Would Non-professional chess be better off without a rating system

[CameronD]

Hi

With the constant arguments on chess in regard to ratings and players leaving chess due to falling ratings etc. etc.

I thought I'd ask for people's opinion on wheather

1. Non-professional chess would be better off without ratings (why)

2. a grouping (ie A,B,c Level etc) system would be better than an individual number.

I'm more interested in discussion on option 1. Would low rated players keep playing without the embarrasement of the rating system and they have more fun just playing.

Thanks

ps- Can posters please be polite

[ER]

Hi

With the constant arguments on chess in regard to ratings and players leaving chess due to falling ratings etc. etc.

Hi Cameron and with all due respect
Is there any evidence that players are actually leaving chess due to failling ratings?
Cheers and good luck!

[Garrett]

Good luck with the thread Cameron.

I don't think chess would be better off without a rating.

One good thing about chess, at least from my point of view, is that it is easy to measure how you are improving/playing.

I used to like playing golf too, and I liked the numbers there too (handicap, best personal score on a given course etc).

Cheers
George.

[Desmond]

2. a grouping (ie A,B,c Level etc) system would be better than an individual number.

I think that this would be a good idea, but as an addition to ratings, not a replacement. Ratings could still operate in the background, but only a player's class is published.

[Denis_Jessop]

I think that players like the idea of a rating system to give tham some idea of their playing strength as as part of the competitive atmosphere. I was playing before there was any official Australia-wide rating system yet the chess club in which I played (St Kilda, Melbourne) adopted its own rating system run by a player newly-arrived from Eastern Europe and based on the Category system then used there. As a system it wasn't all that successful confined to the one club but the point is that it was adopted at all. Not long afterwards the ACF rating system was introduced. Also clubs, especially in the past, used to have "ladders" which were designed to achieve something the same thing within the club, that is relative playing strength of the members. The Canberra Chess Club where I first played in 1953 had one. In other words, some kind of rating system existed well before the present one.

DJ

[! # Abhi # !]

I voted for NO -- because rating is important to determine the level of a player. I am an unrated amateur who thinks he has the quality to atleast get a fide rating I have beaten some rated players preety regularly in local -non rated tournaments.

Rating helps in deciding the level of a player --if a player is rated high --he has no business to do playing with a player with basic knowledge --even in local tournaments--bcoz that game would just be a joke.

[Garrett]

There are more things to life then the shift key Abhi.

[Kevin Bonham]

If players leave chess because of "falling ratings" then they are most likely whingers who would otherwise have left on some other account.

[Rincewind]

Ratings could still operate in the background, but only a player's class is published.

I think this is a bad idea for a couple of reasons.

Firstly, freedom of information. If the ACF has a number for someone's chess strength and especially if this number is being used for some purpose (determining tournament entry requirments, national selection or even just rating adjustment calculations) then it should be accessible.

Secondly, many people want to be able to determine their rating movement between rating periods. This is expecially true after they have done well at a weekender or the like. Without published ratings this would be nigh impossible and therefore such a move is likely to disenfranchise this segment of the public.

Furthermore, the runner of weekend swisses would be disadvantaged if player ratings were not available. The swiss draw system works best (they say) if the players can be sorted by ability. If you accept that the finer the mesh the better the sort, then swiss run on a rough rating class would not be as good as the current system with ratings.

I tend to agree with Kevin. Many people use falling rating as an excuse to not actively playing chess but in most cases I don't believe this this to be the reason.

My position is the contrary. Publish the rating and furthermore publish the numerical value for the RD and volatility factors. We need more information not less to enable more reliable rating estimates.

[Basil]

Barry, your first presupposes the existence of the rating, the very essence of which is being questioned. As for your second - yuppers 100%.

[Garvinator]

So far not one person has voted for the yes option. Seems a pretty convincing poll result, considering that on here almost anyone can find some vocal and vote support for anything.

[Desmond]

I think this is a bad idea for a couple of reasons.

Firstly, freedom of information. If the ACF has a number for someone's chess strength and especially if this number is being used for some purpose (determining tournament entry requirments, national selection or even just rating adjustment calculations) then it should be accessible.

I think I didn't explain well enough. The rating would still be "published" by the ACF, but the idea would be to move away from making it a focal point. For example, in tournament standings on the venue wall, only a player's class would be visible.

[Rincewind]

I think I didn't explain well enough. The rating would still be "published" by the ACF, but the idea would be to move away from making it a focal point. For example, in tournament standings on the venue wall, only a player's class would be visible.

I've no objection to adding a new label. Perhaps there would be some advantage as it would probably become the default rating splits for rating prizes and restricted tournaments. However, having said that, it might then mean that sand-bagging becomes more of a problem with a nationally standardised system. So...???

[Rincewind]

Barry, your first presupposes the existence of the rating, the very essence of which is being questioned. As for your second - yuppers 100%.

I was replying to Boris' post suggesting that ratings continue to have a life in the background.

[Basil]

I was replying to Boris' post suggesting that ratings continue to have a life in the background.

Right-he-ho. Thank you.