Why gms dislike playing against amateurs?

@mkubecek said in #18:
> How about the opposite question: why would an amateur player want to play against a GM? [...]

It's not an easy question to answer. We could say that it's for the wonderful "lesson" or something, but I'm not sure that's quite right. And as you say, any much stronger player would provide a similar function.

I can say that the several times during my teenage years that I played against a master player (no GMs for me, but a couple of IMs and another minor master) in a simultaneous display, the only likely opportunity which ever presents itself to amateurs, I found the experience absolutely thrilling. Quite why, I can't say.

I guess it's quite exciting for an amateur to play a GM once in a while.

Earlier this year, I met some GM and IM players and we had some blitz games. I mean it was nice, but it became very clear very quickly that I am playing 500-700 points up, and got destroyed without the slightest chance. Basically needed no visible effort from their side at all. When they took longer than a second, they mostly had to decide on one of the many ways to win

I'm not a GM but I am someone who rose up to 2200+ quickly. I've never had a problem with lower-rated players challenging me. They play oddly to me so either 1) I win very fast and it doesn't take up too much time, or 2) It forces me to practice other ways of playing.

Being a higher rating isn't as simple as being better at chess. Different rating pools tend to play different moves, so it can actually be challenging to play lower-rated players if you haven't in a while.

I will be honest, I really do think a lot of highly rated players do not like the possibility of losing. I have seem some chess streamers have meltdowns because they couldn't get their ratings back to where they wanted them to be.

If I ever reach GM-level, I do not think I would mind people challenging me one bit - no matter what their rating is.

@nadjarostowa said in #22:
> it became very clear very quickly that I am playing 500-700 points up, and got destroyed without the slightest chance
That's what I meant. My estimate is I might be somewhere around 1300-1500 "old FIDE" / 1600-1700 "new FIDE" - and that may still turn out to be too optimistic. So I guess any solid 2000+ player would be perfectly sufficient to give me the "playing against a wall" experience, no need to waste GM's time.

In real life, GM's (not super GM's) end up playing against lower rated players all the time in open tournaments, and they usually crush them, and it's not like they have a choice if they play in them. Online is a completely different topic altogether.

It's the same debate as to why many masters refuse to play in local chess clubs, unless there are a sufficient number of other masters there close to their rating. Like if a FM or IM drew vs a 1900, it would take him many wins to get his rating back to where it should be, while that 1900, who gained all those points, can lose it instantly in ONE LOSS to another 1900 and fall right back to where he deserves to be, which does absolutely nothing for the titled player. And in addition, the titled player has to avoid critical lines that end up in a proper forced draw or repetition, as what happens if the lower rated player did his homework and actually knows one of those lines, because he watched a chessable coach or his IM coach taught him? Then the titled player either has to play a line which gives the weaker player an advantage and hope he throws, or play something completely offbeat and hope his superior experience gives him an easy win (e.g. 1 d4 f5 2 Bg5).