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

[MJMcCready]

Who came up with the daft idea of coming up with ratings for players? For what reason? Who asked for them? Similarly when I turn the volume up on the tv, I just some visual display showing me that the volume is increasing. Which muppet thought that was a good idea? Surely you can just listen and decide for yourself if its got louder or quieter.

When you play someone over the board, what do you need to know their rating for? The manner in which you meet will give you an inkling or more so some idea but what benefit do you derive from knowing what his current rating is?

If ratings are thought of as a general indication of strength, I get it. But it seems to have gone way beyond that a long time ago. To the point where if we had a world champion who wasn't the highest rated person in the world, he would be viewed upon with suspicion, and not given the respect he deserves.

When I was young and saw my opponent was 30-40 points higher than me, it scared me and I couldn't play my natural game. There was times in tournaments where I didn't have time to check my opponent's rating and beat him comfortably, only to find out he was 30-40 points above me.

I've met so many players that fret over their rating and their opponent's rating but what does it actually matter? It's always seemed to me that at club level players don't benefit from adapting their game to the perceived strength of their opponent. More often than not it inhibits them and encourages them to play with preconceived notions about how the game is likely to go.

If there were no ratings at all but titles remained, wouldn't that be enough? You really ought to be able to work out how good your opponent is during your game against them, if you can't, so what. It seems like most club players either worry about their rating, place far too much importance on it, define themselves in terms of it, or value it more highly than what they have taught themselves or learnt from experiences over the years.

It's hard to work out what we've gained from ELO ratings. Generally speaking, I can play through a game between titled players and work it out for myself that they are very good. I don't need ratings to tell me whose what. It's a source of pride for many but that aside, do we actually benefit from them in any way?

[Wadih Khoury]

Your mistake is that you are looking at other people's ratings. The whole point of them is to measure your own strength and progress.

Ratings are not for everyone, but for those with a competitive or self-improving mindset, they are a critical tool.

They are not perfect, but they are the closest to an objective assessment.

[MJMcCready]

I don't think they are though. What does a rating tell you about your strengths and weaknesses. I take your point, they are the next best thing but that's not much of an accolade.

[Matt Bridgeman]

At the top end of English chess isn’t there something of a plateau in terms of ECF ratings, and a gradual decline in FIDE ratings? It’s probably juniors and young players who get the most positive reinforcement from ratings, as they are generally going up every period, (pre-Covid of course).

[Geoff Chandler]

I agree ratings and their importance have been overrated(!) but they are
needed to give a very rough guide in team selection and pairings.

Not perfect but without them the arguments about board order within your own team
could break up long established friendships and captains being accused of nepotism.

Regarding volume on the T.V. set. If you notice that the volume number needs to be nudged up from say 20-25-30-35 to hear it comfortably
this may hint at the early signs of hearing trouble. (A bit like in reverse when your rating drops, this could indicate an endgame problem.)

[Joey Stewart]

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

[Eric Gardiner]

I agree ratings and their importance have been overrated(!) but they are
needed to give a very rough guide in team selection and pairings.

And ... when OTB congresses were taking place, I suspect many players hoping for prizes in grade-limited sections would have complained if forced to play stronger players in "rating/grade free" events ...

[MJMcCready]

Well I think that ability is not easily measured. Yes ratings are a rough guide but not more than that. Their importance is exaggerated. You're understanding of yourself, your development and level of satisfaction tell you much more than some number. I can understand it at higher levels when your career can be affected but at club level it doesnt tell you much. Saying I'm a 160 tells you nothing about the degree of pleasure I gain from playing chess,

[Joey Stewart]

Chess and pleasure is a strange concept - I don't personally think I have ever found myself feeling any game be remotely enjoyable, at least not until it is obvious that a win is soon to happen, and yet something keeps me wanting more.

It is probably a primal thing, like the pecking order in birds, we have a deep subconscious 'need' to be standardised and know our place in the world, and ratings are a much more civilized way to do it than biting each other.

[John Clarke]

The late Norm Oliver, former secretary to the London League, used to call them "magic numbers" and once penned an article for their newsletter expressing his impatience with those who made such a fetish of them.

I had more than one opponent who demanded to know my grading almost before we'd shaken hands, and, on my telling them I didn't know*, hastened to look it up and inform me, as though I was under some tremendous handicap through not having this vital information.

* I did, of course - it was hard not to know, as I go on to explain. But it amused me to witness their obvious puzzlement at my lack of interest.

[Chris Goodall]

When I was young and saw my opponent was 30-40 points higher than me, it scared me and I couldn't play my natural game. There was times in tournaments where I didn't have time to check my opponent's rating and beat him comfortably, only to find out he was 30-40 points above me.

Out of 123 games played in March where one player was about a 30 point underdog, those 30 point underdogs scored 34% (+23 =38 -62).

What's interesting is that out of 322 games where one player was a mere 10 point underdog, the 10 point underdogs only increased their score to 38% (+77 =91 -154). They still lost two games for every one they won.

30 point underdog: 34% (Clarke predicts 20%)
10 point underdog: 38% (40%)
10 point favourite: 62% (60%)
30 point favourite: 66% (80%)

So if you have a clubmate who's graded 150, improving your own grade from 140 to 160 will add, on average, 24 percentage points to your score. Improving from 160 to 180 will only add another 4 percentage points.

That seems a clear case of psychology to me.

[NickFaulks]

So if you have a clubmate who's graded 150, improving your own grade from 140 to 160 will add, on average, 24 percentage points to your score. Improving from 160 to 180 will only add another 4 percentage points.

I'm sure there is some truth in that, but the point is that you won't have to keep playing them. The only advantage in getting a higher rating is that you find yourself playing a better class of opponent.

[John McKenna]

The late Norm Oliver, former secretary to the London League, used to call them "magic numbers" and once penned an article for their newsletter expressing his impatience with those who made such a fetish of them.

I had more than one opponent who demanded to know my grading almost before we'd shaken hands, and, on my telling them I didn't know*, hastened to look it up and inform me, as though I was under some tremendous handicap through not having this vital information.

* I did, of course - it was hard not to know, as I go on to explain. But it amused me to witness their obvious puzzlement at my lack of interest.

Numerical ratings (and gradings) are at least visible, if not "tangible" (Joey S, above), but here are players who largely ignore theirs and for whom the important thing is to try to play a 'memorable' game whenever they are at the board.

And, for them, the rating number is a mere cipher that quantifies the external results of their games and not the mainly invisible quality of their moves, which say so much more about the player than 3 or 4 digits. A number that, let's face it, most players have in common with others who share the same number for a while.

You could say that only about the top 100 ratings in the world are really worth having because of their increasingly ascending uniqueness and the invitations to play they bring.

On the other hand, I once heard a Master who, on being introduced to a player (rated about )2100) in a social setting, asked NOT - what's your rating? BUT "can you show me your best game?"

The player in question was unable to come up with the goods off the top of his head, by the way. Then again what could you deliver?

Your own name, grade and ECF serial number do not get you very far in that direction, but perhaps you could at least come up with opponent's name, grade, colour (of pieces) plus the time and place for a start.

[Chris Goodall]

So if you have a clubmate who's graded 150, improving your own grade from 140 to 160 will add, on average, 24 percentage points to your score. Improving from 160 to 180 will only add another 4 percentage points.

I'm sure there is some truth in that, but the point is that you won't have to keep playing them. The only advantage in getting a higher rating is that you find yourself playing a better class of opponent.

That makes sense only if your object is to create the most perfect game of chess. Most people would see beating people you previously lost to as an advantage.

You could say that only about the top 100 ratings in the world are really worth having because of their increasingly ascending uniqueness and the invitations to play they bring.

The thing is John (and others), convincing other people not to care about their grades is no great kindness - it's rational economics. The ideal world for you is one where you care a lot about your grade, and everyone else cares but a little about theirs

[MartinCarpenter]

So if you have a clubmate who's graded 150, improving your own grade from 140 to 160 will add, on average, 24 percentage points to your score. Improving from 160 to 180 will only add another 4 percentage points.

I'm sure there is some truth in that, but the point is that you won't have to keep playing them. The only advantage in getting a higher rating is that you find yourself playing a better class of opponent.

Which is of course the actual purpose of this for most sane, balanced people.

Not so much to improve their grade as goal in and of itself, but to play a strength of opponent that fairly consistently gives rich, interesting games. Chess is set up such that playing anyone much weaker/stronger than yourself on a regular basis simply isn't a lot of fun.

Grades solve that problem really rather effectively.