I'm a 1950~2050 player, I can reach that rating and stay there, I'm able win a 2000 player (sometimes a 2100 player as well). At end of day I'm break even against 1900~2050 players.
But for some time now I'm experiencing greater difficulty in beating 1800 ~ 1900 players. At the end of the day I'm still break even, but that make no sense. In theory, if i'm break even against 100 (150!?) points above, I should be better against a 'weak' players, right?
PS: Do not inspect this account, it is new. In my old account my best rating was 2136, a few days ago I was close to my best rating (about 2100).
So if I understand your post correctly your question is if you should do better against weak players? The answer is yes you should.
I normally focus more against stronger players. I often lose concentration and blunder against weaker players. Maybe that's an issue you're experiencing? If so, you could try hiding your opponent's rating using Zen Mode, or just try to focus more.
@OldPalHappy I dont think that is just about focus. There is something about style. Agaisnt strong players the postions are more normal for me. Weak players, with good fight spirit, the games are too much tactical and unbalanced.
My theory is:
i'm not outplayed or dominated, but I am not able to deal with dynamic positions and material / positional advantage in blitz games. I have difficulty playing a middle-game with material / positional advantage in just 30 seconds if my opponent has a dangerous position. Apparently stronger players gambling less, and gambling in blitz is pretty good: it is better play complex positions if you dont care about correct play and makes inconsequential attacks. Good players dont make 'gambling/crazy' attacks.
That is my provisional theory, I would like know peoples who has difficulties with weaker players and if my theory make sense for they...
its because those 1800 players play so aggressively and tactically sacrificing materials and maybe you tend to miss those tactics which in real sense are bogus and a strong player can punish them but in expert level they tend to play positionally and maybe thats why you find it easier to play against them
Hi livro-dos-dias,
1)
Excerpt: "It is important to note that all these systems [rating systems] use relative ratings. The true rating of a player can never be known, so ratings are adjusted relative to each other. Two groups of players who compete independently –i.e. none of the players from one group play against players in the other group–will produce ratings which could not be compared between groups." from Introducing Momentum to the Elo rating System; D.W.Besterand M.J.von Maltitz
2)
Garry Kasparov said of his opponent Yoshiharu Habu, that he [Habu] plays some positions like a 2500+ player. Habu was a 2400+ chess player at the time, and an honoured shogi professional.
3)
The most obvious flaw of all rating systems, Glicko, Elo and whether normal or logistic distribution is in place, is they do not consider your skill level for specific openings, defenses, pawn structures or tactics.
Conclusion:
Given Kasparov's comments about Habu's playing ability relative to his rating, the known flaws of the rating systems stated in clause 1), and our own, empirical experience, it should not surprise us that our ratings may have small to large variances, relative to our ability.
Note: I also read that the normal distribution used by Fide underestimates the winning chances of the weaker player. Someone may expand or correct this if I interpret this incorrectly.
I often find the strength of 1650 - 1800 players to be indiscernible. That it is to say, I find them equally difficult, no matter which part of the game one is more or less skilled in, be it opening, middlegame, endgame.
@VeraSidika You're right! Expert (or something like that) tende study more and that study are too much therycall, they start playing with more caution with a positional/normal game in general (where I feel good play against waitn for my momento to hit some attack/tactical blow)
----------------------
@omnify "I often find the strength of 1650 - 1800 players to be indiscernible. That it is to say, I find them equally difficult, no matter which part of the game one is more or less skilled in, be it opening, middlegame, endgame."
Me too. In 2100+ level I'm outplayed, my defeats are not about oversights, but for wrong strategy/decisions, etc.
---------------------
My guess is: up to expert level 'all' players are gambling (in blitz that is really true!) and when I try punish my opponents and I open the game I put more fire in the fire and then I am not able to deal with the complex positions that appears. A strong player knows how to convert an advantage, I do not! So it is worthless to have a dynamic-type advantage, I will prefer stable advantages and against up-to-expert players the advantages tend to be dynamic. There is no 'cute' game with long-term strategies and theoretical disputes in openings, we have to be prepared for highly tactical positions.
Thanks for reply
Sometimes you are facing rapidly improving players. It all averages out and I wouldn't be too concerned.
Someone with the same rating should give you 50% of the points someone with a rating 400 points higher will get you 10% of the points so your chances of getting 1 or 2 points goes steadily down from 50% at even down to zero when there is a 500 point difference.
So here is a example of me playing at a level of 1500 in classical chess. If I were to play 10 games against another player at 1500 I would expect to end up with 10 points. If I were to play 10 games against a 1900 player I would expect to end up with 2 points. So playing against 1600 1700 and 1800 players would be 8 6 and 4 points respectively.
Now suppose I play 10 games against a 1100 rated player I then would expect to get 18 points which is why you really don't get many rating points for a victory against a player that is 400 points less then you.
I would say to play players rated as low as 100 points less up to players rated 200 points more. This would put you on a learning curve of getting better by playing better players but also you can still get wins from the lower rated player to keep you in a wining frame of mind.
Last if you seem to not be able to move up in the ratings then its because your not improving so you need to look at the games you lose and then also take lessons . One advantage average players like myself have is there is at least a lot of room for improvement. Also you will never improve past a certain level according to your talent.
I believe every chess player has a talent level from 1 to 10 that you are born with. This talent level does not change you can't improve talent. That is why if you are not born with a 10 in talent you will never become a top chess player no matter how much you work at it because you will always be limited to your talent level. Grand Masters are made in the womb not behind a chess board.
About talent: It's about time, how much we pay to chess. Kamsky at one time was engaged in 12 hours a day. Still deal in knowledge. Kramnik once said that he knows 50 thousand middlegame positions. That is, an Amateur does not have time to get the knowledge that the Maestro has. Well, the calculation of tactics at the level of 2500 would give the chess player an advantage in the game and a rating in the blitz 2100-2300.
Now question posed in topic: Here already said, that 1950-2050 chess players, play in solid chess, where less adventurous their moves. The only thing I wanted to add is that the 1800-1950 are too close in skill. They are separated by only 150-200 rating points. And I can't count them as inept players. I have 1 category in chess and my rating is 1800-2100. In addition, playing in tournaments in a row 7-9 games there is a chance to lose to a chess player, whose rating is much lower.