I just accepted an offer for draw although I was a pawn ahead (and lost a bit of rating) because I thought this would make it my 5th completed online game and I would be able to participate in the "7th chesscom tournament 1601-1800".

It seems I still did not make it!

The first "welcome" game I played was unrated - so it seems that is not counted towards the required "5 completed online games".

I think the message should clearly mention that completion of 5 RATED online games is the pre-requisite to participate.

Had I known this, I most probably would not have accepted the draw offer and continued to play in hope of coverting the one pawn advantage into a win.

New members, please take note.

Further to my post, I clicked again on button for joining the tournament I received a message "You must have completed at least 5 "Online Chess" games to compete in this tournament".

However in another part of chess.com website, under "who can join the tournament", I discovered that "rated games" is mentioned. It also says that default pre-requisites can be changed by tournament director.

I think it's a simple case of modifying the button message to clearly state that you must have completed 5 rated online games. This will avoid future misgivings like it happened in my case.

I agree, some clarification is evidentally needed. I don't think it's a fair assumption to make that they should be rated- I too would have believed unrated games count.

By the way, why don't you resign to Richie_94? You have just a king against several pawns, and it would give you that fifth game that you needed.

this is really funny because I also had a funny experience.  when I first joined, I timed out on 2 games and hurriedly started and resigned 3 more so I could join tournaments...when I found out about the time out ratio keeping me out I was soooooo pissed.  lol.  

 Nytik, thanks a lot - I had totally forgotten about it. I was hoping that this brillian young man would commit a blunder and I'll get away with a stalemate!! But I'll resign now - thanks again - hope his being on vacation does not come in way...

Just checked, after resigning, my nose will be still above 1600 !

You're welcome. I'm in a rather unfortunate situation for the chess.com tournament- my rating is 1808! This is due to a long win streak, and is way above my actual rating. Now, the tournament starts in 3 hours, and I haven't got any games I'm losing to resign!

Ah well, at least I get to face some really strong players! 

Phew, just made it. I am in. Thank you Nytik.

Well, I'm here to help.

Wait a minute, that's the staff! I've been wasting all my time assisting others when I could have been playing chess! 

 Unfortunate? You have 9 games in progress, losing in none of them which can prompt you to resign - and you still claim the 1808 rating is way above your actual rating!

Nytik, get real - you belong there, not in our little tournament

Ahh Nytik...

To sandbag, or not to sandbag that is the question...

You must realize though that  sandbaging is an investment.  The rating points you loose now will be more than repayed when you stomp all over everyone in the tournament.

Are you implying that I cheat?

I'm serious, I am NOT 1800+. Look at my average opponent rating! Sure, I consistently beat 1700-1800s, however I also consistently lose to 1600-1700s! It wouldn't be sandbagging, I've been on some crazy win-streak for the past week or so and now I'm going to be entered into the wrong tournament. 

 Nytik (btw, 'nytik' in Hindi means a person who upholds morality), if you look at GenericZebra's posting again, he is implying to the contrary. Obviously since you are not resigning your non losing games, you are not "sandbagging".

All he did was, pose a question in good old Shakespearen way "to sandbag or not to sandbag". Clearly no offense was meant by him.

But coming back to your own 1808 rating, ridiculous though it may seem to you, is there just a little possibility that your game may have improved a level in recent past. Normally it happens in every sport; when you practice for a long time, then suddenly (usually after a small break, when you resume) you find yourself a better player in that sport and start thrashing all those who were your equal only a few weeks back.

Perhaps you are right, Skand. It should be pointed out that I said Are you implying that I cheat? in a joking sort of manner.

It seems sort-of coincidental that Nytik is actually a word in a language, as I didn't have any particular word in mind when I created the username.

Exactly. The best way to become an 1800+ player is to play mainly 1800+ players and adjust to their level. So just think of this as the achievement that it is!

Personally I'm very happy one of my opponents resigned yesterday (losing an exchange in the opening), putting me just over 2000 -- that's where my challenge is :-)

I feel in the opposite situation of Nytik. I suspect my "real" rating may be above 2000, and have no real way of telling as I have played only a small number of games against relatively low-rated players. However, the toughness of the game seems to be hardly related to the strength of the players. The worst blunder played against me so far was by the highest rated player.

I am sure somewhere in the rules of chess.com it should say knowingly resigning a game where you would expect to do better than lose is rating abuse and is banned. Similarly for agreeing a draw in a position where there is little chance of you doing anything but win.

Interestingly, there are players in the late stages of the first chess.com tournaments who have gained over 600 points in rating while the tournament goes on, which is quite amusing!