to me, the rating is not as important as the win-loss record.
Win-loss record isn't always a good indication of proper skill assesing (ratings). Ratings is ratings. If you win 140 games and lose 200 against 2000 rated players on average, that is the same as being 200 Wins and 80 Loses against 1600 players. (This is just an example, not actually calculated) The result is the same.
You can find your strength from the high or low end of it.
I've met amateurs that take chess more seriously than titled players.
Something's wrong with that picture.
Why do you have to be the best to take something seriously? I think you know the answer, or atleast in part.
Some people forget that chess is a game with plastic/wooden pieces on a vinyl/wooden board.
That's why we have so many ego-maniacs on these various chess sites...
We are supposed to play because we enjoy it.
Some do it for other reasons, and that doesn't end well. Just ask Fischer...
I'll tell you why I like playing chess here at chess.com. I get to play, compete, and play people all around the world. I don't have many opportunities to play people OTB, and because of that I don't get a lot of tactical variety playing the same person over and over. I get my enjoyment from competing. If I lose, so what. Ratings gives me satisfaction that I'm either progressing or not. When my rating doesn't elevate anymore, I know that is my peak. To me, that is fun and worth enough for me to log in each day knowing that.
If there were no ratings, games would be uninspired and have no reason to play a self-respected game. I could be a GM, and if there was nothing on it (ratings) I would resign after 10 moves because it wouldn't matter because nothing was at stake. Ratings keep your self respect.
I think you are missing my point Anthony. This sounds more like a Republican versus a Democrat debate. Ratings aren't a number in the face, but it IS what will give you motivation to win here. Without the numbered reward, how would you know your game was won in validation>?
Ratings matter.
I care about ratings for one primary reason: by raising my rating, I get to play better players, and so get to continue improving my game.
Ratings matter.
As a guide to your progress. When they enable you to play in the top division in your club championship.or when you're trying to get into a tournament for lower rated players. losses come in handy then too. just forfiet all your games--say, 30 or so then voila! you're game.
Ratings matter.
As a guide to your progress. When they enable you to play in the top division in your club championship.or when you're trying to get into a tournament for lower rated players. losses come in handy then too. just forfiet all your games--say, 30 or so then voila! you're game.
That's called sandbagging and is very bad.
It's not why I play here. I play here because I don't have that many friends who play Chess and those who do refuse to play me.
The ratings obviously matter on the professional circuit, outside of that it's nothing more than a current form guide to me. High rating suggests an opponent who is used to winning and that is all. Any standard player on this site who puts stock in their rating is deluding themselves if they think it reflects their abilities.
How can you say they matter when there's a guy on here with a higher rating than Kasparov? They are misleading and always have been.
I wouldn't take someones rating seriously unless I knew they had been formally trained.
It's not why I play here. I play here because I don't have that many friends who play Chess and those who do refuse to play me.
The ratings obviously matter on the professional circuit, outside of that it's nothing more than a current form guide to me. High rating suggests an opponent who is used to winning and that is all. Any standard player on this site who puts stock in their rating is deluding themselves if they think it reflects their abilities.
How can you say they matter when there's a guy on here with a higher rating than Kasparov? They are misleading and always have been.
I wouldn't take someones rating seriously unless I knew they had been formally trained.
Nothing you said above is against what I was saying. The fact that you use ratings as a guide is another example why we play for ratings. My point is that without ratings, playing here would be meaningless and uninspiring, just as your comment reaffirmed my point.
Nothing you said above is against what I was saying. The fact that you use ratings as a guide is another example why we play for ratings. My point is that without ratings, playing here would be meaningless and uninspiring, just as your comment reaffirmed my point.
You: Ratings is the sole reason we play (i.e.: without ratings, nobody would play chess)
Him: I guess ratings has some use as a general guide, but I don't take it seriously.
Sounds quite different, lol
I care about my rating in the sense that I want to get better, but not artificially. If I'm 2000 and I play like a 2000 I'm happy. If I play people 600 points lower than me to artificially raise my rating slowly to 2000, it's just tedious and I wouldn't be proud of that. Rating is usually how I measure my progress (but it's not always so simple of course, with uscf, chess.com, live chess, so many different rating systems, even chess mentor and chess tactics).
It's not why I play here. I play here because I don't have that many friends who play Chess and those who do refuse to play me.
The ratings obviously matter on the professional circuit, outside of that it's nothing more than a current form guide to me. High rating suggests an opponent who is used to winning and that is all. Any standard player on this site who puts stock in their rating is deluding themselves if they think it reflects their abilities.
How can you say they matter when there's a guy on here with a higher rating than Kasparov? They are misleading and always have been.
I wouldn't take someones rating seriously unless I knew they had been formally trained.
Nothing you said above is against what I was saying. The fact that you use ratings as a guide is another example why we play for ratings. My point is that without ratings, playing here would be meaningless and uninspiring, just as your comment reaffirmed my point.
The title says 'Ratings is the sole reason we play'. This is not true for me. I've been playing 18 years, this website which I've only recently discovered is the only one I've used that has ratings.
I don't play at club level, never been in a tournament. I have no interest in anyones rating and I'd rather not use a clock.
I'm not a premium member here so my rating doesn't shift from 1200 unless its live Chess.
I think ratings are designed for the top tier players to separate the wheat from the chaff. They're all over the place if your under 2000, its too erratic.
In live Chess I started out 1200, pushed it up to just under 1600 then got whipped a few times and I'm back down to just over 1200. To put a number on my abilities just seems redundant to me. The only thing I know about my game is that it's inconsistant.
Maybe consistancy is the key for ratings to work. If I played at my best all the time I'd guess I'd be somewhere between 1800-2000.
Ahhh...flip a coin!
Ratings actually show you which level you are at. Of course, in this site, you start with a very high RD, so you have to play more games to find out your level. For example, my level is between 1600-1700.
Well, there's chess for leisure. Every weekend, I'll play with my father (to whom I lose too many times). There's also chess for learning. There are groups in this site who do Mentoring programs, and of course they are unrated. I mean, what's the point of it being rated.
So this is a matter of your own point of view. If you think chess is all about the ratings, well, improve and beat other players. If it's for learning, you should know what to do.
Anyway, chess is a game, so let's treat it like one.
Make it fair, obviously.
I have played chess here for 3 years and still sticking with that we ultimately play for ratings. I have generally read all of the posts now, but the clear argument to this is that without ratings, wouldn't playing each without rank be pointless?
once i played a game to win. i lost. next game i played for ratings only. i lost that one too. now i play to lose. it's easier.