Is it possible to create a team match where the AVERAGE rating of the players on each side cannot exceed a certain amount? If not, this might be something to put in as a feature.
Team Matches: Davids versus Goliaths
Sort:
If a team has more strong players, then wouldn't it logically deserve to win?
oinquarki wrote:
If a team has more strong players, then wouldn't it logically deserve to win?
How long does it take for shooting fish in a barrel to become joyless?
How can rivalries be born if only one side has a realistic chance of winning? For example would Muhammed Ali be as famous if there was no Joe Frazier? (If you have to ask ... I am too old for the internet.)
Jul 24, 2011
0
#5
Personally I only enter Team Matches where I'll be playing someone about my rating or higher-rated. I want some competition, I don't want to "shoot fish in a barrel" and I also prefer (usually) not to be playing with everything to lose and nothing to gain (ie rating pts) which is what happens when you play someone rated a lot lower than yourself. I wanna have everything to gain and little to lose, at least sometimes.
As far as lopsided matches go, who cares? If the underdogs cared that much they'd either call it off or not take part IMHO
TadDude wrote:
oinquarki wrote:
If a team has more strong players, then wouldn't it logically deserve to win?
How long does it take for shooting fish in a barrel to become joyless?
How can rivalries be born if only one side has a realistic chance of winning? For example would Muhammed Ali be as famous if there was no Joe Frazier? (If you have to ask ... I am too old for the internet.)
Make a rival of a team your own strength. What you are saying is more like a weakling saying they should have equal chances in professional boxing so Ali should tie his feet and an arm together after staying awake for 36 hours straight before the match.
Jul 24, 2011
0
#7
Some teams limit match participation to <1500 or <1200 or whatever. You can limit match participation to more limited groups, if more of your players are low-rated. Also, on higher boards, you can limit participation to >1800 and five players...
So you don't have to get slaughtered every time.
mrguy888 wrote:
TadDude wrote:
oinquarki wrote:
If a team has more strong players, then wouldn't it logically deserve to win?
How long does it take for shooting fish in a barrel to become joyless?
How can rivalries be born if only one side has a realistic chance of winning? For example would Muhammed Ali be as famous if there was no Joe Frazier? (If you have to ask ... I am too old for the internet.)
Make a rival of a team your own strength. What you are saying is more like a weakling saying they should have equal chances in professional boxing so Ali should tie his feet and an arm together after staying awake for 36 hours straight before the match.
Like this: http://www.chess.com/groups/team_match.html?id=73207 - A few cuts required.
Followed by a challenge from the same team now that they see there will be competitive games: http://www.chess.com/groups/team_match.html?id=74725 - No cuts required from the other team.
The problem is this was a lucky find. There is no easy way to find compatible teams to challenge.
Back to the question. Why won't the lower rated players on Hobby Catur Indonesia register?
@TadDude
I see where you are coming from. I think that the point of a team match is to show how good the best of your team is compared to another team not to have a series of relatively even games. You seem to think differently however. I guess I am missing the point which is probably why I don't participate in those.
Match cancelled. The Goliaths have moved on to more cooperative fish or to be the fish themselves.
Admins of teams tired of shooting fish in a barrel or being in the barrel, please send a challenge with the name "Close Match with your team name".
"Through negotiation between teams, set the pairings so either team has a chance of winning the match. This means registered players will be judiciously cut to even out the pairings. This makes it more fun for all."
http://www.chess.com/news/mission-statement-3831
TadDude wrote:
Match cancelled. The Goliaths have moved on to more cooperative fish or to be the fish themselves.
Admins of teams tired of shooting fish in a barrel or being in the barrel, please send a challenge with the name "Close Match with your team name".
"Through negotiation between teams, set the pairings so either team has a chance of winning the match. This means registered players will be judiciously cut to even out the pairings. This makes it more fun for all."
Cutting people makes it more fun for all?!
oinquarki wrote:
TadDude wrote:
Match cancelled. The Goliaths have moved on to more cooperative fish or to be the fish themselves.
Admins of teams tired of shooting fish in a barrel or being in the barrel, please send a challenge with the name "Close Match with your team name".
"Through negotiation between teams, set the pairings so either team has a chance of winning the match. This means registered players will be judiciously cut to even out the pairings. This makes it more fun for all."
Cutting people makes it more fun for all?!
In the ideal world twelve barrel pairings should mean 24 unhappy players.
Seven competitive pairings means 14 happy players and 10 cut players who are relieved from barrel duty. Those 10 now have the time to find and play competitive games. Everyone is happy.
TadDude wrote: In the ideal world twelve barrel matches should mean 24 unhappy players.
Seven competitive matches means 14 happy players and 10 cut players who are relieved from barrel duty. Those 10 now have the time to find and play competitive games. Everyone is happy.
If people signed up for the match, then obviously they are fine with playing in it; cutting someone just so that your team has a better shot is ridiculous, and even more ridiculous if you're doing it so that your team has a worse shot. If I was in a team whose admin did that, I would leave. A team is made up of all of its members, and if someone is barred from playing in matches because they have an extremely high or low rating, then they aren't really part of the team. Furthermore, just because there's a large rating gap doesn't necessarily mean that the game isn't competitive, and it definitely doesn't mean that the game isn't fun.
oinquarki wrote:
If people signed up for the match, then obviously they are fine with playing in it; cutting someone just so that your team has a better shot is ridiculous, and even more ridiculous if you're doing it so that your team has a worse shot. If I was in a team whose admin did that, I would leave...
If I invited you, you would not have joined as there was full disclosure in the invitation. That is why those who did join the team, up to now anyway, register in team matches.
This brings to mind an incident when I recently joined my place of employment. In the job expectations I wrote that I would try to teach my coworkers what I brought from elsewhere. One of them was, shall we say skeptical, but not as violently as you. Nothing to do with me for sure, but today he and everyone else has this written in for them.
In a classic David versus Goliath there is a slim chance David can get in a lucky shot. The same holds true in a single game of chess.
In a team match there is no slim chance when a team of Davids meet a team of Goliaths.
One possible solution is for the biggest of the Goliaths sit out. From my observation it is the smallest of the Goliaths who sit on the sidelines.
The lowest rated players in Close Match register for team matches. They regularly have nobody to play as the lowest rated players on other teams do not register.
See for example this team match in registration. http://www.chess.com/groups/team_match.html?id=76245
Hobby Catur Indonesia vs Close Match
The Goliaths (Avg. Rating: 1479 and # of Members: 351) have nobody under 1450 registered. With an average rating of 1479 there must be some rated under 1450. http://www.chess.com/groups/view/hobby-catur-indonesia
The Davids (Avg. Rating: 1415 # of Members: 50) have five players under 1450. http://www.chess.com/groups/home/close-match
Perhaps lower rated players know they will be pummeled mercilessly if they register? Not the case here as the Goliaths will cut their biggest before the match starts.