| From | Message |
demuziekdoos
2/03/2004
07:04:40
[ report this post ] |
 Subject: Subject: Calculation of team points
Message:
Hello all teamcaptains (and others who read this as well)
When you take a look at the teamtable this moment you will see that the Dutchables are number 1 with 884 points. The Motley fools are 2nd with 387 points. A difference of 497 points. It is for all teams impossible to become first now, even if the Dutchables will play almost no games anymore (if thy will not play at all the will become an inactive team and will be moved from the active team list).
Let me get one thing clear, I don’t mind that the Dutchables are the number 1 and I don’t mind if the stay number 1 but the fact that it is impossible for other teams to become number one makes this list a bit useless.
I have 2 suggestions I would like to hear your opinions about. If one of these systems is implemented then the way of scoring must change as well because teams that are now having a negative score will benefit from the two suggestions by NOT PLAYING (or as little as possible)
So before my suggestions this. Winning a team game is 1 point, draw is half a point, losing is no point.
Suggestion 1: Just look at the points scored in a sertain period (for instance a year). The points your team won today a year ago will be gone, the points you earn today will be added to your score. This way team at the top must defend the high number of points they have.
Suggestion 2: A variation of number 1, just take the points from the last – for instance – 500 games. One problem is that if a team has a high score then they can start playing just a few teamgames at the same time so the high score will stand much longer. If option two is in your opinion a better one then a solution must be found for that problem.
I myself would prefer option 1.
Please let me know what you think. If a lot of you think the system can use a change (for instance suggestion 1) then we can ask Mike to put it on his ‘to do list’. I would like all persons who post here to respect the things other players write and please keep to the subject.
Enjoy chess!
Paul (demuziekdoos)
|
skeeterss0
2/03/2004
07:20:10
[ report this post ] | I Like #1
Message:
That makes a lot of sense. How relevant are games that are a yr old anyway. They could be from a player that has played on several teams since then, or even a player that no longer plays on GK.
|
der_handwerk
2/03/2004
07:38:30
[ report this post ] | team league
Message:
... still longing for a team league ....
|
deadofknight
2/03/2004
08:16:21
[ report this post ] | Ah...capitulation...
Message:
is there a greater form of respect to the Dutchables?
I like the idea of a change...#1 has merit.
|
fliszt
2/03/2004
10:42:54
[ report this post ] | Once again . . .
Message:
Once again I reiterate the only fair way to measure team performance, both past and present, regardless of team size or number of games played or in progress, irrespective of the relatively meaningless team ratings, and not using team points, as in suggestions one and two above which are both also seriously flawed, is to rank teams by percentage of games won to the total of games won and lost, ignoring draws. It is how every single major sports and competitive league ranks teams because it is the only universally fair way to measure performance. Why is that so hard for everyone to understand?
|
achillesheel
2/03/2004
11:22:06
[ report this post ] | Thank You Fliszt
Message:
I have been urging a percentage system for months.
I would not necessarily replace the existing point system, however. Teams are invested in their point scores, and many players simply prefer that system. I would instead suggest that the percentage system be used as an *additional* measure.
Under the point, rating, and/or percentage system, I think demuziekdoos's first suggestion (1-year limit) is worth considering.
|
astinkyfart
2/03/2004
17:04:41
[ report this post ] | i agree the list
Message:
of teams is superficial. but... i like the points system. i also like the idea of gaining points only as oppossed to loseing points. 0 for losses. it doesnt matter to me that no one will catch the dutchables then again loseing points could be the only way to catch them if we go to points gained only it will be even more impossible. if you think about it. with points lost its actually only half the distance to the dutchables. if they are 100 points ahead of a team. and lose 50 games to that team (i know its unlikely just making a point) then they are tied. it only takes fifty
|
zoobrenok
2/03/2004
22:33:37
[ report this post ] |
Message:
the only fare way is to grant points for win TEAM MATCHES, not team GAMES.
everything else is a joke.
if you take more then 50% of possible points from all team GAMES, then you win TEAM MATCH and your team score should be increased by 1. team rating also should be updated based on the outcome of entire match, not just one game.
|
demuziekdoos
2/04/2004
01:38:47
[ report this post ] | a few reactions
Message:
Hello all,
To fliszt (and achillesheel) : percentages can be manipulated as much as all the systems. First of all, if a new team wins one game – and correct me if I misunderstood you – it will be on place number 1 with 100%. If a team like that will stall all the games they are loosing they will stay number one for a very long time. The second problem is that teams that played a lot of games (over 1000) will not see the percentage change very quick. It will take a lot of games to gain or loose a few percentage points. If you would like this implemented I would suggest to also use only the games of the past year, so use my suggestion number one, and a team must play at least a minimum of teamgames to make sure 100% is impossible or well deserved (for instance, you need to play at least 50 games)
To astinkyfart : you are right about the ‘distance’ in points. I mentioned a distance of almost 400 points between the number one and two, if the number one would loose 200 games and the number two would gain 200 points then the gap would be closed. Looks most unlikely to me. My intention is that a team has to prove it’s position on the ladder by taking the last years result. Even if the dutchables will start playing very bad now it will take a very long time before another team is the number one.
To zoobrenok : Your suggestion would mean that it doesn’t matter if your team wins by 20 – 0 or 10.5 – 9.5 So if you play a match with 10 players (eg 20 games) and at a given moment the score is 10.5 – 0.5 in favour of your team (so you have already won the match) the 9 remaining games are not important anymore. These players are playing these games just for fun, the outcome is not important anymore. That would not be very nice for these remaining players. This also means team will not play big matches anymore. Why play 1 match of 20 games if you can play 5 matches of 4 games. It’s the same number of games but now you can try to win 5 matches instead of just one.
I hope to get more reactions on my two suggestions.
Enjoy chess!
Paul (demuziekdoos)
|
achillesheel
2/04/2004
06:11:58
[ report this post ] | demuziekdoos
Message:
Your first point is exactly right. I mentioned in earlier posts on this topic that there would have to be a provisional period to avoid a situation where the team who has won its first team game takes first place as a 100% winner (and, more generally, to avoid severe fluctuations until a team is established with 50 or 100 games).
I am not as concerned, however, with your second point---that the more games a team plays, the more stagnant its rating becomes. A team who wins 80% of its games wins 80% of its games no matter how many games it plays. It does not matter in my mind whether a single win or single loss affects each team the same way, because in fact a single loss is not as statistically significant to a team that plays 100 games per month as it is to a team that plays 10 games per month. That is precisely why a percentage rating is more accurate. The team who loses 1 game out of the 10 games it plays in a month will have the same percentage rating as the team who loses 10 games out of the 100 games it plays in a month. But if both teams lose ten games that month, the team that plays 100 games *should* have a better percentage rating. I do see where a team could do extraordinarily well for a long time (winning 90% of its games for 200 games, let's say), and then do very poorly (losing 90% of its games for 50 games after its best players leave the team). Its percentage rating might take a while to adjust to the "true" strength of the current team, but I do not think that overall this would be a big problem. It is only to say that no rating system is perfect, which we all know.
With all of that said, I still do think think you have a good idea with the one-year limitation. For that matter, why not have two rating colums: (1) all years and (2) past year only? Each column could have each ranking system---points, rating, percentages.
|
icecat
2/04/2004
17:09:07
[ report this post ] | ** SPORT OR SENIORITY **
Message:
Well, is this the seniority system where those who have been here the longest have
the most probability of being on top ... not much honor in that?
Or is chess a sport where performance is the key rather than seniority?
I cannot imagine anyone, number one or at the bottom, matters little, supporting a
competitve event based more upon seniority than upon performance.
Why not go by ELO ratings?
Or some other system which is truly competitive and fair?
IMHumbleO, I think the webmaster really needs to give some serious consideration
to the unfairness of this.
Perhaps a poll of EVERY SINGLE MEMBER of EVERY TEAM on GK might be a place to
start.
|
sly_lonewolf
2/04/2004
17:31:07
[ report this post ] | Team league?...
Message:
I'm not sure if someone has posted this message before...if so then consider that I'm just bringing up this point again (ie, this is not an original idea from me).
The idea of team league:
1. Every team should be limited to not more than 20 members
2. Every challenges is set to 6 'tables' :
ELO 2000 >
1800-2000
1600-1800
1400-1600
1200-1400
< 1200
3. Result for a game:
Win 1 point
Draw 0.5 point
Lost 0 point
4. Result for team-match:
Eg, Dutchables 3-3 Vlad Impalers
New York Lovers 3.5-2.5 Night Fever
5. All team scores will be added up so it'll be like a league. At the end of the year all the top 10 team gets the benefit of having 10% of their score brought forward(all other scores will be reset to 0)...not to forget extra 'rewards' from Mike himself! :)
6. Ummm.....that's all I can think of for now.
I guess this would involve a major re-structuring of the present team system. Well, this is just a suggestion.
Rgds,
Sly
|
zoobrenok
2/04/2004
22:29:26
[ report this post ] | demuziekdoos
Message:
So what? A win is a win.
Are you now suggesting that simply because a team match had 10 participants from every team it is all of the sudden more important then a team match with only 2 players from each side? Then what is the point of having team matches then?
If it is a team match, it should be team rating - based on the outcome of the team match, not individual games!
---------------
There is no difference in 20 – 0 or 10.5 – 9.5. A win is a win. In one case it was a hard and long battle between even teams, in other case one team was crushed by another team - ever watch Olympics?!
|
zoobrenok
2/04/2004
22:31:10
[ report this post ] | Suggestion 1
Message:
Won't work. Because games are not completed in one year. It came before. But there are many games within a team match that would start at the same time but end at different times.
Also, if we reset team scores, why not to reset individual ratings?! And how would this impact new team? -- All of the sudden after playing one game my rating is reset?!
|
zoobrenok
2/04/2004
22:33:58
[ report this post ] | Suggestion 2
Message:
Won't work. There are teams with 3000 games and with 20 games.
Obviously, I would think that more experienced team is stronger.
And then again - how do you pick this 500 games? What if you are not picking games of entire match?
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Bottom line is --- unless we implement TEAM MATCH scores, it does not matter how we calculate team rating, therefore nothing should be changed.
By the way - can someone show me an example of real team (let's say TENNIS) where outcome of INDIVIDUAL game, not ENTIRE MATCH will make a difference in standings?
|
demuziekdoos
2/05/2004
14:33:22
[ report this post ] | a few reactions
Message:
To achillesheel : I’m very glad we agree on a lot of things (for instance the established number of games for new teams). We differ a bit on the opinion of the period a teamresult must be counted. Let’s suggest we use percentages and we will use all the games a team ever played. In a few years time a lot of teams will have played so many games that the changes will really be minimised. Look at the dutchables, in 20 months they played 3000 games. So by the end of 2005 that team will have played over 6000 games. Even a loss of 100 games in a row (something that will never happen I guess) will cost them only 1.6% at that time. The competion is gone that way. I want the teams to prove – over a specified time frame – what they are capable of and to prove the can keep up to that expectation. My suggestion number one could be used with percentages as well.
To icecat : your suggetion of using the Elo would be a great one if not for the problem that teamcaptains try to match (at least I try) the players ratings as close as possible, if you also must try a team that matches your teamrating as close as possible you will end up with just a few possible teams to challenge. At this moment there are team that don’t want to play other teams because the team ratings differ to much and they only want to play if the player ratings differ as much, something that is not nice for the players. If this problem could be solved then your suggestion would be a very nice one IMHO.
To zoobrenok :
In your post of 2/04/2004 (22:29:26) you’re saying something completely diffrent then in your post from 2/03/2004 (22:33:37) now you want a 20-0 win to count diffrent from a 10.5-9.5 win so you’re back at square 1 (lets make that square a1 for chessplayers) . If (only if) you want 1 point for a team victory, regardless of the result (eg 20-0 or 10.5-9.5 make no diffrence) then teamcaptains can use the several players better in 5 matches of 4 games then in one of 20 games. It gives them 5 possible victories instead of one.
Suggestion 1 will work because it doesn’t matter when a game started (even if it takes more than a year). The day the game ends it will be counted in the score of the last year. I also never said anything about resetting the teamscores. I guess somewhere on the GK server the results will be stored so it must be not so very hard to tell the points gained in the last year by every team.
Sugestion 2 will work as well, the last 500 games will count (can be any other number). That means for teams playing not so many games this will cover a bigger period and teams with lots of games it will cover a smaller period. There must be some restriction here because not playing (or slowing down) if you have a high score will keep that team on top for a long time.
Olympics have nothing to do with this, or do the dutchables get a golden medal soon?
You mentioned tennis : if in a davis-cup match one country has a 3-0 lead, the two remaining games are not best of 5 sets but just best of 3. Why, the result is not important anymore but the crowd payed for the ticked so the players just play the game, non of the two players really cares if the game is won or lost because the match is won/lost already. I don’t want that to happen to the players here in a team match that the game they are playing doesn’t effect the outcome anymore. Why not resign the game at once if the match is over so you can start playing in a new team game. Even if the result of all the games count so you can have 1 point and a +20 result I would prefer the 5 smaller matches and try to win 5 points with a maximum of +5 as a result. I would be 4 points ahead of the other team that won just one match with an enourmous 20-0 victory.
I hope to get more opinions from other players/teamcaptains as well.
Enjoy your games.
Paul (demuziekdoos)
|
eurookie
2/05/2004
17:04:52
[ report this post ] | new suggestion
Message:
i am very glad demuziekdoos brought up this topic, and i also think something needs to be changed.
your suggestion #1, demuziekdoos , is not far from mine. i think team scores (as well as GK-league scores but that's another topic) should be rated by efficiency unit.
meaning that (if a win gets 1 point, a draw 1/2 and a loss 0) the current score will be divided by the number of finished games. p.e. if a team has won 10, drawn 2 and lost 7 games, the score will be 0.5788. (=11/19)
the problem in the current system, as well as in your suggestion demuziekdoos, is that the strength of each team is not awarded (but the number of finished games is!). i'll give you an example:
team 1 has finished 2000 games (with 800 wins, 700 draws and 500 losses)
- score in old system: 300
- score in new system: 0.575
team 2 has finished 500 games (with 300 wins, 100 draws and 100 losses)
- score in old system: 200
- score in new system: 0.7
in the old system, a team has to play a huge number of games to get a high score. i'm asking you: is the number of games a good indicator for the strength of a team? - i don't think so. if scores are calculated by efficiency unit, each team has equal chances to get on the first place - regardless of the number of finished games.
what do you think of this suggestion? i think it goes in the same direction as demuziekdoos'.
un saludo, eurookie
|
eurookie
2/05/2004
17:11:19
[ report this post ] |
Message:
i'm sorry. i now realize, someone brought up "my" point earlyer in the discussion. never mind.
|
zoobrenok
2/05/2004
17:55:58
[ report this post ] | demuziekdoos
Message:
so, in davis-cup there is a difference in team ratings between 5-0 and 3-2 victory?
remember that in every game your pesonal rating is also on the table.
-----------------
and by the way, two posts you mentioned are not contradicting each other - they both say that a win in a team MATCH, not team GAME should be rewarded.
And I said that there is no diff. between 20-0 or 10.5-9.5 win, just re-read my post :O)
I brought Olympics as an example of a team play (I am sure you do watch Olympics, do you?) -- in addition to individual competitions, there is a competition for nations/countries where they look who got how many medals. Usually US or Russia (in past - USSR) wins though, but point remains - this is a team competion, so outcome should be solely based on the team MATCH outcome, not on individual game. Take another team game - esthapete (spelling-? ==> when 4 guys are running 500m each for one team against 4-5 other teams....). Your individual score does NOT matter, team score does.
-----------------
I want to see team score/ratings counted based on the outcome of the team MATCH first, not individual team GAMES, then we can talk about future improvements if needed. At this point system is so weak, that it does not make any sence to do any other types of improvements without addressing a need of correceting idea behind the team score/rating.
-----------------
Good you have ideas and you want to improve GK, but take a closer look - team MATCH might spawn over a 10-14 months easily. Are you going to say that because weaker players tempt to play faster games speed fo the game should have an impact on the scores? --> This is what we have now and it is wrong. Your solution does not solve an issue we currently have. And this issue is not in a team reaching unreachable highs, but in the fact that 20-0 and 10.5-9.5 wins are different! With 20-0 win being much better then 10.5-9.5, which forced some 'unfairrr' parings and resulted in a nice feature called 'confirmation' for team matches. A win is a win. And so shall be it.
-----------------
|
zoobrenok
2/05/2004
17:56:46
[ report this post ] | eurookie
Message:
number of games is indicator of experience, and strenght comes with experience :)
|
icecat
2/05/2004
18:06:04
[ report this post ] |
Message:
Are you assuming that this is the only place that people play chess? There are
chess sites all over the world on the internet and many people have played chess
for decades before coming to GameKnot, or the internet for that matter. Some
people have much higher OTB bona fide ratings than on GK . . . wonder what that
means .... ?
|
sly_lonewolf
2/05/2004
19:54:20
[ report this post ] | but...
Message:
id=icecat if I understand U correctly, your point will just bring this discussion to nothing. The way I see it, should someone really has had a lot of experience in chess chess elsewere and has higher OTB rating, he/she should be able to prove that to the GK community...
So, what does that got to do with the on-going discussion?..or did I get what you *really* mean? :)
|
eurookie
2/06/2004
02:35:56
[ report this post ] | zoobrenok
Message:
so you should have a higher rating than me, because you finished 1100 games and i have only 283 ??
are you saying, a team with a small number of finished games has unexperienced players? i'm sorry not to be with you on that one.
again. it's necessary to relate the score to the number of finished games. otherwise, teams will be awarded for playing a very high number of games. p.e. it's the same at OTB-Tournaments: At the and, every player has played an equal number of games. there isn't any player (like a team in the current system) who gets a second and a third (...) chance to dress up his score - here this is allowed.
it is not only relevant, what score one has - it's also relevant how many games he needed to get his score. if one has a score of 80 but he needed a million games for it, he's probably not a very strong player.
aren't there any others who share my opinion?
un saludo, eurookie
|
achillesheel
2/06/2004
06:07:30
[ report this post ] | Eurookie
Message:
That was my original analogy in suggesting a percentage system (last summer). I asked everyone to imagine taking a test with one point for each correct answer. The first test-taker scored 100 points. The second test-taker scored 50 points. The first test-taker is "better" right? Well, not if his test had 500 questions and the second test-taker's test had only 50!
The team who has won 45 of 50 games (90% win rate) is "better" than the team who has won 270 of 500 (54% win rate), but their point scores would be identical (40) (if my pre-coffee math is correct).
At one point when I was captain of [-|-] Brothers in Arms [-|-], we were very high in ratings and points. Our team watched BOTH carefully. If percentages were used, we would be watching those as well. It is just another measure (and, I think, the most accurate) of a team's strength---something everyone can strive toward.
I still think D's one-year limitation is worth considering. Again, even if it is used only as an *additional* measure (having "all time" stat next to "past year" stat), it would be fun. It spreads the wealth, so to speak. The "problems" with the one-year limitation that Zoo points out ("Suggestion No. 1" thread) are not problems at all and could easily be addressed.
|
demuziekdoos
2/06/2004
07:07:24
[ report this post ] | two reactions
Message:
To eurookie : I agree with you on all the things you said.
To achillesheel : Your pre-coffee math is correct (I’m a math teacher). In your examples you only talked about wins and losses but even in you take draws in consideration the percentages and scores you mentioned will stay the same. The 50 games with 45 wins and 5 losses means 90% and 45-5=40 points. If the result would be (for instance) 44 wins, 2 draws (eg 45 points) and 4 losses it also will be 90% and 44-4=40 points.
Enjoy your games.
Paul (demuziekdoos)
|
fliszt
2/06/2004
09:22:08
[ report this post ] | Let's Face It . . .
Message:
As I said before, much farther up on this thread, let's face it, guys and ladies, a percentage ranking of the teams is the only true and accurate measurement of team performance, the only one. All other systems are just amusing curiosities.
|
docd
2/06/2004
10:55:25
[ report this post ] | my two cents
Message:
It should be:
1) percentage calculation of some moving period of time (suggest last 12 to 18 months)
2) with a minimum number of completed games to be ranked (100? 200? more?) in order to keep teams active
3) 1pt win, 1/2pt draw each game
4) Additional table to track each teams ranking on a month-to-month basis for trends
docd
|
fmgaijin
2/06/2004
13:40:04
[ report this post ] | Repost from 1/21 Thread
Message:
Sorry to repost this, but I don't feel like typing it all over again.
Doesn't % Depend . . .
Message:
. . . on whom you play? If captains can get teams to play weaker players against theirs, then their % will be inflated just as the Elo rating would be inflated. % only gives a reliable standing if one assumes that players are actually playing opponents of approximately equal strength. If not, those numbers would be just as inaccurate. Even then, a team with underrated players (especially new players since it may take a long time for a strong player to an accurate rating) will have a significant advantage in %. Let's face it: there IS NOT a really accurate way to produce team standings unless you have teams fielding the same or mostly the same set of players in matches against the other teams (e.g., the Bundesleague in Deutschland or the old National Chess League in the US). Then % would make sense because all of the teams at a particular level would play each other and field a representative team against the others. . . .
The subsequent posts went on to discuss (and give examples of) teams that throw off % calculations because their players or captains WANT to play stronger, higher-rated players (not a bad thing in itself, but bad if one wants to claim that % scores will be any more accurate than the dubious "Team Elo" or ponderous "Total Points") as well as those with clever captains adept at arranging matches with weaker teams (some teams whose % scores currently would be very high routinely slate matches where their players are 200+ points higher rated than their opponents).
|
zoobrenok
2/06/2004
20:40:42
[ report this post ] | eurookie @ fmgaijin
Message:
because after switch to ELO which I opposed (but no need to start new conversation here on this topic), i stopped carrying about ratings as they are not important. i can give you a good run for your points and there is no guarantee that you can get a draw :).
if you check my past rating, just recently i was at around 1650 -- just a point that i know how to get high in rating, but don't care about it :)
-------------------
do you guys like soccer? remember old school Brasil national team? --> doesn't matter how much you score, we will score one more goal was their slogan for a long time. too bad team is not like that any more, but oh well.. this is chess web site :)
-------------------
in order to reach concesus, let's agree on some basics, could we please?
I am stating that untill team rating/score is dependant on the number of team games team is playing, this rating/score is simply wrong. Instead, it should be dependant on outcome of the ENTIRE MATCH.
in other words, wherether you have won 4-0, or 2.5-1.5 or 10.5-9.5, it should not matter. number of games in the match shuould not make a difference.
let's agree on this one first. because this is a main issue. and once we get this implemented, then things will look much clearer on what needs to be done for future improvements.
--------
For example, there could be something among your suggestion, but different: team tournament/league where team must play certain number of team matches (not games, but matches) and then we pick winner based on score achieved, put it on team profile (winner of X team tournament) and refresh all points again.
Kind of MBL/NHL type of scenario where you don't have to play everyone, but yet you have to play enough team matches to get somewhere.
---------
but again - those changes should be thought about AFTER we fix game/match issues.
---------
also - about inflating team ratings: there is NO execuse for loosng team match. and there should be NO attacks against stronger teams becaue in todays GL, you are in COMPLETE control of how team match is setup. If you think it is not fare -- don't play! That is what I do at least :)
===============
so, can we agree on basics so i can go to sleep? :) ==> I took on side job - I am now teaching in private computer school on Saturdays in addition to my regular work :)
|
demuziekdoos
2/07/2004
05:59:33
[ report this post ] | some reactions
Message:
To zoobrenok : You keep talking about the result of team-matches. 1 point if you win the match, ½ point if the match is drawn, no points if you loose the match. You keep ignoring my remarks that this will not work, I’m not talking about rating (this should be affected by the outcome of the entire match). I said that teams will prefer only small matches with two players so you can play more matches (I would use that tactic if this will happen, only send challenges with two people, refuse matches with more than 2 people).
Reading all the posts I see that most people prefer percentages instead of points. No reactions at all to my suggestion number two so let’s forget that one. I will redefine my suggestion number one and let’s see if we can do something with this.
1. team scores will be in percentages (0, 1 or 2 decimals. This needs to be discussed)
2. The period that will be used must be set to a number of time, like docd said 12 or 18 months but we can also discuss 24 months.
3. a team needs a minimum of team games played to stay in the team ladder (this number needs to be discussed as well, I would propose 100 but other numbers are possible as well)
4. a win is 1 point, draw ½, loss 0
Perhaps some other things need/can to be included (I’m thinking about the post of eurookie from 2/05/2004, 17:04:52)
I would like eurookie, achillesheel, fliszt to react please, our ideas might be a bit diffrent but we are not that far apart. All the other players who reacted are welcome to post as well ofcourse but the 3 persons just mentioned reacted the most.
Keep thinking about these ideas and not forget to play chess as well!
Paul (demuziekdoos)
|
zoobrenok
2/07/2004
08:34:55
[ report this post ] | demuziekdoos
Message:
yes, i keep talking about team matches. and no, i do not think all teams would preffer small matches and while it does look like a good idea, that won't be accepted by all -- current system has its roots and reasons, don't you think?
-----
how about your own rating being reset every now and then?
-----
you are very funny man though: you are proposing to change system without changing it! you are saying: 'let's repaint the house so we won't seeleaks from bad roof'. i am saying -- let's first fix that roof!
so, you have matches two people against two people, with 4 points on the board (not talking about % right now, your original post was about points).
So, it means that 4-0 win is a better then 2.5-1.5 win. But this is the reason why some teams have so high scores! Yeah, let's repaint the house! But then in couple months people will come and say - 'roof is still leaking!'
--------------
I wonder why rest of the folks don't post anything? does it mean that they all like system the way it is? then why would we want to change it?
|
experimentator
2/07/2004
11:04:14
[ report this post ] | I agree with zoobrenok...
Message:
I think that main purpose of teams here is making stronger comunity using the team as point of meeting for 5, 10, 25... never mind how many people. This idea is great and that's the reason we have so many teams here...
But, if we want some serious competitive rules about teams, it's a different story. We have to admit that present rules can't reflect any valid parameter about strength of specific team. I'll try to explain...
First, if you have a team competition, you must provide same rules of competition between teams. That mean all team matches MUST have equal number of players (4, 6 or 8 I suggest). Two or three players doesn't make a team and more than 8 is really hard to summon.
Second, it's team competition. result of any single player is unimportant itself. Important thing is TEAM RESULT. So, I think that zoobrenok is right, win for team match is 2 points, draw for team match is 1 point. If you preffer to stop rating inflation then win for team is 1 point, draw is 0 point and lose is -1 point.
Third, we should consider captain's role in team matches. I think that captain should have the right to propose draw in some games (chained draws - tables 1 for white and 3 for black for example...). IMO this will strenghten team spirit.
I have more ideas, but let's save something for next message.
Best wishes, experimentator
|
fliszt
2/07/2004
13:10:57
[ report this post ] | I'll Say This . . .
Message:
I'll say this one more time, for the sake of those who request yet another reply: the only, I repeat only, universally fair and correct way to measure team performance is to simply calculate the percentage of team wins to the sum of team wins and losses. It's that simple, folks.
|
ccmcacollister
2/08/2004
00:39:30
[ report this post ] | Count Match Wins...
Message:
Like zoobrenok, I'd like it if Team Match-Wins counted. But see a few problems I'm unclear how to overcome.
1)Number of Boards in a Match...Should Victory in a 4 Board match receive the same "1" MAtchWin point as a 20 Board effort? I can't see that. Or does board number have to be standardized? Makes Matching up a bit harder.
...
2)Suppose everyone decides, "Hey if nobody plays a match with Team#1, They can't score any more points!" The only "fix" I can see is to say; you cannot take #1 unless you've actually played them. Naturally, then Team#1 won't play YOU, if your team is going to surpass them in points?! And quite a tangled mess if you applied it to ALL positions, not just #1. May as well make it a Ladder then.
.....
Maybe the "problem" is only theoretical; Do Dutchtables get all the matches they would want?
....
3) About changing to a WinPercentage system of scoring instead of CummulativePoints...one potential problem there; it may encourage teams to drop players who have a bad percentage. I dislike the idea of that happening. In the present scoring a player with a lower percentage can still be valuable to the team by producing Quantity of Points thru their efforts to play a larger # of games.
.....
Simple EG. During a 6 mo. period: PLAYER-1 has won 9 of 11 games. Player-2 Has won 99 of 300 games, after Hurculean effort on his part. But he's under 30%, while the rest of the team averages to 50%. And his games account for 1/3 of 900 by the whole team. Extreme example of a Team Hero, becoming an Undesirable. But say then that Player-2 is really 4 players of that team.......aren't those 4 players "history"? No calculation required to see that The Team would make a MAJOR jump in %; thus the Rankings.
......
I favor the idea of establishing a definate time period to be considered. Let Dutchables remain in the lead for Champions of the Decade or Century?! Declare a yearly Championship Team based upon points earned in that year. .....??????Wait,
what am i saying; then nobody ever Resigns in December !
.....
How about changing the name of team forum to Gordian-Knot forum?
|
coyotefan
2/08/2004
01:23:46
[ report this post ] | Leave them alone
Message:
The way the teams work now is fine.
|
eurookie
2/09/2004
13:33:31
[ report this post ] | summary
Message:
as far as i see there are several options left. i will list them in this post and i propose that mike will organise another poll to see if anything needs to be changed and if so, what solution would make the happiest gk-community. then we can discuss what needs to be discussed. i hope this is alright with demuzkiedoos, who started this discussion(?)
- everything stays the way it is now
- team matches are counted by single games and divided by the numer of finished games - the percentage system
- team matches are counted as in the davis-cup system. meaning if in one team match, more games are won by team a - team a gets one point (=one teampoint). now, there are different variations which can also be combined
variation 1. no end is defined
variation 2. all teamwins are counted until the end of the year
variation 3. teampoints will be divided by the number of finished teammatches
variation 4. a win with 4 vs 4 players counts less than a win with 10 vs 10 players
please fill in if i made mistakes somewhere or forgot something.
in my opinion, there is a need of a poll - further discussions are useless if we do not know what gk-people think about all this.
un saludo
|
chuckventimiglia
2/09/2004
16:28:46
[ report this post ] | If any improvements are made....
Message:
to the team rankings then the only reasonable suggestion
is the one that Fliszt made above. Any other system
would be unfair to new teams that start in the middle
of the year.
If the teams are ranked by the % game wins vs. game
played that system could remain. A team could start
at any point in the year and the system would still
be accurate.
I would like to say to Mike that another poll was
supposed to take place concerning team rankings.
That is a poll to rank the teams by ratings. This poll
never came about and it was promised after the
Elo poll was taken.
Personally I do not like the idea of ranking by ratings
and do not like the idea of seeing a different system
proposed every 3rd Thursday of the Lunar New Year. :-]
The most reasonable method of ranking the team is
the one that Fliszt proposed. Just my thought!!
Chuck
|
zoobrenok
2/09/2004
18:42:27
[ report this post ] | eurookie
Message:
sounds good to me. and as long as we count matches, not games - everything else is pretty much OK with me :)
|
skeeterss0
2/09/2004
23:39:28
[ report this post ] | This is great
Message:
Looks like we are reaching an agreement already. I for one like the idea of yearly renewal of competition. That way instead of an ongoing contest that no one ever really wins we would have a yearly team champ.
|
coyotefan
2/10/2004
00:31:53
[ report this post ] | Sorry, I see no agreement
Message:
Some want match only points, others want individual points, some want yearly points, others do not, some want percentages, some do not. I am not sure that there is even enough agreement for Mike to weed out survey information. There also is still the question of how a small team is to compete fairly with a big team (And vice versa), and how new teams are to compete with established teams. Is it fair to throw out the current system that teams built up points just because a few people in a forum think it is a good idea?
The only thng that can be assumed from this post is that nobody is enamored with team ELO ratings.
Like I said earlier, my preference is to leave things as they are. Teams that built up their points deserve to keep them.
|
bogg
2/10/2004
01:05:48
[ report this post ] | ???
Message:
Why not leave things as they are and have additional team events for teams of a specific size like the GK Olympics? Or start a new team section for team matches of fixed size (4, 6, or 8 players) with the respective boards playing each other? These could be scored by match points with game points as a tie breaker. Just a thought.
CT (Bogg)
|
coyotefan
2/10/2004
03:40:39
[ report this post ] | Something else to think about
Message:
There sure does not seem like there is a HUGE clamor to overhaul the team system. There are over 2,600 players who are members of a team, so there must be something right with the current system. It also seems to me that there are many more players trying to get on a team than quitting team play.
|
chuckventimiglia
2/10/2004
06:21:36
[ report this post ] | The team systems should be....
Message:
left to the people that do the work in managing the
teams. The Team Captains!! They are the ones that
set up their teams and do all the managing of their teams.
If people that are not team captains do not like the
present team system they should simply not join a
team. Chuck
|
coyotefan
2/10/2004
06:56:25
[ report this post ] | Chuck
Message:
Very well said!
|
theinvisibleman
2/10/2004
07:15:11
[ report this post ] |
Message:
Well, I don't have a solution to dazzle everyone with, but I have been following this thread with interest. As the captain of a very small team, I also find the current system unsatisfactory. Even if I had twenty players, a top ten placing would be impossible the way things stand, and there is simply no way for us to seriously compete. Because of this, I am considering winding down my team to focus instead on league play.
The Invisible Man,
Captain, The Self-Preservation Society.
|
docd
2/10/2004
08:06:01
[ report this post ] | Team competition - the season
Message:
Just curious - is there any other TEAM competition (NBA, NFL, NCAA, FAA, ...) that anyone can name where standings are calculated for more than one or two years? Should the Boston Celtics still be ranked as the best NBA team based upon their performance 20-30 years ago? Celtic fans know they're still number one but even they would say all teams should start with a clean slate and earn the number one spot each and every competition season.
|
icecat
2/10/2004
12:16:28
[ report this post ] | Right on
Message:
And no one goes into World or Olympic competition with points form the past . . .
everyone starts out level at the beginning of the competition and that is the fair
way.
Why don't more people respond? Maybe because they are told to leave it to the
Captains, LOL. Just as likely, the forum is burried in a subterrainean manner on
this web site and I am sure half the people don't come here, and a goodly portion
are apathetic.
The movers and the shakers of the world certainly are not in the majority of
mainstream population. Just because many people here don't respond doesn't
mean that they are not saying something to their team members, their captains, or
to other people on chess lists, and other places on the web.
Now in the days of the internet, word travels very fast. This has been discussed
plenty of places outside of this site already. I am sure that when word gets
around, this is not going to be the happening site that is currently is. The team
placement rating system as it stands currently being totally accumulative is just not
fair to new teams coming in. And just because everyone doesn't complain all of
the time, doesn't make it the underpinnings of the system fair. This sort of system
wouldn't last at the Olympics, that's for sure.
|
fmgaijin
2/10/2004
13:16:38
[ report this post ] | Olympiads, etc.
Message:
Yes, the Chess Olympics, Bundesleague, etc., use a % scoring system. HOWEVER (and this is a big "however"), those systems have (1) teams of the same size, (2) paired rounds or a round robin rather than "arranged" matches, and (3) a consistent match "size" (4 boards, 10 boards, etc.). My teams in the Olympics, Asian Teams, Pan-American Teams, and Asian Cities tournaments did not get to "choose" our opponents or our opponents' slate of players, and we had a maximum of six players covering the four boards, so there weren't another 20 or so players clamoring for a chance to play for the team. As Craig (bogg) said above, if we want to crown a "Champion" via a team league or team championship, that should probably be a separate "event" from the overall standings, and as Chuck said, any OTHER change in the team scoring system should probably be voted by the team captains because they would know how it would affect their teams better than the rest of us.
|
demuziekdoos
2/10/2004
13:44:53
[ report this post ] | well
Message:
I started this discussion so I think I keep this thing going.
I read that a lot of people think something must be changed. I gave two possible options, number two is not discussed at all so I think we only talk about suggestion number one, possible with the variation of percentage instead of points.
Perhaps chuckventimiglia is right to let the teamcaptains decide what to do. Perhaps we should ask Mike to have some kind of proposal and give the teamcaptains a vote in this.
I saw that this post will be number 48, so I will fill up 49 and 50 as well and start a second thread about this subject so we can continue this discussion.
Paul (demuziekdoos)
|
demuziekdoos
2/10/2004
13:46:01
[ report this post ] | number 49
Message:
Just closing this thread, I will send a message to Mike to tell him about this thread (and the next one I will start after closing this one)
|
demuziekdoos
2/10/2004
13:46:38
[ report this post ] | number 50
Message:
end of this thread, the next one will be started at once
|
| | Maximum number of reply messages has been reached |
|
