|
|
| From | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
 Setting up Matches |
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
Because of this many of our matches must be from all over the ladder. I regular use the advanced player search to find matches for our mates. |
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
A new club member Glad to be here! I hope to be able to have something to contribute about once a week. orkneylad have been having some wonderful discussions, but I wanted to share some ideas, theories, concepts with more people. Hi rooklahoma! you and I have discussed this and other things some time ago. Just a brief history: After a few months of joining GK, I joined Team Checkmate-the forums were very lively and filled with many subjects. Kiss the Queen was the Captain. She allowed me to become a co-captain. I was curious as to why we didn't do better. her health was irregular and sometime she left me as captain until she returned. this happened many times. With my research, our team began climbing the ladder. Then one day she removed everybody from the team. AFter a a few weeks, il31 found me and asked if we could find former teammates and start anew. We found about 75% and became The Outcasts. Today 36 on the team are originals. It is odd to me that some teams only want to do 2-player challenges. Perhaps they don't realize they are missing a mathematical chance to win. My assumption is that there are going to be lost games. In a 2-player, losing two means you now only have a chance to draw. BUT if you have 3 players, you could still win. That is why I prefer larger matches, especially with players below 1600. In a 2-player, each game is 25% of the total score, 3-player; 16% 5-player; 10% 7-player; 7% This allows you to lose more games and still win. |
||
|
Welcome edwardphz99 I never really though about that, your method of matchmaking is interesting and makes sense. From what I figured, I aim for 2 player matches because it gives the ability to start more matches, as smaller matches leaves more players available and gives the opportunity to start more and perhaps win more matches. Even so, I don't mind starting bigger matches, I'll accept any size. Your strategy would probably work much better for me when it comes to getting my players matched...I always have a lot available |
||
|
Welcome edwardphz99! |
||
|
Small vs. large matches So making larger challenges also includes the idea of efficient time spent getting as many teammates more games. Our team allows everyone to play as many team games as they want without time out losses. Why only do 10 players when more players could get more games with the same five challenges? But we do not reject 2-player matches. I now know which teams STRICTLY only do 2-player matches, so we accept their challenges. Our profile says we prefer 3 or more, but we do allow exceptions. There are a few teams that prefer 2, but will do 3. Fine with me. I recentlty talked to the captain of the Hungarian team and talked to him about including more 3-player matches. Allow me to show you some random match results from these last two months: 5-0-7 2-1-7 4-0-6 7-0-3 11-0-7 6-2-4 5-0-3 5-0-5 3-0-5 1-1-8 9-0-3 6-0-6 Personally, I would rather not do 2-player matches. That is a lot of "responsibility" for so few players. I am used to 5-player OTB teams. But it is a popular item in team GK competition. |
||
|
Small vs large challenges |
||
|
And that's more along the line of what I was thinking rooklahoma, which is why I primarily try to start 2 player matches, though it would really help if I had some more help. Even though I can do it, it's not necessarily a good thing for me to be the only one on the team starting matches with a team my size Which is why I don't mind when other teams send bigger matches. |
||
|
Tie Up your players ha ha! you took my "hint"! ANOTHER thing I have discovered, is that this team, and probably all of your too, is that you actually have two teams when it comes to time usage. Our dividing line is at about 1640. Those above that rating use the time limits to the max, whereas those below play relatively quickly. Do we try, but don't always, try to make challenges with each group separate. I have many matches where a high rated player is "holding up" some good results because that last game is still in progress. And speaking of progress, we just had two weekends in a row where we were #1 for most of the time of those 3 days, Friday, Saturday and Sunday. (if you want to see my Excel file, please send an email :edwardphz105@gmail.com.) And just these last few days we made it to the top at least a couple of times. Our team graph shows we are rarely below #20, and even when we did go as low at the 30s or 40, we had a "V" rebound everytime. (haha-I couldn't resist.....) So I think what matters is recognizing which rating groups play quicker than others and trying to make challenges within that rating group(s). Even though we try to make larger challenges of 3 or more, we usually still have players availalble for more challenges. |
||
|
I guess I do try to make them separate as well...though the reason for me is more because I feel that other captains don't like seeing the big separation in ratings...I have no reason to think that, that's just how I see it...welcome to my strange world This is too much for me to focus on, I just try to match the current, top 90 day, and average 90 day ratings being at least somewhat close (mainly the average 90 days). Anything more and I just take far too long to send one two player match (though I do look at past game records for a couple select teams, which I don't mind doing on occasion). You have plenty to match with, your strategy works quite well, and it's proven. One thing for sure as well, I certainly don't mind starting the bigger matches with your team |
||
|
Team Analysis offer I would need you to email me a list of your team in ALPHABETICAL order and their 90-day ratings. You may need to copy and paste onto an Excel file to maintain the format. edwardphz105@gmail.com I am usually available for quick answers( challenges, etc.): PDT Sunday through Thursday, 10 pm to about 6 am. There are some weekends where I am able to show up, but mainly to keep challenges moving and answer my games. I will try to answer some questions if I have time, but they may have to wait for Sunday. |
||
|
|
||
|
Answering Small / Large challenges: rooklahoma I have been busy with Glenn at Quantum Choir. We are having excellent discussions. I am hoping to see his team make surprising progress into the top 30, maybe top 20. Making larger challenges has not made a difference. I think the main reason is because we try to make challenges within a rating group. Myself, i try to make challenges, for example, only with 1200 and 1300 players, or 1300/1400 , etc.. Or maybe 1700 and 1800 players. On our team, the amount of time used to play a game changes from about 1650 and up. Almost everyone, or at least most players who are 1650 and lower, tend to play quickly-they do not take adavantage of the time allowed. Most of our players above 1650 use the time limits to the max. That is why the lower group has played more games than the higher group. So as far as slowing things down, it does not if you try to make matches within certain ratings. I try to avoid mixing levels; a 1900, a 1600, a 1200. However lately because almost everyone has their limit of games, it takes more time to do this. For us, there are at least ten matches that could become final, if the highest rated player would finish that last game. Only one game is holding up the official score. Find the midpoint of your team. Add the finished games from the highest rated player down. You will need to know the finished game total for your current players to find the middle. Also, I have many messages from our players that confirm they are enjoying the competition, sometimes more than what they find at mini-tournaments or personal challenges. But I think this relates more to how we make pairings and is not hampered by match size. |
||
|
Another new club member I'm co-captain of The Brights team and set up most of our matches. As we have only 18 active members, I'm inclined toward 2-player matches, otherwise we sink down the ladder as other teams rise above us. Looking forward to following these interesting and informative discussions. - Dave |
||
|
|
||
|
Time zone games |
||
|
Welcome I was reading some of the forums on my screen to refresh some ideas. On excluding some teams because of their ladder position: i have not had this happen. we accept challenges from anybody as long as the numbers fit our parameters. As far as finding challenges, i view the Ladder like a running race-who are your most concerned about if you are in the pack?!=the ones in front of you! Let's assume we are #19 on the ladder (which we were yesterday). then I check the 18 teams ahead of us for challenges before checking the teams "behind" us. There are teams that declare they ONLY accept 2-player challenges, are STRICKLY 2-player teams. that is fine with us. we will send and accept 2-player challenges. some teams use the words STRONGLY, PREFER (and other similar words) 2-player challenges with various exceptions. Those ones we will try to find 3-player or more, depending on their exceptions. |
||
|
I try starting only 2 player matches, as that gives more opportunities for more matches, but I am happy to start matches of any size. I don’t mind a good 20+ player match if it can be started |
