group + group idea

Do you think merging two groups into 1 would be a good idea? If you merged the groups you would have more chess infromation and after a few more groups merge with yours then their would be a database full of chess! The two leaders would have equal rights to the group and it would help people's rankings. You would need the approval of the other leader first.

What do you think?

Yeh that would be a great idea! suggest it to staff in a message

I will notify the staff if more people agree that it is good.

I think you'll find it's already on Erik's radar ...

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/community/group-hysteria

Great idea, but what with the name of the group!?

Easy when you have two groups with a two word name:

Take the first part of the first group's name e.g. Chess Spartans - take CHESS.

Take the second word of the other group's name e.g. Chess Athenians - take  ATHENIANS.

Then you have: Chess Spartans + Chess Athenians = CHESS ATHENIANS.

WOW THATS AN AWSOME IDEA BUT I WOULD DO IT LIKE THIS

Chess Athenians + Chess Spartans = Chess Spartans!!!! huh? eh?

Rather than merging groups, perhaps it would be more appropriate to make temporary strategic alliances between groups (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_game).

This could have particular relevance for the newly forming nation-based groups ... http://www.chess.com/forum/view/community/new-group-team-canada-teams-for-each-country-discuss  - which could cluster into a Community (for a Ryder Cup style competition).

Thats also pretty neat. I should probably do that.

Creating clustered groups explicitly (in the absence of an alliance facility) would lead to an explosion of groups, as all possible combinations were explored.

If instead we mirror geopolitics (which cannot even be discussed here), we could have:

England

England + Wales = Britain

Britain + Scotland = Great Britain

Great Britain + Northern Ireland = United Kingdom

and so on for the Scandinavians, the Baltics, NATO, the EC, and the UN.

As far as I know, the Vatican is not a member of the UN - so they would be the only nation state available as opponents.

let's expand this slightly, and incorporate ALL groups within the current "chess.com community".  The name would become relatively easy to define then, as - without losing sight of any of the various groups, and in order to maintain their 'presence' {don't want to 'short' any one group's existing name, you know}  in the new conglomerate group, let's call it:  

CHESS.COM

                         maybe because it is world wide, and on the internet web, we could call it 

WWW.CHESS.COM

     now that would be an original idea...  or not..??

but then, there would be smaller groups of individuals of similar interests (equally important to the larger group's interests, of course)  'splinter groups' within that community, those who want to 'individuate' their own smaller - but equally important groups - within that community, and we probably should allow them to form their own groups within the larger community.......

wait:  we already have that.        Is the wheel being re-invented here????