Great idea!
Tournaments should include possibility of "Glicko RD" value
Sort:
A high number of games completed tends to lead to a lower RD.
A Tournament Director can change the minimum number of games completed from the default five games. This is rarely done. Given the excess supply of tournaments it is not surprising the default is sometimes reduced so more players are eligible to join.
Glicko is better than the number of games, but using a high number of games works pretty well. Also, limiting the tournament to premium members works. It would also be nice to limit the maximum achieved rating for each participant. I have seen players who had high ratings at one point and were playing a lot of games and then either resigned all their games or let them all end in losses when time ran out after which they end up with a very low rating but lots of games and a low Glicko score. It would be nice to screen these people out as well.
The problem (it seems to me) with most tournaments is that you have people in a (say) under 1400 tournament, who, by the end of the tournament have a 2000+ rating! This means that their under 1400 rating was completely nonsense. If tournament organisers could specify the maximum "Glicko RD" value (which is an estimate of how accurate a persons rating is), then this would make tournaments much much fairer.
For example, if 3 players all have a 1350 rating, but Glicko RD values of 50, 100 and 200 respectively, the player with the high 200 Glicko RD value has a very uncertain grade, and so may not be anywhere near 1350 rating (he/she may be 2000 or maybe 1100, we just don't know). If the tournament organiser could say it's a tournament for, say 1200 to 1400 players, but with a maximum Glicko RD of, say, 100, then this player would not be allowed in the tournament until he/she had a more verifiable rating.