"Good practice rules" for Team-based Vote Chess

So it's not really "detection" as much as it is "hey just ask and people will answer".

ozzie   the details are important in what I said.  Taking one element out and isolating it  puts it out of context.

And, what is more important, is that it works.

I have recently created two tightly disciplined groups with a 25-membership maximum (King's Indian Corps and White Knights of the King's Indian Attack).  I've made it clear what the requirements are to join.  Everyone is expected to participate in one way or another.  Random voting or abusive language merits deletion from the group.  Silently following the games is not a problem until the 26th membership application is received.  The latest candidate will be interviewed and asked if they agree to actively participate in the Vote Chess games and abide by the group rules.  If they are agreeable, current silent or non-participating members will be asked if they wish to step down voluntarily in favor of the new candidate.  If they refuse, then it will be explained that they must contribute in the future to remain a part of the group.  ("I don't mind carrying you, but can you pick up your feet?")  If there is no change in behavior or no answer, they are replaced.  Eventually, the group will be composed of 25 interested, active members working together as a team on six Vote Chess games at all times, one move per day.  There.  That wasn't too hard, was it?

And I joined the group because of that, Hector.   "Bad" vote chess sucks.   It's a waste of time.   Good vote chess is a learning experience and offers really high level chess sometimes.   And it's fun.   

Far rather play on a team of 5 good VC players (notice I didn't say "super strong players with crazy good ratings") than a team of 10 poor ones.  

I played against a vote chess team where this happened:

They allowed people to just vote with no discussion. So for their 5th move there were 4 different votes.  Three of the votes were reasonable. However one of the 4 was a losing move.  The one vote with a losing move was first to vote.  So there was a 4way tie for the vote for the 5th move.

The vote for the losing move was the first vote and the first vote breaks ties. So that team voted for the losing move....

It would be good if there was a way for fans of vote chess to know in advance which clubs have good organization and which are anarchic. 

I have seen two extremes recently. One team glories in the "freedom" of being able to vote for whatever move pops into the member's head after a few seconds' thought. Such teams seem to really love pushing pawns.

A second group has one strong player state which move to make, and everyone else agrees to it. They may win a bunch of games, but they aren't playing as a team. They're merely spectators. 

I would not want to be a part of either group. 

A good vote chess team should have passionate players who disagree with each other, but work together to come up with the best moves. A team captain shouldn't necessarily be leading the arguments. That player should act more as a moderator and encourage fruitful discussions.

What groups out there do that? 

SymslovFan

You can find teams which meet your first two requirements but I do not think you will also find such  a team which also has passionate players who disagree with each other.

I like @HectorPerez's structure, but I don't like being limited to pre-determined openings that I may not prefer to play, so that alone would dissuade me from joining such a group.  On the other hand, it is difficult to agree on an opening if it is not pre-determined.  Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

I've been on Vote Chess teams with @SmyslovFan and for the most part they have been rather well disciplined.  However I must take issue with his passionate players who disagree since most disagreements stem from inadequate understanding of the position.  In the end, the higher rated players will explain why alternate lines are bad or risky, and that logic usually results in common agreement.  It's a learning experience if members will spend a bit of time to analyze and then present their ideas for discussion.

Quick voting is death to any team because it results in poorly considered moves, and robs team members of the learning experience from comments by better players.  For me, winning is not the objective, but rather learning.  If teams insist on making bad moves, the better players will give up in frustration and leave it to the patzers.  The result is no learning, and bad, losing chess that benefits only the other team's record.

You can disagree (even passionately) without being disagreeable.  Personally, I prefer everyone disagreeing with me for good reason, rather than everyone agreeing with me about something I'm completely wrong about!

This occured once in a game where I was taking the lead in the discussion/analysis and one of my suggested moves dropped a pawn for absolutely no compensation.  Yet, in hindsight, it wasn't a very difficult tactic to spot.  But I think it was a case of group "blindness" where the guy taking the lead assumes everyone else is double-checking while everyone else assumes the guy in front knows what he's talking about.

If you can find a vote chess team which often has 3 or 4 pages of analysis for each move, you know you have found a good team and you know that you will also learn a lot if you become a member of that team.

The practical results [by this I mean win, loss, draw ratio] of a vote chess team will increase with the amount of analysis the team does.  A vote chess team which averages 3 pages of analysis per move will do substanially better than a team which averages 1 page of analysis per move.

Not fully agree.

I believe effecient team work is more important than forcing all mates to read long and extensive analysis.  Some quick analysis is of course good and contributional, but long stories is not what all guys looking for.

By this of course not saying analysis are bad, but to keep them brief is essential, at least for larger teams with a lot of attendees. In smaller specialized vote chess teams another approach may are applicable and more valuable.

In rapid chess the essential is to think fast and communicate simple and effecient. It's just like on twitter where you cannot add so much words, and therefor need to compress your sayings as much as possible.

Johan we are talking about vote chess, not rapid chess.

What makes you think having several pages  of analysis is not team work?

Actually when you have several pages of analysis the analysis is from several members and  studying the analysis is by the team.

If you keep the analysis brief you are just leaving out analysis which could be essential. 

Maybe for very large teams the situation is different as you suggest but I refer to teams with from 5 to 25 members.

Don't the very large teams also want to play the best moves they can play?

I've never been in a group with more than 350 members, but I've been in games with about 50 team members.  In general, about 80% quietly follow along, which is all right by me, except when the position becomes extremely analytical and a "many hands make the load light" approach really helps. 

I sometimes go through the Archives of completed games and look for the other team's comments.  Many have little or no discussion.  I personally wouldn't want to be in a group like that.  A few have a single strong player taking the lead in the discussion.  That does offer something better.  The best, I think, is where all the players have something to offer and contribute.  I like to use the fictional analogy of Dr. Watson and Sherlock Holmes.  Holmes sometimes appreciated Watson's remarks, not because they were right, but because they were incorrect.  It allowed Holmes a fresh perspective or an idea he may have previously dismissed out of hand.  The same with weaker players offering moves or asking questions about positions.  Stronger players are forced to explain themselves or correct analysis to see things in a clearer light. 

This the 3rd and final "varisity" group I have created...

Chess University runs an active and respectful VC discussion group promoting education, support and a simple set of rules. BKR team caiptain

Speculate.  Say you had an all woman's vote chess team playing an all man's vote chess team.  

Which team, if any, is better at enforcing the rules of their vote chess team?

@SeniorPatzer, it depends on the individuals. Gender generalizations don't work. 

I was speculating that, in general, men are more diligent in enforcing the rules than women are.  But I could very well be mistaken in that regard.

It's just that I saw a number of comments about enforcing the rules in order to have a better vote chess experience, and I was wondering about that.

I'm managing two of the top 50 VC-teams on Chess.com vote leaderboards: Chess Society and Team Europe, and have since 2008 participated in 1,000s of vc-games.

There are unfortunately few women attending these online games. I've not observed any difference between men and women in "my" vc-games. I've observed many other differences due to experience, culture (both country and team wise), number of participants and average ratings.

The original TS proposed an approach towards VC that I use to call "slow vote chess approach", which differs a lot from what I call "rapid vote chess approach".

In the first case the team often trying to by negotiations and discussions get consensus upon which move option to choose as a team. Such teams encourage players participate in the discussions and wait to submit their votes till consensus is in place.

In the later case the team rather encourage participants to provide their best advises to those who not yet have submitted their votes. But people are allowed to submit their votes and not forces to take part in any discussions or negotiations or waiting.

These approaches differences and gives different outcomes for different teams due to situations.

My experience is that the "rapid vote chess approach" works very well when you got a pretty large number of participants which together having a pretty high average rating, and having a balanced spread between early/mid/late voters, and the speed is 2-3 days/move.

The "slow vote chess approach" works better for smaller teams, thematic teams, when you got fewer number of participants with a lower average ratings, especially when the speed is 1 days/move.

More can be mentioned about this...

We should have a "vote chess" for beginners as there are many who dont relay on the moves of the various Chess Masters  to make their decisions has to which move to make, some support one master over an other.  The why it is now you can have 20 in a team and only 2-3 voters, many time the decision has be made long before the votes starts.