Thank you for the info.

Thanks for explaining 6(2)->1 or 2(1)->1 to the rest of us!

I reckon it would make more sense if the tournament results table listed in order of Fewest losses rather than Most points. The current approach misleadingly puts faster players at the top of the leaderboard. e.g.

Order by Fewest Losses

an' your idea would put the slower players at the top, Art

Winning percentage of games completed might strike a balance between fast and slow players. In the end, whoever is reading the standings just has to put some effort in.

smileative wrote: an' your idea would put the slower players at the top, Art 

Not necessarily, but it would put the players with the remaining best chance of winning at the top.

by winning percentage

That looks reasonable too.

Looks reasonable to me! :D I feel like i am doing well in the tourney, hope this does not jinx it or sumpin'! Good way to look at it quickly and see the performance so far a bit more quickly, artfizz! The only drawback quickly seen is putting the slower players out front off the jump- whatever- each way will take "a closer look" to get a full pic of the tournament so far.

Ideally, if the extra columns (Played, Lost and Win%) were displayed AND the table was SORTable on various columns, everyone would be happy. 

 i quoted the above as it applies to me. i was unfortunate to win a game or two before a tournament started and was 'promoted' to the higher tier. i feel totally out of my depth or playing ability call it what you will but i cant see the point of playing on when i shall lose just about every match i play. i have and always will consider every game i play as an enjoyable learning experience but not necessarily in a competition. i'm just fodder! practise for better players to tone their better playing abilit y.

this has been discussed. The idea is that you have to be within the rating range when entering, but can be a certain amount (maybe 25) outside at the start

thanks for your reply blacknight i can see a certain logic with having say a 25 or so point spread. the tournament i am engaged in has i think 1000 players at my tier including players from 1601 to 1800. i dont really understand the group arrangement but i guess the winners from the first round play in a group again and so on? it seems a long way to go with groups of 6 or 8 or however many it is, surely a rating range of only a 100 would produce less groups and more evenly matched players. just a thought as i am sure all the options would have been explored before setting up the tournament. tf

The thing is, they won't start the tournament until it is full anyways.

I don't know if anyone will see this because it's posted at the end, and I don't know if I'll ever get a response if someone responds, but what is a timeout ratio?  I try to join tourneys all the time, but it always says my timeout ratio needs to be lower than 10%.  What does this mean, and how can I lower it?

Thanks

Time out ratio is the ratio of games in which you timed out (lost due to not making a move within stipulated time) and total games you have played. So if you have timed out in 5 games and the total number of games played by you is 50, your time out ratio will be 10%.

HTH.

Hi. I've just registered and would like to join a tournament. But all the tournament requires 5 or 10 tournament completed. 

If I can't start I will never have any tournament completed.

Do you have any suggestion?

Thanks

The 5 or 10 completed means online games, not tournaments.

In order to be able to enter a tournament, you have to have played and completed 5 rated online games without any of them being lost (by you) due to running out of time.

This page explains how to get started with playing

Thank you

What about an unsanctioned tournament? Would you play in one? Why or Why not?