Why are the ratings so important?

Running Chess Tournaments
1

Other then the importance of the need of a rating in the use of a swiss system; there is very little importance for having a rating other then its importance in a tournament. Have talked with a number of players and they are in such high demand for a higher rating then their present or current rating. Have talked with a number of masters and experts, they are very content on their present rating or give very little importance of what their current rating is. It could be a factor with the age group, as players between the age of 10 - 25 are in a greater state of mind that ratings is the only reason to play chess. The other factor, with the adult group and the players past the scholastic era of their life, what their current rating is, even if it is very low, they have come to terms with their rating class. Not to say a class E player has a dream of being a master, they know that its’ only a dream.

Do know a number of scholastic directors in one field or the next, place so much importance into the ratings as the mode of self esteem. Have noticed scholastic players use their ratings like a blunt weapon against each other. Going off and poking fun at players on their own team, of how much lower or how poor the other player did play. The reason why this happens so much in the scholastic section, “if you are not willing to push someone to become a master or higher, then they will settle with a much lower rating”. It could be the problem of having GM Fischer in our memories and that movie – as the teachers of the young have that dream they will find his replacement.

Most are just looking to be part of someones personal history for a person to become a expert. In my personia, followed this same path in life when it deals with the bright scholastic player. My leap of faith would be finding someone to use chess as a mode of interactions with others for a life time. When the rating is used as a scale to become a expert or a master, just to noticed you’re ‘X points below’ to have a 2000 rating or ‘X points below’ to have a 2200 rating. It does harm on a player with more harm on the scholastic player, to always know they are not as strong as a expert or a master. Can point to player after player going after that dream, a dream started by themselves or a dream implanted at a early age. Not that many people will become a expert or master or have a rating at or above 2000 or 2200. The goal from a teacher of a scholastic player to set the goal at 2000, then the ratings become something that it was never designed for in the first place.

The community of chess players have been asking why the scholastic players are leaving the tournaments, why they give up chess and the federation. It is not the problem of trophies given way to a cash payment, it could be we as a society looking for the goal of the next GM Fischer then building the next wave of adult class players.

2

Indeed, many players are obsessed with their ratings rather than with their playing strength. These players are generally called C, D, and E players.

If you are saying that some players are not obsessed because they are masters, I say it is the other way around. They got to be masters, in part, because they cared little about their ratings, and a lot about the quality of their chess.

It’s not ratings. It’s just the same phenomenon as in other competitive activities – students tend to play football or basketball in high school, then they forget about it afterwards.

Bill Smythe

3

Bill Smythe:

For the scholastic players below class C that would be correct. I’m talking about the scholastic player well trained. Well trained scholastic players over 1200 looking at their ratings and going for higher ranking, some are able to gain such rating by natural organic means like an expert or greater. Others can become an expert or all so close to being an expert, only at great and huge personal hardship; others that never will have such skills place so much personal suffering just on a title that when they understand they are unable to gain or hold the title for even a short time – they will walk away from any tournament. How many great and bright players have we lost because of their persoanl or implanted drive of going after a 2000 rating?

4

If a player is truly “great and bright”, he will have no trouble attaining a 2000 rating. (Note, incidentally, that I am under 2000, and have no delusions of becoming a “great” player.)

I’m sure it is true, however, that many players have given up chess because they were unable to advance as far as they thought they could. They just didn’t realize how hard a game chess is. This applies to adults as well as scholastic players.

Bill Smythe

5

Was thinking of the class A and class B players, as the obsessed class A player over 1900. The experts and masters, they only want to improve their game not their rating.

6

Doug, you should have to read the USCF’s feedback mail from the MSA site for a while. We get complaints from experts and masters about their updated ratings, too. I haven’t graphed them to determine if they’re received in proportion to the number of experts and masters out there, but I’d guess they probably are.

What I think most of the higher rated players realize, though, is that a bad performance in one event will generally be offset by an above average performance in another event.

I also think they’re better at cutting their losses, withdrawing from an event on a day when they’re not playing well. Us lowly C players keep on playing and as a result drop a boatload of hard earned points in a single day.

Somewhere around class A is the point at which I think players get better at assessing their own strengths and weaknesses, which is the point at which the rating becomes secondary to the skills it is intending to measure.

However, I find that ratings under 1000 are a lot less predictive, especially for kids. (I once noted that I could probably predict the winner in a game between two 600-800 players based on which one of them ate a candy bar in the last half hour. The sugar rush lowers playing strength, IMHO.)

7

Bill Smythe:

Even if someone does as you say break 2000, and in you’re words become a great player. Have found they are still just like myself, if to remove the difference in skills. Most have a common job, as knowing a master as a taxi cab driver, or working with some title in a university, or knowing a expert as a lawyer and one that lives in a shelter.

Others on the other hand use chess as a way for teaching the game, or even selling book and supplies from their own home, or even doing simuls from time to time to support their income.

Are we not given a poor fantasy for the scholastic players what life is like for a titled player. Sure my scholastic era fantasy of titled players was during the Soviet era when the state gave steepens for the players. Now were in a era of our titled players working to sell calendars just to pay the airline tickets just to go to europe.

8

Nolan:

Have talked with stronger players that never play blitz, as they feel it will give weakness for their game. Knowing stronger players never wanting to play against weaker players in any tournament, or the local club if they feel the average player in the club being much weaker them themselves. The belief that they play much weaker players, their skills would decline as they only have to win against weaker players with only weaker skills. Has not the persoanl ratings between groups of players not build walls between ourselves?

9

Nolan:

Well now FIDE can give a blood test for low blood sugar. If a player has low blood sugar we know they are cheating. Every titled player would love their arms poked with a needle every time they play a game.

10

Chess can be a competitive activie, if it is tournaments, with learning the skills to be better at the tournament level. Like the idea of chess as a mode of being a social animal, as chess does need the interaction of two people to have a game.

High School competitive activities (like football, basketball, ect), deal with two different missions; the mission of team work between a group of people in a local spear of the same common goal; the mission of the person, to be competitive with others that have the same goal and social interactions with the player. If someone in high school had social interaction with the competitive activities of football, it would not in the era after high school change the personia, or change the norm of the enjoyment of watching college football. The reason for not going out on a Friday evening during the fall, would be other social activities or knowing their state of personal health and the personal health of others are not in the same state as they were as a teenager.

Chess on the other hand, does not need the same personal health as they were as a teenager. As knowing a 100 year old man, still have the skills and enjoyment of the game as he did as a teenager. Personal health can be a issue for walking away from the tournaments.

With chess, it would not be shocking for spectators seeing a 18 year old and a 90 year old being paired up during a tournament. Both players would have equal chance to win, lose or draw the game. Seeing two football teams, one with the average age of 18 years, the other with an average age of 90 – would bet the farm on the team with the average age of 18 years to win. Chess on the other hand, it does not matter how young or old the players are.

11

Using your same analogy, Football and Chess are similar with ratings. Some players like to play people in their own skill levels. The same is true with football. Most US states have Football class systems determined by the number of students enrolled in the school. Larger schools play Larger Schools, etc.

Players rate their success by their rating. Going 10-0 in a class tournament and gaining 40 points is easier than going 4-6 in an open and gaining 100.

Why are a wave of Scholastic players leaving? Simple, they grow up. We have about (what I’ve figured) a 5% “graduation” rate in which scholastic players play as adults. 18 year olds are more interested in trying to get laid, than spending their saturdays trying to hang out with old men and talk about chess stories.

As time goes on, few come back and start playing, but it’s rare. They may play on the internet, but that doesn’t help USCF or OTB.

So what’s the point in a rating? Simple, self gratification to show your personal success. Graduating to a new personal best is an awesome feeling, which shows proof you’re at the top of your game.

Having a rating also helps tournaments go smoother by weeding out the weaker players so the stronger players play each other later on in the tournament.

Saying “what’s the point in having a rating” is a silly argument.

12

Scholastic players leave chess because of human reproduction? The reason the former Soviet Union and european nations have a larger group of strong players, would not be the reason they (other nations) performed surgical sterilization (native citizen chess player).

13

No, they don’t play because hooking up and going out to bars is more important than chess.

Europe is much different than the US, they have chess at bars and on TV all the time. Totally different culture, which proves…

Once again, you’re way off base.

14

Since the era of Mikhail Botvinnik (1911 - 1995), being world champion for the first time in 1948; with Joseph Stalin (1879 - 1953) building a pool of state supported chess players.

During the era of the cold war, the reason the west (America and the non-european nations) gave as the reason why the Soviet block nations being larger and stronger – chess (stronge players) being on the goverment paycheck. With the goal of building a large pool of players, as the idea chess as one of the goals of communism.

If the goverment of the United States gave players with a rating over 2200 (say $50,000 a year)a income, with the stronger players (say $50,000 - $100,000 a year) with a title a larger income, only asking the players to study and play in tournaments for this income. If that happen, what parent would walk away from having their child learn and play chess, if the goal being $50,000 to $100,000 a year for the rest of their childs life.

America on the other hand, if being a strong chess player you’re on you’re own. Have let to find anyone in a free market system, willing to pay a income just to play chess. If it was baseball or other sports, how many baseball players and others in sports making over a million dollars a year.

15

Good luck finding people who want to spend $100 a ticket to watch chess. That’s how they make money. No 12 year old kid wants to get a Kasparov jersey, he’d get his butt kicked and throw in his locker.

No tax payer will support an “athlete”. We pay enough taxes the way it is. I don’t know where you come up with this stuff, you at least supply entertainment everytime I read it, I just wish I knew when you were serious. Are you?

16

Very serious.

With the free market, they can pay the top athletes: as there is a after market. Only a few people would pay $100 for a ticket (like a chess match) to watch chess; only a small market for (like American Womens’ Chess Olympiad calender) chess miscellaneous products; even at its total, a very small market for any chess products designed at the tournament level.

The USCF annual budget being around five million dollars. As the USCF is a national organization, with it being in a union with (FIDE) a international organization with delegates in that body. Any organization at the same national and international level like the federation would find only having a budget of five million dollars as being low.

During the era of the Soviet Union, and still in practice in other nations. When someone was at or going to be at a level of a titled player, the goverment did and will be the one that did take care of the income of the player for life. The goal of the player was to play and only play chess. It was the goal of the Soviet Union, for not having the title of World Champion going to a different country. Robert Fischer did break the dream of the Soviet Union in 1972, if you can ask someone of that era: you would find out how chess was a cold war weapon used by the Soviet Union and the United States.

With any adults, there is a need of some type of income. Since other nations are willing to support the best and bright into the field of chess as a way of national pride. The titled players of the United States would be needing to look for some type of income, away from chess or start to train other players when not having the time to study on their own.

If we look at the American Womens’ Chess team (that won a silver medel) came to America with the system that supported or still support in a more limited style after the break up of the Soviet Union. Only one member (WIM Jennifer Shahade) being a native born American, and only used in the case if someone on the team was sick. Thunderchicken, is it not strange that the system that you (hate as it would be a tax payers wast of money) hate, were raised and designed to be strong chessplayers in their youth by a system that supported chess at a low cost.

It is a little sad the United States did win (silver) with members of a birth in a different land; with the skills of people from a different lands able to come to America and build a life, and support the general welfare: makes a stronger union as we can and will accept others. If the United States was a pro-active as other nations, as a society we could be building much stronger players. When players talk about Robert Fischer, and only say America can produce someone like him once a century; how then was the Soviet Union able to produce members living a dead with a higher number.

Thunderchicken is right, America will not support chess players. If America could find the next Bobby Fischer, would tell the parents and the rest of the family to move to China. As a number of Americans (like thunderchicken) would tell Bobby Fischer to work at a fast food place in high school and need to pay taxes, not accept goverment hand outs.