Do you really get better by playing opponents higher rated than you?

Most of the people in the tourneys I have been in have been right around my rating. A few higher, and some lower.

I have heard that the way to get better is to play against people better than you are. Is that really true? (I know in tennis that is true, but in chess?)

And if so, why?  What do we learn from playing people better than we are? (As I see it right now, we lose sooner!) But I can also see that it makes us stretch ourselves upward - makes us think more - even if we get clobbered sooner.

Do most of you enter tourneys a little above you, or nearer your rating?

stwils

I think it's important to play up AND down.

You need to learn how to win too....

You always have to be challenging yourself. You learn more from being beat by a good opponent than constantly winning against mediocre ones I think.

The way I see it, you always learn more from losing than winning.

If you win, one of two things happened; either your opponent blundered, or you simply outplayed them. If they blundered, you certainly don't want to learn THAT, and if you outplayed them you probably have a better grasp of the game than they do.

If you lose, either you screwed up or you were outplayed. If you screwed up, that gives you a sharp lesson in paying better attention, and if you were outplayed, you can study their play and see what you should have done better or changed.

Yes, unless they are way higher-rated. If that is the case, you might actually not learn anything, but get annoyed by losing all the time. The perfect rating gap for learning is 100-200 points. 

Heisman suggests a mix. I do not remeber the exact balance but I think about 80% higher rated.

You want a fighting chance but you "want" to be punished for your misstakes to learn from them

Anyhow, the key thing is to really try to analyze all of your games afterwards.

Stronger players show you how to win at chess, and what doesn't work in your play.

However, you need to analyze the lost games, to understand why you lost them

I think this is wise advice.  Place someone who can give you a very challenging game, not someone who can blow you off the board like you don't exist.

Well, I am rated in the mid 1300s and I would be crazy to start playing people rated 2000!  But I think maybe the tourney I have just signed up for, up to 1500 might be a good thing. We will see. Thank you all for your thoughts.

stwils

I think you need both.

From stronger players you will learn how to play strong moves and how bad moves are punished.

From weaker players you will learn effective conversion technique to turn whatever advantage you're getting into a win.

I agree, try to consistantly play players rated 100-200 points above you. If anything consider it a "call to action". It will spur you to learn your openings, play better middlegames etc. I see it happening all the time with players in the club where I play. The weaker players always get better by playing better players. It may take awhile, but it always happens if the player sticks to it.

I really dont get that people cant see how strange this approach is.

If EVERYBODY insisted on playing up, then NOBODY would play, because the stronger guy you want to play should then not want to play against you.

People expect stronger players to accept games against them, but they never want to play weaker players. That just seems a little off to me...

 Well, no one is saying that every single game you play must be agaist a stronger player.  As you point out, the math doesn't work.  Some games can be just for fun, and some games you can offer as a sort of service to lower ranked players, just as higher ranked players give you a chance.  The point is that to improve you should be stretching yourself, having at least some of your games against moderately stronger players, even if that means you take a few more losses along the way.

in theory, you should gain something from every game you play, no matter how closely you and your opponent may be rated. unless you're simply playing to pass the time; win or lose, higher or lower rated, the point of playing is to improve your skills. if you are not improving, perhaps you're not paying enough attention...

the only real mistake is the one from which you learn nothing.

 I couldn't agree more with this.

That's true. Prizes (money or rating increase) are meant to motivate higher-rated players to beat lower-rated opponents, otherwise they would not have been playing at all. The life of a typical GM is cruising from one open to another, beating some amateur players and (sometimes) players of his own rank and getting financially compensated for that.

This.

I don't know if this is true. Chess is quite inconsistent, because every win and loss relies on either a mistake, inaccuracy, or some sort of miscalculation or bad strategy. In other words, it could be quite random sometimes.

Perhaps at levels such as Pogonina is in, players are more consistent, so for them, it might be beneficial to play higher rated players.

But in amateur levels (1200-1600), it can vary. Take for example, my record for blitz (10 min and 5 min) for two days:

me vs 1376 - won checkmate
me vs 1509 - lost checkmate
me vs 1509 - lost on time (winning by 2 points; plus 2 past pawns)
me vs 1320 - lost on time (winning by 2 points)
me vs 1372 - won checkmate
me vs 1341 - lost by checkmate (the guy didnt even know what evan's gambit is and he still beat the evan's gambit)

So, it can be very inconsistent. Maybe less so in "online chess", and slower time controls.

I think you should take it as a probability thing.

first: Someone higher rated than you has a % higher chance of beating you, and by a certain amount (such as 5 wins 2 draws 2 losses, etc).

second: You may gain more experience by playing higher rated players, because they are likely to catch your mistakes and you gain confidence if you get lucky and beat them. But it can also be depressing constantly losing.

third: The problem with playing lower rated players, is you tend to make more mistakes. I'll give you an example: I played a friend, rated maybe 800 rating. As I made moves, I noticed how much worse I was playing. I placed pieces in places where opponent could fork (obviously opponent missed it). I put my bishop in front of my king where opponent can pin with rooks and then take with a pawn push. But when I play higher rated opponents I tend to be more careful and my skill increases for the game.

So it's up to you. Obviously, playing higher rated players all the time can be depressing. But chess is a game in which you can never be satisfied. You'll end up winning by time, you'll be upset. You'll end up winning by blunder, you'll still not feel pride. You'll end up losing by blunder, more depression. etc etc. So, in conclusion, you gotta have balance!

Absolutely.  For one, the stronger players will make you to push all your existing boundaries (discipline, tactical awareness, calculation over the board, time management) in order to beat them, let alone challenge them.

I was a 1300 USCF player when I beat my first 1800+ player at a tournament. He fought back like a wounded tiger and squeezing the win out was exhausting. He just wouldn't resign and wanted me to prove that I could win this. I was so tired after the win that I crashed and burned both of my remaining games.  :)

There's really no better way to get better than to push yourself like this.

To answer the original question, yes. But don't go insane with this; for one thing when you start to play people 500 points higher than you you probably lose so badly you don't even know what's going on. I'm thinking more like somewhat better than you, but not overwhelming, like a 200-300+ rated player.

It helps because it simply forces you to play good chess. You have to pay for your mistakes, be alert for your opponents more subtle mistakes, and if you have an advantage you'll have to break down a tough defense. And if you lose you'll have some idea maybe of what you did wrong and it was still interesting. So I think that's the best way to improve your chess, but there is nothing wrong with winning either (!!), just don't get obsessed playing low people if you want to improve your game because it doesn't force you to play well.