Is the rating system killing chess participation?

[Vlad Drkulec]

Here is a decade old article which is still very relevant today.

Because the ratings are so accurate, players take their ratings very personally, and that causes all kinds of unintended side effects. The biggest of these side effects is that there are many situations where the rating system discourages players from participating in tournaments. This is exactly the opposite of what it should do, but for every person I know that plays in tournaments because of the rating system, there are more who, if not completely retired from tournament play, only play in “selected” events where they perceive they can protect their rating.

This is a terrible situation. So bad, in fact, that if anyone asks me what one thing is most wrong with organized play, the answer is: ratings can, and do, enormously discourage participation among many potential players. Anything that discourages play is bad, but something that discourages it more than everything else put together must be changed. The fact that people stop playing the game they love due to this “artificial” factor is ironic and frustrating because with some common sense changes, the opposite could be true – an accurate rating/ranking system could be used to encourage play.
– Dan Heisman
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skittles176.pdf

[Bob Armstrong]

Love of the Game?

I always find it a bit unbelievable when someone claims they " love " the game,.....but can't play because they might lose rating points???????

I can see the odd time strategically that one might not want to play and lose points - say before a big tournament, and your rating just gets you into the section you want to be in - a one shot intentional not playing for a short time seems acceptable to make sure your rating doesn't drop, and force you into the lower section.

But generally, if rating is more important than playing, then me thinks they do protest too much, who claim distress and " love of the game " that they are now missing.

Bob

[Alan Baljeu]

Re: Is the rating system killing chess participation?

"I don't feel alert today, so I won't play because it'll kill my rating."
"I need to practice and get in shape before I enter any more tournaments. As is I'll lose too many rating points."

That is a commonly heard sentiment. If it doesn't count for rating someone can play, lose and not worry about consequences. If it counts, the consequences persist for months or years. That's how my rating dropped. A while back I played an open Swiss (I was among the higher rated) and scored 0/7. Rating still hasn't recovered. Fortunately, I don't care that much, but many do.

Read also Ed Lasker's Chess for Fun, Chess for Blood.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Love of the Game?

But generally, if rating is more important than playing, then me thinks they do protest too much, who claim distress and " love of the game " that they are now missing.

Bob

In this country, ratings determine who plays on national teams. A player has to protect his rating because of the system.

Ratings are also important to those who are going for titles. The idea is to play up and not play down.

Ratings are everything in organized chess.

Correspondence chess is the same. Unless there are those who figure I still get invitations because of my pleasant personality and easy going ways. :)

[Ken Kurkowski]

Re: Is the rating system killing chess participation?

Just about everyone who plays a sport or game competitively (as opposed to 'casually') wants to measure their performance against others. Golfers have a handicap, martial arts practitioners have various coloured belts, bridge players have master points, many other sports have national rankings. If you don't like chess ratings, then are you really a serious player? Not that there's anything wrong with playing casually, sans clocks, scoresheets...

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Is the rating system killing chess participation?

I don't mind ratings. The point is a player has to fit the event to their own goals and ambitions.

As an example, even in an Olympiad, if you want to get a GM norm the idea is to play one of the high boards.

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: Love of the Game?

Hi Gary:

Your example fits well into my exception of a particular unique situation, where the rating level is critical for some event. And I can see some elite players being choosy about playing where the invitations depend on ratings, and not wanting to play in a tournament where there is little in it to gain, and much to lose, because the competition is too low rated.

What I'm astounded at is the ordinary non-money players who are " protecting " their ratings by not playing - I'd just have to say to get a grip, get some perspective, and don't break your arm trying so hard to pat yourself on the back!

Bob

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: Love of the Game?

I always find it a bit unbelievable when someone claims they " love " the game,.....but can't play because they might lose rating points???????

I almost aborted my comeback to chess when I had an unbelievable losing streak, losing 10 rated games in a row. The most frustrating part was that I didn't play that badly in accumulating that losing streak. Regardless of your love for the game, losing is not fun and it takes a very thick skin to tolerate losing most of the time for any length of time. Fortunately after ten straight where I lost against master strength players mostly (but not all) I decided to play in a tournament in London where I was paired with a rusty young 2200 player in the first round. I abandoned my usual opening repertoire and played a different opening and oddly enough won easily and then went on a winning streak that erased most of my rating losses. Of course later I had new losing and winning streaks but none as bad as that one.

[Bob Gillanders]

Re: Is the rating system killing chess participation?

Why would you spoil the enjoyment of playing chess by worrying about losing rating points? Don't worry, be happy. I lost 221 rating points in 2011 and ended the year up 9 points from the beginning of the year. :D:D:D

[David Lyall]

Re: Is the rating system killing chess participation?

More needs to be done to bring "general" players to tournaments. Different sections could accomodate both "serious" and "general" players. Over time the "general" player may move to the "serious" section of a tournament.

The "general" players could have lower registration fees and play for fun and minor prizes (ie books, memberships etc.). It may even be a good idea to consider team play to allow "general" players to enjoy a visit to city, while one member of the team is playing the other could be doing toursit activities.

Having a big "general" fun section of tournaments could bring more people and media coverage of the event and to the "serious" players as well.

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: Is the rating system killing chess participation?

Hi Bob G:

Geez - why isn't that happening to me in 2011-2?? I just keep losing them.

....just roll with the punches....be happy...one day you'll die, and you can hope to do better in the great club in the sky! Play on!!

Bob A

[Jordan S. Berson]

Re: Love of the Game?

In this country, ratings determine who plays on national teams. A player has to protect his rating because of the system.

Ratings are also important to those who are going for titles. The idea is to play up and not play down.

Ratings are everything in organized chess.

Correspondence chess is the same. Unless there are those who figure I still get invitations because of my pleasant personality and easy going ways. :)

Gary,

Although your statement is true enough, 99% of players do not fit into those two categories. However, a lot more than 1% of players are concerned about losing their precious rating points...

[Ken Craft]

Re: Is the rating system killing chess participation?

The CFC unlike other sporting federations does little to recruit the recreational player. Our fee structure and unwillingness to accommodate recreational play are two of the largest impediments to growing our membership numbers.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: Is the rating system killing chess participation?

The CFC unlike other sporting federations does little to recruit the recreational player. Our fee structure and unwillingness to accommodate recreational play are two of the largest impediments to growing our membership numbers.

Our structure and perhaps the contract under which we operate the CFC office may need some fine tuning. Fred McKim indicated that we can't give away discounted or free memberships without making a payment under the terms of the contract.

A recreational membership at some nominal cost (five dollars preferably or at the most ten dollars per year) is an idea worth considering. In addition preferably a free associate membership for the parents of CFC members is another idea that I have been mulling over. Parents are a very big part of why Windsor is becoming such a chess mecca for junior chess. Parents are key volunteers in many of the local tournaments acting as TDs for the individual sections or as arbiters in the Windsor Chess Challenge, or just operating the pop and chips concession. They also give their kids rides to and from the tournaments (no parents to drive the kids, no kids to play in the tournament) and training sessions. This source of volunteers is largely untapped in the rest of the CFC and would greatly leverage the work of the key volunteers that currently do the bulk of organizing for the CFC.

[Alan Baljeu]

Re: Is the rating system killing chess participation?

The terms of what contract, Vlad?