In many sports of a one-on-one nature it is a generally accepted practice to face superior opponents, the theory being that, to improve, you must play opponents who are superior to you. A good case could be made for this in chess, provided that, having been destroyed by a higher rated player, the player will point out your mistakes. Playing lower ranked opponents consistently may stroke one's ego but it isn't likely to make him or her a better player.
Why would someone "play up" more than 100 points or so?
Sort:
You assume that a player rated 900 is skilled like a 900. I played chess as a child and then quit for over 10 years. When I came back to it, I was much, much better than my rating indicated. I was a 1400 with a 750 rating. There was no pride, no challenge, no honor in beating little second graders in the U900 section. So I played up. There are many, many cases of people being inaccurately rated. So it's reason #1, except it's not so delusional.
Many younger players are stronger than their ratings indicate. For instance, I was recently "upset" by a young player whose published rating is 300 points lower than mine. When the updated ratings are published, his rating will be 100 points higher than mine. I suspect that two months from now, his rating will be even higher (the young man has been improving rapidly).
ChessSoldier wrote:
You assume that a player rated 900 is skilled like a 900. I played chess as a child and then quit for over 10 years. When I came back to it, I was much, much better than my rating indicated. I was a 1400 with a 750 rating. There was no pride, no challenge, no honor in beating little second graders in the U900 section. So I played up. There are many, many cases of people being inaccurately rated. So it's reason #1, except it's not so delusional.
In a case like that, I've seen TDs ask for some sort of evidence that the rating is inaccurate. For example, they might ask if you have an online Chess rating, and use that as the basis for pairings. That makes sense, but it isn't what the other folks were complaining about.
The complaint was against people who had real, recent, low ratings, but played in a much higher section.
So the reasons are:
Hero worship, ratings conscious, and delusional. I'll say "self-esteem". They play in the Open section to brag about playing in the open section. It somehow gives them a feeling of importance
An additional reason: I sometimes play in a higher section just to see how I do against tougher competition.
Meadmaker: "So, have I overlooked the obvious reason why this should be done, and why there's nothing wrong with it, and TDs should allow it? Has anyone here ever done this?"
An "open" section is open to all regardless of rating. If a lower rated person wants to play and is willing to pay, a TD really can't restrict a lower rated person from playing up. And yes I have played in Open sections when there were U2200 sections mostly so I could play FIDE rated players to get a FIDE rating.
The pain of losing is smaller against higher rated players - firstly, because you lose fewer points. Secondly, because you were supposed to be losing anyway; thirdly because you'll get tougher and tougher by these games, in the game's skill, and as a person; fourthly because the next time you get a more equally sucky opponent, he'll appear to be a weakie compared to what you're used to; fifthly because discussing with guys who have more skills - in any field that has your interest - is a valuable experience.
I play up every chance I get. I'm 1525 USCF and if I were playing in the Chicago Open I'd play in the open section. I'd most likely get crushed but I would learn a lot.
I don't care about my rating; I care about getting better. I'm not going to get better playing against people rated 1600 like I will when playing against people rated 2000+.
Call it whatever you like, but I call it effective. In the last few months I've styarted playing very well against players rated 250+ points over me. I've started beating players rated 1700+ and playing really tight struggles against players rated 1800-1900+.
That probably wouldn't be the case if I were playing the lower sections in a tournament where I'd play several players who are rated 200+ points lower than I am.
I don't know why my Blackberry turns everything into one long paragraph! Tht was several paragrahs when I wrote it! I will say that only once did a TD not allow me to play up. I have not played in any of that organizations tournaments since. If higher rated people are afraid to face me that's their problem, not mine!
If higher rated people are afraid to face me that's their problem, not mine!
I don't think the problem is that they are "afraid" to face you. I think they are "bored" to face you, and since they have invested a lot of time and money for the opportunity to play in a good Chess tournament, you are really taking something away from them. I think you should be a bit more considerate.
And I think that in certain events, it would be wise for the TD/organizer to declare that a minimum rating is required to play in the top section, except by special application to the TD.
I don't want to be overly preachy here. I want to be a little bit preachy, but not overly so. In a small number of specific cases, such as the cited wanting to get and FIDE rating or a legitimate feeling that your rating doesn't affect your current skill level, it might make sense to play in the "wrong" section, and in those cases, by all means appeal to the TD. Each tournament is slightly different, and TDs should do what makes sense for their tournament. However, in general, the players are paying to be there, and you shouldn't waste their time and money because you want a Chess lesson.
Going by your logic they should be thanking me for "wasting" their time as I am not only possibly providing a win, but also paying for the prize fund. I think the real issue at work here is that a lot of rating conscious people fear losing to someone like me. If they win (which they should) then they gain little in terms of rating. But if they lose they lose a lot. But again, that fear of theirs has nothing to do with me. And seeing as how most major tournaments in which playing up more than one section is possible I'd hardly call an EF of $100-$200 a "free lesson." It's a lesson I'm paying for.
However, in general, the players are paying to be there, and you shouldn't waste their time and money because you want a Chess lesson.
How am I wasting a higher rated players time and money if they play me? It seems that I am the one wasting the time and money because I will probably be easily beaten, and they end up with a won game (I don't think that the higher rated players care whom they beat, they want the win).
If I were to enter a tournament in the open section I would hope to learn something from analyzing my games. Sometimes your opponent will take the time to point out some specific weaknesses for you to improve after the game. It would also be a nice ego boost to win or draw against a much higher rated player.
I don't mean "scared to play me" in the traditional sense of they feel I'll win. I mean scared to play me because they place too much emphasis on their rating.
This is just my opinion, but i don't think anyone has any business playing in the Open section of a major Tourn. such as The World Open unless your rating is at least 2000.Sure higher rated players place a lot of emphasis on ratings, they worked very hard to get where they are. My current USCF rating is 1840 and i like to play against Experts and Masters as well but that does not mean i should play in the Open section of a major tourn.
I would rather play a player that is far superior to me and get stomped repeatedly, you learn alot more from your mistakes then you do your successes
Don't the organizers of major tournaments use "accelerated pairings" to address the problems of extreme ratings mismatch and too many players? If this is the case, low rated players entering the Open Section would be playing amongst themselves and might just as well have entered a lower section.
ChrisWainscott wrote:
Going by your logic they should be thanking me for "wasting" their time as I am not only possibly providing a win, but also paying for the prize fund. I think the real issue at work here is that a lot of rating conscious people fear losing to someone like me. If they win (which they should) then they gain little in terms of rating. But if they lose they lose a lot. But again, that fear of theirs has nothing to do with me. And seeing as how most major tournaments in which playing up more than one section is possible I'd hardly call an EF of $100-$200 a "free lesson." It's a lesson I'm paying for.
Hmm, I think I know where you're coming from even if I don't necessarily agree.
When paired up it may be psychologically easier... if you lose it's ok because you're the underdog and if you win it's great. But for a player paired far down the reverse isn't necessarily true. Well sure they're expected to win, but it's not psychologically hard unless you start giving them a good game. Realize when you (or anyone) is paired up 400 points you'll probably be losing long before you realize it. On move 20 you may think you're still fighting while for the opponent it's just basic technique from there on out.
Of course assuming they haven't already won a lot of material... and if we're talking about a 400 point difference between players U1200 then that's almost certain to be the case.
In a different thread, there were complaints about players who "play up" into a section far above their rating. In other words, if there is a U1200 section and an Open section, a 900 rated player decides to play in the Open section. From the descriptions in the other thread, it might even be more extreme, like there is a U1200, a U1600, and an Open, and the 900 still goes for the Open.
My question is twofold. Why would anyone want to do that, and why would the TD allow it?
I'll speculate about reasons, but this really is speculation, because I can't fathom anyone doing it.
1. The person is utterly delusional and believes he really has some chance of winning the larger prizes in the upper section.
2. The person has a sort of hero worship toward high rated players, and wants a chance to play against them.
3. The person is extremely rating conscious, and has realized that if he loses every game in the upper section, his rating will barely budge, but if he wins just one, it will jump significantly. (And hasn't realized that this plan won't work so well if two people do what he's doing.)
None of these seem like very good reasons to play in that setting. Maybe, just maybe, number 2 makes a certain amount of sense. I would never do it, but I suppose I could understand why someone might. Even so, then the second part of the question comes in. Why would the TD allow it? The point of ratings is to ensure appropriate opponents. Obviously, this "playing up" will cause some of the high rated players to waste a round. Sure, they'll win, but tournaments can be a big investment in time and/or money. Who wants to spend a few hours on a game that is just some instructional experience on a player who doesn't belong there?
So, have I overlooked the obvious reason why this should be done, and why there's nothing wrong with it, and TDs should allow it? Has anyone here ever done this?
And keep in mind that I'm not talking about someone who is on the cusp of a section break. I can easily see a good reason for someone with a rating of 1150 to not want to play in a U1200 section. As a TD, I might be inclined to accept the request depending on circumstances. What I'm talking about is obviously unqualified individuals trying to play in a section where they are unlikely to win any games, or even offer a reasonable challenge to the players who actually belong in that section.