Ratings is the sole reason we play

 Agreed, but that is not sole motivation.  I personally get more out of the beautiful combination or positional sacrifice than the few extra rating points which I gained from them.  

Although, of course, I am thrilled when my rating is going up.  I just noticed I actually reached the top 5% in terms of rating on chess.com.  That does give me a great sense of accomplishment. 

richie and oprah...that would certainly explain why some people really want to inflate it a bit.  Perhaps they feel better about how they look?

 Sounds like you wish you were a man.

I think you can make a number of arguments for why people will play chess online. It could be partly to feel satisfied in a higher score, but there is also the satisfaction of the individual matchup win or draw, the entertainment value of exercising your brain on an abstract problem, and the joy of seeing a plan to fruition in a game... just to name a few.

Where you really see the competitive streak come out (for that small percentage of chess players who do see it) is rated OTB chess. For these players this is the only "real number" that counts (not Yahoo! Chess, chess.com, FICS, or anything else). And they will see it as a real loss if they go to a rated tournament and see their rating go down. And it is... they most likely paid to enter, and they pay an annual due to be in any of them. The only other concrete reason to play in OTB tournaments is the cash prize.

As for playing against the computer... I do that too. They can be programmed to make a variable number of random "mistakes" per game and to have a range of intelligence settings as well as priorities (positional vs material, types of positional advantages to value, material to prefer). As cheap a program as the USD$20 "Chessmaster XI" has the most convenient setup (in my opinion) for doing this for players rated 500 to 2000. Only the very best will need to make bigger investments in a regular computer opponent to improve their game. I prefer the computer opponent to live chess online most of the time (I can make it play in just a few seconds per turn...and I truly know what I am up against every time), but I do play correspondence chess online.

I would love to meet a really strong female player who could teach me some new ideas.

Um...which part sounds like that?  Maybe you're projecting your own weird ideas onto me.  If anything, maybe I wish I didn't have to be reminded that I'm part of a group expected to suck at thingsl every time I partake in an activity.  If a black person enjoyed doing better than a white person at something he'd been made to feel he couldn't do as well...would that mean he wanted to be white?  Is that your logic?

Are we still talking about chess?

AfafBouardi, kudos on you for wanting to get better at chess! There is already headway being made by stars, like the Polgar sisters, at the highest levels. But it's good to see advancement of women in chess at every level. I do know that I always am glad to see women at chess tournaments... women and not just girls. It seems that the attrition rate for chess players going from adolescence to adulthood is greater among females (i.e., I see a higher proportion of girls to boys than women to men). So I welcome more competition from intelligent women.

I'm not questioning her orientation, but I'm curious to why she gets a kick out of beating "boys", but hates it when people snicker when she beats "boys."  It's completely contradictive to me.

It's funny because she has mentioned racquetball, tennis, and ping pong, which were all sports/activities  I grew up on as a kid through high school.  I really don't think anyone would snicker at me if she beat me at those activities, rather what they would be doing is praising her and would receive more respect.  Nothing what she said above impresses me.  She sounds like a softball player to me.

Let me hit you with a little though ok? What is the purpose of a rating? A rating, in theory, will indicate the strength of a player. If I play a 2300 rated player, their quality of play should be better than that of a 1300 player. So, in theory, the reason that rating matters is because it is a mark of our skill level. The thing I think we would like to do is to play with skill. I think that's why so many people pull the 'cheat' card or do stall tactics any time they lose or are losing to a lower rated player. Don't get too stuck on ratings. What players should really seek out is quality chess. I could play crap against my computer on expert and maybe get a fluke win, but I'd feel much better playing solid, precise moves against a 1500 rated player and winning. Let ratings be what they are, a guide to chess strength. They are nothing more important than that.

 Ratings are a feeling of accomplishment, not the demise of people.

 This topic is on the wrong direction and I meant it to be about ratings.

I'm really beginning to think you're beyond a simple-minded sort.  I got plenty of respect for my wins...at the same time, people would in fact snicker at boys for losing - this is a reality that you seem to be clueless about.  This is also a constant reminder that you're not expected to do as well as boys at things.  Secondly, nobody was trying to impress you.  And I don't play softball - I don't even know what kind of insult you're aiming for with that comment.  I was on a swim team and I played soccer at high school and university.  My father played soccer at a national level and made certain that we weren't cheerleading on the side for boys - since he only had 2 daughters to work with.

Whatever you may think your particular experience is - may not be what others are experiencing.  The ignorance of "you sound like you want to be a man" is telling enough about your nature.  It's putrid.  

Yes, I care a lot about my rating. My FIDE rating. I enjoy playing here but I don't mind losing games here at all. If I cared only about my rating I would put a lot more effort into scouting my opponents, I would probably never play tournaments, and so on and so forth.

I want a FIDE 2300 rating so I can get a nice shiny FM next to my name. Forever. No matter how bad I play.

At that point I could even play 1.e4 e5 2.f4 from the black side against Gonnosuke in a USCF tournament!

The true result of a game of chess is win lose or draw. Your point is well taken regarding forms of ratings and their significance but my performance related to the result of my play is most important to me than the ratings of this site. The topic of the post took the assumption that the sole reason for play here is for ratings points, for some players it's probably so, for me it's the game .

 I didn't think he implied that.  I thought he just implied that ratings are simply a reflection (although an imperfect reflection of course)of relative skill level. 

 Of course it doesn't tell you that you are skilled at tactics and poor in endgame play.  One of the big reasons I have little interest in my rating (other than "proof" to players who I would like to teach that I have some valuable information that aren't sure).  If my endgame understanding goes up my rating will or  eventually should go up.  If my rating goes up my skill level has not necessarily actually gone up. 

I found it the same in school.  The more I tried to learn and forgot about what grade I was getting the better I did.  The more my focus shifted to getting an A or whatever my goal grade was the worst I did. 

Study, play, reassess what I actually "learned" rinse, lather and repeat.  Then watch more difficult opponents having a more difficult time with me and in turn my rating going up. 

Simple mindedness has never been my problem.  In fact, a lot of people think I'm too deep.  As far as intellectual ability, I won't say always the diplomatic answer.  I sometimes stir the pot.  You come across to me as an unsettled woman.  Your brash, and your text comes in hot.  People probably snickered to the other boys because of the way you ACT and represent yourself.

I am not simple enough to be able to understand how much of an unpleasant woman you portray yourself.  The text speaks volumes of you, and being the intelligent person I (sometimes) am I can see your flaws... and when I see flaws I respond to it.

* Softball player isn't an insult, the girls I knew growing up were strong women... I was actually making a compliment, but your women's Lib got in the way of the compliment. 

Unsettled woman?  lol.  You really are mindless...I'm sure of it now.  I've watched you countless times jump to outrageous conclusions and then apologize for them but this takes the cake.  I'm quite subtle in person and it's hard for me to believe anyone would think my quiet unobtrusive way of playing ping pong is what got boys riled up to criticize and smirk at my opponents or to compliment my dribbling skills as "whoa, you're the best girl player I've met".  lol.  I don't know if anyone has actually ever called you deep but I know they've never called you logical.  You're too presumptuous and you conjure too many nonsensical things.   If you had intended softball to be a compliment, you wouldn't have given context clues which suggest it is the opposite of something to be impressed with.  Someone should teach you how to stitch your thoughts.  It would do you good.

I suppose I should assume "you sound like you want to be a man" as a compliment as well?

Cultural differences got in the way. Softball is not played much in Morocco. And... um, softball is opposed to baseball, in the U.S., as the edition for girls and children. "Men play hardball" is not an exact phrase I have heard, but I'd be surprised if it's never been said.

Peter dear, it's not a phrase anyone has ever heard.  I know Americana and Americanisms better than our little socket friend.  Morocco having nothing to do with it.  :)