well i think anyone gets to the last six of one these tournaments has to be a very strong player, so i imagine they are still well up there in the ratings. chess . com needs to find a way to ensure that players are genuinely rated for the tournament level they enter.

@TheYear9876 Did they stay over 2400 or was it a brief spike?

well this is number 21.not sure how often it happens but i know for a fact that the last six in a recent 1600-1800 t.  were all over 2400. there must be record of previous tournaments somewhere but i;m not sure how to access it.

2600 seems ridiculously high for a 1600-1800 tournament, I agree.  How common is that? How many of these tournaments have there been?

But really, if someone ends up in in the 1900s at the end or 2000s even, I don't think that is unreasonable. 

@ nadhananj.

       the problem with this tournament is that very very strong players new to chess.com, who must realise how strong they are. instead of entering a tournament at a higher level decide to come in at this level ( and probabaly even lower, i;d be intersted to know what rating the eventual winner of say the 1200-1400 t.   finishes up with) as i said previously the winner of previous 1600-1800 tournaments has been over 2600.   chess.com now has enough members, in future they should bring in a rule that you have to have been a member for 12 months before you can enter one thier tournaments, that will ensure that ratings are more realistic. a genuine 1600- 1800 has no chance.

it's way more than 90 days, considering that business people use up all their three days! Some start sooner than others. 

Hmm. I thought it was 1601-1800 when we started, not "Under 1700".  Some of us just hadn't played a lot of correspondence games, or only played against our friends. 

I don't see what the big deal is if ratings change a lot by the end. Especially considering how long these tournaments take. One diamond member in my group just took a vacation and has no games finished.  So it could be almost 90 days before even round 1 is finished. 

I'd imagine the same thing happens in over-the-board, in-person, tournaments too. You have to start playing people somewhere, and some people will be stronger than what their rating said (and others will be weaker, but nobody complains about them).

With these tournaments taking as long as they do, you'd expect many people to improve significantly in that time as well.

In this particular case, there isn't any money involved either. 

hard group!

no chance to advance!!!

Started a "Best under <1700" tourney if interested

check larryunderwood 1994's games. He has a lot of them to play. He probobly hit resign on accident.  

Hands up to 'amacing'! He is one of the best player I've ever seen. Why his rate is under 1700, it should be over 2000?

Lost a losing game.

nope, he withdrew from the tournament, meaning he resigned all his games!

would seem that hxg5 - leaves the game pretty even - perhaps he just misread the options and thought his queen was lost

I can't see any obvious reason why he resigned either

I hear you guys talking about players that are going over 1800. I am new to chess.com and I am not that much higher. My rating is in the low 1800s.

I think maybe there should be a minimum amount of games. (More than 5) because 5 is too low. I think it should be something like 30 games or something because I was in the rating range 1600-1799 after 5 games (and 5 wins).  

Can someone please help me?

Can someone please go to Biggest Upset: 1662 defeats 1940 this game and tell me why white resigned? I am an 1825 and I still didn't understand why white resgined. Please help me.

A message to hidden cheaters: THIS IS A HUMAN SITE!! Nobody here wants to play against engines!! So stop making it boring for everyone just losing again and again, and get a life and actually enjoy the game. There's no fun in playing a cheater and being one; it's just a waste of time and all it will do is just degrade you!! So if you are cheating, stop it! What's the point of being on this site then???

yeh it is for fun and enjoyment and its more fun and more enjoyable when you're playing  someone( as opposed to something ) where you have a chanc e of  winning occasionally.

yes, it is for fun and enjoyment. However, some players either have a lack of self-esteem or ego, or desperately want to win games, and desperately want to make their rating higher. That's why the high-rated players are sometimes banned for cheating.