Yeah, which game of skill is also important. As I commented below, more modular games like squash, where you can get a point here and there, can be played like this. A 600 ELO point difference in chess basically means you will never win, and it becomes futile, and crushing.

I have great fun playing chess with a friend who easily has 600 ELO on me. Before we start each game, we agree it will be one of three types:

1. No holds barred. (I always lose, but nearly won once when they were very distracted.)

2. Like no holds barred, except I can take back my previous move && they sometimes offer “Are you sure that was the best move?” when I’ve done something especially wrong.

3. Them vs. them + me, where I have full access to their skills and knowledge. They suggest moves, and I can ask whether a move is/was a good move, what move they would make, etc. This unsurprisingly results in a 50/50 win rate.

This has been very useful for learning because it balances out the learning with just enough “winning” to keep the game fun.

It's only futile if your main / only goal is to win. I tend to view playing much stronger opponents as an opportunity to learn (especially if they are taking the time to explain things). In that sense, it's a massive "win". Alternatively, you can always redefine a "win", e.g. as getting a draw out of a 400 ELO higher opponent. It's realistic and shows that you are progressing in a positive direction.

If your intention is to improve you are probably better off spectating than playing. Playing against stronger players of any game is an interesting experience but observing stronger players is more educational since you can do so from an emotionally detached position and you don't have to dedicate the majority of your concentration to playing your side of the game.

> but observing stronger players is more educational

I disagree strongly on that. If stronger players are avoiding complicated pins / forks / checkmates, the weaker player will NEVER experience these positions.

It is far, far, far more educational to play against a stronger player and learn the tricks of the trade. Getting pinned by an expert is a lesson. Getting a "Queen Trap" is a lesson. A Fork is a lesson. Etc. etc.

Watching players stronger than you avoid all those positions is completely, and utterly non-helpful. You need to get those mistakes "beaten out of you" so to speak, if you ever wish to get better at Chess.

--------

Now, observing chess can be helpful with computer-analysis. After downloading the pgn file of a high-level game, play through it yourself vs Stockfish (PC vs SCID is decent freeware to run the Stockfish engine with), and try to discover the traps that the high-level players innately avoided.

Very good points. Personally, I've noticed that I learn best when I use some combination, however.

I'd rationalise it as creating richer neural connections for the topic you're trying to learn. It seems to embed the knowledge out of your "cache" into some deeper level, without which I tend to run out of ability to keep all these things in my head. In terms of practicing whatever you're learning, it's hard to say whether you should play against weaker, equal, or superior opponents; each have various arguments that can be made against them. I'd probably avoid weaker ones, in order to minimise false positive feedback.