Is it a good or bad thing when a player is being placed in a tournament where he / she is completely outclassed?
There are conflicting opinions with this issue. Some believe that it is good for a player to be able to “play up” where that player is outrated by hundreds of (200-300-400) rating points. These people believe that the “low” rated player has nothing to lose and it is a good learning experience.
On the other hand, some strongly believe that players must learn how to win first. When a player is playing way up, that player, by instinct, will try to do everything possible to hold. This does not help that player’s skill at all.
Garry Kasparov and I discussed this same issue back in 1988. We renewed this conversation again in 2003. We both agree that a player should avoid playing in tournaments where he / she would get crush. A player who wants to go far in chess must learn how to win consistently. The strength of the tournament can then increase gradually. Playing up a little is fine. But to be outclassed by 200-400 points will not help.
In fact, in 2003, Garry gave me an example of a young chess phenom who lost a number of years because he was in too many super tournaments. He learned to draw to many games and lost the winning edge. He only regained it years later.
What do you think?
I believe players should play somewhat above their level in order to improve, especially for young players. However, they should not play in tournments where they are totally outclassed and have no chance of winning any games.
I think it depends on the person or kid whatever the case may be. I think my daughter has learned some stuff from playing higher rated people. In some cases getting beat bad might hurt a player’s confidence though. So I think it could go either way. I think it is case by case basis.
I do agree with your chess philosophy Susan, a chess player for them to improve they should be matched with a ranked or seeded player, for the reason that for a player to know that he is good he should beat stronger and better players. On the part of the stronger player he needs to manifest that he is really outclassing a weaker player, but if he lose to a weaker player it just do manifest that there are still missing elements in his chess arsenal that he needs to improve. Players should be exposed to different styles and strengths in all dimensions of chess.
it depends on the level. a 1400 with 2100s is ridiculous because there is no chance in winning. However, with 1400s against 1600-1700s, the 1400 has a reasonable chance to maybe pull an upset game or 2. playing slightly stronger players gives u a chance to play somebody better than you but still give u a decent chance to win. playing a 2200 will just make you want to quit chess because you can never win.
Some tournaments allow you to play up 1 class level. I think that’s good because you can play more experienced players without a big difference. But the bigger the difference, the bigger a loss for both the higher rated in his chances to play people around his rating, as well as a bigger amount of losses for the lower
What you’re saying makes sense. I’ve played in several tournaments where I was completly outclassed as you describe…and it can be very discouraging because you’re constantly getting destroyed. On the other hand it made me want to be as good as them and that makes me work harder to improve. I can see positive and negative in it.
playing stronger opponents is an important ingredient for improving your game – but consistently playing opponents far above you is not good as you likely would not be able to apply what you are learning and would likely not understand at which moment you lost the game
I don’t think you can generalize whether a tournament like this can be good or bad. The issue is the player’s response to trauma. For some, it can be helpful. Those that can take the lessons of horrific defeat and transform it into future victory will profit from the experience. On the other hand, young players could be terribly discouraged by a long string of losses.
As a middle-aged adult, I am still struggling to overcome the negative consequences of consistently winning in my youth. I would have been better off playing those far above my class because I learned to win by cultivating bad habits.
I see many young children go far in scholastic chess with a few cheap tricks and the rudiments of scholars mate. Scholastic events are often overrun with beginners that can be beaten in this way. Players that know only a little can consistently score three of five and believe they are skilled. Playing a field where zero of five is almost certain may be the necessary wake-up call to learn real strategies.
In my youth, these scholastic events did not exist where I lived. But, with a few combinations I learned from the first few dozen games in Chernev’s 1000 Best Short Games of Chess, I played with modest success 1975-1995. In 1995, I started playing regular rated tournaments. Only when I made it over 1600 in 2005, did I begun to abandon the reckless attacking style that brought success in my youth.
In 2008, I played a four game match with a FIDE Master whose rating was 500 higher than mine. I lost 2 1/2 – 1/2. The preparation for that match, and the reorientation of parts of my thinking has pushed me up another level.
Five years in my late 40s, and I’ve pushed my rating up 400 points. Had I been beaten more often as a child, this rise would have been impossible because I would have been much better much sooner.
If you’re thinking of Yildiz, she is weak, but still can make draws. It all depends on who is coaching her. She obviously has a non-compatible coach in China. With a better coach she would not embarass everyone in Turkey. This is also a problem of the Turkish management, who hire cheap coaches.
Or maybe she is just sick, like Nigel and Naka were recently?
Kasparov and you is right, all the field should not have played this tournament with Magnus, now they will have nightmares all their life.
Anything you and Kasparov say is like the bible to me.
Of course you’re correct. But the people who decide (politicians and parents) have no idea about it, so they will put up a child into fire with hope of becoming famous, because the child has drawn a game in a simul with a grandmaster before. I haven’t met a parent or a politician who doesn’t think their child can beat a grandmaster in one game.
I think there are multiple factors that go into the idea if playing “up” is good or bad.
I too have seen parents and coaches throw young players to the wolves and end up beating them down and slowing down their progress. It is important to challenge a player but also allow them to learn from a game. If they can ‘hang in there’ and play a reasonable game for 20 -30 moves before losing they can actually gain a lot of experience.
I agree with Susan/Kasparov that it is important for kids to learn how to win but this is also a trap. winning too easily can create a false sense of superiority, as is seen in many talented kids who tactically blow people away but get ‘lucky’.
A balance is important. To progress in anything there must be a challenge but not one that is unsurmoutable or you will lose desire to continue. My general rule is 1-4 is a good result for a challenge training while 4-1 is good for confidence and technique building.
I always wanted to ask FIDE for advice, but they are unreachable, with no grandmasters and fide masters offered for frequently asked questions answers. I also wanted to ask my Federation for advice, but they are not knowledgeable enough, apart from being bias. I then asked local good players, and they give opposite advices. I then had nobody to ask any more. So now I decide myself.
‘The issue is the player’s response to trauma.’
And how on earth can you know that? Traumatize the child first to see the reaction??
We are here to answer all your chess questions! And – without a fee! Welcome to http://www.allexperts.com/el/Chess/
AllExperts
‘I always wanted to ask FIDE for advice, but they are unreachable’
FIDE is not interested in beginners. Only World Championships.
Anon @ 11:14 LOL! I lost mouthful of coffee when I read this — my screen now has coffee stains!! Thanks.
‘an example of a young chess phenom’
Don’t keep secrets from us!! We are your trusted friends! Who was the phenom?
Yeah, I am good, ain’t I? Thanks and sorry for your screen.
I feel so sorry for Jakovenko, Topalov, Radjabov, Leko, and Yue. If only they had listened to Susan and Garry.
Oh, crap. I see someone has already beat me to the joke.:~)
The phenom must be Leko. He was so drawish but it was hard for him to break out into winning. I remember one supertournament where he was the lowest- but drew all his games bar one- Kasparov managed to beat him!
However Carlsen contradricts this- he played up and rose fast.
I also always play open tournaments rather than restricted lower rated ones- I tend to play better against better opponents and I don’t want to be rewarded for tricks to beat weaker players efficiently- but for the best play I can do.
Chess has always fascinated people around the World and today it is a universal language that helps people from different regions and cultures to communicate. In one word, Chess can help our World to live in Peace.
I congratulate Magnus Carlsen at the beginning of his fight for the highest level.
porsic
Cannot be Leko. He couldn’t have reached top ten for last so many years by drawing games. No way, man! He must have won thousands of games.
I am just repeating anon 11:14
LOL!!!
Kasparov and you is right, all the field should not have played this tournament with Magnus, now they will have nightmares all their life.
Now, you see.. . it is maybe a bad idea for Magnus to play down. . . LOL!
Radjabov played against Carlson, so why not?
If this were a boxing tournament, the chief arbiter would have stopped the massacre already.
I think that players should be encouraged to play slightly higher rated opponents in oder to improve their level of perfomance.
However, playing against experts (particularly very high rated) would not promote deep learning because we tend to learn/memorise in small chunks to develop our expertise in chess (Simon & Chase, 1973). So a slightly higher rated player will allow one to achieve a gradual progress in the level of play through following and memorising the moves played rather than left in total bewilderment by an overly strong opponents tactics.
DEAR SUSAN:
I want to make AN INTERVIEW FOR MY WEBSITE. I WAIT YOUR RESPONSE. THANKS
So, who was the young chess phenom?
‘So a slightly higher rated player will allow one to achieve a gradual progress in the level of play through following and memorising the moves played rather than left in total bewilderment by an overly strong opponents tactics.’
Why would one be bewildered by moves played by a much stronger opposition? As he/she doesnt understand why the moves were played, he/she would not understand moves played by an opposition of equal rating either.
Interesting philosophy Susan. I’m still a beginner and I am on the Chess team at the University. There, I find players of all skill levels. Sometimes, we have children show up to our practice from the Elementary, who are bored, and they annihilate me. Clearly they spend many hours playing Chess, whereas I do not.
The funnest games for me are when I am matched with a player of my skill level and at the end, we can both say, “Good game!” and mean it.
Sometimes, I get mismatched at the Uni Chess club with bored geeks who want to get rid of me as fast as possible and they do. I finally started reading some Chess books and paying close attention to your website, blog and tips.
Thank you!
🙂