Do ratings matter?

I hear this all the time in discussions about ratings that they don't matter. I suppose it depends on what you are playing chess for. I agree, to the casual player, which if I'm being honest is most of us, ratings aren't that important. But, people who say this need to realize that there are varying degrees of interest in chess. Some people are playing just to have fun, and some people are trying to make a career out of it. For the casual player, sure, ratings don't matter much, if at all. But, there are serious players to which ratings make all the difference. 

Also, it used to be the case that online ratings didn't really matter much. Most people just used online for practice and fun and little else. Nowadays there are serious online competitions like the World Online Blitz Championship that just took place. So, there is a more serious online player base these days. There are even USCF rated tournaments online now. So, the landscape of online chess is changing and I think that ratings (for certain types of players) are becoming more important. 

Personally, I don't think I will be a chessmaster for a very long time. I can see myself maybe spending a lot more time with it once I get old and retire. Even still, I like to know how far I have to go. If nothing else, ratings are how you gauge your progress. If my rating isn't improving, I know my skill level is stagnating and I need to change something. 

While many people give undue importance to ratings the primary purpose, especially in online events, is to pair up players that are at similar strengths. The same is somewhat true in OTB, though depending on the tourney type, those pairing likely come towards the end of the event and are more important when it comes to potential rating based prizes.

As you said, it's a good indicator of progress, so it does matter. People who think it doesn't matter are bad learners, imo (or non learners).

However, some people are way too addicted to rating points. They try to artificially increase their rating (having multiple accounts and things like that). It totally defeats the purpose of rating.

I agree. I think that if you are more serious about chess and want to learn, you will be concerned about your rating. I do see how people could be overly obsessed wiith their rating, that's not good, especially if it causes you to want to cheat or break the rules of the site. Then it becomes a meaningless number that doesn't really reflect your true strength at all. 

The issue is that some people see ratings as achievements instead of a representation of their skill level compared to others.

 I played a guy a year ago or something. He blundered and kept offering me a draw after realizing, then started begging and eventually offered to give me every chesscom trophy. He completely humiliated himself, all just because he was so desperate to maintain a false sense of accomplishment. It's kind of pathetic. 

And of course this might be an absurd example, but I think the same thought process applies to most members on chesscom.

Yeah, that is an extreme example of obsession. I don't think it's good to be obsessed with anything. But, you don't have to be obsessed to care. Truthfully, I don't really care about my chesscom rating, but my USCF rating, that's another story. 

I'm even a little more concerned with my rating on ICC than I am on chesscom 

Actually, I am concerned about my rating on chess.com, but I am more worried about my USCF ratings.

I need to ask, what if I know I'm not as bad at chess as my rating says but still am worried about my rating? like...do I need to worry about it then?(tbh I'm just indecisive on whether I should go commit to studying chess or continue to play for fun.)

If your rating here is based on a sufficient number of games, the that is your rating based on your performace in the given pool. How that rating might be different from some other rating isn't something directly comparable, though there may be correlations.

Ratings are not a measure of absolute strength but of your performance within the given pool.

As others have pointed out, improving your rating can be nice, but it isn't an accomplishment by itself. #5 is an example of someone who cares more about the rating than the game itself. I care even less about my FIDE rating, since I almost exclusively play team matches and all I care about is the result. I can offer a draw to a much lower rated player if this assures us a win, or fight in a drawish position against a higher rated one if the draw isn't useful at all.

Ah, thanks alot for the insight. I appreciate it!

Nailed it!

I used to play alot of hyperbullet but I stopped when I got to 1700 bc I started to play regular 1min bullet. I find hyper stressful and easy to tilt in 🤣

I think rating is more to measure improvement. I do believe rating matters in terms of accomplishment of a goal, maybe I would like to get to 1400 and so on. Its kinda a harder question then it seems, cause if rating isn't important to most chess players why do we place such pride in saying yea I made it too whatever..?

Why are there an insane amount of these silly posts in these forums?

Yes, ratings matter.

End of Thread.

It matters, Jim, but not as we know it.

Of course ratings matter. IQ can be derived from a person’s rating.

No sorry, that's not true. IQ is to multi-faceted to be put in this sorta narrow logistic. There are tons of 150 IQ , who simply can't play chess well.