Details?
What 'rating range' for the event (I'm only seeing rating ranges going down to 1400, or are you thinking OPEN, where anyone may join)?
What were the ratings of the several "new" participants with HUGE ratings.
sftac
Live Tournaments Allow Participants Outside of Allowed Rating Range
Sort:
It seems that when there are too few participants in a rating-limited tournament they are merged into the open tournaments instead. If you look at the tournament tab, the name will have changed to OPEN instead of the rating range.
Thanks chrka, that would make sense with the tournaments where I have seen this.
@sftac, the tournament description indicates <1000. Once the tournament starts there are players with a range of ratings - as high as 1650.
If chrka is right, then what is the point of having a rating limit defined prior to the tournament starting? It would be better if the tournament could be merged between different time definitions, rather than differen ratings, if there even needs to be a merge at all. In the cases I've seen there were 3, 4, or 5 players within the appropriate rating range, and the others were added in? Why not just conduct the tournament with 3, 4, or 5 people without adding any players that none of them wanted to play with?
Well, thankfully as a Diamond member, you can 'withdraw' once the event starts if you're dissatisfied and have unlimited capability to re-enter other tournaments (unlike the other member categories).
Given a choice: it's sounding like you'd rather a tournament not start, then to default to OPEN when participation as originally described is insufficient. Correct?
Maybe you could do that yourself, if you watch the tourney description closely and it changes its display to OPEN, say, 60 seconds before scheduled start, or at the scheduled start time.
Or, would you rather the start time be "soft" and delayed until enough entrants have entered? At some point the earlier entrants will leave in frustration, though, as it's nice to have an event starting at a known time.
There does not seem to be a 'tournament director', the process seems to be fully automatic.
sftac
I've seen this a few times also, but generally do not mind playing up.
I've had the opposite problem. I entered an 1800+ tournment, and when it started, there was me at 2000 and the second highest rated player was 1300.
Also, how does it decide the rankings if two players have the same score?
I still do not get why the tournament needs to have a minimum number of people. If only a few signed up, then kick the thing off with those people. No need to wait for more, risking drop outs. I'd rather have a tournament of three people where I know the ranking ahead of time, than 10 people in an open tournament that was not advertised as open. Once people have signed up for a tournament, the structure of the tournament definition should not change.
A tournament needs to end up with three results (1st, 2nd, 3rd).
For Swiss Style, that usually means a minimum of four entrants and it's typically a requirement that at least three of the entrants have a non-zero end result.
The site's guidelines were no doubt set accordingly. Still, Live Chess tournaments are brand new here (the graphics display of games/standings is woefully inadequent just now). I expect there will be many revisions and additions before the end result is satisfactory for most participants.
sftac
I scan for a tournament to join, based on time and rating. I find one that has ratings in a certain range, and join it. When I view the "Standings" prior to the tournament beginning, I see a list of participants with ratings appropriately within the range for the tournament. However, when the tournament starts, there are several "new" participants and they all have HUGE ratings. It happens all the time, and it is making me avoid tournaments since I don't want to play someone that is going to pounce on me. SOmeone better will help, someone who doesn't even compare in ability, is just a waste of time.