Live Tournaments Now in Public Beta! What do you think?

Thanks chess.com for this. 

chess700 are you incapable of simply waiting.  Obviously they don't know yet. 

Ummmmmmmmmmm.... TUESDAY! give or take

There's a bunch of canceled tournaments when there aren't enough participants. Maybe running them every hour isn't as good as simply running them as soon as they fill up. I.e. there would always be a 5-minute tournament to join, and as soon as it hits 10 people it starts or something. Just a thought.

I am afraid to enter.

I don't like the idea of entering and not getting a medal. Is there a medal for last place? A gold star? I just don't want to walk away empty handed.

For those who play 4 hour OTB games and lose, do you get any kind of prize for showing up? Cake and ice cream? 

Right now, only premium members have access; that's often < 20% of the people signed in to Live. Right now we're focussing on the technology aspects of the new system, with a HUGE shot of help from beta testers - yes, many of whom are having under-registration cancellations frequently.

As far as the "human factors" issues around joining and tournament size go, next week (after we open tournaments to everyone) will be very telling!

I ♥ everything about this idea. We could have a special medal for last and second last: "#1 Ratings Donor" & "The Penultimate Loser" ... or something like that. I could fill my Trophy room with those in Blitz!

This only makes superficial sense, I feel.  Sure, it's great to have guaranteed tournaments, but I don't want to be forced to sit in front of my computer because the roster might all of a sudden fill up.  Set time is the best way.

Very fun, but for me 3/4 tournaments were cancelled (I presume due to not enough players)... Let's get regular members in! :D

Really, Next Wednesday I will give it a try.

 I have a long list of ideas to clean it up 1) post minimum players needed ( logic dictates that the 6 gb told me is off for anything above 5 rounds , assuming you don't repeat opponents). 2) 

they aren't order in the order they can be played aka the time they start so you might misss a sooner tournament simply because to find it you have to lokk everywhere.

3) I've seen time when tournaments that start at a hour ago popped up as visible.

4) if you look closely the list says 1 player signed up for it but on entering it breifly to check you find 4 people you weren't expecting. so they aren't in sync.

it's all for now without checking client side code in google chrome with developer tools like I tried to do for Domains site.

I've only managed to play one tournament because they keep getting cancelled 

Make the tournaments shorter. Like 4 round ones. Some people can't hang around for that long.

The other issue very small number of players. I was unable to play my first tourney, since there was no one to play with. Hopefully, once this is out of beta there will be decent number of players.

I think the number of rounds depend on the number of registed players. If there are more than 100 players join in one tourney, it's should have at least 11 rounds swiss to distinct the top three. On  the other hand, if there are only 8 people join, it's enough to have only 3 rounds swiss.

most I've seen so far was 10 , also for an odd number of players I don't see why a bye is needed, every hear of a computer player?  7 opponents + you = 7 rounds without repeating for one on one with all people playing at least once agaisnt each other.  if the losers of each round get put out x rounds can do 2^x players, with half being eliminated each round but then no second chances are given.

does the programmer have all the browsers that they want it to work in because a lot of browser have developer tools I think. it could solve 90% of the problems I bet. in google chrome I get 8 errors or copies of the same 2 errors for 1 line in a .js file for example.

So far, two 15|10 tournaments were cancelled due to a lack of people I think.  A little frustrating when you wait 15 minutes or so to find out you' re not playing. 

Very nice job guys, really :), this thing is materializing finally! I just have one suggestion according to what i've seen on friend in tourneys. On lower lvls, the rating range is too big. Like a 1500 vs a 1780, or a 1200 vs 1480. Maybe you have already thought of this, but i think on lower lvls rating range should be smaller, 200 points. On higher ratings... as there arent many ppl compared to the others, it can stay like that.

If this has been suggested before, sorry, thanks for reading!

Awesome point - but in fact these ratings ranges are for beta-testing only (to help ensure that the sections get sufficient registration - which *still* isn't always working). When we go live next week, the ranges will span 200 rating points only.

What Rajvosa-F mean by "another site'' ?