10891 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
The minimum number of games played parameter is the one that needs to be more sensibly applied, mostly in the 1001-1200 official tournaments because these seem to be the worst affected due to the fact that a new player joining Chess.com starts at an effective 1200 and is allowed into that tournament. Often these players are miles better than 1200 and so obviously beat the players whose rating has been solidly in that range over a period of time.
Probably none of the players who finish a 1001-1200 tournament with a rating of 2000 have improved to that level from a 1200 base over the course of the tournament - every one of them likely entered the tournament at 1200 before completing a single game. Players who finish such a tournament at say 1400 may have legitimately improved to that over a 2 year period though.
I have come to the conclusion that no tournament should have a ratings limitation. If you're in the low end of the range, you'll play people whose end-of-tournament rating exceeds the upper range limit and many players think that's unfair. If you're in the higher end of the range, people think that you should be eliminated because you won some games and your rating increased too much.
the solution is obvious isnt it? players should only be allowed to enter a low ranked tournament after they have completed a certain amount of friendly games say 30 ,which would give a reasonable estimate of their playing strenghth.of course players could still lose deliberately to keep their grade low but hey what can you about those sad sad folks?
If you don't want to be involved with an unending tournament, then join one with 100 players or fewer.
I read a few comments on how as soon as you reach a certain threshhold or rating, yadayadayada you should be bumped accordingly. But ratings change if your rating drops do you go back down to the lower tournament and take someones palce or what?
I think entering a tournament at a specific skill/rating should remain. I think the length of tournaments determinded by number of people should remain. We all lead different lives and can only devote x amount of time to this online.
Only way to stop this I can see is all tournaments use initial ratings to set placement then make all tournement games unrated.
Hi, I'm new and I need the next step
by BTP_Excession a few minutes ago
Staunton Chess Set - Wellington
by baddogno a few minutes ago
Why (I think) castling early is a definite mistake
by Daneel_Olivaw a few minutes ago
5/21/2013 - The Power of Imagination
by mistermax 2 minutes ago
How long have the computer workouts been broken?
by robobeer 3 minutes ago
What is the proper response to "gg"?
by vill0236 4 minutes ago
King + 2 Bishops question!
by vill0236 5 minutes ago
Draw spamming: So annoying!
by Sam97 9 minutes ago
New in Chess Magazine
by PureJay 10 minutes ago
Very Early Queen exchange
by crazypigg 10 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2013 Chess.com