Perhaps you aren't a number and are a free man but OTB so many revert to the former inadvertently.

[NickFaulks]

Chess is set up such that playing anyone much weaker/stronger than yourself on a regular basis simply isn't a lot of fun.

I have always found that playing opponents much stronger than myself is the most fun chess has to offer, not just when I have won. No doubt it is less fun for them, not just when they lose.

[Matt Mackenzie]

Then again there are those players who (to quote the late Simon Webb in Chess for Tigers) "like rabbit for breakfast, dinner and tea".

[MJMcCready]

My main point is. If you reduce players down to a number, you are bypassing so much that makes them what they are. I play someone a good 40 points above me. I know he hates the French defence and Implodes against it all the time. His rating tells me nothing about that. There should be something better in place than a rating. Maybe a 250 word summary of style, character and ability instead, with rating thrown in.

[MJMcCready]

Then again there are those players who (to quote the late Simon Webb in Chess for Tigers) "like rabbit for breakfast, dinner and tea".

He made a number of valid points that are overlooked.

[MJMcCready]

My main point is. If you reduce players down to a number, you are bypassing so much that makes them what they are. I play someone a good 40 points above me. I know he hates the French defence and Implodes against it all the time. His rating tells me nothing about that. There should be something better in place than a rating. Maybe a 250 word summary of style, character and ability instead, with rating thrown in.

Perhaps something like

'Player X: tasty in the opening but absolutely rubbish in the endgame, especially rook endgames. Not bad with tactics and never gets into time trouble, rating 156.

[MJMcCready]

For 99% of players their rating is the one and only tangible reward for their years of study and efforts, if it goes up then you get a great feeling of accomplishment, if it goes down it should spur you on to try harder next season. None of that would exist without numerical ratings and we would be just throwing our time away without any sense of progress and the world of chess would most certainly be poorer for it as many players would simply see it as a pointless endeavor and not want to fritter their time away thus greatly diminishing the playerbase.

P.S. I do like the prisoner reference in the post title, one of the shows that managed to be both incredibly engaging and deeply disappointing at the same time

But ratings are attributed to you and not decided by you. What you know about yourself should determine how you feel and what you want to do. If we accept your rating will always change, how can it ever mean anything. Okay trends do matter if it's always going up but things like improving your endgame technique or opening preparation matter more than some ever-changing number. That's just fixation.

[IM Jack Rudd]

My main point is. If you reduce players down to a number, you are bypassing so much that makes them what they are. I play someone a good 40 points above me. I know he hates the French defence and Implodes against it all the time. His rating tells me nothing about that. There should be something better in place than a rating. Maybe a 250 word summary of style, character and ability instead, with rating thrown in.

Perhaps something like

'Player X: tasty in the opening but absolutely rubbish in the endgame, especially rook endgames. Not bad with tactics and never gets into time trouble, rating 156.

*nods* Results as a proxy for strength can only show you so much; games as a proxy for strength can show a lot more, but not everybody has a large number of games on Chessbase or whatever.

[MJMcCready]

My main point is. If you reduce players down to a number, you are bypassing so much that makes them what they are. I play someone a good 40 points above me. I know he hates the French defence and Implodes against it all the time. His rating tells me nothing about that. There should be something better in place than a rating. Maybe a 250 word summary of style, character and ability instead, with rating thrown in.

Perhaps something like

'Player X: tasty in the opening but absolutely rubbish in the endgame, especially rook endgames. Not bad with tactics and never gets into time trouble, rating 156.

*nods* Results as a proxy for strength can only show you so much; games as a proxy for strength can show a lot more, but not everybody has a large number of games on Chessbase or whatever.

Yes and the higher your level the more that matters, well the consequences are wider reaching rather. But it seems to me that most people pay too much opponent to their opponent and too little attention on themselves. It just seems to me that there are more important factors involved than taking your opponents rating into consideration. You should be able to asses your opponents strength by the moves they play during the game...but perhaps that believe underpins an approach to the game which is both antiquated and too causal for the modern game... .

[MJMcCready]

Given the choice between FIDE gaving me a rating and an description of myself as a chess player, I think I would prefer the latter.

Rather than Mr.X, rating 1999.
'Mr.X, plays 1.e4, doesn't know what to do against the Sicilian Defence, thinks the Scandanavian defence is a load of s**t. With black goes for the Queen's Gambit declined against 1.d4 but hates the Tromposky and always plays stupid side lines. Not bad positionally but rubbish with sharp open positions. Completely clueless with queen endings and usually gets into time trouble. Sometimes forgets to tuck his shirt in and keeps wandering about when it's not his move. Not bad when he gets his act together but that aside will usually cock it up at some point with dodgy moves that border on blunders. Likes obscure openings for some reason, could be much better than what he is.'

[NickFaulks]

Given the choice between FIDE gaving me a rating and an description of myself as a chess player, I think I would prefer the latter.

I assume you are not seriously suggesting that FIDE should provide the latter.

[Kevin Thurlow]

Also, results achieved in a weekday evening league after a hard day at work, followed by a difficult trip to a freezing cold, cramped, badly-lit venue, at 35 moves in 75 minutes, versus a week plus in a nice hotel, with excellent playing conditions, 40 moves in 90 minutes, then extra time, plus 30 seconds a move from the start.

[MJMcCready]

Also, results achieved in a weekday evening league after a hard day at work, followed by a difficult trip to a freezing cold, cramped, badly-lit venue, at 35 moves in 75 minutes, versus a week plus in a nice hotel, with excellent playing conditions, 40 moves in 90 minutes, then extra time, plus 30 seconds a move from the start.

I recall once some church hall in Warboys, Huntingdonshire for some county match on one of winter's coldest days. The draught that blow through lost me the game. No one can play well if they can grate cheese of their scrotum before you've got out of the opening.

[Paul Cooksey]

Perhaps something like

'Player X: tasty in the opening but absolutely rubbish in the endgame, especially rook endgames. Not bad with tactics and never gets into time trouble, rating 156.

Jan Gustafsson is rated over 2700 ECF.

[JustinHorton]

Perhaps something like

'Player X: tasty in the opening but absolutely rubbish in the endgame, especially rook endgames. Not bad with tactics and never gets into time trouble, rating 156.

Jan Gustafsson is rated over 2700 ECF.

I do not think he is.

[Paul Cooksey]

Perhaps something like

'Player X: tasty in the opening but absolutely rubbish in the endgame, especially rook endgames. Not bad with tactics and never gets into time trouble, rating 156.

Jan Gustafsson is rated over 2700 ECF.

I do not think he is.

Indeed he is not. It would have been more precise for me to say he is a player with a FIDE Elo of 2643 which is equivalent to an ECF rating over 2700.

I had not realised anyone would read it so literally. My intention was to imply that the description of player X could be applied to players of disparate playing strength.