does rated chess have any more point?
The only difference is you're playing for a bunch of pixels.
Is unrated chess pointless?
does rated chess have any more point?
Well, rather directly, rated chess has points.

I play unrated games either when I'm shitfaced or eager to try out a new exotic strategy (Ware Opening, Bongcloud, you name it).
But yeah, besides that, they're pretty dull.
I play unrated when I want to try out a new gambit or a ridiculously unsound-looking opening.
but how do you know if it works, if youself dont take it serious enough to play serious, why would your opponent do it??

What could be more pointless than unrated chess?
Maybe people play chess for the fun of it and don't care about points?!

I play unrated when I want to try out a new gambit or a ridiculously unsound-looking opening.
but how do you know if it works, if youself dont take it serious enough to play serious, why would your opponent do it??
I wonder how Philidor, Staunton, Morphy, Steinitz, Pillsbury, Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, Nimzovitch, Rubinstein etc etc took chess seriously since all the games they played were unrated?

What could be more pointless than unrated chess?
Maybe people play chess for the fun of it and don't care about points?!
Interesting. That may be, but I think it's more rooted in ego and fear.
Because if one is truely neutral, dispassionate, lighthearted or egalitarian, why not have fun and have a rating that reflects one's current skill level at the same time? What is there to hide or evade?
I play unrated when I want to try out a new gambit or a ridiculously unsound-looking opening.
but how do you know if it works, if youself dont take it serious enough to play serious, why would your opponent do it??
I wonder how Philidor, Staunton, Morphy, Steinitz, Pillsbury, Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, Nimzovitch, Rubinstein etc etc took chess seriously since all the games they played were unrated?
but they werent playing internet chess..

I play unrated blitz chess against any rating, while I try to play rated games against people within 200-300 rating points above or below my own rating.

I wonder how Philidor, Staunton, Morphy, Steinitz, Pillsbury, Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, Nimzovitch, Rubinstein etc etc took chess seriously since all the games they played were unrated?
but they werent playing internet chess..
And - it seems their games still stood for the record, one that was actually observed by others. So they could get some validation for their skill in a way orthogonal to their rating.

but they werent playing internet chess..
Then maybe the question should be about whether chess played on the internet is pointless.
What could be more pointless than unrated chess?
poker without money
The only comment worth any real value :)

Can rating points be converted into something useful? They are used for the purpose of organizing competitions. What other value do they have?

Can rating points be converted into something useful? They are used for the purpose of organizing competions. What other value do they have?
Showing personal progress, as well:)

I have seen more people offering unrated games in last few weeks. My opinion playing unrated games, even if you are trying to test a new move, will not accomplish what you are looking for. The other side will be playing loosely anyway. At least in rated games the other party is somewhat, and probably most of the time, trying to do their best. If you are testing something this is the way to go. I made the mistake of playing a couple of unrated games and it is a waste of time, is nothing serious in the other side.
What could be more pointless than unrated chess?