Trying to protect the rating is not the only reason strong players don't often play against lower rated players. Most players play chess for the intellectual challenge. What's the incentive to spend time on a game that's not challenging?
On the contrary, I've seen people in the forums who say a high rated player hasn't really earned their rating because their average opponent rating is low.
Trying to protect the rating is not the only reason strong players don't often play against lower rated players. Most players play chess for the intellectual challenge. What's the incentive to spend time on a game that's not challenging?
On the contrary, I've seen people in the forums who say a high rated player hasn't really earned their rating because their average opponent rating is low.
Beautifully put. Now I get it. Would be the same if I continuously played players rated round 1200 or less I guess.
Here is what I do (rated around 2000) in turn based play. I do not play Live chess here. I hope it gives you some insight and I would be interested in your feedback.
I will play certain lower players an unrated game which we both take seriously and can offer some advise along the way. That is fun for both parties.
Playing someone where my upside rating gain is 3 point and my downside is 90 points is not something that is fun for me unless I am paired in a tournament. is this protecting my rating perhaps but I take all games seriously and to put in lots of work and do not want a silly error to cost me 3-5 wins.
Since a unrated game is still practice for both sides it is fun and we both enjoy it. Also the kibitzing is a little bit of a lesson or an insight into my thought process.
i concur. i love playing much higher rated players (occasionally) as i think you learn a lot more from a good arse kicking than an easy win. having said that i also think its important to have a good balance of games against similarly rated opponents, i need to win every once in a while.
there are however plenty of 2000+ players who are more than happy to play against lower rated opposition. i have several 2000+ players in my friends list who are more than pleased to 'whoop' me whenever i'm in need of a humility fix. they also tell me where i've blundered and generally help me to progress in the wonderful game of chess.
have you tried doing a forum post and throwing a challenge down, i'm sure you'd get some response.
Playing stronger players is a great way to improve your chess. When I payed in tournaments I would always play up a section.
Also in playing fun games you do not get into the other big issue of when to resign. This has been the subject of lots of threads but in playing a fun unrated game this has yet to be an issue.
Having said what I already said in my first post. I am have entered a number of tournaments where I get paired against players of all ratings. I have also accepted personal challenges of players with ratings much lower than mine, but this is rare.
Higher rated players are damned either way ..... if they dont play lower rated players they are " protecting their ratings, arrogant, scared.....etc " if they do then their rating isnt "real" because they are picking on the weak , "padding" their ratings....... so what are they to do ?! 
I don't think many high rated players want to protect their ratings. I personally don't care at all about this aspect (but I am not high rated 
)
It's fine and advisable to play with higher rated players, but the rating difference should be around 300 ELO points at most. Otherwise, the discrepancy is too big and the game becomes one-sided and not challenging for the higher rated player. In addition, the lower rated player will likely have no chances to exploit the mistakes of his opponent.
Combine intellectual challenge and protecting rating and you get this:
Either the stronger player crushes the weak player and it's a bore for the stronger player, or
The weak player plays great and now the strong player gets no rating reward for playing an objectively demanding game, or worse yet a huge penalty for losing or drawing...
There's really no upside for the higher rated player.
In tournaments playing lower rated players is unavoidable... including very low rated players with few total games and no losses who should, in a just world, have a provisional rating.
Here is what I do (rated around 2000) in turn based play. I do not play Live chess here. I hope it gives you some insight and I would be interested in your feedback.
I will play certain lower players an unrated game which we both take seriously and can offer some advise along the way. That is fun for both parties.
Playing someone where my upside rating gain is 3 point and my downside is 90 points is not something that is fun for me unless I am paired in a tournament. is this protecting my rating perhaps but I take all games seriously and to put in lots of work and do not want a silly error to cost me 3-5 wins.
Since a unrated game is still practice for both sides it is fun and we both enjoy it. Also the kibitzing is a little bit of a lesson or an insight into my thought process.
This is very true about the Risk and Challenge being large factors why high rated players will not like playing those much lower outside of tournament games. In tournaments, it can be nice to play someone much lower since a Win is a full point regardless of an opponent's rating. There, getting a lower rated player saves energy for later rounds ( IF things work out "as they are 'Supposed' to" :)
But outside of tournaments there are other disadvantages to "playing down" vs a much lower rated player. Some are:
1) The higher rated one must be careful to stay "on his game", not be over confident and sloppy. If he does get sloppy, then wins anyway ...it can lead to sloppy play vs more equal opponents too, in other games. Also it is a different mindset to the play.
2) When you are playing someone more than 400 Elo below you, say an "A" player vs a "D" player ... There are "D-players" and "D-players". "WHAT" you say, that both looks the SAme. So do THEY. Yet there are two types here. Call them "D-1" and "D-2".
Now D-1 is in that class because he plays fairly solid, but lacks a lot of Chess knowlege. D-2 on the otherhand possesses a lot more Chess knowlege but is in that class only because he tends to "crack" at key times, perhaps losing a piece. Now if you are the "A" player and you expect to be playing D-1 and to win fairly easily because you know more ...but find you are being pressed to the limit by a D-2 ... you just may get pushed off the board before realizing you should have brought your best game to it ....especially if D-2 happens to pick your game to Not Crack and make his usual mistake! Thus are upsets born.
3) And a big thing when the higher rated is a Master+ or Expert especially, you can be sure they have some Improvements or at least Novelties waiting to be used. However, when playing someone lower rated ...they can't USE THEM! They have to save them for an Equal rated, or crucial game. With the Net, once an idea is played it is public in 24 hours or less. So they cannot use their best move ideas & they may even have to play a back-up opening. Frequently they Must play other than their best and work to simply outplay the opponent. (In other words, to Win soley by superior Execution, and not use part of their superior Knowlege.) What some Master's will often do vs Class opponents is exactly that. To play a solid opening but try to maximize the decisions their opponent must make, to provide the greatest potential for error. In Chess slang this is called something like "letting him hang himself". Because they know that even in corr Chess, even as high rated as an Expert player will generally make at least one serious error in a game [ ...Except when he Doesn't~! ].
4) On this site in particular, a higher rated player risks much more than on ELO rated sites. On those sites there is a maximum of a 32 point rating loss than can occur for a single game. Here I've had one loss cost me 62 points, in Live Chess~! And someone mentioned 90 points of risk. Just for my 62 point loss, to regain I had to play over 30 games and win vs players within a 100 points of me.
That's my thoughts on it. At another site I've played it is pretty routine however that many of the best players will take a certain number of Unrated games to give lower rated players the chance to learn, and see how they can do, and what it is like. But at the same time, it does not make for DISASTER to the Master/Expert if he happens to take a loss in a game he is not focused on. Perhaps that is the case here. If so, the best way to find such a game outside tournaments is generally to take the very courteous approach of messaging such a player to ask if they might take an Unrated game. imo. Regards, Craig
* * * * * * * PS// ASHDOWN , I am very much with you on the attitude getting games with the Best you can. I think it gives the most learning & invaluable experience to someone who makes their very best effort at it. [An added Bonus of "playing up" is getting many great ideas you can then use vs others at your level or lower. Every time you can reuse such ideas that were used against you, you improve. It will either cause great difficulties for your new opponent & may Win, or at worst they beat you, but then you know how it should be played against! ]
That was my philosophy too, and it was immensely pleasing to have the opportunity to play 3 rated games with players in the ICCF World Champion cycle, and 1 more with an ICCF GM of postal play.
Thanks to everybody-your comments have been enlightening. The reason I asked this q to begin with was because everytime I challenge a high rated player they will usually decline(except for "itsblckandwht"-has anybody heard from her by the way?) and out of curiosity(being a low rated player I generally only get to play people in the 1200-1800 range and just would like to see the "level increase" of play against a 2200 or higher player. And for you high rated players I'm sure it's quite a double edged sword as "Reb" said. I suppose I'll just have to claw my way up to face the pro's. : )
Personally, I think a player stands to learn just as much if not more from a loss to a player that's only 200-300 points higher than themselves than they are against a grandmaster anyway. Often times the lessons to be learned from a high level player are simply too subtle and too complex for us mere mortals to comprehend. To attempt to challenge a player that is a guaranteed loss rather than a truly challenging opponent where there is some hope of winning is pure vanity in my opinion. The rating system is designed to sheppard players on a long slow process of many, many games earning their experience pawn by pawn. I think it's the right approach.
I totally concur. Most of the really solid players that used to be at my level that have moved on really don't want to play me anymore in rated games because they confess that I don't present all that much mental challenge. The same reasons that were given earlier in this posting. But they still do play me unrated games and give me advice as they put the match away.. or they're able to force a weak move.
It seems obvious to me when we play a game (be it chess or other) we don't want to play against too weak or too strong because we don't really have fun and we don't feel like wasting our time.
If you ("weak players") are masochists or something like that you can play against an AI +2000 "no need to waste a human's time".
The thing is, why would you want to protect your rating and gain more? If you cheat with chess engines, your opponents will get tougher and tougher, meaning that you will not be able to play them without the chess engine
Because you can learn from strong players. Especially if they become your friends and give advice along the way. I never cheat or use any type of engine to help me.
Here is what I do (rated around 2000) in turn based play. I do not play Live chess here. I hope it gives you some insight and I would be interested in your feedback.
I will play certain lower players an unrated game which we both take seriously and can offer some advise along the way. That is fun for both parties.
Playing someone where my upside rating gain is 3 point and my downside is 90 points is not something that is fun for me unless I am paired in a tournament. is this protecting my rating perhaps but I take all games seriously and to put in lots of work and do not want a silly error to cost me 3-5 wins.
Since a unrated game is still practice for both sides it is fun and we both enjoy it. Also the kibitzing is a little bit of a lesson or an insight into my thought process.
Also this, this is completely true.
Agreed
We don't learn by playing against too strong, we just cause damage our confidence and without confidence in onself we are destined to fail.
We progress by playing against players of the same level or close to our level (not too weak, not too strong).
The complicating element is when you are a little gosu because you have a good enough technical level to face anyone but I think it can be similar if the opponent is really stronger than the little gosu.
I saw a video where Magnus Carlsen (2800) beat a GMI (2500) in I think 15+15s by move. The GMI at 2500 plays against too strong in theory but this is different because GMI means pro-gamer and a pro-gamer has the technical level (normaly or in theory) to beat anyone.
Does anybody know why a strong player(2000 or above) is reluctant to play a weak player(1700 or below)? I realize they want to protect rating but if the numbers really speak they shouldn't have anything to worry about. And if they're worried if somebody is going to cheat(chess engine) to boost rating they should be able to tell or not. What do you think?
Personally, I love playing really strong players and getting a serious whoopin'. But that's just me.