Ratings is the sole reason we play

 And 1/2 of them will make up 50 % of the people that read it.  Now thats an indisputable fact!!

You forgot about the people that read it and just go on with their business.

i play for fun. i dont know about the rest of you but when i play for fun and see my rating go up too it is pretty gratifying.

 Ratings won't change your life, but they will give you a sense of accomplishment or failure while playing.  I said earlier that if not for ratings, then how would you feel you are gaining progress as a chess player.  People are more inspired to concentrate, make it to their computers to avoid timing out.  There are many more reasons than this.  Unrated games are for people who are sensitive about losing or gaining points.  A 2500 player wouldn't like to play a 1500 player rated, because nothing is credited to them for winning.

But what if that 2500 is over rated and the other guy (1500) is under rated?  They may have a game that won't be forgotten in years.  See, I see your point though,  but ratings will do more harm than good, ESPECIALLY online ratings, look at me I was almost 2100 a few weeks ago, in real OTB game I will never EVER can come close to that.  Now what does my 2100 rating do for me here at chess.com?  Do I get any appreciation like, hm that guy really knows how to play!....? NOT!

The one who considers online rating any value is an absolut moron!  

 I don't think you get the message I've been sending.  People don't pray at night about ratings, but ratings do give people an IDEA where their at.  I don't get the whole 1500 playing well above the rating because that explains my point why a 2500 wouldn't want to play a rated game.  Ratings aren't perfect, but they are there for us to compete and reflect our games.  Just because you are 2100 at online chess and say hundreds of points less OTB doesn't mean ratings are a crock.  There are many 1800 OTB players who are 1600-1700 online.  Some people just benefit better with increased time relaxation, and the alotment to look over games more carefully, others play better with time restraints.

But by you saying that anyone who things ratings matter is absurd is almost absurd in itself.  A part of you plays for ratings or you would just play a computer instead... You can't judge a person's ability without it.  A computer with a level 9 is a rating, everything is rated. 

 Ye I guess ratings are what it is, nothing more,  But it shouldn't motivate players or demotivate players for playing a game ( or not)...The irony of it all is, players who overly worry about this stuff, amount to nothing in chess history, while players who sees the beauty of it all and play because of it become our heroes.... 

 You were right to an extent, but to say someone who values ratings is a moron isn't looking at the spectrum of of adverse thought.  I care about my rating, but I also know I will never be a professional chess player.  I have little experience, but honestly it is comfort to me that I rank higher than 87% of chess players, even when I've played with two people in real life.  That is motivation there; therefore, the root of playing, again and again, is for RATING.  A 1000 will feel acomplished for being a 1300 someday.  A 1600 will feel accomplished when their a 1900, etc etc.

Most know that these ratings have value only to those who value them.   Relatively few would play over the long term with no ratings however.

I would rather have a better win/lose record then a higher rating.

Why? I could have a 100% win rating if I only played people with 1100 ratings.

What is all this talk about "if you don't play for ratings why don't you just play a computer?".

Are you honestly implying that the only difference between playing a human and playing a computer is a potential rating change? Humans and computers play very different chess.

I don't think that's true. People have been playing chess long before there were ratings. 

"You were right to an extent, but to say someone who values ratings is a moron isn't looking at the spectrum of of adverse thought." Oh, the irony.

I think the next big upgrade for the site should be to shut down the forums and just have games. =]

Problem solved!

I know that this is dead, but I just have to get my 2 cents in.

Afaf's delight in whipping the boys at ping pong is not a gender based thing.  It's one of the oldest stories--the underdog.  I'd bet, as a baseball player, socket2me understands the thrill of coming out on top as the underdog.  I remember a schoolyard fist fight I had with the alpha-male in my class.  He was bigger, stronger, faster, and smarter than me, but was still getting the worst of it.  The catcalls he was getting from all of his buddies was very gratifying!

Also, socket2me, I have also been called "deep".  Always by the most vapid and vacuous of individuals, usually...this is for afaf...women.

 if that happend then there would be no more puzzles and no more blogs and no where to your suggestion

bigpoison :)  we do have a few of those among us.

 Fair enough for me.

Wow that's a bad idea