Provisional Ratings, Minimum Games Before Tournament

A player signed-up for LiChess on 13-April-2022. The player was allowed to join an arena, before playing any games.

The very first game played on LiChess was a Crazyhouse arena tournament game.

Tournament: lichess.org/tournament/UDjl5F0p
User: TartakowerSauce

At the end of the arena tournament, the player had only played 14 games, all tournament games. After these 14 games, the player's rating was still provisional, with a "?" behind it.

Why are players allowed to join arenas without first completing 5 or 10 or 15 or 20 games, and giving a realistic rating.

I was under the impression that before joining a tournament or arena, a minimum number of games is required. In some instances I've seen 10 or 15 or maybe even 20. I remember this; and I'm still prohibited from playing some time-control arenas and tournaments because I haven't met a minimum number of games.

So, what's the deal with this behavior? I've noticed it before. Specifically: inappropriate provisional ratings, per a user's level-of-play ... in an arena tournament. This time, I have a specific example.

How does this happen?

Simply put, I'm asking, straight-up ... how do I circumvent the rules. For example, if I wanted to join a Standard Rapid (10-minute) tournament, it says: "You haven't played minimum number of games," and prohibits me. I know what rapid is. I know how to play standard chess. I've passed the requirements for blitz and bullet. Rapid is only a longer time-control. Why can't I arbitrarily join some random arena ... just because ... just like some random new user???

I imagine for variants it can be difficult for players with a question mark next to their rating to find a game.

Personally, here's my take on a question mark being shown instead of the +/- 2*RD confidence interval:
github.com/lichess-org/lila/issues/6864

I think there is an exception if it is an "hourly" tournament - I also could take part in some "hourly" tournaments, although I could not yet take part then in the normal tournaments of the same category. I think it helps to gain points for a category if one prefers to play tournaments.

@SJCVChess said in #1:
> A player signed-up for LiChess on 13-April-2022. The player was allowed to join an arena, before playing any games.
>
> The very first game played on LiChess was a Crazyhouse arena tournament game.
>
> Tournament: lichess.org/tournament/UDjl5F0p
> User: TartakowerSauce
>
> At the end of the arena tournament, the player had only played 14 games, all tournament games. After these 14 games, the player's rating was still provisional, with a "?" behind it.
>
> Why are players allowed to join arenas without first completing 5 or 10 or 15 or 20 games, and giving a realistic rating.
>
> I was under the impression that before joining a tournament or arena, a minimum number of games is required. In some instances I've seen 10 or 15 or maybe even 20. I remember this; and I'm still prohibited from playing some time-control arenas and tournaments because I haven't met a minimum number of games.
>
> So, what's the deal with this behavior? I've noticed it before. Specifically: inappropriate provisional ratings, per a user's level-of-play ... in an arena tournament. This time, I have a specific example.
>
> How does this happen?
>
> Simply put, I'm asking, straight-up ... how do I circumvent the rules. For example, if I wanted to join a Standard Rapid (10-minute) tournament, it says: "You haven't played minimum number of games," and prohibits me. I know what rapid is. I know how to play standard chess. I've passed the requirements for blitz and bullet. Rapid is only a longer time-control. Why can't I arbitrarily join some random arena ... just because ... just like some random new user???

@Toadofsky said in #2:
> I imagine for variants it can be difficult for players with a question mark next to their rating to find a game. Personally, here's my take on a question mark being shown instead of the +/- 2*RD confidence interval.

Not helpful. Doesn't address my question.

@arbez said in #3:
> I think there is an exception if it is an "hourly" tournament - I also could take part in some "hourly" tournaments, although I could not yet take part then in the normal tournaments of the same category. I think it helps to gain points for a category if one prefers to play tournaments.

Not helpful. Doesn't address my question.

=====

Maybe a different approach or question:

How do I get the attention of someone who works for or with LiChess and/or Thibault, and can answer this question with certainty?

They did answer your questions, why don't you test what they said before being such a defensive jerk in response?

A simple test showed me that the restriction does not apply to hourly variant arenas. I was able to join all of them, even ones where I've never played a game.

Toad of the sky's explanation makes sense to me as far as why this would be the case.

To answer your final question, posting here is probably the best way to get someone's attention, and if it's important enough (hint: most people think their whining is important, and they're usually wrong), you'll get a response.

@SJCVChess said in #4:
> Not helpful. Doesn't address my question.
>
>
>
> Not helpful. Doesn't address my question.
>
> =====
>
> Maybe a different approach or question:
>
> How do I get the attention of someone who works for or with LiChess and/or Thibault, and can answer this question with certainty?

Dude, you asked something like 5 questions and didn't explain yourself well; and I did answer your first question:
> Why are players allowed to join arenas without first completing 5 or 10 or 15 or 20 games, and giving a realistic rating.

I guess you care more about your other well-formed question:
> Simply put, I'm asking, straight-up ... how do I circumvent the rules.

Lichess is free software, so download the source code and deploy your own copy of the site granting yourself administrative powers to break as many rules as you like.

@Chuck_Fess said in #5:
> They did answer your questions, why don't you test what they said before being such a defensive jerk in response?

Okay. Thanks for the slap-down.

@Chuck_Fess said in #5:
> A simple test showed me that the restriction does not apply to hourly variant arenas. I was able to join all of them, even ones where I've never played a game.

I tested variants. You're right. I should have done this before. I was being an idiot and ASSuming that variants and standard were the same. (And, have thus made an ass out of myself.)

I know I remember needing to play at least 10 ZH games before being able to join an arena ... back when I first joined a long time ago.

@Chuck_Fess said in #5:
> Toad of the sky's explanation makes sense to me as far as why this would be the case.

Toad's answer doesn't make sense to me. I went back and re-read it... it still doesn't make sense to me.

Just because there may not be as many variants players as there are standard, does not justify removing basic restrictions like: "You should know how to play this game, and be familiar with the rules before you join a tournament." Otherwise, why not remove the minimum number of games restriction from standard tournaments? (Rhetorical.)

Most people joining a chess website are looking to 1) learn, and/or 2) already know the game (familiar with the basics). There are some obvious practical reasons for having a minimum number of games to join a tournament. But those obvious practical reasons extend to variants as well. On the other hand, it might be a good idea to ensure people know what they're doing before they join variants tournaments.

So what if it takes longer to meet that 10-game threshold because you have to wait in the lobby (for a less-popular variant) ...

As a minor example of this rather obvious and glaring issue: I was reading through the Feedback forum the other day, and saw yet another "En Passant is a Bug" thread ... and I'm pretty sure I've seen "cheater" threads about people dropping pieces back on the board (because someone joined a ZH game and didn't know the rules).

In any case, the first sentence, the one-liner by Toad ... still doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. But, whatever.

@Chuck_Fess said in #5:
> To answer your final question, posting here is probably the best way to get someone's attention, and if it's important enough (hint: most people think their whining is important, and they're usually wrong), you'll get a response.

Yep. I've said things like this to people before, too. And you're 100% right. Usually doesn't win me any friends, but because I understand it ...

Thanks again for the slap-down.

Feel free to close this thread now that I've made a fool of myself.

@Toadofsky said in #6:
> Dude, you asked something like 5 questions and didn't explain yourself well; and I did answer your first question:

Sorry, my bad, I'm not good at explaining myself.

I love it when I say something brief and basic and people go running in circles or pointing out there aren't enough details.

I love it when people tell me that I'm too detailed, there's too much information, to break it down, or accuse me of not explaining things well. Or the other side of that: People ignore me. (Thanks for not ignoring me?)

Gotta love life's various little social [convention] dichotomies.

@Toadofsky said in #6:
> I guess you care more about your other well-formed question:

That's exactly what it looked like.

Circumventing a minimum number of games to join a tournament looked like rule breaking. Apparently, you were right. And another user has provided an expanded explanation.

I'm sorry I'm not familiar with arbitrary rules or reasons for ... standard chess which most people know requires you play a minimum number of games to understand how to read a 1-min clock vs. 5-min clock vs. 10-min clock ... versus variants with different piece movement and game-play rules and no minimum requirement that you be familiar with these changes.

On the one hand... people usually learn to read clocks at a young age. On the other hand, everyone is just so much more familiar with variants than standard or normal chess, no entry requirements are necessary! (This is sarcasm, BTW.)

@Toadofsky said in #6:
> Lichess is free software, so download the source code and deploy your own copy of the site granting yourself administrative powers to break as many rules as you like.

No thanks.

If only it were as simple as ... "download and deploy" ... LOL, you're funny.

If only these random rules weren't buried somewhere deep in code ... and were well documented ... but, hey, I've read through the code before, and as clean as it is, comments and documentation are sketchy at best.

@SJCVChess said in #8:
> Circumventing a minimum number of games to join a tournament looked like rule breaking. Apparently, you were right. And another user has provided an expanded explanation.
>
> I'm sorry I'm not familiar with arbitrary rules or reasons for ... standard chess which most people know requires you play a minimum number of games to understand how to read a 1-min clock vs. 5-min clock vs. 10-min clock ... versus variants with different piece movement and game-play rules and no minimum requirement that you be familiar with these changes.
>
> If only these random rules weren't buried somewhere deep in code ... and were well documented ... but, hey, I've read through the code before, and as clean as it is, comments and documentation are sketchy at best.

Honestly, among Lichess staff throughout the years I've probably raised the most controversy in favor of making Lichess a great site to play and study chess variants, to ensure variant players can get games, etc. But also I've argued in favor of allowing everyone to play tournaments without some "minimum games" restriction (which I think is a Lichess exclusive feature)... but in general I'm glad when players can just enjoy the game and smoothly navigate the site.

The problem is not that you were unfamiliar with the rule. The problem is that your "questions" weren't genuine questions, instead you assumed you were being cheated somehow ("Simply put, I'm asking, straight-up ... how do I circumvent the rules.") and apparently never considered the possibility that you were just ignorant before somebody pointed it out to you. And even after given an answer (even if that answer could have been clearer), you still dismissed it immediately without even considering it. It's your attitude that made your post ridiculous, not your ignorance of the rules.

By the way, is there anywhere where it actually says that these rules apply to every single tournament, or is that just an assumption you made? When I go to tournaments where it applies, it says so in the top-left corner (in my browser anyway); when I go to tournaments where it doesn't apply, it doesn't say that.