the system in chess.com

the system in here is not the right system, because the biggere teams whit over 1000 members against a amaller team wins all the time and what to do, is it not a idea to play whit the right rating system  and the same players ?

can we play whit the system used I.R.L. ?

Which in real life systems?  http://www.chess.com/news/european-team-chess-championships-2011-6692

Perhaps you mean something like the US Chess League  http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/team-matches-united-states-chess-league-style

Any who want a close match send me a message    http://www.chess.com/groups/home/close-match 

I partly agree.

In the upcoming Continental League will be limit the team matches to a reasonable maximum number of players that makes it possible for smaller teams playing against larger teams on more equal conditions. The teams will play a single game for players with >1700 and another for <1700.

if we looking at an higher level, I would gladly promote a system change that made it possible for the admins to set a value for the maximum difference between opponents that are going to play against each other in a team match.
if for example it was set to 100, then would no player have to meet any opponent with a rating that is 100 rating points higher than his own.
Let me give an example. Here's a list of registered players:

Team A           Team B
2150                2140
2140                2110
2120                2000
2100               
2090
2050                1960
2030                1930
2020
2010
2000                1900

In this exemple would several players (2100, 2090, 2020, 2010) in Team A not meet any opponents.

This in combination with limiting the games to a lower number of players and more limited rating groups would make all games more even.

But at the same time would I like to get an opportunity setting a deadline for when the created game should start by the laste (similar to as for the tournaments for individuals). The games would starts at the deadline by the latest (if the rosters not yet have been locked before that).

And finally, I would really appreciate if it was possible to create team tournaments in almost the same manor as we now are able creating tournaments for individuals.

All this would make all this team matches and team tournaments moving forward much more smoothly and exiting for many more participants.

This is almost the system I use to manually set up pairings in matches.

One major difference is that Team B would be given the advantage in some pairings.

Team A           Team B

2150

2140

2120

2100                

2090                2140

2050                2110

2030                2000

2020                1960

2010                1930

2000                1900

http://www.chess.com/groups/matches/close-match

Hi. I do not understand how the system automatically would be able do this pairings? What's the algorithm behind? Why should the pairings starts with 2090 against 2140?

Just as a chess engine in the old days might look at every move, a brute force method could look at every pairing permutation to determine the closest overall match. It would finally determine this was the closest with the given players.

2090 with 2140: Ratings Diff -50

2050 with 2110: Ratings Diff -60

2030 with 2000: Ratings Diff 30

2020 with 1960: Ratings Diff 60

2010 with 1930: Ratings Diff 80

2000 with 1900: Ratings Diff 100

12200 - 12040 = 160

Average advantage per pairing for Team A is 160/6 = 26.67

******************

It is not, but let's say a double digit advantage per pairing was deemed too much. A closer match would be these five pairings. Here there might be a bit more programming required.

2050 with 2140: Ratings Diff -90

2030 with 2110: Ratings Diff -80

2020 with 2000: Ratings Diff 20

2010 with 1960: Ratings Diff 50

2000 with 1930: Ratings Diff 70

10110 - 10140 = -30

Average advantage per pairing for the smaller Team B is 30/5 = 6

I understand the princples and how to do this manually, but I still not fully cannot find a pure (or simple) mathematical algorithm for it.

I believe my suggestion is simplier for everybody to understand and to implement. I guess the development and testing work would be much less.
But chess.com may better know.

What kind of a competition would this be?

The idea of a competition is that the stronger team wins over the weaker team. Just because a team has stronger players than their opponent does not mean that the stronger players should be eliminated to create a more "equal match."

They can always play friendly matches with equal opponents, but in a competition a team bring their best to beat the other team.

Since this  is a world competition, lets use soccer for example, see when FC Barcelona plays a weaker team in the La Liga, they don't equalize their team with their opponents, they still keep their star players to ensure victory.

Even in a chess tournament, you do not ask your oppoent to lower his game play, even if he is 500 points above your rating,  so you have a chance.

In this league you do ask you opponents to lower their standard of play. Nakamura plays for St. Louis. Very low rated players have to fill the lower boards.

http://www.uschessleague.com/rules.html

2. Every match consists of four roster members whose average rating is no more than 2400.75 

This tournament is different than the WL. It has limit to 10 players. There is a rating range. In order to keep 2400.75 avarage, you would have players between 2200-2600. So applying the same thing to the WL is completely different. WL is open to everyone and no limit on # of members. If you limit # of player in WL, than it will lose its meaning. 

The best thing to do for you guys is to create a new tournament with the limits you are suggesting.

Close Match accepts challengers who agree to to set up fair pairings.

http://www.chess.com/groups/home/close-match

http://www.chess.com/groups/matches/close-match

 Ì believe you should compare the chess team matche sthis with a football match.

It wouldn't be so funny if 100 players joined on on the ground and playing for one team, while only a few joined and playing for the other team. Which team of these two teams would win do you believe?

In football are are a limited number of players on the ground just to make the games more even.

But nevertheless, the stronger teams even though normally in the longer terms winning more games than the weaker ones in games like football and many other team sports.

Chess matches are also limited to number of players in a way. there is never 100 vs 50. It would be 50 vs 50. extra players are always removed. It is similar in a way.

What you are suggesting is not competition in my opinion. I won't argue with you any further. 

I think we have to distinguish between competitive and friendly matches. Team admins set up the latter for the enjoyment of both teams. Using one of the above algorithms would probably increase that enjoyment.

However, for league games, the current system should probably be kept, as they're trying to determine the strongest.

Hence, it should be an optional setting, and the admins would decide which pairing system is appropriate.

I believe they should be optional settings that could be in use when needed or agreed etc. And it would be up to the teams, members and tourneys if they want to use them or not.

The method of using multiple matches with different rating ranges (mentioned by johanpalmaer above) is also used for TM League.  The format there is 3 matches of 5+ players, rating ranges <1500, 1500-1899, 1900+.  A somewhat controversial twist in that league is that the top rating match counts as 2 points, while the other two matches count as 1 each.

Any team tournament has two conflicting goals.  First, it is a competition and stronger teams should naturally have an advantage simply due to their strength.  Extreme measures that wipe out the stronger team's inherent advantage will discourage strong teams from entering because it is not fair.  Stronger and larger teams must be allowed to play to their strength, or at least some of it.

Second, the differential can't be so huge that smaller or weaker teams have no chance.  At a team level, small and/or weak teams often enjoy an underdog role when they have some chance of winning if their players really come through.  I've been in lots of matches where the smaller team or lower average rating wins, and it's exhilerating.  But when every board is outrated consistently, smaller/weaker teams have little or no incentive to even enter the tournament.  Furthermore players who consistently face opponents hundreds of points higher often won't sign up even when their team enters.

The best fit ratings match isn't very hard to program.  You try excluding combinations of players from the larger side to get the matchups which fit closest to the actual rating differential between the teams.  This means that if team A averages 100 points more than team B, then the goal is to find the best fit that preserves that average differential.  I'd estimate about 200 lines of code or less for the actual calculation (plus whatever it might take to get the info) and a millisecond or so of runtime (not counting I/O) for the biggest matches ever on chess.com.  This can be calculated each time a player is added or removed from the match so there is immediate feedback on whether a player will have a game or not.

This isn't the biggest problem though.  I'd say that the automatic lock date function is much higher priority.  Another issue that plagues competitions is packing rosters by removing players.  We need the capability to track the players who are removed from competitions and how/why they were removed.  Then we could distinguish some valid reasons for players to be dropped (player self-removal, leaves group, cheater banned, admin removes a player who consistently times out) and enforce competition rules which prohibit roster packing.

It would also be nice to be able to enforce exclusivity rules like the WL has, where a player can only be a member of one team in the league.

From a features wish list point of view, the ideal approach is a group of groups, ie a group where the members are other groups.  The group of groups could set rules such as whether the memberships must be unique, if matches are ratings fair or not, and maybe even generate periodic competitions (auto tournaments) according to group parameters such as swiss format vs round robin vs random draw of N rounds, multiple matches with rating ranges, etc.

To Dave: a lot of good ideas!! We need to collect them into a common specification - which anyway may could be an outcome from this discussions :-)

However, I've some opinions regarding some of your ideas that I would like to add.

_________

Removing players: I feel it's reasonable to remove players from the games in many cases (in priority order): 1/ there're obviously some cheaters which accounts have been closed 2/ some players have very bad time out ratings or haven't any ratings yet 3/ some players are going to meat a too heavily uneven (higher rated player) and it would be like sending them into death to let then play 4/ some players do not fullfil tournament rules 5/ we need more players with higher ratings onboard the locks automatically are locked when autostart is applied.

As a team leader I of course want to get the best troup onboard to win the games. Why shouldn't I be allowed to do what's needed, as long as I strike to the rules. In evert team sport the team leader (or similar) are allowed for do all this!

I believe an optional setting could be to disallow removage of players, but then would I suggest that it at the same moment would be possible to limit the team matches to players that 1/ not cheating (should be automatically removed before the games starting as soon as they are detected by chess.com) 2/ limit the games to players that have reasonable time out ratings and have finished some games 3/ not are to heavily uneven (having heavily lower ratings than their opponents) 4) (no solution, I believe it's tricky to implement)... 5/ deadline-settings would make sence...  (the numbers are referring to ones above)

Please be aware of that I by this do not mentioning that such settings should be mandatory ones. I'm talking about optional settings, that could be applied when agreed etc.

I believe it's not necissary logging who is removing players from the troups, if a option like "disallow removage" become implemented. In tourneys where this option is applied wouldn't it be possible to remove players, while in other tourney's would it doesn't matter who removes them.

I agree with you that the deadline-functionality have higher priority, since many teams (including my own) the progress since they want to improve their troups to get a better opportunity to win the games. It would certainly improve the games and tourney's if deadlines would be able to set.
____________

Your idea of groups of groups is great! I like that very much!

I especially like being able to specify a maximum time out ratio. If it can be done for tournaments, why not for team matches?

The "who removes tracker" is easier to implement than the "no removal" method, because users still need to be allowed to leave a group.  That also leaves the specifics up to the tournament -- one can allow admins to adjust their teams, another can ban removals.  (personally I don't mind removals, but some teams in my tournaments would prefer not to allow them)

If we had the system where the excluded players are best fit to the average rating difference, then there would be less incentive for admins to remove players for rating difference.  Not to mention the players can always remove themselves for that.

The timeout percentage should be heavily weighted in favor of recent games.  And maybe specific to match games too.  There are some allegations of bad sports out there who join a team for the express purpose of timing out games and lowering the team's results -- though I don't really believe it myself...

And I agree, the special kinds of matches should be optional. 

hi