I think I have officially lost my pacience for folks that join tournaments with a given rating (let's say 1600) and they happen to have only 5  or so played games. Sure.. after some moves you understand the guy doesn't play like a 1600 and is starting to run you over. So during the game his rating will climb like crazy and, if you are lucky, won't do too much damage to yours. However, the problem remains as you have to accept that your chances of wining the tournament or geting far are drastically reduced. This is twice as bad if the tournament has rating limits to begin with.

I know you feel tempted to tell me about how chess is about learning and not just ratings, or that the joy in tournaments is the simple playing experience... and I do agree. But what really bothers me is the thought of people just exploiting these stuff to "climb" upon others and the sensation of being somewhat fooled.

I'm sure not all of them do it intentionally, and some might even be simple nice guys who just happen to have joined recently and decided to play a tourney.

Is it just me or should there be a decent minimum of rated games played (say 15 or more) to join any tournament?

This is part of the reason I tried chess.com, since before I just played on Yahoo! But alas, this problem goes unsolved. It's hard to combat, since it's hard to tell how good someone is if they have only played a few games. But I agree with you on this, I hate 'climbers,' as you call them, and do think there should be a way to stop them from infiltrating tournaments and more serious play than a single online game. If only I could think of a way...

The cons to playing chess via the internet. 

To be honest I think I fit that category somewhat, and I don't think your solution would work in my case. 

After a years absent from chess.com I lost the first few games when I first came back due to being rusty.  So my rating dropped sharply, I joined a tournament subsequently. During the progress of that tournement I've regained my so called playing strength and my rating has shot up way past the entry requirement.  I don't think all "climbers" are genuinely trying to con you, I certainly wasn't.

Unfortunately because of the long time length of the tournaments (especially the larger ones) you will always have climbers, either due to unforeseen circumstances like mine, or just simply because people have just simply improved vastly during the tournaments duration.

hate em all!! :)

When I entered to my first tournament I did not play correspondence chess so my rating, comes from 1200 to 1600 an I do not think that it would be bad.

A player is only as strong as their game is; Player x loses to player y, player y loses to player z. Here's the thing though: player z beats player x.

A strong player should be welcome at all times. It is playing them that helps us improve. Also the elo rating system does take into account (marginally) that some stronger players elo ratings don't reflect their actual playing strength and so cannot 'injure' you (your rating) so badly.

to judge a player by their rating is to label them.

you should always play your best, you are not your score.  climbers happen.  usually as a one time thing when one encounters them.  my rating does not represent my game, because i often play after having a couple of drinks.  does that make me a deceiver?   no.  it makes my game adjustable, much like the score.

i dont know where you are right now, but its better once you get out of the 1200-1400 because many players are new in those tourneys and consequently have high Glicko Deviations.

 A "provisional" rating could be used until a member has played a certain number of games to give them an established rating. This is done on many online sites as well as by the USCF and I believe fide doesnt give one a rating at all until  they have played a minimum # of fide rated games. I believe that number to be 9 but am not positive. USCF requires more than 9 I believe but am not sure of the number. I started with a rating here under 1600 but never understood that as I also started with the NM by my name and it seemed to me that I would be started a bit higher, like maybe 1800 to 2000. I think if someone can prove they have an otb rating that perhaps their first rating here shouldnt be started at 1200 if their otb rating clearly indicates that they shouldnt be. This would solve some problems imo. Also, for those who dont have perhaps provisional ratings are a good idea until they play a minimum number of games ?

Agree with Reb. 4-5 years ago when I started playing server chess I tried several sites. One site I won 20 games in a row and only had a mid-1500 rating and on another after about a dozen games, the longest being 20 moves, my rating was only about 1200. Those games were boring and I realized it was going to take me slogging through a hundred games to get decent competition. Fortunately I discovered a site that allowed me to start at my actual rating so that’s the one I joined. Believe me, it’s no fun for guys like Reb either to have to play dozens of low rated players just so he can get where he belongs.

My rating is not very high, but it has steadily improved since I started playing in December.  One tournament I joined in early January took forever to progress into its second round.  Now I in that second round and my rating is significantly higher than when I started round one.  I guess that makes me a "climber" in the sense of this thread, but it really is just the result of how slowly tournaments progress and how quickly your rating can change here. 

Perhaps it is best not to worry too much about the other guy's rating - I always assume they are better than their numbers, and it helps me to play with greater concentration. 

If you create your own tournament, you can set the minimum number of games played to whatever you want (it's under advanced options). Maybe you should petition Eric to raise the default above 5?

Thanx for the feedback. I believe any of the solutions proposed here could be useful, I'd just like to see something done about this issue. I really love this site but I believe tournaments as a whole could be a lot better if we could find a way to solve this and other problems like vacation abuse.

When I joined this site, I asked Erik to post me with a rating of 2200, as that is my O-T-B rating.  He did so.  I wanted to make sure that I didn't do the "climbing" thing described in this thread.

I think new people joing should provide their O-T-B rating with whatever federation they belong to, and that should be their starting rating.  As for newbies who have no O-T-B rating, well, 1200 is as good a place to start as any.

Regards, Zug

Agreed, its a problem with the system, not the player.  I highly doubt people do it to "surprise" their unsuspecting opponents.  However, your reaction is quite understandable, just remember its not really the player's fault :(

there is realy no way to avoid it, people come here to get better and that is what they do, i joined a tournament with about 20 games played and a rating of 1350 in an under 1450 tournament, and now i am at 1600, its not that i am trying to cheat its just that i am progressing

 If you start at 1200 and beat a 2200 your rating with immediately jump to almost 2000.

Anyway, the answer is to dissallow players with under x # of games (15 seems like a decent #) from your tournaments.

It bugs me that I've beaten a few "climbers" who's ratings are now in the 2200's and yet my "best win" is still 2015.

I've been begging management for a provisional period to the ratings since I joined... they mutter something about 'glicko' and swing the incense and move on...  and there's always people that feel it's important to lecture about how ratings don't matter and we shouldn't care... which always makes me want to say: if ratings don't matter and you don't care, fine...  why are you bothering to post? Since they don't matter and you don't care about them... you don't care if there's a provisional period or not, right? So let the people that DO care discuss it.

Estimating one's own rating is subject to abuse by loonies, but isn't a bad idea -- Anyone with a real rating from USCF or FIDE should start at that rating... there's no downside to it I can see... it'd only help square Chess.com ratings with USCF and FIDE ratings. And truly, it's absurd to start someone who is a titled Master at 1200!...  my god it's not fair to have to play him/her in a tournament!  That must have been gut-churning for opponents... How you like for a tournament draw: NMReb rated 1200... errr... *gulp* oh boy.

@TNziggy... 1400 playing at 1600 level is within the realm of the acceptable, as you say you've been improving which is the point... it's 1400 hiding the skill of 2400 player that is just silly. And it's happened to me!  I managed to draw a player who is currently 2500+! An awesome achievement for me, unfortunately at the time he was climbing, and was rated 1700 and I _lost_ rating for getting the draw.