I don't like ratings

On Chess.com, ratings are essential, because we play one game at a time and want it to be a game where both players have a chance to win.  It's not much fun to play a game where you either don't have to bother thinking, or where you have no chance.

However, after a recent discussion about why more people don't play Chess, especially after high school graduation, I have decided that ratings are a prime factor keeping people away from Chess.

Let's be real.  It's bad enough to lose, but when you have to carry around and announce a mark that tells the world that you lose a lot, it's a bit depressing.  In other sorts of competitions, if you win two games out of five, you can pat yourself on the back and tell yourself how well you did in those two games, and how you almost won the other two against super opponents, and how in one you just made a bad move or you would have clobbered him.

In Chess, where almost all OTB tournaments are rated, that's hard to do.  You are forced to see that the two you beat were pretty weak players, and two of the ones you lost to weren't all that good, and you never really had a chance to beat the other one anyway, who is rated 500 points higher, and by the way your new rating is 27 points lower than it was at the start of the tourney.

It's too much for most people to take.

Besides, is the rating really necessary, especially for less formal tournaments?  If you are playing a five round Swiss tournament with 20 players in it, rating or no rating, it will all balance out. By the end of the tournament, the best players will play each other, and the worst will play each other. The emphasis on ratings when playing can be a major cause of frustration.

So, to grow Chess in the United States, I think one step we can do is to hold unrated tournaments.  I'm doing so, next week in Auburn Hills, Michigan.  I hope it works out.  (For information, check the Michigan Chess Association calendar, michess.org.)

What do other people think about ratings?  Would you only go to an OTB tournament if it were rated?  Do ratings keep you away?

When I read the title I thought "oh boy another complainer", but I actually agree somewhat. I wonder how chess would be different if it weren't for elo ratings. People got along fine without them for centuries.

Pretty much the second most important reason I go to tournaments for is the rating.  It's not like the prize money is ever going to be an attractor.  In addition I like having something at stake when I play, it makes me work harder.

I'm sort of looking forward to my first rated OTB tournament ... having any rating at least gives one the feeling to belong to the "real" chess players ... and you can't get less than 1200 national Elo here :)

Yes, by implementing unrated tournaments across the nation we'll grow a crop of incredibly mediocre players who frequent informal tournaments, are generally uncompetitive, and don't care to see what progress they've made.

A rating never means you suck.

If you maintain a rating of 1000 on this site, you will be able to beat 90% of people who know how the pieces move.

Heh, if you look at it that way, it's almost not worth it to improve... taking you years of work to go from beating 90% of players to 94% of players

Although I'm not sure if 90% of players are rated below 1000, the same type of logic applies even if you change the rating.

Chess is a microcosm of life. Ratings are like "disposable" income in this parallel universe, with people comparing , looking up to or down to others and ratings are really as ephermeral as monopoly money...but people argue about monopoly !

It's possible to play unrrated games here, but I like the fight for grading points that appeals to the reptilian part of the brain ! I never like playing "friendlies" - for me there has to be something at stake, even if it's only monopoly money.

 I certainly hope so.

 Probably I didn't choose the best title.  My real thought, which I hope I conveyed better in the text than in the title, was that not every competitive Chess tournament needs to be a rated tournament, but in the US, organized Chess and ratings seem to be inseparable, and I think that's a problem.

Ratings = SPLUNGE

I think the idea of encouraging more people to play is a good one, although decreasing emphasis on ratings would probably alienate the long time players.  I haven't played in any tournaments so I don't know if literally anyone can register for all of them, or if there are also tournaments for beginners, for serious players, etc. which are based on a range of player ratings. Hopefully both are available.

I would like to know if the number of people who play chess at all levels has increased since online chess became available; it seems like it must have.  Still, even only as a hobby chess isn't something most people play.  If the site manages to provide everyone from beginners to experts with the whole chess platform, then the most significant problem is a general lack of interest in chess compared to other things.  I'm not sure if I've ever seen chess promoted effectively other than in regards to people who are already interested in it.  Imagine a chess commercial on TV...in fact, I can't really imagine it.  Maybe the best thing would be to offer a few months of free services to members who get a friend to sign up for a trial membership or a full one. 

if the interest is there, why not have both rated and unrated tournaments.  they have golf and bowling tournaments that are effectively unrated and you still have avid golfers that play to be pros. 

only trouble i see is how you set the tournament without ratings.  do you allow any bozo off the streets to play inthe same bracket with group A player who just decided to have fun at a non-rated tournament?

In unrated tournaments, the pairings would be poor -- the strongest players are likely not to get to play each other, and there will be a lot of mismatches which would not be fun for either player.

If you think of chess like a friendly game of cards or connect 4, and play 6 games a year spread out between your cousin and that one friend you know on holidays, and 1 out of 5 game involve an illegal move or arguing about how to legally castle, then maybe I can see where you're coming from, but many people take chess more seriously than that.

I would think only the least committed type of player would be scared away from chess by ratings.

well, i may need to check out some of the books on openings from connect 4.  hahaha

"I would think only the least committed type of player would be scared away from chess by ratings."

i see your point, however, i do not think that i am the least commited player, but i for sure do not take the game very seriously.  i just play for fun, and i for one would be more likely (although not much more) to play a tournament with no ratings.  if i were to move away from the internet play, it would probably be simply going to a local chess club and playing there. 

So the OP is basically saying chess players are so weak that ratings make them cry and leave the game. Yeah the former is true, but it is this crying that actually keeps them there!

 I'll take the second comment first.  I think it's correct, or at least very nearly correct, but I think it sums up where I'm going with this thought.  I think the people scared away by the ratings are, indeed, the less committed players.

So, how does one become a "more committed" player?  I would think it happens by playing for a while, and then deciding to put some effort into it and become more committed.   The tournament scene in the US, at least, basically tells people that if you aren't committed to Chess, you don't belong there.  Since new players aren't likely to be committed, yet, it really limits the ability to attract new players.

I asked around after one local tournament, and every single player who was playing in that tournament had been a member of a high school Chess team, and had played in organized, including rated, tournaments as part of that team.  In other words, if you don't have a USCF rating at the time you graduate high school, you will probably never have one.  I don't think it needs to be that way.  I know lots of people who didn't take up golf until later in life.  I think that ought to be the case with Chess as well.  However, I think that we tend to drive people away by putting up many subtle suggestions that only "serious" players are welcome.

As a tournament director, I'm looking for ways to attract new players.  To do that, I'm trying to lower what I see as entry barriers.  To me, the top two of those entry barriers are cost, and ratings.  So, this Saturday, I'm holding a cheap tournament, with a rated and unrated sections. 

As for the idea that unrated tournaments would produce poor pairings, it simply isn't true, if there are enough rounds in the tournament.  I've used the Swiss system in competitions other than Chess, where there are no ratings.  It works great at sorting players, with no rating system at all.  Also, most school chess tournaments prior to high school have no ratings, and the best kids end up playing each other in the last round, unless they met in an earlier round.  In terms of competition pairings in Swiss tournaments, the only thing the rating does is to defer the meeting of the best players until the final rounds, and to do that the top half/bottom half rule is employed, which guarantees a lot of mismatches during rounds one and two.

 From what I've read, it depends on whether you count the online players. 

If you count them, then the number of people playing is up.  On the other hand, OTB play is declining.  In other words, online players have generally not transferred to the OTB world, but some players who used to play in tournaments now prefer online play.  (And who can blame them?  It's easy and cheap.)

I have seen some crossover lately.  A few players who have never played in a tournament, but have online ratings, have shown up at a couple of tournaments I have been at recently.  Perhaps that trend will accelerate.

One theme I've seen, in this thread and elsewhere, is that the rating serves as a form of the "stake" for players.  That's a good point.  That works for me, too.  In a rated tournament, I feel like I'm playing "for" something, even if I am not in contention for a prize.  Sometimes, though, I'm not sure that's a good thing.  If there are a string of losses, the losses can be borne, but the damage to the rating can be quite depressing.    That rating becomes more important than the actual games, and there's something vaguely disturbing about that.

As a tournament player with almost 4 decades of experience I can tell you most tournament players are there FOR their rating . I didnt play organized chess in HS either but only got bitten by the bug during the 72 Fischer/Spassky match and played my first organized/rated event in 1973 at the old age of 20 ! The kind of player you refer to , and seem to want to attract, are recreational/social players. They dont play often/much and probably do not want to be "serious" about the game. I think the main impediment to tournament participants in the US is the cost of attending a tournament these days, its ridiculous really.

For someone who doesn't care for ratings, you sure do make a lot of points on how they're (ought to be) less important.

At the end of the day, they're just numbers. The picture of you walking down the street wearing a sign that says "xxxx ELO!!" is - allthough amusing - absurd. Thinking that the next man will really care, also somewhat absurd.

I disagree with the notion that the abscense of ratings would make the world a better place. I think people play chess on different levels and with different ambitions. End of line.

My advice to you is: Stop thinking about numbers, start thinking about development (i.e. abstracting from ego).