| From | Message |
|---|
|
 Make team play fair
|
aandersen
29-Jul-09, 12:00
|
I'll second that
The whole thing does seem a bit chaotic and desperately in need of tidying up and a refining of the rules
|
|
Team size and substitutions
I would think the first thing to get under control is team size. No less than ten and no more than thirty. Then, a number of substitutes to throw in whenever a player drops out or whatever.
Players who timeout three times should be penalized in some way. Perhaps dropped from team play for a time or relegated to being a substitute.
A competition that has a beginning and an end. It may be that there would have to be several team competitions. Different classes of competitions similar to league play. I suppose that some kind of round robin with GK assigning games rather than captains.
|
aandersen
30-Jul-09, 15:17
|
How would we ensure fair challenges
It would certainly save us the trouble of looking at potential opponents and deciding on fair challenges but could we rely on GK to do that?
On our team, the blinding lights, we have set a limit of 20 team members. Not only for the reasons above but because it makes the team more friendly and manageable.
I'm not really in a position to speak about time outs but your idea seems fair and in line with what I know to be happening in some teams now.
|
|
"A competition that has a beginning and an end."
I'd like that.
"GK assigning games rather than captains."
That's too prone to manipulation; as it is now, captains can always check if everything's alright, i.e. the players not being hundreds below their highest peak, timeouts etc. etc.
|
maca
01-Aug-09, 09:22
|
I think
We should just have different ladders altogether for different team sizes, just like we have different ladders for players who play fast or slow, and maybe then have the current ladder system maintained as well for curiosity. That is, a team could still challenge any team, but each team would only be a member of one ladder competition (plus, possibly, the general ladder). A team of 10 players just plays a whole different game compared to a team of 50 players, it's difficult to compare them in the same league.
Other than that, I don't see any real reason to force limits on the team sizes. The size of the team isn't the problem, it's the form of the competition. A minimum limit of team size would also take more work to implement in practice. I also doubt the GK would be interested in developing system where teams would be paired automatically, there are just too many variables to work out (time controls, number of participating players, and whether a certain player is available, etc...). Regarding timeouts, I think it's best for the captains to hand out the possible probations and other punishments for them, as there are so many different circumstances where they might occur.
Regards,
MaCa.
|
|
Social Construct
Team play, as it stands; is basically a social thing. As team members, we get to know one another better, and make friends. Many teams include some coaching and we help each other increase our opening repertoire's etc.
"That's too prone to manipulation; as it is now, captains can always check if everything's alright, i.e. the players not being hundreds below their highest peak, timeouts etc. etc."
It's my thought that a computer program dealing in statistics would mayhap be less prone to manipulation in assigning matches than captains and co-captains. Consider, captains in particular can manipulate their own opponents while regular team members are stuck playing whomever we give them.
Also, most captains on GK, in my experience; aren't all that well versed in the statistical probabilities of obtaining a fair and equal match. Or, we simply do not do the work. The statistical data for players can be very complex. Especially those that play a goodly amount of games above and/or below their average rating.
How many times have you had matches declined because a captain hasn't done the math and thinks your trying to screw their team (some captains can be very cranky)? Conversely, how many times have we declined a fair match because we didn't do the math?
As far as it goes, I really enjoy team play. Even with all the inadequacies. Making team play a viable competition will, no doubt; be quite difficult for GK. I hope they make the attempt.
The only players that are easy to get matches for are those who pretty much play within 100 points of their ratings range on a consistent basis. Their graph has two relatively straight lines.
|
|
Time outs..
I agree with Maca that this is definitely an issue for team captains and no one else. We are the ones who are in the best position to contact players re time outs. In my experience and just on the Sneaky Knight team alone in the last 12 months we have had 2 players lose their wives, one lose their father and another their mother. In these cases it would clearly be absurd to penalise players if they time out. Some things ARE more important than chess !
Chris
|
|
qwkslvr
Interesting observations on team play. I still don't quite "get it". I resisted team affiliation for a long time, with no captain recruiting me giving a decent answer to, "what's in it for me?"
Finally, a captain mentioned the social aspects, learning and teaching, which in enjoyed in a club setting. The trouble is that in this format there is little social interaction. We've had team forums. I've given individual and team advice, which when it is followed is rewarding.
Team matches seem to be just a random set of individual games which at the end are scored for the two teams. Nobody has ever communicated with me during, or prior to the start of a team match as to a team strategy. In over the board team matches, we would talk over the opening preferences of our opponents, discuss possible changes in board played, if that was permitted, and things we may have remembered about the opposition (tactical, positional, prone to material blunders, etc.) One of the pitfalls of this format, is that the nature might lead to illegal discussions of ongoing games between team members. In OTB team matches it was perfectly OK to update members on the running team score, but of course not any advice on the ongoing game. I have my suspicions about advice and collaborations in team match games. I can't think of any effective way to prevent such illegal collaboration.
I tend to agree that a size range would be desirable, and perhaps teams banded in much the manner that the GK tournaments are would be better than the current seeming chaos. How you get from here to there is another problem.
On the matter of competition with a beginning and end, team tournaments might be the vehicle, but probably would be somewhat difficult to administer.
|
|
Norm
1 person might cheat but there are a lot of honest people on GK; 2 might possibly take the risk of colluding together; 3 players doing so would be difficult. The more people involved in colluding in an illegal manner, the riskier it is for all those involved getting caught.
It's extremely unlikely that 10 people will unfairly collude together without getting caught. Someone will talk. It's just human nature. If they get caught, then the whole lot of them are banned.
Having said that...
*****
I believe a head to head competition between teams should be made with a limit of something like 10 members of the team. All other players can be substitutes and the Captains decide who is part of the competition.
Note that this is in addition to the current system.
I like the idea of of the computer matching the opponents together. But how about matching multiple teams together in competition in tournament fashion? If someone has to drop out for personal reasons, then the captain and co-captain can pick a replacement out of the pool of regular team members. The player plays for the team's position in a certain category. So the team's position in the tournament advances, not necessarily the player.
This would have the effect of increasing team sizes to at least 10 so that they could participate in the tournament. It would also tend to limit the size of some other large teams because people are going to want to participate in the tournament. They can only do so if they are in good standing and there is a slot open.
That way you don't have to set limits on the size of teams. Sizes will self regulate according to how many players are willing to be sidelined but still members. Players interested in the team competition tournaments are more likely to join a team with fewer than 10 players so that they can be almost assured of a position.
I'm sure this idea could be refined a little. I just thought it up off the top of my head. Hopefully it is a good start to a possible solution.
|
|
lighttotheright
Cheating wasn't a big issue to me, except that team matches tend to increase the likelihood of illegal collaboration. One way of eliminating the specter of collaboration would be to allow and encourage it, then the matches would truly be team matches. Two 1500 players collaborating will probably play at a higher level than each individually, if just the tendency to catch losing blunders which one might overlook.
Going back to older world championship matches, say Fischer v. Spassky, each player had seconds with whom he could legally collaborate after the 40 move time limit and adjournment. Collaboration would increase the "team" aspect, but would not seem appropriate unless the team matches were banded within say 200 rating points. It would make no sense otherwise, since the highest rated player would in effect be playing all of the games.
The problem is that team membership is a social construct without much real socialization. My team is international, and many members simply don't speak the language of other members.
I just came back from deer hunting which in many ways is similar. It is also a solo activity, for the most part, once the hunt is on. Nobody can see or shoot a deer for you. We team up on the preparation, scouting the sign, choosing stands and blind locations, and practice firing our weapons. The evenings are often spent comparing notes, and evaluating success or lack thereof in a social manner.
I do like the notion of team tournaments, which unlike the current system features a beginning and end, and winners and place finishers. It is difficult to see any relationship between your game results and the often erratic movement of your team up and down the standings.
|
|
Please log in to your account to play chess online!
