feel demoralised - a reasonable number of games against weaker opponents who you can beat helps offset this.
So the answer is to play people higher than you, and play well! It is frustrating when you get those points against better players, then play someone 200 points lower than you and make the mistake that loses you the game, then all those points slip away...
I started out at this site playing almost the weakest players I could find. I honestly did not know how good I was. I assumed the worst because I have played very little OTB or on line (literally, fewer than a hundred games in a few decades), I had NEVER played correspondence chess, and I knew that I made a lot of mistakes OTB and on line.
I've played a few players who were far above my rating and I think it improved my game. But I also think that playing the ones who were lower ranked improved my play.
If you start out thinking you are a 900 player, and then gradually play 900 players, 1100 players, 1300 players, 1400, 1500, etc., then you ARE indeed playing players who are above your originally assumed level.
My "true rating" will be discovered eventually, regardless of the sequence of opponent ratings I play, and I'm getting value out of every game. I'm learning to be careful and precise in all types of games. I still find myself struggling (and blundering) at various stages of the game against opponents of all ratings, so I am challenged and am learning against all opponents. (See my current game vs. stepseazy and the games I mention in my profile.)
Furthermore, it might take me 2-3 times as long to play a 1500-1600 opponent as it takes to play a 1200-1300. So I might play 2-3 "easier" games for that one hard game. Will I always learn more in the one game than in the 2-3 games? If the learning is equal, I'd rather play more games. It's more fun and I think there is value in getting more games under my belt. Lots of people here play blitz for that reason, as I've started to do at home since I finally got a clock and a decent chess set!
Ok, heres a plan - if I play higher rated players, say 1500 - 1600's who have a very high win/loss ratio - (say 5 to 1) they must have got the majority of their points playing lesser rated players - suggesting their ratings are artificially inflated, and if I play solidly and don't make any mistakes, I can win or at least draw, earning me points.
Or am I missing the point of RHP?
I'm a much better player OTB as I have learnt so much from playing here, and it's still fun (which is the most important) and I still get that buzz when setting up a winning position!