Originally posted by AcapaYespada
If they are taken away you wouldn't have an idea how well you're doing; since also serves as a goal to reach so people would improve their game

I would look at my win/lose ratio if there wasn't any ratings.

Originally posted by Mahout
Imagine there's no ratings
It's easy if you try
No 900's below us
Above us only sky

etc etc

HA!!! Now that is funny.

Originally posted by AcapaYespada
If they are taken away you wouldn't have an idea how well you're doing; since also serves as a goal to reach so people would improve their game

If that's the case then how did players divide themselves into classes before the United States chess federation introduced the rating system? Rating's are only alive to boost peoples egos...they are inflated and no longer usefull as they used to be.

Originally posted by FabianFnas

I say we should have an average of all active players at 1200 points. If we don't have this average we should compensate with inforced rating point loss, or win to regain the average of 1200 points.

Arpad Elo designed the system based on a 1500 average, which is close to what we get on RHP, partly because everyone starts at 1200, and the weaker players are less likely to persist.

Originally posted by Restless Soul
If that's the case then how did players divide themselves into classes before the United States chess federation introduced the rating system? Rating's are only alive to boost peoples egos...they are inflated and no longer usefull as they used to be.

"If that's the case then how did players divide themselves into classes before the United States chess federation introduced the rating system?"

I suspect very subjectively and with great difficulty, which is why the Elo rating system was adopted by the USCF virtually as soon as Dr. Elo created the elo system.

"Rating's are only alive to boost peoples egos..."

While ratings might affect some people's egos, that's not the primary purpose for ratings. In fact, if rating systems weren't used, it would actually be easier for people with inflated egos to believe that they were the next undiscovered world champions.

"...they are inflated and no longer usefull as they used to be."

I think you're living in the past. A while back, USCF ratings were inflated, but the USCF Ratings Committee has been adjusting the ratings system over the years, and there is currently little inflation present in the rating system. And the USCF rating system is as useful as it ever was, as far as I can tell.

The rating system used by the USCF in the mid 1950s (developed by Ken Harkness) was a variation of the Ingo system. Although popular, this system wasn't as good as the Elo system. The Harkness system had little basis in statistical theory. In fact, under the Harkness system, a player could lose every game in a tournament and still gain rating points.

Originally posted by moteutsch
I meant in comparison to real-world ratings...

I'd like to think this site is quite odd in terms of rating in comparison to actual rating. When I went to a tournament in Greece last year, my rating on this site was pretty much fluctuating around 1150. However, I know for a fact that I played around 900-1000. I am glad I was in the U14 group that time, because if not I am pretty sure I would not have made it there. Nowadays though, on this site I am rated around 1350. However, my mentors and friends believe that my actual rating would be around 1600, and I think they are giving me a bit too much credit, but I think 1500 is around where I am at. However, it doesn't seem to be showing in my games on this site. Any other insights? I'm confused about rating to actual rating.