Ratings is the sole reason we play

I played chess before I even knew the existence of ratings. How would you align this to your theory?

What kind of behaviour would you consider as potentially refuting your claim, socket?

Either a) you'd consider evidence to the contrary

or

b) you cannot conceive of what this evidence would look like.

If A, I'd like to know what sort of behaviour you'd accept as coming from someone who actually doesn't care about ratings.

If B, why really argue it if you imagine it's so ubiquitous?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

p.s. generalizations like "sole reason" might give your post a rhetorical thrust, but it's certainly a tenuous universal; ie. easily challenged if we can find even one more reason to play (like FUN - suddenly it's not the sole reason, right?)

I disagree with that from my own experience. I played chess a lot long before I knew what ratings were, so how would ratings be the sole reason I play? I currently use ratings to judge progress, considering I am still learning many aspects of the game. Maybe when if I were closer to a title (CM, NM, IM, etc.) and needed another 100 points or another norm or something, then I might focus on ratings more. But being an improving player, I care about having fun and allowing my rating to adjust as I gain more experience.

socket2me, perhaps you meant to say that ratings are a "huge" reason, rather than the sole reason. If it's the sole reason, then...

1) nobody would be playing chess prior to the invention of rating systems

2) you wouldn't be able to teach someone chess unless you first made them aware of ratings

3) I wouldn't have played chess without knowing about the existence of ratings

The fact that people are willing to play chess without even knowing about the existence of ratings, suggests that this is not the sole reason we play.

I have to disagree...i started playing when i was 11.  And that was long before i knew anything about ratings.  It was long before being a member of the USCF.  Ratings are simply a measure of ones ability, it in no way is or should be a mesurement for ones enjoyment.

 ;)   --- Do your remember when you were younger and you had to answer true and false questions on tests?  When you use words such as always, never, etc, wasn't that a red flag that it was a FALSE question?  So by me saying the "sole reason we play", that automatically puts my theory as debatable.  It will ring true for some and false for others. 

Still fun to debate though.  I hope you get my point.

 Because I would probably put something on the game to make it interesting with a friend.

yea ratings make chess fun and competitive but due to ratings many people cheat.

I don't look at ratings as a number standpoint, but more the practicality of it.  If we didn't have ratings, as some wish to believe we should, then how could we ever make a match equate to quality efforts on both sides.  Pain or gain.

We could never feel good about a win, or a loss, without Ratings. 

Rating is just a number.  I am here to play for fun, like most peeps. 

 I am here to play for fun too.  Ratings builds that excitement.  I love ratings, because it shows my progression or degression.

People contradict when they try to extend arguments; yes, that's me NM_tonydal

You are right.  What is life without excitement?    Continue with the excitement...  Satisfaction guranteed.  All for fun. 

I play people, artificial intelligence, NES Chess, N64 chess, unrated games, rated games, etcetera.

I can mysteriously divine how strong my opponent is within the first few moves.

Ratings are an incentive (even here), though mastery of the game is the sum of why.

As for losing, I lose to boys, girls, men, women, artificial intelligence, and sometimes even to myself.  I'm getting better at it—losing.  Not going as red in the face with rage as I had been...

rating is a major part, where we all can measure our strengths.. & remember, that is what we play for.. &, including that part, CHESS is my PASSION..

I agree with OP to a certain extent. my objective here is to improve my chess. If I see my rating go steadily up I can assume my chess is improving therefore rating does me alot to me. 

Some people care about ratings more than others. Some dont care about ratings much or none at all while others may only care about ratings. I care about my otb ratings ( uscf and fide ) but dont care about any other ratings ( rapid chess , bullet, blitz or any online ratings ) .

Thanks for telling us this. Is there a question here?

to me, the rating is not as important as the win-loss record.

i play to win.  someday achiveing a good quality of play is a definate goal, but I don't care about titles or ratings only my own performance and weather or not i can keep it together over the board..There are ways to beat "the system" and effectivly give yourself a grandmaster title (as there always has been ever since the title has exsisted), but If I got it by earning because of finally winning some games, I would be proud of myself.

 IM David Pruess once told me that he decided to get good at chess because he likes chess, and he hates to lose.