just because it's an online rating doesn't make it any less meaningful.many people here take CC quite seriously,myself included.(of course if you are a cheater,it doesn't mean much...I'm talking about the honest players).
Online chess ratings do not count for much.
Sort:
As I posted in another similar thread, ratings only serve to tell us two things: Who is very likely a stronger player than me at this moment and who is likely a weaker player than me in this moment. Therefore it doesen't matter that the ratings seem artificial or anything like that. They are a mesurement of "current chess strength" nothing more.
"Other thing being equal" CC ratings are meaningful...the problem is that "other things are not equal...one's rating can be manipulated just by who you choose to play... and to the extreme by silicon means. So if it is agreed that the rating can be manipulated ( if one has that intent)...then it follows that not all ratings reflect the player's real ability or knowledge. If this statement is true then it has to be also true that CC ratings are less meaningful than OTB ratings where one cannot really "forge" one's rating.
Aside from the issue of online vs over-the-board: what counts in chess is the validity of your ideas, not your rating. The same snobbism over ratings prevails in chess discussions in the over-the-board world as it does in the online blogs. I can remember butting into a chess discussion at the Marshall chess club, pointing out an unusual move that the four or five guys standing around the board had not considered. It turned out they were masters, and I was just a Class A club player. They were forced to concede, however, that my suggestion was at least an intriguing possibility, if not one of the more obvious moves they would choose to play. I was able to impose myself into this discussion among masters because of the strength of my idea: ratings notwithstanding!
You are trying to ascribe to ratings a meaning that they don't have, and then show that they don't have that meaning. Under your definition, no rating means anything. No rating reflects a player's ability or knowledge. That is not what they are designed to do.
Not only do you not understand the meaning of ratings, you don't understand their mechanics. Most of what you are talking about either doesn't work, or is blindingly obvious if it does.
"Ricardo Morro", this is exactly my point...one's rating has nothing to do with contribution value...because the rating itself tells you nothing about the individual.
It depends on what you are looking for but to me it sounds boring that cheaters need to use a PC. After awhile it must get tedious. And if somebody wishes to berate me of my low rating, it is impossible unless I allow it. It slides right of my back and tells me more about what kind of weak character they might have. For me personally, ratings are like betting on sport, a nice bonus to make it more intresting but that is not why I come here for.
I like your points "pianomanpat", and I agree with you...I my self have learned a lot since joining this site...and have met many good people as well...