@JoshuaBakker has made an interesting comment:
Why would you want [weaker competition]? For learning it's better to play against decent players....
But is it?
I believe that such advice used to be conventional during the precomputer era. If Capablanca had time to play chess against me, then I should have seized the opportunity, even if I must certainly have lost.
But is this not chiefly because Capablanca rarely had time to play chess against me?
Today, Stockfish always has time.
One could reasonably infer from the comment, taken in context, that an Elo 1300 player wasted his time by playing any Elo 1000 to 1600 opponents, if he could instead have been playing against nothing but the masters. Yet, is this really true?
Would one really learn chess best by fighting only hopeless odds? Does one truly gain nothing by the occasional victory, having taking advantage of an opponent's blunder? Must steely, grim perseverance in the face of certain destruction be the sole mode of chess play which has any lessons to teach?