I think that a tournament created by chess.com (those which have no participant limit) has never been won by a player rated between the rank of the tournament. I explain myself. If the tournament is made for people rated 1400-1600, the winner of the tournament will be a player rated 1900 or more. How is that? Because at the moment of starting the tournament, that player was between 1400 and 1600. This can be due to two posibilities. First: The player lost intencionately a number of games to reduce his rating and being able to enter a tourney in which he will sure get a good position. This is called cheating, and I dont think many people do it. Even if someone is about 1615 or so and enters in the 1400-1600, there is no problem, he will have the same level more or less than the other... But the other way to enter a competition is by having a starting rating of 1200 with no games played. You can enter a low rated tournament and start growing inside. In my opinion chess.com should force people to play at least 25 games before entering a tourney, so the rating of all those inside, should be like it should be. It also would help to find engine users inside the tournament, because we all know we are between 1400-1600, maybe 1350-1650 due to victories or defeats in the last moment, and a player who plays really well, cannot say "it is because I am rated 1900 but I am on my way to reach it".

What do you think people?

Well, I can't see how it would would hurt to need 25 games under your belt to enter a tournament, why not 50 even? Sounds like this might work.

Are you being ironic? I think with 25 is enought to set an accurate rating, but of course 50 also might work. 15 as well, posibly... 

Just said 25 to set a number.

@Doomrider No I really meant it. Establishing a proper rating seems pertinent if brackets in a tournment are to mean anything. So, if easily replacable new avatars are being exploited in order to disrupt the natural flow of things, then minimum games played perhaps may be a reasonable counter measure. @johnmusacha yeah, I feel your vibe but then again I understand how annoying this kind of thing can be (more so on other sites, it isn't as bad here as elsewhere) so new ideas for working towards limiting this problem further doesn't seem like an overreaction really.

Think about it.  The winner of a tournament is the player who won a large percentage of their games.  If you win games, your rating increases.  Also, these tournaments last 2 or 3 years.  During that length of time, many players will show significant rating improvement.

oh they last so long? i guess i was thinking of the small little ones i've played in. i don't know much about all this!

johnmusacha - Yes, I try to relax of course. But the point is that I am playing tournaments that I know I wont be able to win. I´d like to have a chance against players of my level. Groups are filled with 6 players, and only one advances. If in your group there is one of those super players, you know you will not probably pass.

FLCL - I agree with you.

woton - I accept players may improve in 2 or 3 years, if this is the duration of one of those tournaments. A player really in the mood for learning, my go from 1400 to 1700 or even 1800 in that time, I think. But what it is not normal, is a player rated 1400 and 4 weeks later rated 1950. That shows obviously a player with an strengt of 1950 who was rated 1400 at the beginning of the tournament. That is what I think that should be controlled somehow.

I think we should consider also the maximum punctuacion reached. I don't know if there is a formula to put all of this together:

25 games minimum, % of victories and top punctuation reached.

Greetings.

MisterMB - I dont think that is ok. In my case for example, I am a player rated around 1550 and 1650. But my first five games I played, finished in victory. Since the first games count a lot for your rating, I got 2000 suddenly, which is not my real rating at all. After some games, 5 or 6 more, I got what I deserve, around 1550. In my opinion, a minimun of games should be enough

Greetings.

yeah....over-rated players are players that are 1950 but play like a 1300.

Under-rated players are 1300's that play like 1950s, or get there REALLY quickly.

How do you know the winner was rated under 1600 at the time the tnmt started? (ie a tnmt for those rated under 1600) I'm unclear on the rule here (actually I'm too lazy to look it up) but it's possible once you enter a tnmt you stay entered regardless of whether your rating goes below or above the rating restrictions, if any.

And why is it impossible for someone rated 1599 to go up a few hundred pts by the time a tnmt for <1600 players ends? Some tnmts last for several months or longer, and some players are very active - and play with fast TLs and/or no vacations.

Finally, you didn't provide any concrete examples, facts, figures or stats to back up your allegation, so why should anyone believe you in the first place?

Ok, maybe it should be Under rated players, sorry about it, I dont speak English as first language...

NimzoRoy - To see what I am talking about, you just have to see some finished tournaments of this type. For example http://www.chess.com/tournaments/players?id=25720

this is a 1200 1400. See the top rated players, there are even two over 2000. What can a 1300 player do against that? 

And the tournament I am playing right now, http://www.chess.com/tournament/17th-chesscom-quick-knockouts-1401-1600

I am going to be eliminated from round 2 against a 1900 rated player. You think he really had a strnght of 1600 in July, when the tournament started, and one month later he improve until 1900? I dont think so.

In chess.com tournaments you get moved automatically. In others, the tournament director has to kick you.

I joined a chess.com 1400-1600 tournament a year ago when my rating was in that range. By the time I got to the second round, I wound up playing a titled player. I was stunned than an NM showed up in the 1400-1600 tourney!

http://www.chess.com/echess/game?id=52226285

Scottrf - That´s correct 

Metastable - Exactly. How on earth do you expect to win against a NM. I dont mean is imposible, of course, but which is the %? That is why I think there should be a way to control that. That player shouldnt have been able to join the same tournament that you, but other higher rated. (What surprises me is that a NM is just 1880, but that is other topic...)

The point of all this, is that in those tournaments that last so long, it would be nice to play always against people rated more or less like you.

Well if you play enough over the course of a year, then you could improve that much.  If you play alot of rated games outside the tournament, of course your rating will change.  I don't think that it is the tournament that is over-rating or under-rating players, I think it's the length of the tournament.  Some people progress and grasp chess much more quickly and aptly than others

Hello! I participate in 16th Chess.com Tournament (1200-1400), which started 1 year ago. At the time, I was 1396 I think, now I'm 2170 (probably highest possible for me). I didn't read everything above, but from my experience I know I'm around 2000. How is it possible I'm 2150? Most of the time I played with players rated ~-100. And I won most of the games of course... That's my opinion...

I started a tournament recently. When it started, one of my opponents was 1195. Now he's 2060

he ate a mario mushroom.  next round he will be spitting fire.

MSC157 - Congratulations man! You are a prodigious...I wish I were 1400 one year ago and 2100 now...

Anyway, that is not the normal thing, I think

JoeHempel1 - Yes, people may improve that much, but it is not fair that a 1900 rated player plays in a 1400-1600 just because he is rated in that rank at that time. If he is really 1500, and in the lenght of the tournament he improves a lot, let´s say to 2000 in 1 year, is ok with me. What I dont like is the other thing I just said. A more accurate rating should be required to play in those tournaments. My opinion. 

JMB2010 - Are you supporting me or giving other point of view?