Enuf with The Dream Team Monopoly Already!!!

Have you ever noticed how there are no Open Seeks in the Team Matches?  That's because The Dream Team accepts ALL of them!!  I've seen other groups put "Not The Dream Team Please" in the title of their challenges, so I'm obviously not the only one who's having this problem.  I don't mind playing them here and there, but when I put out 6 totally different challenges, I'm hoping to play 6 totally different groups.  Not the same group TWELVE TIMES!!!!  There are 769 groups on Chess.com.   Don't you think someone ELSE might want to play occasionally?

It defeats the purpose of having multiple matches if the same people are in every match!!

What the matter billium, have you spat the dummy ?

one way around this is to directly challenge other groups. but yes, that isn't quite fair... hrmm....

Excellent point.

I am a member of no group, so I don't know what a dream team is except in Olympic basketball.So there.

The 'acceptance' of all seeks by the Dream Team is about as unfair as 'not resigning' in a lost position! 

Less drastic than blocking whole groups would be to be able to specify some extra parameters on the Open Seek. For instance, Maximum Group Size. This Best Group Match would enable similar-sized groups to play each other and would achieve a fairer contest (in much the same way as the Best Team Match proposal (described here http://www.chess.com/forum/view/help-support/first-come-first-served-team-chess ).

well said :p

Why don't we just systematically beat them until they give up on accepting challenges from us?

Nice try, Rael, at trying to get this thread locked!

I think you may be being harsh on the Dream Team. They are a victim of their own success. The GROUPS mechanism itself could justifiably be the target of your criticism. TDT have merely exploited the scheme to its limits. You could just as well blame the USA for being the only superpower.

What is needed is a power-balancing arrangement such as matching groups by size, or teams by rating power.

Why dont we play them out of it. If we win then they disband, if we lose then they can remain.

Just like some high school or college click. A sub group formed within the larger intended group that touts it self as superior to the rest. 

Team Nightmare it sounds like to me!

does this really happen? isn't that somewhat insane? what kind of victory is it if u played (intentionally badly) for the other side? i find it exhausting enough just playing unintentionally badly for myself.

Yeesh.  I've never actually played a Team Game; have been meaning to ask about how that works.  From the outside looking in, clearly this Dream Team is a very polarizing entity in the space.

I'm guessing the notion is like Vote Chess, except that your "team" is made up from a group?  Sounds reasonable, but it also sounds equally reasonable -- scratch that, necessary -- to limit the participation size per game, or perhaps better the size of the team.  10 players vs. 20 players is no great shakes; 10 players vs. 700 is not going to be any fun.

Team Chess is a means of N people (where N is practically any number) from one group playing N people from another group. Unlike in a tournament where you play everyone else individually, players in the two teams pair off: the highest ranked pair play each other, the next ranked pair play each other, and so on.

Assuming these two teams: Abe (1300), Alf (1400), Andy (1200), Amy (1250)

Brad (1400), Baz (1501), Becky (1630), Boris (1700), the pairings would be:

This discussion  http://www.chess.com/forum/view/help-support/first-come-first-served-team-chess  explored some aspects of Team Chess that lead to unequal contests - particularly between groups of different sizes or strengths.

I am not a member of Dream team(and I don't even know what their agenda is, if any), but I think Rael's accusations smell of 'bitterness'. I don't know what is the cause of it ..but the word 'undemocratic' in itself is clearly idiotic. To think there is absolute 'democracy' is in itself naive. And in any case..if you put open seeks and Dream team accepts them , its just that they are the first to respond to them..how is that being 'undemocratic' ? (or even unethical?) If you are against the 'Dream Team' and want Canadian cabals or Australian jumping jacks..you should challenge that particular group(s). Or ask them to respond faster than the dream team.

The Nazi party springs to mind, democratic maybe, but ego driven and centrist!

Why not just send a msg to the dream team to let them know of your concerns?

I do not mean to tell anyone how to form a team or what to join, but I like being a member of a smaller team because the players get to know each other over time, and the interaction and discussion in vote chess is more easily followed since it is among a small group.

It is interesting that some groups add instruction and other social functions sometimes focused on a theme. Perhaps I should form a team called the Grouchy People Team.

PeterShaby's comment that large groups may send its members to the other team to ruin their votes is a dismal thought. To use such a thing in a chess competition would be most distasteful and reprehensible. I hope this is not the case. The loss of PeterShaby from vote chess is significant since I thought his comments and insight in the vote chess games was excellent. That is the advantage of smaller teams. Its members know each other and if there are "odd" moves suggested or made, the voters are asked to explain.