Is it better to play higher rated opponents or lower rated opponents?

Which is better for your game?

higher rated.

Doesn't matter.... I lose to both.

Depends ... what do you want out of chess?

higher rated. But these have to be slow games for any improvement to show and continue to show.

That's another question: will slow games improve bullet chess? Will bullet chess improve slow games?

Bullet and blitz (as someone I can't remember pointed out) are simply about who blunders first.
Play slow games and work your way up to blitz and bullet. You'll most likely only see timeburners that keep moving their king back and forth to make you lose on time even if you're three pieces up.

slow games improve bullet and blitz games.

Both and neither. If you don't review your own games and don't make record, notes, etc. of them, you won't improve all that much anyway. It's not about beating higher or lower rated opponents, it's about figuring out how you did it, and keep working on it.

It's ideal to play against people rated about 100-200 points above you. It teaches you to fight and you can see what is the difference in your games and in their games. Beating weaker opponents brings you some rating points, but your playing strength will remain the same.

I thought this thread was over a year old, how come it's not even been an hour since it was created?

I think a mix is a good idea. From about 100 points above your rating to 100 points below.

It gets boring to lose too often. But winning because your opponent blunders is not much of a way to improve.

So look to play some better players and some marginally weaker.

Most of my games come from matches. I am a member of two or three very active groups and when a new match comes up I look to see what sort of rating my opponent is likely to be. If my team already has a rating edge I don't join, if we are behind in rating points I do join. That has got be very decent opponents for some time now.

I also like to play in tournaments but being too stingy to pay a subscription I am very limited in the number I can play. I find quite a few of the players are going to rise in rating as the tournament progresses so if you get through a couple of rounds you play some quite seriously higher rated people. Which is good (in moderation). :)

I had a fine match with a player rated ca 1000 points below me. I did an early mistake, but had enough power to dominiate. It was a pleasnt experience.

Playing to hard opposition can get yourself punchdrunk.

I like the mix. These days 92% of the players  I play are of the same strenght as I (the players from -300 to + 90). I have three opponents that are stronger than me. One at ca the same rating, one +100, and one +250. To them I am quite chanceless, and it is heavy to play them, but I need those matches to learn and refine my game. I can not take those punches all the time, so I need to play against my equals and lighter players inbetween.

I can learn from superstrong players. I was watching a vote-showgame between Norway , lead by three GM against Carlsen. Norway was allowed to use Houdini in 9 moves, and one of the Houdinimoves, the one that turned the match, was really changing something in my chessthinking.

Maybe the super GM´s are better to watch playing eachother, than it is to play them yourself?

Didn't it actually end in a draw? I was very surprised that Carlsen could force a perpetual against 3 GMs + Houdini moves + voting. Or maybe that was only one game?
Anyhow, the guy's nuts.

Yes it was  a draw. Carlsen was leading until that move, and then Norway got on top, with pawns treathening to be queening, an Magnus had to go for  a draw.

Norway messed it up in the voting.I think Agdestein was good, but Hammer got votes for his suggestion, that was a mistake, and then Magnus came on top until they started calling in Houdini, who did a difference. The people trusted Houdini, and voted for him.

Three GM´s with different plans , it was not best.  I look forward to Stavanger open, where Agdestein probably will meet Carlsen man to man. I really liked the ideas of Agdestein and think he is  faster than Hammer and Johannesen. Agdestein has something going on. He was number 16 in the world at his peak, maybe he is  stronger now?

Agdestein couldnt beat Carlsen with external brakes  on, but when they put in the Houdiniturbo, they came on top and Magnus had to save  a draw.

Everybody could vote for Norway, regardless of chessknowledge, so the GM that was best in talking often got the votes.

i play much weaker opponent to increase my rating easily

HIGHER! It helps you acclimate to stronger opponents. If you play against higher rated opponents and review and the game afterwards, you can learn about new tactical patterns and strategy they used in the game.

That will make you worse and your opponents better. You will get used to playing at a lower  level and then when you play equally rated people to yourself, you will realize  how much chess you have forgotten at the lower level. Games against weaker opponents does not challenge nor does it stimulate the brain. However, your opponents will feel the exact opposite and they will improve.

The only way to improve is to play higher rated opposition.