| From | Message |
gameknot_com
3/14/2004
19:10:18
[ report this post ] |
 Subject: Team ranking
Message:
Teams are now ranked by their rating.
Majority of the team captains voted for it: gameknot.com/vote.pl
|
coyotefan
3/14/2004
19:18:18
[ report this post ] | New math?
Message:
91 of 222 is a majority?
|
manhattan
3/15/2004
00:52:43
[ report this post ] | team ranking
Message:
i think thats the bad idea, i dont have any incentive any more to get new games and play team games, that rating if we play a lot of games jumpin all around and there is no sence in that....
Janis
|
coyotefan
3/15/2004
09:51:32
[ report this post ] | It is not a bad idea
Message:
It is HORRIBLE!!
|
nebby
3/15/2004
13:26:08
[ report this post ] | Whats the need?
Message:
what was wrong with the old system. There was no complaints and now we are playing a team rating like you would play a single rating, whats the need?
|
astinkyfart
3/15/2004
13:56:28
[ report this post ] | i for one
Message:
spoke against this method from the begining. mike gave most what they asked for. problem is the saw the letters elo ranking and jumped on it before they thought. ranking teams by elo does not work. as i said before this type of rateing shows no long term success or failure. the arizona kings should not play anymore games. they will prob remain on top if they dont.
|
coyotefan
3/15/2004
14:36:33
[ report this post ] | Stinky
Message:
I agree with most of what you said. Mike DID NOT give the majority of what even the team captains voted for. 99 of 222 simply is not a majority, and surely is not enough to ruin the most enjoyable area of GK.
It has nothing to do with my team dropping in the rankings. We have been below 50 before. What it does have to do is not knowing what it takes to move back up. Looking at everyones team threads, they all seemed to be enjoying themselves, no matter where they fell. There was a lot of "OK if we get ten more wins we move up 3 places" type of chatter. It was fun. That all will go away.
|
nelsonnewman
3/15/2004
15:45:43
[ report this post ] | coyotefan,
Message:
I don't post here a lot anymore since I have my own site to deal with, but from what I can see, this is indeed a dubious idea at best. I think the points system (or perhaps a slight variation of the points system) would have been a better solution.
Maybe I am incorrect about this new system, but my gut tells me that it's a mistake.
|
cm2003
3/15/2004
21:02:31
[ report this post ] | ????????
Message:
I don't like this system at all. My team jumped from 36th to 18th but I don't feel good about it. One of our highest rated players on the team has the lowest score team score on the team -36. I myself have a -5 team score. Now if I win games in my non team team it helps my team or if I lose non team games it hurts my team. I like the fact that my team games are for the team and my games are just for me. The old number 1 team got tobe number 1 by playing alot of games and winning alot of games. The new number 1 team only has 3 members and has only played 25 games. My team has worked hard going from around 75th to 36th in 6 months. We could have been in the top 25 in 6 more months. That is what we were working for with maybe the top 10 in a year. I don't like this new rating system at all please go back to the old system.
|
skipslot
3/15/2004
21:55:47
[ report this post ] |
Message:
I don't think there will ever be a perfect system, there was obvious flaws with the old system as well as the new one. I do believe some tweaking needs to be done to this system in that to become an established team they need to complete more than just 20 games, this is what is needed to be an established player, the team should be alot higher. Perhaps 100 would be a more accurate sampling of data. As far as a team becoming inactive after the fact, I would suggest a minumum number of active games for a team to insure they remain competitive, like perhaps 20.
But other than that, I personally I didn't get what I voted for but I'm still going to proceed as usual.
|
astinkyfart
3/15/2004
22:52:01
[ report this post ] | you can proceed but...
Message:
first place or any place for that matter has no real meaning with this system. might as well put names in a hat and remix them everyday.. i cant think of any competition in the entire world that ranks its winners by a rateing?? rateing is good to measure strength but not head to head competion. i cant believe some didnt see this coming, coyotefan i didnt actually mean the majority but mike gave the winning voters what they wanted. what do i tell me team now?? before i could say we need this many points to acheive this goal. now i really dont know what to say?
|
skipslot
3/15/2004
23:56:30
[ report this post ] |
Message:
It is a very volatile system I will say that. Mike took the absolute value of the vote when he looked at the poll, but that goes back to the way the poll read as well.
|
smolensk
3/16/2004
05:27:51
[ report this post ] |
Message:
You know, the highest politicians in my country sounded the same way you do when we voted no to EMU. The crowd is so stupid, why do they not think like i do?
I like the new system, maybe because our team is on 2nd place =P
|
demuziekdoos
3/16/2004
06:20:20
[ report this post ] | new ranking system
Message:
The new ranking system is very bad, the old one wasn't good either but I started a thread about a complete new system. The problem here at GK is that nobody will think about new ideas and now we are stuck with another very bad system. I voted for ‘other options’ btw, but I can understand all the teamcaptains who didn’t vote for that because the other options were not mentioned.
Why is the ranking system very bad? Very simple, if a teamcaptain challenges another team you try (at least I do) to match the ratings of the players as close as possible so both players have an equal chance. If all the players from both teams have about the same rating you might expect the outcome to be a close match (eg if you play 12 games the result should be close to 6-6). The problem is that if one team has a higher team rating they will LOOSE teamrating points due to the fact that the match is even. You cannot compair teamratings with the ratings of the individual players.
It's hard to find fair matches now. I will only accept a match if the rating diffrence between the team ratings equals the diffrence between player ratings.
Example:
Team A (teamrating 1100) sends a challenge to team B (teamrating 1300) with 3 players rated 1600, 1700 and 1800.
If I was the captain of team B I would only accept with players 200 points higher (the teamrating diffrence), so players with ratings of 1800, 1900 and 2000, to keep the match based on elo fair. Team B will win the match by about 4-2 (based on the expected outcome due to the personal ratings) but gain no teamrating points. The only option is to play against teams with about the same teamrating and that means you can't play many teammatches anymore.
How long will it take before we get a good system (like mentioned in the threads I started, not only my ideas but from others as well)?
Paul (demuziekdoos), teamcaptain of the Cynical Cynics, still willing to play matches but we are very cynical.
|
astinkyfart
3/16/2004
13:04:16
[ report this post ] | smolensk
Message:
im not taking anything away from your team but you can bet your team wont be second for long , and when you do drop it probably wont be to third or fourth. with this system you will prob drop from second to 40th. give it time you will see.
|
smolensk
3/16/2004
15:40:58
[ report this post ] | astinkyfart
Message:
You are probably right.Looking at some of my taems games, our team will probably drop down to 40thplace or even lower faster than a fart.
|
manhattan
3/16/2004
23:41:01
[ report this post ] | rating system
Message:
yesterday we were Nr. 62, today Nr. 28 is there any fun?
Janis
|
libido78
3/17/2004
02:43:09
[ report this post ] |
Message:
so if i lose regular games it hurts the team?
then why join a team?
|
coyotefan
3/17/2004
07:30:09
[ report this post ] | MIKE
Message:
WHERE ARE YOU????????????????????????????????????????????????????
You have neither answered PM's or better on this forum. Your silence is deafening!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
YOU RUINED TEAM PLAY. ANSWER THE POSTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
gameknot_com
3/17/2004
09:11:57
[ report this post ] |
Message:
There's no need to yell, I didn't ruin anything -- the poll clearly showed that majority of the team captains wanted Elo rating, not old system, not anything else. I really don't understand what's the big deal -- Elo rating is widely used throughout the world, it is scientificaly proven to be accurate and not so easy to manipulate. Yes, some team captains are upset because their teams lost their high position in the table, but instead of complaining and blaming the Elo system, I would suggest spending your time and engergy on winning more games against other teams.
And I still yet to see a valid example why Elo system is so bad? Especially, why it is so good for regular games, and not so good for team games?
|
smolensk
3/17/2004
10:37:51
[ report this post ] |
Message:
Long live the new system.... hehe =P
|
astinkyfart
3/17/2004
13:01:45
[ report this post ] | mike
Message:
this is my take ... elo rateing is a measuring stick of the strength of a player in a given pool of players. in my opinion the reason this doesnt work for teams is , i for one dont want an estimated measurement of my teams strength to determine our place in the rankings. its just not the same thing. any "competition" should be have winners and losers according to the direct results of an outcome. you win you get points. you lose you get nothing (or lose points as before) im not saying the old system was perfect because it wasnt but no matter how teams are ranked it should be with results not rateings. there is no competition that decides winners by estimates, no matter how good elo or any points system is, it is still only an estimate of strength. the only perfect system would take and act of god. as far as some teams complaining because they lost their rank, i have to disagree. i know some teams who feel they moved up without earning it. how can a team have more victories but not be the best team? i know the old argument about larger teams and teams that have existed longer. i dont have all the answers but i think this new system didnt help. as far as playing i have changed nothing i will keep playing my team games but our team ranking seems to have no true definition to it. maybe i will get used to it or maybe i just dont see this system the way i should. who knows??
|
raylopez
3/17/2004
13:13:48
[ report this post ] | Mike
Message:
"And I still yet to see a valid example why Elo system is so bad? Especially, why it is so good for regular games, and not so good for team games?"
The reason, it seems to me, was stated very clearly by demuziekdoos in his 3/16 post, above:
"Why is the ranking system very bad? Very simple, if a teamcaptain challenges another team you try (at least I do) to match the ratings of the players as close as possible so both players have an equal chance. If all the players from both teams have about the same rating you might expect the outcome to be a close match (eg if you play 12 games the result should be close to 6-6). The problem is that if one team has a higher team rating they will LOOSE teamrating points due to the fact that the match is even. You cannot compair teamratings with the ratings of the individual players.
It's hard to find fair matches now. I will only accept a match if the rating diffrence between the team ratings equals the diffrence between player ratings."
This is an objective critique since our team actually gained ground due to the change to ELO rankings.
Bob
|
docd
3/17/2004
13:42:25
[ report this post ] | Team captains
Message:
I thought there was a strong argument for
1)winning percentage (can't use absolute points because of the desparity in number of team members and games played)
2) with a minimum number of games,
3) over a pre-determined amount of time or a MAT (not forever).
What happened?
|
coyotefan
3/17/2004
14:41:33
[ report this post ] | Mike
Message:
First of all, it was NOT a clear majority, it was less than 50%, it was only 21 votes from leave it alone. There is no other team competition in the world that uses a rating type system that I am aware of. The system is extermly volatile. Teams are bouncing around 40+ places in one day, with only a few games played.
Mike, please read all the posts. There is only a couple of posts supporting this decision. One of them is "I like it because my team is now in second place". Not a ringing endorsement. This has ruined team play. Please fix it before you see team play become extinct.
|
raimon
3/17/2004
16:25:25
[ report this post ] | If someone can
Message:
explain to me why a team which has a score of minus 112 should be ranked at #24 (no offence to that team), then I will support the new system!
|
pebbles
3/17/2004
19:57:52
[ report this post ] | Raimon: explanation
Message:
This phenomenon is very easy to explain: any team not ranked among the top 10 can easily raise its team rating by consistently playing against higher rated teams and not playing lower rated teams. If such a team wins 50% of its games, its rating will increase; even if it scores slightly less than 50% (and has therefore a minus score) it can still gain rating points in a match.
Example: Team A (rating 1200) plays a match on four boards (8 games) against team B (rating 1400). The match is lost 3-5. Team A will have a net Elo rating gain of 20 points, while the winning tean B will lose 20 points.
The explanation why certain teams are ranked #1, #2, #3... can easily be obtained by calculating the average individual rating difference of their past 50 or so pairings.
|
vandy
3/17/2004
20:06:29
[ report this post ] | IF I understand...
Message:
this new system, my non-team games will influence my team's ranking. That is just plain
WRONG. My non-team games should affect me, and me alone. My team games should be the
ONLY games that affect my team. Someone please correct me if I am wrong in this
understanding.
|
cm2003
3/17/2004
20:19:24
[ report this post ] | Mike
Message:
In sports, is the team with the highest aveage score the first place team or is the team with the most wins in first place?
I'm currently playing a team game against a player that is lower raked then I am. I feel that we a heading for a draw but if I take the draw I will lose 4.4 points and hurt my team score. Yes a draw will hurt my personal score but with the old system it would not have hurt my team.
Chris
|
sly_lonewolf
3/17/2004
20:25:33
[ report this post ] | so far....
Message:
..the way I understand it is that only team games that affect team rankings. From the example below (no disrespect to Arizona King's), only team matches are taken into the calculation.
15-Mar-04 lost 1564 oloff (1578) fariborz (1777) 1418 THE Red, White and Blue Ches...
15-Mar-04 lost 1579 oloff (1578) whynot (1989) 1327 Chessworld of peace
13-Mar-04 won 1596 ronman (1795) bobbysteals (1287) 1316 "Phoenix Rising"
10-Mar-04 lost 1592 oloff (1578) labyrinth_rive (1526) 1365 "Phoenix Rising"
09-Mar-04 won 1609 oloff (1578) labyrinth_rive (1526) 1363 "Phoenix Rising"
09-Mar-04 won 1605 ronman (1795) bobbysteals (1287) 1366 "Phoenix Rising"
09-Mar-04 won 1601 smartidiot (1629) xerox (1899) 1420 ???
09-Mar-04 won 1595 ronman (1795) kirsu (1474) 1324 Finland - Suomi
04-Mar-04 won 1588 ronman (1795) kitb (1680) 1406 ???
24-Feb-04 won 1576 oloff (1578) josgraafmans (1711) 1351 Dutchables
24-Feb-04 won 1565 ronman (1795) kitb (1680) 1340 ???
23-Feb-04 won 1554 smartidiot (1629) keijo42 (1464) 1198 Finland - Suomi
23-Feb-04 won 1551 smartidiot (1629) macounet (1474) 1253 Knights of the 65thsquare
21-Feb-04 won 1543 smartidiot (1629) kldr (1579) 1341 Just do it!
21-Feb-04 won 1528 smartidiot (1629) macounet (1474) 1303 Knights of the 65thsquare
21-Feb-04 won 1513 smartidiot (1629) kldr (1579) 1332 Just do it!
20-Feb-04 won 1492 smartidiot (1629) keijo42 (1464) 1184 Finland - Suomi
19-Feb-04 won 1483 ronman (1795) kirsu (1474) 1183 Finland - Suomi
16-Feb-04 won 1471 oloff (1578) josgraafmans (1711) 1446 Dutchables
16-Feb-04 won 1423 ronman (1795) delilah_38_us (1396) 1287 Knights of the 65thsquare
13-Feb-04 won 1384 ronman (1795) delilah_38_us (1396) 1346 Knights of the 65thsquare
10-Feb-04 won 1322 ronman (1795) hrbo (1394) 1314 Just do it!
06-Feb-04 lost 1241 ronman (1795) dutchable (1572) 1363 Dutchables
06-Feb-04 lost 1200 ronman (1795) dutchable (1572) 1357 Dutchables
04-Feb-04 won 1200 ronman (1795) loman (1452) 1295 Romania
04-Feb-04 won 1200 ronman (1795) loman (1452) 1308 Romania
03-Feb-04 lost 1200 ronman (1795) hrbo (1394) 1273 Just do it!
|
mrskywalker
3/18/2004
06:57:19
[ report this post ] | concept change
Message:
we now have teams that have minus 40 and minus 222 and minus 24 way up in the taem leadership so amount of wins seems unimportant. If basebal used this to decide who gets to the world series than teams would win based on earned run average or batting average. Since being on top is not based on amount of wins we now have a system based on percentages and calculations.
Finaly, in all USCF tournaments the trophy goes to the player with the most wins not on some ratings percentage.
Of course all the team captains who were on the bottom of the liat voted for a change. I imagine last place teams in any sport would want a new system to make them leap a hundred places or more in one minute.
The Jedi have worked for years as other teams to be in the top 35 teams with low rated players through skillful matcup planning and tremendous effort by individual players. We now see teams with only a few games played caltipult to the top. Perhaps two standings lists based on this new way and one based on the traaditional way. Or we could just base standings on which team has the most interesting names.
|
mrskywalker
3/18/2004
06:57:46
[ report this post ] | concept change
Message:
we now have teams that have minus 40 and minus 222 and minus 24 way up in the taem leadership so amount of wins seems unimportant. If basebal used this to decide who gets to the world series than teams would win based on earned run average or batting average. Since being on top is not based on amount of wins we now have a system based on percentages and calculations.
Finaly, in all USCF tournaments the trophy goes to the player with the most wins not on some ratings percentage.
Of course all the team captains who were on the bottom of the liat voted for a change. I imagine last place teams in any sport would want a new system to make them leap a hundred places or more in one minute.
The Jedi have worked for years as other teams to be in the top 35 teams with low rated players through skillful matcup planning and tremendous effort by individual players. We now see teams with only a few games played caltipult to the top. Perhaps two standings lists based on this new way and one based on the traaditional way. Or we could just base standings on which team has the most interesting names.
|
astinkyfart
3/18/2004
13:10:17
[ report this post ] | where are the supporters
Message:
for the new team rankings??
|
coyotefan
3/18/2004
22:20:32
[ report this post ] | Stinky
Message:
I asked Mike that in a PM. He did not respond.
As I have said before, team play is now dead. No team captain in his right mind will accept challanges from teams rated lower than they are.
|
kumpan
3/18/2004
22:48:04
[ report this post ] | No problem for me
Message:
with the new teamranking by ELO.
Time will tell us that this new system is a good one. It seems to me to be logically that teams will play together, what are about of the same ELO-rating. It's a sort of "silent" league play (better would be in fact an official one).
Daniel
(a supporter of the new team ranking)
|
kai_sim
3/19/2004
01:48:17
[ report this post ] | yes, i'll take the "bitter pill"
Message:
and agree with kumpan
whatever the majority decided, time will show...
look guys at the past GK tourneys: number one was what? 1500 points or so?...
i don't even dare to check... and today?
come on guys, stop complaining.
i would have liked to see the teams scores resetted to zero and find out what it will be after a few months (after cheating with unfair matches which isn't possible anymore... no one didn't like that). on the other side, a teams league could give us a better overview as most agreed, but thats future and still to be disgused...
what i actually like is that my team used to be arround place 20 when i joined and still is (after many disapointments) regarding points AND rating.
i think a good team makes it's positive profile in score AND rating!!!
...
|
sualksnh
3/19/2004
02:33:01
[ report this post ] | team-elo too volatile
Message:
In my opinion it would be better to calculate a new Elo-rating once per team match only and not after each game. This way we would get a more stable rating. I suggest to use a coefficient (K) of 20 which should be increased according to the numbers of players involved and the result of the match.
Example 1: 8 Players per team, 16 games, one team wins 10-6, K = 20 + 16 + 4
Example 2: 8 Players per team, 16 games, one team wins 9-7, K = 20 + 16 + 2
Example 3: 4 Players per team, 8 games, no team wins 4-4, K = 20 + 8 + 0
|
coyotefan
3/19/2004
05:10:30
[ report this post ] | IM0
Message:
One point for a win. lose 1 point for a loss , nothing for a tie. No need for k or any other abgebriac formula. Even a dummy like me can figure my formula out.
|
coyotefan
3/19/2004
05:11:40
[ report this post ] | Oh yeah
Message:
I guess I know nothing about this new higher math. I still think the 91 of 222 is not a majority.
|
coyotefan
3/19/2004
09:56:42
[ report this post ] | Is this a goiod reason to support ELO?
Message:
On one of the teams forums, one of the few people supporting ELO wrote:
Rank 23 by ELO!
Message:
(...and Rank 204 by score)
We are on the way back to the top of the list.
Good work. Congratulations.
Not good work guys, great work. You moved up over 175 places by doing nothing.
This is not a personal attack to any one person or team, this is to demonstrate the total lack of support ELO has in a practical sense.
|
kumpan
3/19/2004
12:57:51
[ report this post ] | This was my message
Message:
and is concerning the progress we've done in the ranking by ELO. We were some days ago somewhere in the 60 by ELO-ranking and some week ago somewhere in the second part of the ranking list.
And this performance deserves a thankyou and an encouragement.
Daniel
|
astinkyfart
3/19/2004
20:31:40
[ report this post ] | who wants a silent leauge??
Message:
its already hard enough to get even matches. now you must get even matches with teams that have similar elo ratings? there are certain teams i like to deal with because they have always treated me fairly, even before the new match up system. i have a certain loyalty to these captains and now the new system has made my team a less than desireable opponent.
|
coyotefan
3/19/2004
22:30:44
[ report this post ] | Mike
Message:
Time to rethink? Maybe a new vote?
|
coyotefan
3/19/2004
23:31:23
[ report this post ] | COOL!
Message:
My team just moved up 39 places, in five games. GREAT SYSTEM......NOT!!!!!
|
raylopez
3/21/2004
09:50:54
[ report this post ] | Team ranking
Message:
Something just occurred to me -- which usually means it's a dangerous thought! --but the fact is that the current list can be configured either way (ranking by points and ranking by "ELO" rating) by clicking the little arrows at the top of each column. Any given team (or player) can make their own decision how they want to view their own ranking. When the team agrees on which way they prefer, the captain can follow whatever strategy will maximize the team's performance based on the preferred ranking.
What's needed is a means for each player to select a default format for the appearance of the team table on his/her screen when you don't click on any of the little arrows. This could be done by providing a "customize this list" option at the top of the team table, just like the "customize this list" option that currently appears at the top of the "my games" list. The argument then boils down to which format is the "default default" format -- i.e., the format that appears if you don't "customize this list." But why should we really care about that? Once a team decides what format they like, everyone on that team will customize to that format. If there are teams that don't care enough to implement a preference, they will get the "default default" format, be it win/loss or ELO ranking, but who really cares about which format these "slug" teams prefer?
Over time, each team will select a format that pleases them, and "vote with their feet (fingers?)" by going to that format. Mike will then have a fairer answer to his poll questions. In the meantime, perhaps the win/loss format could be improved, e.g. by limiting the length of the ranking period that elapses before you "start over." If that is done, however, there should also be some sort of record of previous team champions based on wins and losses (and ELO ratings, I guess).
Is there anything wrong with this approach? It will probably spark debates on the "team play" forum over which team is "really" the best, but is that a bad thing?
Bob
|
gohan2535
3/21/2004
10:47:44
[ report this post ] | i hate this
Message:
people can lose team games and still have a better elo rating then other teams, i had worked on having a 5th place by the end of this year, i absloutly hate this, teams that have a -100-200 rating are above my team just because they played against higher rated teams and lost but they still get points when they get the lucky win, the points system was a LOT better my team has been open for a year now and i have worked very very hard on getting players and getting points, i think it should be changed back to what it was, it doesn't look like many team captains like it either, the dutchables have 900+ score but have moved very low because of this new system, my team has moved down from 12th place too 100th place, i am dedicated to my team now and only play a few peosonal games so i can have moreteam games to get a better score for my team, please mike change it back,
best regard's to all teams and i hope it changes back
P.S. challange my team =)
|
gohan2535
3/21/2004
10:55:30
[ report this post ] | sorry about double post......
Message:
but i pay basicly no attention to my remaining mini-tourney games so i am going to lose my team points because i am losing these points?
i cant see this working for very much longer
great work to my team we have moved down over 80 places by doing nothing, JOKE
|
chuckventimiglia
3/21/2004
11:09:29
[ report this post ] | Gohan2535 hello!!
Message:
Your non-team games have nothing to do with your team.
Winning or losing non-team games does not affect your
team's Elo.
|
chuckventimiglia
3/21/2004
11:09:31
[ report this post ] | Gohan2535 hello!!
Message:
Your non-team games have nothing to do with your team.
Winning or losing non-team games does not affect your
team's Elo.
|
sjoroos
3/21/2004
12:15:37
[ report this post ] | Oh oh.. my god..
Message:
Why don't you just keep playing your games concentrating on your chess instead
of yelling out this way?? This system is NOT perfect, but it's 100% better than
the old one as that certainly were NOT a rating system and the table actually
is called a "rating table". The old one was a LEAGUE where POINTS against the
opponents was deciding each teams position and that is GOOD, as i and other's
have suggested in other threads here.
But you all seem to forget one IMPORTANT thing if teams should comepete in
a LEAGUE: The number of games has to be EQUAL!!
**************************************************************
Someone also said:
"If basebal used this to decide who gets to the world series than teams would win based on earned run average or batting average".
Well if baseball would your right! But baseball isn't interrested in "meassuring" a
teams strength at a given moment. In baseball the one who get's the most
points win the series, BUT once again: in that series ALL teams get to play
excactly the SAME ammount of games!!
**************************************************************
Someone else complained:
"i abusolutly hate this, teams that have a -100-200 rating are above my team just because they played against higher rated teams..."
This is also a big hook! To know why that is you gotta understand what the ELO
system is all about. ELO is a system to estimate the STRENGTH of a player at
THIS very moment, not yeasterday or not during the last season, but right
NOW at this particular time! In ELO you get more credit for playing better players
and less credit for playing poorer opponents. In that way no one can "cheat"
their way to positions they don't deserve, as in playing really poor opponents
all the time just to get easy points. Can you REALLY stand up and say that such
a system is fair where one team plays 1000 games getting a score of 100 and
another team playes 100 games getting a score of 99 and anyway the first team
is placed on first place in the table?? One thing that could've worked "a bit"
better is a "percentage win formula"??
And i still don't see your problem? If you're jelous about other teams getting much
points for playing good opponents i must ask what have stopped YOUR team
from doing so?? If you think they're too good you could at least challenge a team
at the same level at your and not risking anything if you get a "draw".
Just go for the challenge and prove your team is worth it instead of complaining!
**************************************************************
Personally i don't care a bit for the teams rating as the system still actually IS a
bit inaccurate! But denying challenges just because of the fear to lose ELO-points
is nothing but ridiculous! If the challengers are lower rated, just take them on and
prove your the better team! We in Vlad's do NOT choose our opponents with
any calculations in mind, if you wanna play us just challenge us and we'll try to
set up a fair match... Much more than ELO-points we care about playing great
chess, to develop our game and making good friends :)
**************************************************************
One more thing: Mike has actually put "LEAGUE" competition on his "to-do-list" !
It will take some time to implement it and to work out all the rules so thar we
can have the fair team-competition we all deserve.
So instead of yelling, write down your suggestion about how a league could be
set up and share your ideas with Mike and all of us here at GK!
So end the complainings here, let the ELO system establish a bit and come back
with your best team later this year (or next?) and try to win the first GameKnot
SuperLeague (or what the name will be).
|
coyotefan
3/21/2004
13:57:58
[ report this post ] | Team League
Message:
If it replaces team competition, will be the end of teams. It is without a doubt the DUMBEST idea anyone has come up with. EVEN WORSE THAN THE CURRENT SYSTEM
|
coyotefan
3/21/2004
13:58:13
[ report this post ] | Team League
Message:
If it replaces team competition, will be the end of teams. It is without a doubt the DUMBEST idea anyone has come up with. EVEN WORSE THAN THE CURRENT SYSTEM
|
| | Maximum number of reply messages has been reached |
|
Please log in to your account to play chess online!