You seem to make a nice point, but I'm only 1700 and not very good so who am I to judge.
I'm not very good. My rating is only X.
Sort:
But seriously, I think it's more of a motivator than an inferiority complex, like ReasonableDoubt said.
i concur!
ReasonableDoubt wrote:
Chess is a game of winners and losers. The people that are looking down at how much better they are than the rest of the world are the people that are resting on their laurels while getting whipped by 95% of the chess world. Ratings aren't the problem, the problem is that people don't like to see a number staring them in the face that tells them how well they play. People like to lie to themselves, and they can't handle being flat out told that statistically they're really not that good. "I'm not that good" isn't a trap, it's a fact - at every level under master or so. No active and serious player other than the world champion should ever be content with where they are, because all that shows is a lack of desire to improve. If the numbers say that everyone around you is better, then do something about it! Simple as that.
Bingo
To the OP
It's hard to explain my view of chess, which is common enough, if you don't share it but I'll try. First of all, chess is a challenge. It's a challenge to find the truth of the moves and it's a challenge to improve. This isn't work, it's fun.
Of all the things improvement requires, objectivity and a critical eye have to be among the top. This often means being honest with ourselves about our mistakes. If my analysis is even half-decent I'll turn a critical eye to examine even my proudest of moves to see if it was in fact good or not.
When I say I'm "only" 1800, it's not because I'm putting myself down. My love of the game and want to improve automatically mean a certain level of honesty about my ability. At 1800 I still make frequent errors in every game. It may not be hanging a knight or walking into a mate in 1, but the errors are still there and plain for me to see. Again it's not to put myself down, I'm enjoying myself :)
Now there are those that enjoy the game for other reasons. They enjoy playing only occasionally or as a pastime and for those kinds of people it should just be a more lighthearted fun and ratings may be unnecessary. Their fun is had entirely during the game, and when the board is put away the fun is over.
For me and players like me the game itself is great fun, but the challenge to learn something new afterwards is often just as much so. Being honest about my ability is a byproduct of my passion for the game. Meanwhile, ratings help me mark improvement as well as find suitable opponents.
do you have to be 18 to have an x rating? 
May 13, 2011
0
#7
ReasonableDoubt wrote:
Chess is a game of winners and losers. The people that are looking down at how much better they are than the rest of the world are the people that are resting on their laurels while getting whipped by 95% of the chess world. Ratings aren't the problem, the problem is that people don't like to see a number staring them in the face that tells them how well they play. People like to lie to themselves, and they can't handle being flat out told that statistically they're really not that good. "I'm not that good" isn't a trap, it's a fact - at every level under master or so. No active and serious player other than the world champion should ever be content with where they are, because all that shows is a lack of desire to improve. If the numbers say that everyone around you is better, then do something about it! Simple as that.
This post gets to a couple of issues that are closely related to what I was getting at.
It's true that ratings are generally accurate, so that if your rating tells you that you aren't as good as the people around you, it's probably true. The people around you with higher ratings are probably better than you.
There's two points I want to make about that. First, people should understand that "the people around them" are not a typical cross section of people in the world or even of people who play chess. Regardless of your rating, don't feel like you are an awful player. Sure, you aren't as good as the other people in the tournament, but you are a lot better than many other players. There's no need to feel bad about it.
Second, your advice is to "do something about it". That's not bad advice, but it also isn't the only possible good advice. Do you feel the same way about every activity, or just Chess? How much can you bench press? That's an objective measure even more accurate than a Chess rating. Shouldn't you be trying to bench press more? There's only so much time in the world. I like Chess, and I like archery. I'm not all that good at either one. Should I stop doing one so that I have enough time to practice the other and get good at one of them?
I know some people, my mother in law comes to mind, who would like me to stop doing either one of them, because neither one makes any money. She wants me to take up golf because there are more opportunities for business contacts.
The point is that it really doesn't matter what your rating is, unless that's something you, personally, care about. No matter what your rating, there are people better than you, and there are people worse. (If Kasparov shows up on the forum, I'll apologize and correct myself.) If you enjoy playing Chess, you should play Chess. Unfortunately, there are people who feel that they shouldn't be playing because they aren't as good as most of the players they meet. Even worse, there are good players who encourage that attitude, and drive people away from the game. I think that's unfortunate. People shouldn't feel as if they have to be "good enough" in order to participate, and they shouldn't feel that they "aren't very good" at something just because a lot of people are better.
I'm reading your posts, but there seems to be some miscommunication going on here. Speaking for myself at least, I don't think you understand your audience.
That's like saying to someone who plays college level sports "those around you aren't a typical cross section of players, you're already better than most people in the world (who by the way don't play your sport at all) so don't worry about your mistakes and don't go to practice, just have fun. In fact there are some people who play ______ and you should encourage them too."
I'm all for new players. I love when a new guy walks into the club, hungry for games, and I'm very encouraging. But most of them quit after a few weeks. When I was new you could have beaten me 200 times in a row, I had the chess bug and I was sticking around. There's a different attitude at work here.
This is a major misunderstanding among some players and many non chess players IMO. There are different classes of players in chess just like in football or any sport. I think the major misunderstanding is they see chess like any other board game, where people just play occasionally on a rainy day for fun, and don't appreciate how deep the range of skill goes.
We take the game much more seriously than your casual player or your typical human being (who likely doesn't know how all the pieces move). We don't feel bad about our ratings, and other than juvenile cases we don't discourage others from playing either.... at least this is true for me. And I'm having trouble understanding the point your posts are trying to make.
Yes, chess has a built-in inferiority complex system
May 13, 2011
0
#10
waffllemaster wrote:
I'm reading your posts, but there seems to be some miscommunication going on here. Speaking for myself at least, I don't think you understand your audience.
That's like saying to someone who plays college level sports "those around you aren't a typical cross section of players, you're already better than most people in the world (who by the way don't play your sport at all) so don't worry about your mistakes and don't go to practice, just have fun. In fact there are some people who play ______ and you should encourage them too."
I'm all for new players. I love when a new guy walks into the club, hungry for games, and I'm very encouraging. But most of them quit after a few weeks. When I was new you could have beaten me 200 times in a row, I had the chess bug and I was sticking around. There's a different attitude at work here.
This is a major misunderstanding among some players and many non chess players IMO. There are different classes of players in chess just like in football or any sport. I think the major misunderstanding is they see chess like any other board game, where people just play occasionally on a rainy day for fun, and don't appreciate how deep the range of skill goes.
We take the game much more seriously than your casual player or your typical human being (who likely doesn't know how all the pieces move). We don't feel bad about our ratings, and other than juvenile cases we don't discourage others from playing either.... at least this is true for me. And I'm having trouble understanding the point your posts are trying to make.
Part of my perspective comes as a tournament organizer. I've organized more tournaments in the last year than I have played in.
You use the term "we" as if my audience consists entirely of you and people like you, ie. people who "take the game much more seriously than your casual player".
In reality, there are at least two audiences, and actually more. To serious and highly rated players, I would say that it's important to realize that not everyone at the tournament necessarily takes the game all that seriously, and those people should be welcomed. Sometimes it is unintentional, sometimes intentional, but I have seen, or experienced a certain degree of condescension towards the more casual players who show up to play at tournaments. It's as if they don't belong there. (If it's a tournament with a cash prize, you should be especially grateful for their presence. They pay for your prize.)
The more specific auidence for this thread was actually that fairly casual, low rated, player that sometimes plays in tournaments. To those people I would say that you have nothing to worry about just because there are plenty of much better players. In particular, I find myself trying to encourage players to come to a tournament and hearing, "I'm not good enough." I understand if you don't want to lose, then it's a personal thing, and you don't want to play. However, there is no one who knows the legal moves of Chess that is "not good enough" to play in an organized tournament, and I wish I could banish that attitude.
Oh let's face it folks. There are never more than a few dozen folks who actually know how to play chess on the planet at a time. Thousands more who can appreciate the subtlety of their play. Millions more of us who are grateful to be in some way actively associated with the game. It's win, win! Win, win, win. Last refuge of a failed intellect? So be it. Here I make my stand
Content in the knowledge that excellence can only arise from a sea of mediocrity. There is no shame in the ordinary.
I just stumbled on this today, his rating is only X, but he must have had a very enjoyable tournament:
http://chess-results.com/tnr49118.aspx?art=9&lan=17&fed=CHN&wi=1000&snr=50
May 13, 2011
0
#13
ReasonableDoubt wrote:
Chess is a game of winners and losers. The people that are looking down at how much better they are than the rest of the world are the people that are resting on their laurels while getting whipped by 95% of the chess world. Ratings aren't the problem, the problem is that people don't like to see a number staring them in the face that tells them how well they play. People like to lie to themselves, and they can't handle being flat out told that statistically they're really not that good. "I'm not that good" isn't a trap, it's a fact - at every level under master or so. No active and serious player other than the world champion should ever be content with where they are, because all that shows is a lack of desire to improve. If the numbers say that everyone around you is better, then do something about it! Simple as that.
For most people chess is just a game played for pleasure. And it doesn't make sense for everyone to follow your logic and dedicate all their time and energy into improving in this game. Besides that, the approach you are advocating gets one caught in a rat race. There is just one #1, so what do you suggest others do? Suffer each day from an inferiority complex? 
Of course, pros (and there are very few of them as compared to the total number of chess players in the world) are supposed to care about improving and increasing their rating. However, I know a lot of 2600-2700s who are satisfied with their life and aren't dying to get to the very top. For them chess is a very important part of life, but not life itself.
Natalia_Pogonina wrote:
For most people chess is just a game played for pleasure. And it doesn't make sense for everyone to follow your logic and dedicate all their time and energy into improving in this game. Besides that, the approach you are advocating gets one caught in a rat race. There is just one #1, so what do you suggest others do? Suffer each day from an inferiority complex?
Of course, pros (and there are very few of them as compared to the total number of chess players in the world) are supposed to care about improving and increasing their rating. However, I know a lot of 2600-2700s who are satisfied with their life and aren't dying to get to the very top. For them chess is a very important part of life, but not life itself.
Speaking like a really old person :))
Very nice view!
Meadmaker wrote:
Part of my perspective comes as a tournament organizer. I've organized more tournaments in the last year than I have played in.
You use the term "we" as if my audience consists entirely of you and people like you, ie. people who "take the game much more seriously than your casual player".
In reality, there are at least two audiences, and actually more. To serious and highly rated players, I would say that it's important to realize that not everyone at the tournament necessarily takes the game all that seriously, and those people should be welcomed. Sometimes it is unintentional, sometimes intentional, but I have seen, or experienced a certain degree of condescension towards the more casual players who show up to play at tournaments. It's as if they don't belong there. (If it's a tournament with a cash prize, you should be especially grateful for their presence. They pay for your prize.)
The more specific auidence for this thread was actually that fairly casual, low rated, player that sometimes plays in tournaments. To those people I would say that you have nothing to worry about just because there are plenty of much better players. In particular, I find myself trying to encourage players to come to a tournament and hearing, "I'm not good enough." I understand if you don't want to lose, then it's a personal thing, and you don't want to play. However, there is no one who knows the legal moves of Chess that is "not good enough" to play in an organized tournament, and I wish I could banish that attitude.
Ah, this makes sense, I see what you're saying. It is a shame that some players are being discouraged when they show up to a tournament just because of their rating... but I have to admit (with a bit of shame) that I've felt the same way when I see some 500-800 rated person... that "perhaps they don't belong here" attitude.
However the few times I've felt this way at a tourney have been because I think they're not taking the game seriously and never based simply on rating. If there's some U1000 rated guy I play, and he has the fire in his eyes so to speak, I honestly hope to see him again next tourney.
So I'd hate for them to think of it as an elitist attitude! It's just those two types of players have a very different attitude about chess.
Imagine putting a lot of time and effort into something you love (lets say organizing tournaments) and then you go to a convention for chess tournament organizers and get stuck in a 2 hour conversation with Joe Tourney who doesn't put any thought into the venue, he doesn't advertise his tournaments, and seems completely oblivious how players might feel about certain aspects. His impulsive decisions lead to things like poor lighting, uneven tables, grab bag prizes and rounds that start 8 hours apart. But hey don't suggest improvements, he just organizes for fun and doesn't think much about it otherwise. How would you feel? Like you just wasted 2 hours? :)
The first club I went to had about 15 people, and except for maybe 2 players we were all unrated. At one time someone suggested we have an ongoing double round robin club tournament. No clocks or dates, just whenever you both decide that the game will count, be sure to mark up the result. Well that drove a lot of players away because it was seen as "too serious" and they were there just for fun. I think this is the other side of not getting much turnout at tournaments in terms of the U1000 player. If they're always under 1000 it's likely they don't like the level of seriousness a tournament offers.
Natalia_Pogonina wrote:
ReasonableDoubt wrote:
Chess is a game of winners and losers. The people that are looking down at how much better they are than the rest of the world are the people that are resting on their laurels while getting whipped by 95% of the chess world. Ratings aren't the problem, the problem is that people don't like to see a number staring them in the face that tells them how well they play. People like to lie to themselves, and they can't handle being flat out told that statistically they're really not that good. "I'm not that good" isn't a trap, it's a fact - at every level under master or so. No active and serious player other than the world champion should ever be content with where they are, because all that shows is a lack of desire to improve. If the numbers say that everyone around you is better, then do something about it! Simple as that.
For most people chess is just a game played for pleasure. And it doesn't make sense for everyone to follow your logic and dedicate all their time and energy into improving in this game. Besides that, the approach you are advocating gets one caught in a rat race. There is just one #1, so what do you suggest others do? Suffer each day from an inferiority complex?
Of course, pros (and there are very few of them as compared to the total number of chess players in the world) are supposed to care about improving and increasing their rating. However, I know a lot of 2600-2700s who are satisfied with their life and aren't dying to get to the very top. For them chess is a very important part of life, but not life itself.
That makes me feel such respect for you Natalia_Pogonina! I love chess and get beat a lot. But I still love the game very much. It is relaxing to my mind and makes me focus. I can shut out all the other junk in my life when Im on the field of black and white !
Yes I would love to be a better player, but its not life itself Thanks!
Fezzik wrote:
I've heard +2600 rated players earnestly say that they don't understand the game properly compared to the very best players in the world. I even heard Svidler, a former Champion of Europe and Champion of Russia (and once even top 5 in the world) lament that he doesn't understand the game as well as the top players!
There is always going to be someone better.
The trick, as WGM Pogonina pointed out, is to be comfortable with yourself and the amount of work you're willing to put into the game.
Why would Svidler even say that, he's one of the top players. Considering his record against Nakamura (who's ranked #7 in the world at the moment) for example, I think he's just being modest.
May 13, 2011
0
#19
Wow! A 2 X 2 cell chart! 
I haven't seen these since I was in the academic world!
I know I am not very good at chess! I love the game! I also know that there are quite a few worse than me! I wait for the day that I make a friend that is better than me, to have some good games, enjoy his/her company and possibly LEARN from them. I have a couple of friends on this site that are rated 300-400 less than myself, and we play rated games. If I win, i gain 1-2 points, lose and say bye-bye to 15-16 points. But i will never refuse the game, because I remember that I am looking for the same thing. How many of us dream of such a friendship with IM Silman, or WGM Pogonina, or GM Serper? I do; and maybe one day......
The fact of the matter is: Forgiveness is Beautiful!
Forgive the lesser player who doesn't know much. In March, I played in my first tournament(2011 Pittsburgh Open). Having never played in one before, I didn't know what I was doing. I played 5 games, and in all 5 games my opponents were kind and gracious!(i lost 4 out of 5 in U1800) Their kindness helped me so much! I learned of Black's option for board and pieces and clock!(seems funny, but you dont get a book on rules, etiquete(sp?), and manners as a new USCF member)
What if they had treated me as if I didn't belong? Truthfully, it would have discouraged me from playing. Thankfully, this was not the case; and my next tournament starts next week! Is it that hard to treat someone with KINDNESS? I don't think so!
If you love the game, then act like it! Be an ambassador of the game! Be above the petty actions of others! Always smile and say "Thank you for the good game" after it is over! Be gracious! ACT WITH CLASS, NOT AS A CLASS PLAYER! Why would anybody say the "casual" player doesn't belong at the tournaments? Is this because you feel they are beneath you? They are not good enough to be in "your tourney"? Patience is a virtue, and a key character in the good chess player! Accept the lesser player for what they are, be kind, and let your own actions show them the way to act! It is not that hard to do! Be an encouragement to others! Truely show you love the game!
"Im not very good. My rating is only X."
I've seen that sentiment expressed over and over again, but with values of X ranging from 200 to 1800. If I read even more posts, or talked to even more players, I would bet I could hear values of X that went even higher.
I think the ratings breed some sort of inferiority complex. Knowing that there are people with much higher ratings make people feel that, no matter how high they are, there are people much, much, better than they are. That's true, but all too often people don't look "down" and realize how much better they are than most of the world. My own rating is around 750. I find that in rated tournaments, I rarely win a game against an adult. (I, myself, am an adult, and have been for about 3 decades now, although I have not been an active chess player for most of that time.) On the other hand, if I play against darned near anyone who is not a tournament player or a serious regular at a club, I win handily.
I wish there was a way to combat this inferiority complex, because I think it drives away some of the weaker players. I frequently think that ratings themselves are the problem. Having that number stamped on your forehead makes it hard to feel good about the games that you win, if the number is telling you that everyone around you is better.
I have no good way to counter this problem, but I wish I did. For now, I'll just say that if you have a rating, and that rating is lower than most of the people you know, don't let it bother you. Don't fall into the "I'm not very good" trap. No matter how good you are, you could always be better, and no matter how many people are better than you, there are also lots of people worse. Enjoy the game. Try to improve as much as time and interest make possible, and don't worry about the number in the database. It's just not that big of a deal.