Boring players.

The kind that piggyback off your moves for the entire game, not willing to play their own and without an understanding of what you're actually doing. I find this extremely difficult to play against, not because they are effective, but because of hte utter stupidity in the idea. You're walking blindly in a minefield hoping you don't end up on the wrong side of the equation.

Show us an example.

A lot of openings will have symmetrical variations for good reason.

Don't have one.

Here's my guess - if I understand what you are saying and I take it at face value: a computer evaluation of your opponents' moves would show most or all of them to be weak moves, raising the potential evaluation your position might have if you made the best next move.

If that is the case, then you should rejoice, not complain.

However, it does require more thinking and less rote play from YOUR side to contend with seemingly random play by your opponents. However, that is the price of admission to a game of chess, if you wish to win it.

Symmetrical is OK in my book because at least it's a bit of a mind game they're trying if nothing else. I mean if you make obvious tactical plays and they react, but when you make one subtle move intended for 4-5 down the road, they begin to become weary and play very boring chess. Usually leads to a lot of closed games because of the pawn moves.

What? No. I don't mind outwitting them, but I'd rather be playing against an opponent with some fight.

There will be more of a fight when you leave the 1400 bracket.

No offence intended.

lol.

 Great avatar Draw!

I think everyone's had the feeling at one time or another.  I think there are two types of players that give this impression. 

The first is actually some woodpusher/patzer who only knows tactics and is just shuffling around waiting for a mistake.  With these players I spend some extra time at the end of my move to check for tactics, if you continue to build your position they'll wind up lost.  The annoying part is if you slip up you've lost to "some buffoon" and that's what makes it difficult.  It's hard psychologically but not hard in chess terms.

The second is latently skilled but because of a long break from chess, lack of sleep, family/job/health problems they're just not focused 100% of their moves.  These players be careful not to write off because once you get into a position they can understand, they'll actually start playing all the right moves.

Sometimes it's hard to tell the two apart so of course always play your best.  It's not as satisfying a game if you view their play as inherently inferior.  Just look at it as another test of your chess and try to be open minded about the mistakes you inevitably make so you can fix them later.  No game is perfect on either side.

I sometimes mirror my opponent's moves (maybe up to move 8) in openings that I'm unfamiliar with.  In K-P and Q-P games you should know how to hurt them for that, but in my experience, it's a decent tactic in the early moves of the English.

yeah I agree with that. once you get higher they stop playing the scholars mate, copying moves, and they actually resign when theyre lost.

Very well put DrawMaster .