If this theoretical situation actually exists isn't this more of a problem for the large all encompassing group who can't find any competition as opposed to the smaller ones who could always play each other?
I don't see it as a real issue....
Group death?
Sort:
Chess_kebabs I know why it is done.You miss the point
This hypothetical situation exists(not in this extreem exsample but it is there).Matches are beeing decided even before they are started....not good for THE GAME.
TM World league will soon be decided by this "hypothetical situation".
So what? It's like athletes choosing to compete for their home countries rather than their current residences in the olympics.
It is nothing like that????????? Or could you explain that little better?
PanaPawn wrote:
So what? It's like athletes choosing to compete for their home countries rather than their current residences in the olympics.
I believe Defacto is saying the opposite. Those athletes you speak of would not be allowed to compete for either country.
If players who are in two groups are not allowed to play for either group, a 1000 vs 500 match is in effect a 500 vs 0 match.
Exactly....
Dec 24, 2009
0
#8
I think the site should have some limit for the group size. It is really unfair to have the team matches among the groups with varied sizes. This is just to add too much pressure to the group admins. They have to get a lot of members in order to make a group capable to play some matches.
Another aspect about the groups on chess.com is that, the site doesn't limit the number of the groups a member can join. This makes a lot of members (with too many groups) not really loyal to the teams they joined. And hence some group admins do not work for their group anymore. The worst case is the admins themselves wanted to disband their own groups. The Best is an example.
There should be some rules everywhere, even for the groups on chess.com.
2.This is "potential problem" ????
Problem:
Some groups recently went to cca. 2000 members.This wouldnt be a problem if members could join just one group but this is not the case.Since most of smaller groups members are also members of those cca. 2000 groups this means that they cant join matches played against those 2000 groups.
Hypothetical situation:
If members of Team A(who got 500 members)are also members of Team B(who got 1000 members)If Team A and B are playing against each others not 1 member of Team A will be able to join match.This is not a problem for a team B because he got another 500 members who can join...Matches are beeing decided even before they are started....not good for THE GAME.
Result:Few big teams will have almost all players on chess.com as their members and smaller teams will not be able to compete against them because most smaller team members are all members of big team too.....
Nobody likes restrictions like limiting number of groups you can be in or how many members 1 group can have......Does anyone have solution?
Am I just paranoid? Chasing windmills here?