I think that it means a lot.It is a team's championship, not a individual championship.And the play begins months before, motivating your team.But the point is not this.NOW , for this year, these rules are definited.Should then be changed because of one exceptio?All the work to find the 75 goes without meaning?
Minimum number of players
Sort:
Mar 16, 2013
0
#3
without the minimum, you could in theory play your best player only if that player is better than the opponent's best player. that said, there is a balance to strike. you don't want the minimum too low so it's not a team competition or too high so that it's a struggle to get enough players.
I'm surprised--and pleased--that we got as many players as we did. Our team has had fewer than 10 matches that I can recall in which we got 60 or more to sign up. I'll be even more surprised--and pleased--if we can get enough players consistently throughout the year
Yes.Think about the olympics games.If the "winner country" would be the one that sent only one athlet that won one gold medal you are not having a country's competition.
IF, hawever, ALL the countries in a division conclude that they a small number of player's requirement, no problem.But, in a sinple match, even if the two one agree it is not fair with the other teams in the same division that are overstreaching their players to have 75+.
...But in the Olympic Games, they don't say, "Sorry, but you can't compete in the high jump final, because you're an American, and the USA is such a large country that it would've been expected for more than one person qualify for the final, so you can't win because your team doesn't have enough representatives."
We have always been flexible on the minimum number of players. We have also run into issues in the past with rosters being manipulated, which I believe was the reason for the rule in the first place. ie. so that teams couldn't selectively remove players from their team matches.
But as I've repeated many times in the WL HQ match problems forum, we are reviewing the minimums for next round and they will be changing for round 2 based on the lower than expected participation in round 1.
This is the best solution.To change the minimun requirements for everybody in the next round.The game keeps its fairness.
Let's play and enjoy this awesome championship
Really ? Have You Not Calculated The Rules You Keep Changing To Be More Flexible, Possibly Jeopardizing the Basic Integrity Of the World League Itself ? I Look Up to you Daws and Respect You Also for The Hustle and Time you Put into this League, But, any Structure Too Flexible Will Eventually Bend too Far and Fall Over, Looking Wormy in the Process..
What is Really at Stake Here is The Integrity Of The World Chess Team Matches. To Walk away from My Laptop Savoring Two Honest Wins In a World League Team Match Only to Have The Points Erased Because I Have Family Matters to attend to makes me Feel Somewhat Spit Upon. Now That Smaller teams can Qualify against larger better prepared teams and Actually win because of more rule changes. Rules Not generally accepted elsewhere.
My General Opinion is That "World League", Has A Strong and Solid Foundation, But The Walls Are Not Coming up Straight.
It is a necessity in this league where if the rules were strictly enforced, we would have about 1/3 of the matches won by default.
Unfortunately we are not dealing with a stable set of team admins in all of these countries.
Believe me, I wish I could just strictly enforce the rules and that everyone would then suddenly start complying with them. But you have to realize this in not the case in this virtual world league.
If A Team does not Qualify because it cant meet the Challenge of Enough Players and the Other Team does Qualify with enough Players, and You make Them Rechallenge each other at a Smaller Player Match....That's Called Bending the Rules,,,,its also Called "Helping out the Little Guy", "Beating the Spread", "Cherry Picking", "Hog Wash"...ETC....
I always thought that A Team that Does Not Qualify is Disqualified.
It's Cool Though, i am only voicing my opinion, i dont know all the Issues Related to the Subject, but the Lines don't look straight.....
bulletheadbilly, one suggestion that I have is that you join some of these teams that are having problems and help to develope them. You don't have to play in their games. I'm serious with that suggestion. These teams need help and support and it will make them more compliant if they have more experienced admins to give them direction.
Daws is doing the best job he can seeing black in white, in a virtual gray atmosphere amongst the teams of conflicting personalities, ethics, and language barriers. Plus, he's doing this all on his own time. Think about this.
I dont have alot of spare time for that, allready too busy, thats why i respect you People for all your effort. you should Make Sure that the The Challanges have the right amount of players on them as not to have to Reissue a Challange because a team didn't qualify for the First challange.
As challenges need to be sent very soon for the next round I think that we can quickly learn here where the problems are going to be and try to find a fix. In some cases I think that it will be getting more players to sign up and in others it has to be lower minimums. Total inflexibility at this stage simply will not work.
I can see how it would be necessary to have a reasonable minimum number of players to avoid having each team just play their top players, but admins and faithful team members do not have total control over how many players sign up for matches. Some say, "I don't participate in groups and teams," while others only participate in perhaps every fourth match. It is rare for a team to have even half of their players join a match, and there is usually almost nothing that the admins and active members can do to persuade the others to join.
As has been said earlier, the World League may collapse if we have huge numbers of matches being won/lost by default and not being played. Members of teams that are hit hard by the minimum number of players rule will not sit around for a year waiting for their team to drop into a lower division; they will simply leave and never come back.
Bulletheadbilly keeps talking as if it's a team's fault if they can't get enough players, and that it's unfair to "help out the little guy" by allowing the team to play with fewer players, so we should just forfeit that team. But I have two things to say about this: first, that it's not the fault of the active members if the inactive members stubbornly refuse to pay much attention to the World League, and second, that defaulting is bad for both the winning AND losing teams. If the team doesn't have a match this month because they won by default, and doesn't have a match next month because they won by default, then eventually that team's members will get bored and leave (they came to this website to play CHESS, not to sit around waiting for opposing teams to get enough players). That would be the end of the world league. You can't claim your team is a better chess team just because it happens to be the right size for the division that it is in, and we can't change which division a team is in during a season.
To anyone who is worried that their team may lose against a smaller team because the minimum-player rules were changed: You shouldn't need to worry, because when a larger team plays a much smaller team, the rating mismatch on the lowest boards will practically guarantee that the larger team will win anyway.
Well said PhilipN.
If the rules are chenged for everyone and keeping a minimun but not so low (for example going from 75+ to 50 +) I see no problem at all and it seems as the best solution.
But Team Brasil, for example, almost always looses in the first 10 or 15 boards and wins in the botton end because we have a lot of compromised members but no "pros" and Germany has 50 players above 2000 aginst team Russia...
These ARE NOT the opinions from my team but only mine.I am NOT an admin.
"Earth To World League", "Earth to World League" "This is NORAD, Your straight lines have become Twisted, and u are at risk of Impact with a Giant Salami Upon Return to Earth".."Please Advise Over".....lol
I don't think the minimum number of players rule makes much sense. The larger teams will have lots of players sign up anyway, whether or not you tell them they have to. The current standard for the minimum number of players, which (in Division C at least) is very close to the maximum number that many teams can expect to get to sign up for any given match, seems to just make it difficult to get enough players. It worked in our (Team USA: Northwest's) favor this time, since we were so close to the required number that we were able to motivate people into joining by saying, "We just need 5 more people...," "We just need 4 more people..." etc. We got some really strong players this way (one of our new recruits, who joined our team just days before the lock date, was a FIDE Master, and another is a top-100 player in his USCF age group!), but I really don't think that a pressure-packed minimum-player requirement (or maybe even any minimum-player requirement) is really necessary. The only thing a team can do to meet it is to try to get people to join by brow-beating them over the Internet or spamming them.