Current Rating System needs a change

Hi All,

This whole 'points-based' rating system has been around for over a hundred years. It originated back in a time when everyone that played chess really, really, cared about their rating. IIRC you actually had to pay for a club membership, and pay a registration fee to FIDE, and stuff along those lines, in order to get into the 'chess world' in an official sense.

Those days are long gone; chess is pretty much mainstream now, so there is no need to use a points-based system.

My ex-GF played chess online and liked watching GothamChess, and when I found out I was happy cuz that meant we had something in common, and offered to player her a game. But she saw I was rated substantially higher than her so she never did play me, just made excuses all the time.

I met a dude at the library just the other day, and saw he was playing chess online and offered to play him. He saw my rating and was just totally intimidated, and backed out.

Why can't we just have a 'player pool' that identifies as Beginner/Casual/Novice/Elite/Pro/Whateveh?

Still keep the points-based rating system for players that like that sort of thing - the points are important for rankings; but, again, most players prolly don't care so much about rankings.

For example, if its a Beginner Player Pool, no one gets points added or subtracted from their rating, they just get to play games within that pool. If we need to keep track, then just record their number of wins-draws-losses, like they do in tournaments.

It also means that players that just want to jump online and play some casual, simple and easy games, can do so without suddenly finding themselves playing a tough opponent.

I get that alot of players like a 'good' game where they are challenged, win or lose. But some players, like me, just enjoy winning and don't really give a crap about the difficulty or quality of the game.

Case in point; for me I get the same amount of enjoyment for beating someone 100 points higher than me as I do crushing someone 1000 points lower than me.

And, also, the points system gives a bad impression as to my skill level, anyway, and kept me from crushing my ex-GF and/or some random dude at the library when I had the chance. Such wasted opportunities.

This whole 'points-based' rating system has been around for over a hundred years.

uh ... no it has not. the glicko system was created in the 1990s. the elo system was created in the 1950. the precursor to the elo system with a name that i can never remember was created in the 1940s.

It originated back in a time when everyone that played chess really, really, cared about their rating.

that does not even make sense. how could everyone have already really, really cared about their rating at the time the rating system originated?

stopped reading there, content seems to be all lies.

The rating system is fine, but people's attitude towards it is wrong.

Before the elo rating system there were discussions about who was to play the first board in a team competition: fierce attacking player A or the fine strategic player B. Both thought they deserved the honor and were the better player. The rating system fixed the issue.

Before the elo rating system Swiss tournaments had a first round with very lopsided encounters. That was unfair. Master A got to play an absolute beginner and got a free win without effort. Masters B and C got paired against each other and after hours of play reached only a draw compromising their chances to win the tournament.

Many players confuse elo with ego.

Many players think rating is a currency. They want to gain back lost rating like a gambler wanting to gain back lost money.

'What is your elo?' is indeed a frequently asked but unpleasant question. It reduces a person to a number. Like 'What is your age?'

Actually it‘s a prediction of the outcome, basically probabilities. What‘s wrong with that?

@glbert said in #2:

uh ... no it has not. the glicko system was created in the 1990s. the elo system was created in the 1950. the precursor to the elo system with a name that i can never remember was created in the 1940s.

that does not even make sense. how could everyone have already really, really cared about their rating at the time the rating system originated?

stopped reading there, content seems to be all lies.

A.} Oh. So I was off my 15% when making an off the cuff estimation. Oops.

B.} Res ipsa loquitur - The fact they created a rating system is proof they cared about their rating. Duh.

But that wasn't what I was talking about, anyway - I was talking about the fact that during the period you so clearly defined that players had to pay cash, as a general rule, in order to join chess clubs/FIDE. Nowadays, I would bet a new Chess Club springs up every couple minutes, and are free to join.

The deluge of new free-to-play players obviously would care much less about their ranking than someone who is trying to be competitive, and given the fact most players are free-to-play I would argue that they are not competitive, but casual.

Ergo, a system designed for competitive play doesn't meet the needs of casual players as well as competitive players because they are two totally different subsets of players.

Elo intimidation is real and I have been in that boat where I don’t want to play someone really good especially back in the day when I was a beginner intermediate. Now that I have reached around 2000 I don’t really care who I win or loose as long as I am enjoying playing someone that is better than me. Elo is a good way to show someone’s average skill. Yes we fluctuate by small increments but it shouldn’t be the bane of our existence in identifying us and our game by a number. It’s more of a precursor to help determine someone’s strength not define them. For me, I have learned to toss elo aside because if you know you are capable of winning and have that mindset then there is no problem.

@tpr said in #3:

The rating system is fine, but people's attitude towards it is wrong.

Before the elo rating system there were discussions about who was to play the first board in a team competition: fierce attacking player A or the fine strategic player B. Both thought they deserved the honor and were the better player. The rating system fixed the issue.

Before the elo rating system Swiss tournaments had a first round with very lopsided encounters. That was unfair. Master A got to play an absolute beginner and got a free win without effort. Masters B and C got paired against each other and after hours of play reached only a draw compromising their chances to win the tournament.

Many players confuse elo with ego.

Many players think rating is a currency. They want to gain back lost rating like a gambler wanting to gain back lost money.

'What is your elo?' is indeed a frequently asked but unpleasant question. It reduces a person to a number. Like 'What is your age?'

I agree with this.

So, whats the fix?

@Sarg0n said in #4:

Actually it‘s a prediction of the outcome, basically probabilities. What‘s wrong with that?

Because my ex-GF would have played me if she didn't see my rating - she was 600-ish and I was 1600-ish. So, she became ashamed{?} of her rating and wouldn't play me?

If I was, accurately, tagged as a 'Casual' player, with no point rating, then we would probably have had a game. Who knows, might have saved the relationship... probably not, but ya know.

@TheTakenName said in #7:

Elo intimidation is real and I have been in that boat where I don’t want to play someone really good especially back in the day when I was a beginner intermediate. Now that I have reached around 2000 I don’t really care who I win or loose as long as I am enjoying playing someone that is better than me. Elo is a good way to show someone’s average skill. Yes we fluctuate by small increments but it shouldn’t be the bane of our existence in identifying us and our game by a number. It’s more of a precursor to help determine someone’s strength not define them. For me, I have learned to toss elo aside because if you know you are capable of winning and have that mindset then there is no problem.

Right. Why the points are an issue. We need something so that intimidation based on arbitrary and possibly wildly inaccurate point-based rating doesn't occur.

@Sarg0n said in #4:

Actually it‘s a prediction of the outcome, basically probabilities. What‘s wrong with that?

Cuz it scares players that would ordinarily be willing to play like, say, OTB.

I can get an OTB game at the library no problem cuz Elo is a non-factor. Unless someone asks about my online ranting, in which case it suddenly becomes an issue.