Too many groups for tourneys

  

Back to forum


George Jempty    (2025-12-04)
Too many groups for tourneys

The very highest groups take forever to fill up. I think the low bound for the higher groups, rapid or standard, should be 2300.


Scott Ligon    (2025-12-04 18:31:57)
Too many groups for tourneys

I agree, though I may be biased. My rating has never been high enough to get into the 2400+ tourneys, and currently isn't high enough for 2350+, unless maybe I could get a ticket once it fills up most of the way, or however that works. Seems like there just aren't enough active players at those rating levels. Interestingly, I noticed that two of the four players currently signed up for the 2400+ Rapid have never played a game on this site.

I wonder if there were more players a long time ago when the current tournament structures were set up, so those tourneys were getting filled regularly. But over the past few years the fields have thinned.


George Jempty    (2025-12-04 21:54:41)
Too many groups for tourneys

Yeah I'm a little biased too. I'm probably headed to 2250+ in the next couple of cycles and therefore too might be able to get a ticket into the 2300 tourneys, though I highly doubt I'll ever reach 2300.


Garvin Gray    (2025-12-09 18:40:17)
Too many groups for tourneys

The issue is not so much with rating bands, it is difference in ratings of the groups.

400 points in the groups is ridiculous. A 2500 player is not going to be the first to join a group when they know that a 2150 can also join that same group.

But once again, just like a lot of issues on this site, I have brought these issues to Thibault attention, some changes have been made, but the main issue of what you see now still remains.

Just like the rest of the issues that have been discussed, if Thibault does not agree, discussing the issue is a waste of your time.


George Jempty    (2025-12-09 18:49:13)
Too many groups for tourneys

a) I agree about the rating bands and b) I wouldn't be so harsh about Thib, he maintains this site by himself


George Jempty    (2025-12-10 00:40:04)
Too many groups for tourneys

So from the sidebar there are only 30 active players rated 2306 and above. Something clearly needs to be done. My idea of one group 2300+ might work as might additonally allow 2250+ players in under certain conditions. Maybe there could also be a 2400+ for those elite players who would prefer to play other such elite plaers.


Garvin Gray    (2025-12-10 01:59:32)
Too many groups for tourneys

I am not being harsh on Thibault at all. I am just stating a fact in regards to these discussions. For there to be progress, the site owner has to be willing to embrace the suggestions.

Without this, the conversations are just that.

I guess I am just burnt out and scarred. Having been through too many of these same discussions over the many, many years and they all end up in the same place. The rubbish bin.

And it does not have to be this way. It is true that Thibault does run this site on his own, but he could appoint three moderators or other such people to handle these decisions.


George Jempty    (2025-12-10 21:02:50)
Too many groups for tourneys

Well then there is the implementing of those decisions as well, and I have 25 years experience as a web developer, and have offered my assistance lately, but nothing has come of it. I think the decisions themselves are however Thib's purview


George Jempty    (2026-01-28 16:54:59)
Too many groups for tourneys

I'm not going to use this platform anymore until this is rectified.


Garvin Gray    (2026-01-28 17:36:07)
Too many groups for tourneys

Time to wind the clock back quite a few years. What I suggested as a solution to this issue was that the rating bands for the class tourneys and the rapid tourneys should have rating bands of 200 point differences, but they be at a different cut off.

What this meant in practice is.

Class tournaments

2600 +
2599 - 2400
2399 - 2200
2199 - 2000
1999 - 1800
and so forth

And then the rapids would be

2500 +
2499 - 2300
2299 - 2100
2099 - 1900
1899 - 1700

and so forth I think after quite a bit of discussion, Thibault decided that this idea was either too much effort, or that the rating bands I was proposing was too restrictive. I think the evidence over the years has proven my conclusions more correct. Players do not enter the rating band tournaments when there is a 400 point difference. These events only get filled by players who have a ticket from a lower tourney win, or they buy their way in by being less than 50 points in. But, to beat the drum again. If Thibault is not on board, it does not happen. And at this point in time, I am more concerned with fixing the 5 player round robin WCH group issue.


Thibault de Vassal    (2026-01-29 02:00:04)
Too many groups for tourneys

Changing rating bands is not a big effort (at all), but it would ruin coherence of each category... and we should change it again if the number of players evolve again. That's quite like suddenly playing best of 2 and only 1 serve at Roland Garros. Why tennis does not evolve (while it is seriously concurrenced by Padel) more? Quite the same reasons IMHO.

Well, FICGS is not Roland Garros... of course, but I already made too many mistakes that ruined coherence there and there, with not so good consequences.


Thibault de Vassal    (2026-01-29 02:03:26)
Too many groups for tourneys

... but well, I'm not completely opposed to such a change for a try, even if I think that problems come from elsewhere.


George Jempty    (2026-04-15 14:15:22)
Too many groups for tourneys

PLEASE. CHANGE. THE. RATING. BANDS.


Thibault de Vassal    (2026-04-16 03:05:15)
Too many groups for tourneys

Done... Let's try new ranges, somewhat more coherent with current ratings.


Thibault de Vassal    (2026-07-28 15:20:34)
Too many groups for tourneys

3 months after... what do you think? Any adjustment to make or is it still ok?


Scott Ligon    (2026-07-28 17:23:30)
Too many groups for tourneys

About the top rating group. Under current conditions, there is no meaningful difference in playing strength between any of the players rated above 2200. We're all competent operators of Stockfish or whatever engine we happen to be using, and if we let it run long enough and avoid making a move entry error, we're just not going to play a losing move. The only way I can get a win is either a move entry error, or they play an intentionally provocative move that they don't realize is actually losing, or they abandon the game. I can't win against these players and nobody can win against me either, so every game should be a draw. I don't see the point of a higher rating requirement than that for any tournament. As it stands now, if I enter a 2200+ tournament, I know I can't beat anyone unless they get sloppy, so I expect every game to be a draw which will result in me losing rating points, so I don't enter the tournament.


Scott Ligon    (2026-07-28 17:34:22)
Too many groups for tourneys

So what I'm really describing is the death of correspondence chess, which I think everyone can see by now. My suggestion to make the game somewhat interesting is to choose starting positions where the correct game theoretic outcome is not known, or at least where it isn't obvious. Everyone knows that the starting position of chess should lead to a draw, and with today's engines it definitely will. But what about a thematic tournament where white has played 1. g4, the worst possible starting move? That's at least interesting to consider (I've analyzed it and I think white loses). Opening positions where one side or the other has made a serious error that may or may not be fatal can still be interesting to play.


George Jempty    (2026-07-30 14:23:11)
Too many groups for tourneys

OK I know I largely instigated the rating changes, but I think they should be reverted for the lower rating ranges, all the way up to 2000-2399. Then after that, it should just be, 2100+, 2200+ and 2300+, and that's it. No upper bound for those suggested tourneys, ANYBODY over 2100, 2200, etc.

As to Scott's comments, I largely agree: I got up close to 2250, hoping to get over it, so under the proper circumstances I could enter 2300+ tournaments, but I quickly learned I'd never get over 2250, unless I could draw 2300+ players, so it was a catch-22. And yeah, the only times I've lost have been due to mouse slips, and almost the only time I've won against players over 2100, is when they play really bad openings (e.g. the Budapest) and/or make a series of sub-optimal moves, and I let SF18 run to depth 45-50+ to expose those weaknesses to the fullest. This has happened only about 3 or 4 times though in my last several dozen games.

I think the focus from here on out should be on *regular* and consistent thematic tournanments. I'm only here anymore to hone my opening repertoire.


Paul Guralivu    (2026-07-30 17:07:11)
Too many groups for tourneys

I like the tournaments rating ranges at this moment...


George Jempty    (2026-07-31 14:35:01)
Too many groups for tourneys

Hi Paul, but why? I think it can probably be shown that it's making the sections take much longer to fill up than previously, and this site is already on its deathbed, and in my opinion, these overly narrow rating ranges are going to be the final knell


Paul Guralivu    (2026-07-31 16:54:45)
Too many groups for tourneys

There is a way to advance rating wise.

Losing to a 1900 cant happen, because we dont play in the same rating band.
Except for WCH.


George Jempty    (2026-08-03 15:18:36)
Too many groups for tourneys

With wider ranges, there is a chance to BEAT lower rated players, for instance in a 1700-2099 range, a 2000+ rated player could play, and presumably beat, 1700's, for instance That's a side-benefit; the wider ranges will allow sections to fill up much faster than they are doing right now.