"Checker Knowledge verus Ratings"

[Mr. Checkers]

I don't recall anyone ever winning a game of checkers with ratings. Ron King (being unrated and being unheard of) came to America many years ago and blew away the rated competition of that day using only his extensive knowledge (and application thereof) of the game. Alan Millhone has told us all many times that he plays in the Masters Division simply because he feels like his game improved greatly by playing better players, which translates into sayings his knowledge of the game has been increased by doing so. Not once have I ever heard him say that he did all of this to increase his ratings. Knowledge alone will not improve ones game. One needs to know how to apply that knowledge in given situations. I am sure that all of us can recall taking their car into a garage to have it repaired only to find that when you got it back that there was more wrong with it than when you first brought it in for repair. In this case having the book knowledge of repairing a car is not the same as being able to repair it. The same thing applies to checkers. A lot of players talk a good game of checkers, but are totally lost when it comes down to actually playing the game. My friends Asa Long, Tom Wiswell, Don Laverty, Marion Tinsley and others were all successful in applying their extensive knowledge of the game of checkers when the challenge of doing so presented itself--all were champions deluxe--and not once did they ever express any concerns about their ratings with us. They let their play across the board speak for them--nothing more needed to be said. Being successful in checkers will come by correctly applying knowledge of the game across the board (which is gotten through serious study and practice); ratings will not. These are my views and thoughts only. Please feel welcome that share yours if you wish to do so.

[Armlock]

To: the Ms.Becky

Like the great Patrick Parker had said previously, ratings is something that helps with making goals and comparing yourself to others etc.

Just like how a black belt is, it doesn't fight for you but it does give you an idea of your current skill level (at least in some legitimate martial arts systems).

[Armlock]

About knowledge VS applied knowledge, this is known as Randori in Judo. To be able to apply your knowledge you must randori those knowledge a lot. That my friend, is call sparring.

[Ingo_Zachos]

U r right.

ratings only reflect past and recent results, not the strenghts or knowledge itself.
And you can't win any game with your rating, you have to use your brain.

But :
That will never change, with or without ratings.

And ratings never reflect future results, so it still gives a player the possibility of increasing one's own knowledge, abilities and results, provided he gets a chance to play better players regularly.
Correctly understood it gives you a tool to determine how much you improved in comparison to others.
It should never prevent anybody from participating in any event.
Don't be afraid to loose rating, it is only a number, not a bad charakter trait.
Just like a rich man is not better then a poor man, a higher rated player is not better then a lower rated, and without low rated players there would be no high rated players.

But this is no reason to be afraid of ratings, quite the opposite!
Ratings are cross-comparisons of the average results of players, not more, not less.
And remember: checkers is a competitive game, so comparisons between two players in a match or of a group of players in a tournament are only natural.
And so are the comparisons of a multitude of players that ratings allow.
It is a part of our game, and it only gives it a wider approach, as well as tournaments allow a wider approach then matches.

Greetinx from sunny Dortmund, Germany

Ingo Zachos

[Patrick Parker]

also why keep score at a tournament?
lets just show up and play for the fun of it?
because checkers is a competitive game.....ratings are a part of that
and how does that hurt the game?

[Mr. Checkers]

Patrick a majority of the players do just show up for the enjoyment of playing the game of checkers. They have no interest whatsoever in ratings.

[Patrick Parker]

yes but hopefully if we use ratings to put players where they belong
i dont have to worry about showing up at a tournament
and seeing alex and clayton playing in the minors with me
because if ratings are enforced they are sent up
where they want to be of course

in chess this isnt a pr oblem having ratings
using them

part of our problem is the lack of players hurts our ratings system

in chess .....parents hate to know their kid is playing another kid
with say 500 higher in points in rating
they want it seperated .....why wouldnt we?
yes true at small tournaments say 10 people everyone will play everyone
or whoever ...understandable