I just reviewed a game I played and found some interesting things, overall we were well matched but there were 2 times during gameplay where I felt I was the better player; I did get surprised by a tactic though and we swapped advantage. Chess.com rated our play (both of us) below our current ELO. I think I understand why.Is it normal to play UP to better players and likewise, DOWN when the required skill level to win isn’t there? I tried to play my best the entire game but I still am a low rated player. I am very proud of the games where chess.com gives my play a +300 ELO evaluation.
There are multiple factors at play here.
As a general rule, you will perform better against weak opponents and worse when your opponent plays well. This is because whenever your opponent makes a mistake, it creates an opportunity for you, which makes it easier for you to find the best move. As an exaggerated example, consider a game where your opponent blunders a piece every single move, you'll easily find the best move and can play an almost perfect game without any effort. The opposite is true when an opponent plays very accurate chess. Then it becomes harder to find good moves, especially when their position is stronger than yours. You won't have too many good moves available. Over all your games, you'll see a pattern where your highest accuracy scores correlate with your opponent's lowest accuracy scores. That's the main factor, I think.
However, there are reasons why a weak opponent can decrease your own performance. One reason is that it's harder to find the best move in positions that are overwhelmingly winning (or losing for that matter). As long as the position in equal or close it, it's usually very powerful when you can win a piece or even just to win a pawn. But when you are completely dominating, and almost every move you play is winning, it can be harder to evaluate what's the best move to play. The second reason, the one you are referring to is that I think, is that it's harder to stay focused when your opponent doesn't challenge you at all. Especially when you get a big advantage very early on in the game.
The last factor to consider is that games that follow standard lines will be more accurate than chaotic ones. Games where your opponent plays principles normal moves, will allow you to play normal solid moves as well. This will lead to a good solid performance for both players. On the other hand, when your opponent plays crazy, stupid and/or risky moves it will lead to lower quality games (according to Stockfish, they can be very exciting to play and watch). Because it's harder to find the best move in random positions that are very different from the positions you are used to.
To summarize what I think
- It's easier to play well against opponent's that are not playing well
- Playing accurate moves can be harder in positions that are totally winning
- Chaotic and weird positions will lead to less accurate performances
Chess.com rated our play (both of us) below our current ELO. I think I understand why.
Is it normal to play UP to better players and likewise, DOWN when the required skill level to win isn’t there? I tried to play my best the entire game but I still am a low rated player. I am very proud of the games where chess.com gives my play a +300 ELO evaluation.