I recently got rated at 39 (yeah, I am not the one in the picture). True, I had played competitive chess in my country but had stopped for 15 years so it wasn't long till I broke the 2000's.
Getting rated has many points. You can play in the category of players closer to your strength so that tournament play is not a frustrating chain of incomprehensible loses to masters. Also you might win a prize in your rating group.
Or you can play just to increase your rating and that makes it motivating.
what do u mean by getting rated, just like some on this site should be rated R or even NC-17
Also there always has to be a "worst" person at a tournament, why not step up to the plate? With that attitude of "not good enough, won't ever be good enough" there'd be no chess tournements because everyone would be so afraid of coming last.
I fully agree. For many years, I used to run marathons and ultra-marathons. In my earliest marathons, I was consistently running about 5 hours and coming in the bottom of the runners. But then, I start training better and running fast until I was running 3:30's with about a year. Now I was finishing mid way in the pack... A year later, I was running under 3:00 and starting to finish near the front of the pack. For marathon runners, time is a rating... It helps you to get better and it gives you, if you are a competive person, the motivation to do better. I feel chess ratings do the same.
Nonsense! Go to a tourney with section and enter in "unrated" or the lowest section. You'll win some games and lose some game and your chess will be better for it.
If all you know is how the pieces move, you may want to hold off until you know some basics like what tactics are and some basic opening ideas like development.
Well if you play in a tournament, you could play in the last category and as a unrated player. At the end of the tournament, you will then receive a rating automatically.....Adult or not. I'm 44 yrs old and played my first tournament in april. I played in the last category and won 2 out of 5 games. Very happy since i thought I was going to leave there with a 0/5 outcome. I'm registered to play a whole week tournament in August and I can't wait. I find the rating just helps to see where we stand and to give an objective. Age not being an issue. Ok ya, you will have to play and maybe get beaten by a 8-12 yr old but there are also older people as well. Tournament play is also longer play which enables you to think more. At my club, we play 25 minutes games and its much different. and the rating is a club rating, not related to tournament play. That also determines which group at the club I am going to play every week.
I think we are all in agreement except for that other player at your local club. Chess should be, above all, fun. Paraphrasing Silman, we don't do it for the money or the women in it. Getting rated allows you to play in tournaments against people of your level which should keep it fun. Same with all games. If I go to the park to play basketball and all the players are at a quasi NBA level, I'll take my game-less behind to another park where I can have a chance to win. Right?
I wouldn't advise any "pure" beginners to get rated. Let's say you have recently learnt chess and play at, I don't know, 1000. You come to a tournament and get this rating. However, if you play a lot, in a few months you will probably be a few hundred points stronger. Unfortunately, by that time your rating will increase by just a few dozen points (not fast enough). Also, you will become a pain in the neck for other players since they will be expected to score a lot of points on you (a 1400 is supposed to score 92% against a 1000), while being of similar strength. Thus, you will damage your career prospects and hinder other people's progress.
It's a tricky question. At first the rating floor was 2200, now it's 1200. When I learnt chess having a FIDE rating was prestigeous (since you had to play in international events and be over 2200). Now, on the one hand, more people can get a rating and feel themselves part of the system, which is good news. But, on the other hand, is the problem with ratings not being updated fast enough, especially for kids.
I wouldn't advise any "pure" beginners to get rated. Let's say you have recently learnt chess and play at, I don't know, 1000. You come to a tournament and get this rating. However, if you play a lot, in a few months you will probably be a few hundred points stronger. Unfortunately, by that time your rating will increase by just a few dozen points (not fast enough). Also, you will become a pain in the neck for other players since they will be expected to score a lot of points on you (a 1400 is supposed to score 92% against a 1000), while being of similar strength. Thus, you will damage your career prospects and hinder other people's progress.
It's a tricky question. At first the rating floor was 2200, now it's 1200. When I learnt chess having a FIDE rating was prestigeous (since you had to play in international events and be over 2200). Now, on the one hand, more people can get a rating and feel themselves part of the system, which is good news. But, on the other hand, is the problem with ratings not being updated fast enough, especially for kids.
Do you think you could beat NM Reb?
Do you think you could beat NM Reb?
Pogonina is easily IM strength, close to GM strength... she's also young and improving. It may be hard to believe but there are some players strong enough to look down on "lowly" NMs :)
Natalia makes a great point. If there are reasonable expectations of quick improvement, then wait. If, on the other hand, all you plan to do in between tournaments is occasionally visit your local club...
If you are unrated and strong enough and want a quick high provisional rating to start with, you can enter a section in which you are sure to win them all. I think the provisional rating that you get by sweeping them all in your first rated tournament is 400+the rating of the higher rated opponent. So if you play some 1400-1700 with the highest opponent being 1700 and you win them all, your first rating will be a provisional 2100.
I am talking USCF rules, btw. I don't have a FIDE rating.
Do you think you could beat NM Reb?
Pogonina is easily IM strength, close to GM strength... she's also young and improving. It may be hard to believe but there are some players strong enough to look down on "lowly" NMs :)
I only asked because it was stated in the "Why do we have a separate category for women?" thread that she could easily beat all of us in the thread with the exception of perhaps Reb. Later Reb himself said that you only have to be around FM strenth to be a WGM, and he has beaten FMs before, so I was just wondering.
For what it's worth. I'm 70 years old, started playing in tournaments two years ago, and I'm having fun doing so. My USCF rating is 1350, so I play (and lose to) a lot of kids - no problem since I'm not concerned about ego gratification. If you like playing chess, why not give it a try?
My rating here is below yours, chessguitar. I've been in a few tournaments. They are fun and intense. The worse that could happen is your ego gets a little bruised. If money for the entry fee isn't a problem. It's a great learning experience. You may even get a free lesson from a stronger player going over your game with you.
Do you think you could beat NM Reb?
Pogonina is easily IM strength, close to GM strength... she's also young and improving. It may be hard to believe but there are some players strong enough to look down on "lowly" NMs :)
I only asked because it was stated in the "Why do we have a separate category for women?" thread that she could easily beat all of us in the thread with the exception of perhaps Reb. Later Reb himself said that you only have to be around FM strenth to be a WGM, and he has beaten FMs before, so I was just wondering.
Pogonina was rated above 2500 at one point and is currently rated in the 2400s, so it's safe to assume that she is IM strength. Other WGMs might be weaker though.
Some people in the thread were implying that she was rated that high because she played just against women, and not men. Playing against men, she would be about 200 points lower. I don't know, myself.
There is no such thing as woman's rating pool and a mens's rating pool. 200 points is a huge difference that women's only tournaments shouldn't account for alone. A FIDE rating is a FIDE rating. Natalia is at least 200 points stronger than Reb.
Play and get a rating. Its like golf: you need to post a score to see how you compare to othersw and track improvement.
Perhaps your good, a natural, or suck.
There is no such thing as woman's rating pool and a mens's rating pool. 200 points is a huge difference that women's only tournaments shouldn't account for alone. A FIDE rating is a FIDE rating. Natalia is at least 200 points stronger than Reb.
Ummm, yes and no. The pool does not differentiate between genders. However, if a strong player is playing against a generally weaker pool, then they will get artifically inflated ratings. While at the club level there isn't much difference to be seen between genders, at the higher end it is the case that there is a dirth of higher rated female players. That means that one higher rated player, who plays only in woman's tournements, will get some point inflation from choosing to play against a weaker competition pool.
I can't say if that would amount to 200 points or not. But it is concievable that it would.
If you take chess seriously you will probably end up playing rated games.
If you start playing in rated tnmts anywhere, you will get a rating. End of story.
This site uses this rating system: http://www.glicko.net/glicko/glicko.doc/glicko.html
You may want to read about the rationale & reasoning of chess ratings in general:For more info on other chess ratings see:
http://math.bu.edu/people/mg/research/acjpaper.pdf
http://www.glicko.net/ratings/rating.system.pdf
http://www.chesselo.com/new_fide_system.html
I was visiting my local chess club tonight. I was playing another adult who was beating me. I asked him if he played in tournaments, and he said he's not good enough to play in tournaments. I told him I wanted to get rated even though I'm 34 years old.
I left there wondering if its pointless for me, a beginning adult, to get rated. If people stronger than I am feel that getting rated as an adult is pointless...then maybe getting my "silly little" USCF starting rating is pointless too.
I was hoping to have a measure to improve upon by getting rating. What do you think?