I hate ratings!

ratings over a period do give some reallistic image

I believe ratings are a guideline and not an exact science! There is no way to be 100% accurate with anyones rating wether in chess.com or OTB games. I believe u should use them as a guide and not take them so seriously as to effect ur play to much, just work on improving ur knowledge of the game. They do give us a general idea of our skills and knowledge as opposed to others though.  But i have found sometimes players are indeed better then their rating reflects or sudjests. Overall i like ratings as long as improving ur rating is about improving ur actuall skills and not just accumulation of points to look good...

I like ratings.  But I think the games themselves will always be the best indicator of improvement over the ratings that result from them.

I think ratings are best Ignored. they'll give you "an idea" but it's just a number. they change so wildly on Chess;com that they are best ignored. Wen you play a person, look at their past games and use that as a guide. ratings are just 'lazy' if you use them to make firm judgments about a player's capacity.

ratng = self worth?  I think not. rating = last few games performance.

Rating are emotions and stress as deadline for draw and checkmate get a tigther perspective. Play unrated if chess is purely a hobby for you. I found quite enough joy in pushing myself to concentrate harder and not think about the whole spectrum of the clock.

Johndeere850dlc, a quick assumption. My stress levels are definitely improving with control as I play...you should be alright if you accept the clock like I did...if not...avoid it for now. My two cents.

Ratings are used for many reasons. When used to gauge ones advancement against peers, with a purely clinical viewpoint, they are acceptable. It is the apparent label that is applied by various emotional disorders, that many object to. A person with a balanced mental outlook sees a rating one way. One who chooses to segregate, belittle,ostracize, or feel superiority over another, or apply these to oneself, sees it another. Since people see labels differently, there is no sense in worrying about them.  

If you're wondering if your viewpoint is balanced, the answer is obvious. Of course it is.

I just look at my last ten games, and if I've won six of them I'm delighted.

i think ratings on online games are not great for telling hoe good somebody is because one could keep playing someone who is worse than them just to get their ratings high

Lord-Svenstikov wrote:

johndeere850dlc wrote:

I hate rating because numbers can't tell how good of chess player you are. Knowing a persons rating should not be screaming at you when you are playing a game. You should have the option of knowing a players rating no matter what kind of game you are playing. Ratings are intimidating and if someones rating is lower than yours it can make you mess around and loss. Rating are dumb.

 You got quite a negative response for some reason, but I can see why people would want this feature! Many people who are just trying to learn and practise chess don't want to care about their ratings.

I say this somewhat tongue in cheek but I think it would be nice to know if someone is positional or tactical, aggressive or passive, modern or classical, etc. - that would help me know how to play someone better than knowing their rating. But that is what keeps chess the mystery that it is.

Ratings are a good reflection of skill level, but they are not absolute. They're only a battle log. Anyway, I like ratings because they make the game more competitive.

chess just would not be the same without our cool rating system, other sports would be even better if they adopted the ratign system i think. it would be nice to see what the rating of a team is throughout its whole career.

vijaykulkarni wrote:

ratings over a period do give some reallistic image

I agree.

A rating isn't reliable unless i'ts a reflection over a period of time.

How much time?  Hard to say, but if you just joined a tournament or chess.com and lose a couple of games, your rating will be unfairly low.

well you can CHOOSE To use it as either fuel for your fire to do better and learn... or just let it become the fire that burns you ... either way it is your choice !

I think they're indispensible when you're playing random people over the internet. How much slower would you improve if each game you're either getting absolutely annhiliated, or playing someone who just barely knows the rules. I think it's more fun and beneficial to play people at least some what in your strength range.

agreed.

I like ratings because when I play someone within 50 points above or below me, I usually enjoy the game more because my opponent and I are evenly matched.

 Two things that make ratings misleading. First is all "new" members start at 1200 regardless of their ability. The other is "out of time" wins and losses that can drastically affect the rating. I had four "wins" in a row from higher rated players as a result of this and my rating went up nearly 100 points.

bookworm10 wrote:

well you can CHOOSE To use it as either fuel for your fire to do better and learn... or just let it become the fire that burns you ... either way it is your choice !

 Good advice. 

To much worry about ratings can stifle our learning by stifling our desire to experiment.

I like rating too, it shows you if you are improving your chess skills or not, sort of saying, " How was I playing say two years ago as compared to skills of play I have as of today". We can know it by means of this rating system.