chess.com tournaments problem

I've noticed in chess.com tournaments(2 people per pair) that the pairings are done with dividing the amount of players by 2. There is a high #1 and a low #1. Why is that? In almost every case I have seen the higher player wins. This is unfair to the lower rated people.The example below demonstrates the above

Player A:(2500)

Player B:(2000)

Player 1:(1500)

Player 2:(1200)

In the way chess.com pairs up the players Player A would play Player 1 and Player B would play Player 2.

How they should be paired up, is Player A vs Player B and Player 1 vs Player 2.

Can chess.com change this so the tournament is more fair for the lower rated players?

There isnt a lot of point in what you are suggesting, as the lower-rated players have a roughly 0% chance of winning the tournament, and so may as well be out in the first round.

In fact, the way it is done currently is better in my opinion, as it allows the higher-rated players (who deserve to get nearer the end) to progress, whereas in the way you're suggesting the high-rated players knock each other out early. (For example, the first and second best players play in round 1. This tournament will end in an anticlimax.)

Shouldn't the two best players have the best chances to advance?  I don't see the logic of protecting the weaker players to force one of them to advance.

Chess is never fair for lower rated players. This is how it works everywhere. Your system would punish the 2000 rated player.  Do second seeds in any sport tennis play first seeds in round 1: tennis, football, baseball, hockey, basketball, etc? 

If you want fairer matchups, join a ratings restricted tournament, say 1400 to 1600.

it is like:

1 3

2 4 

not:

1 2

3 4

i actually think it should possibly go even further in the opposite direction (in relation to the original post). i think the highest rated should play the lowest rated sort of thing. for example:

1st vs 8th
4th vs 5th
3rd vs 6th
2nd vs 7th

QFT.  Ideally, in a tourney with 16 people (ranked from 1 (best) to 16), this is who should be able to play in each round:

Round 1: 1-16

Round 2: 1-8

Round 3: 1-4

Round 4: 1-2

Therefore, it should either be 1v3, 2v4 or 1v4, 2v3.  But with 1v3, 2v4, the odds of any 'upset' are much smaller than 1v4, 2v3.

I think this actually shows that the best vs. worst, etc... format is the most favourable to lower-rated players, as well as most favourable for the highest-rated players.  Which is how it should be.

sensfan33 is absolutely right. the tournaments should match top and bottom i.e. 1 with 16 in a 16 person tournament but it doesnt. player 9 is the one at a true disadvantage as they will definitely end up in the bracket with the top ranked player when they should have ended up in the bracket with player 8. it is not the top rated players who are disadvantaged by the tournament placing program it is the mid level competitive players who have less chance of advancing than they otherwise should.

The normal way everyone has an equal chance.

It's 2000 - 1500

1600 - 1100. not:

2000 - 1100

1600 - 1500. That isn't fair on 1600 player.

well this is the way the nfl, nba, mlb, dus it for their playoffs . it makes sense 2, because it puts the lower rated team or player to play against the higher rated team or player, therefore giving the better player a better chance to advance and win the whole thing

i appologize if im going off topic here... can someone quickly explain how tiebreaker points work in tournaments?  For instance, I have 5 points from wins, and tiebreaker of 10... what does that mean?

Thanks.

See tournament help on tiebreaks.

"A player's tiebreak score is calculated by adding the sum of the player's points they have defeated to half the sum of the player's points they have drawn against."

The way the seeding currently works is fine -- ideal even.  The quality of play should improve as the tournament progresses ideally culminating in a play-off between the two best players.  The current methodology provides for exactly that.

   The 1600 player is still the 'better' player.  With your system, 2000 won't be happy (because he stands a chance of losing to 1500, however small), 1500 won't be happy (he has much lower odds against 2000 than 1600) and 1100 still likely won't go anywhere.  In my system (as is the system used by virtually every professional league with a play-off system), the highest-rated player gets rewarded with having an easier bracket.