Beginner question about live chess

Hello,

I'm 23, and just getting into seriously studying chess. I've mostly been reading and doing Tactics Trainer, along with playing a few live 15/10 games per day. I'm still pretty bad, my Elo rating dropped below 900 for a little while, now it's steadily climbing back up.

My question: when I play live chess, what rating range should I look for opponents in? Lately I've been setting it to -200 to +200 when looking for a new game. Is this a reasonable interval to use?

Thanks,

J

Thanks, guys.

Ok, serious answer - I´d set it to min +1, max +100. That way you´re always playing against (marginally) better players than yourself, you´ll learn more, but you won´t be overstretching yourself, and you´ll win a good few games. I also find that you always concentrate and play better against better rated players.

I know my ratng may seem high, but which way do the pawns move i am completely baffled. A wise man once told the pawn and queen should be treated equally, since every pawn turns into a queen. So, i sacrifice my queen since there is only 1 but 8 pawns thhsi logic is sound. thank you

that man must be horribly misinformed

explain please this man is wise beyond measure

Play anyone who accepts, if they are stronger you will learn from your losses, if they are weaker it sharpens up your skills at finishing a game an often overlooked part of training.

And scene this was my portrayal of a young chess player

I usually play at min. -100, max. +200. Playing slightly stronger players on a steady basis is very important, but being able to reliably beat somewhat weaker players is as skill that needs pratice as well, as QueenTakesKnightOOPS has already pointed out.

This is the best advice. Never be scared of the journey understand and appreciate the highs and lows becuase of the reasons stated above. Also, strive for improvement, in that instantaneous point of time you are powerful beyond all belief you are the best possible you, you can be.

I agree that playing weaker opponents is very important too.

Common advice is +-200 and +-300.  Note that ratings are just statistics.  a 200 point difference is ~75% chance and 300 point difference is a 85% chance (or, better to say your expected score is 7.5 and 8.5 out of 10 games respectively).

Weaker opponents give you practice finishing an opponent off.  There is a saying in chess "the hardest thing to do is win a won game" which while a bit silly also has truth.  If you only play stronger players you may develop a passive defensive style and not build good habits of looking to punish your opponent's last move on every turn.

Winning a won game has its own challenges.  You have to identify and work to eliminate your opponent's counterplay.  You have to find the correct way to convert certain advantages whether it be finding the checkmate or escorting a pawn to queen.

Of course stronger opponents are necessary too.  They punish your mistakes more often and with more accurate moves so you can learn some technique while you're at it.

A final note, it may seem like extremely strong opponents would give you the fastest improvement but this isn't true.  At around 400 points stronger (expected score over 9 out of 10) opponents have a sort of invisible strength.  Your position will be worse and you'll be losing but you can't really see any error that caused it to learn from.

Anyway, all that to say, I recommend +-200 to your current rating.

Thanks for the helpful answers, everyone.

I have definitely noticed the truth of "the hardest thing is to win a won game". I've had some embarrassing games where I got a significant material advantage, only to blow it and lose in the endgame by letting a pawn get past or hanging an important piece.