National rating systems remain important because they serve goals that FIDE ratings cannot fully cover: they support mass participation, local development, and flexible experimentation in a way a global system never will. Malaysia, unfortunately, has done away with national rating. I know, there is MCF rating that serves to replaced the abolished previous national rating. But MCF rating is slightly different.

But let's discuss why this national rating is very much needed:

1. Accessibility and entry into rated chess

• Many national systems are designed to give a rating quickly, sometimes after just one or a few games, which is much more welcoming for beginners and casual club players than FIDE's higher entry threshold and stricter event requirements.
• This fast entry makes it easier to motivate school kids, new adults, and rural players who may never travel to a FIDE-rated event but still want a concrete measure of progress.
• There is a fee to be borne by either the player of the country chess federation to have their tournament rated.

2. Supporting local and small tournaments

• FIDE rating regulations impose requirements on arbiters, reporting formats, and time controls; these can be overkill for small, low-budget or experimental events, especially in developing chess regions.
• There are so many local tournaments that are very informal and never qualify to meet any of the formal FIDE requirement.
• A national list lets organizers rate local weekend events, club leagues, school circuits, or "fun" formats that don't fully fit FIDE criteria, keeping those events meaningful without extra bureaucracy or fees.

3. Development pathway inside the country

• National ratings create a clear internal ladder: school → district → state/region → national level, even before players are strong or active enough to appear meaningfully in the FIDE list.
• Federations can use their own ratings for local seeding, qualification spots, and training squad selection, tuned to their specific player pool rather than global rating inflation/deflation patterns.

4. Inclusion and fairness where FIDE access is limited

• In many places, players have few opportunities to play FIDE events due to cost, travel distance, or limited arbiters, so a pure FIDE-only system creates inequality between big-city players and those in smaller towns.
• A robust national list gives those underserved groups a fair way to gain recognition and track their level, instead of being "invisible" just because they cannot reach FIDE-rated tournaments.

5. Federation control, incentives, and community building

• With their own rating database, federations can build local incentives: awards for most active players, biggest rating gainers, and most active organizers, which help grow the national ecosystem, not just a handful of FIDE aspirants.
• National lists also strengthen federation membership and governance; ratings and event access often tie into membership, giving players a stake and a voice in how chess is run in their country.

6. Complement, not competitor, to FIDE

• National and FIDE ratings are usually independent but can be run in parallel: the same event can be both nationally and FIDE rated, or only one, depending on goals and practical constraints.
• This dual structure lets federations protect their grassroots while still aligning their top events and strongest players with the international system, combining global prestige with local relevance.

In short, FIDE ratings are essential for international comparison and titles, but national ratings are essential for broad participation, local fairness, and sustainable chess development inside each country. MCF rating is not the same as the previous cheaper National Rating but it's the best and closest we got.