Would chess be as entertaining to you if ratings did not exist?

I know that the best thing about chess for me is getting better. Without ratings my enthusiasm would definitely diminish.

I play casual OTB chess at a local club and played in school without playing for rating. The main thing ratings are good for is pairing in tournaments and a way to gauge improvement.

So, yes. Chess would be just as entertaining without ratings, at least for me.

I don't care about rating - rating only makes sure you have the "correct" opponent otherwise you wouldn't know how strong you are compared to the player you are matched.

what is entertaining to me is trying to find the best move.

if I lose 200 rating points does it mean I forgot to play chess?

If I gain 200 rating points do I really deserve it?

rating isn't a motivation factor for me cause I firmly believe I will have the rating I deserve over time.

If we did not have rating I don't know how we would determine how strong you are. maybe we could have belt system like in Judo.

This site, and internet chess generally, would be significantly less populated without ratings, in my opinion.

I was going to say, not in the slightest but then I remembered. The only real feeling i have playing chess is when the game is over and I get to congratulate my opponent and copy and paste their victory in the chat room. : )

There are many sites where you can play unrated. However what I don't like is the uncertainty: How strong will your opponent be? You can play unrated here too, but there is a big chance that you come across sandbaggers, people playing with a 900 rating but twice as strong

How accurate are the ratings anyways? I've seen people on this site start at 1800 before they even play a game. Being said they certinly make chess more intresting. Nothing better than beating someone better rated than you, but I would still play regardless.

Wow!  Great Thread topic!

The more games a player has played in a specific time control, the more likely it is to be accurate in that particular pool.

Read recently that players signing up through the app can provide an estimated skill level that will give different initial ratings (and will likely be on v3 too). I do not know if that value is actually used in the rating algorithms or not but since the site uses Glicko with a RD (ratings deviation) it shouldn't hurt that much in the long run.

With this account I signed up through the site and I was given a 1200 rating, which was hell at first, because I am not that good.

ratings are pointless

Ratings should be looked at as some kind of feedback to measure your progress. Otherwise they become a fixation that makes chess playing a worrisome burden.

OP, let me ask you this. Are you more satisfied with a well played win, or the points you gained from the win? My guess is the latter, because you are focusing on the number instead of your play.

I play chess as a hobby. Ratings are meaningless in my opinion unless you are a titled player. :)

Okay Al would you participate in a live chess match if all you got when you won was a hearty handshake and a smile from the the director? I believe you would blow off that kind of tournament, as would I.

They work well to pair similarly skill players in a tournament.

I like playing unrated, it is fun, I log on to lichess and play anonymously, it's refreshing to have no idea of your opponents skill level.  Good fun.

@mike crocket "ratings are pointless"     A-hah-hah-hah-ha!!!

Nice pun (even if you didn't mean it!)!

I never play rated online because I do believe the online rating points are at best a very good marketing ploy (if you keep coming here and reading our advertizing, we will give you the opportunity to make 1800 'rating points' !!). Trouble is, I can't even exchange these meaningless points for a toaster. The amount of 'puter cheaters and also sandbaggers online makes the rating points even less legit. Some sites give you a blue or red or purple 'star' when you make a certain rating level! Big whoop!

People do worry about what their number is: if you make it to, say, 1590 and then lose 45 points because you are in a slump, seeing that 1545 isn't going to make you any happier about your play.

OTB in a real tournament is a bit different; the tournament needs to be able to rank the players to seed them properly and then the last few games you are playing people fairly close to your own rating. These games usually promise to be hard fought games, no wiping out the opponent in 15 moves, it is going to be a real battle.

Ratings for me are just as important as the game. The most stimulating and entertaining part of the game for me is finding the best move. Converting a sequence of moves into a win advances your rating. Advancing your rating matches you against stronger players. Playing stronger players increases your skill. Increasing your skill lets you find even better moves. Losing (or hitting a plateau) in your rating motivates you to study. I think for beginners, once you realize that you are not a prodigy (going to have a 2000 rating in the first 6 months you play chess), then they can start to look at a rating as an improvement marker and not something to brag and obsess over. 

And points are underrated. :oD

AlCzervik wrote: