Depends what the league table is attempting to illustrate of course...maybe the intention is to show the active teams rather than the "best". Indeed what do u define as being the best in terms of teams, the most wins, % of wins, most games played, points based on the rating of your opponents? Just a thought, but maybe chess.com are trying to show a combination of the the most active and successful here rather than just the "best"
The Team Match Leader Board System - is it Fair or a Bit Square?
Sort:
Thanks for your response Billy. I appreciate your sensible input.
Nov 2, 2012
0
#4
Multiplying the points with the win percentage might work. It would show the effort of teams that play and won many matches, while newer teams with higher percentages won't be closer to the top because they're not as well tested.
thats a great idea!
Good input Sunshiny. A balance between effort and victories.
The Team Match Leader Board System
- is it Fair or a Bit Square?
Considering the time and effort put into team matches by ALL players, the current point system in use, does little to reflect the best team in my opinion. It all seems so elaborately and unnecessarily convoluted.
What do I mean?
How Team Match points are currently scored
Each team's cumulative score is added up and compared to decide who wins the match.
Win Match: 5 points
Draw Match: 2 points for each team
Lose Match: 0 points
Those points are then multiplied by the total number of players in the match to get the total match value. These match points are used to determine the status on the Team Match Leaderboard.
Yes, at first glance it all seems so neat and tidy. But there is a clear loophole in this system. The more matches your team plays - the more points you get. Which means that you get a misrepresentation of the top teams. In order to clarify this lets take a look at the current Team Match Leader board.
No Team Matches Win Points
1 Five for Fighting 19,406 42% 260,651
2 The Power of Chess 7,333 55% 232,474
3 Turk Chess Players 4,816 63% 229,422
4 Team Romania 1,380 80% 142,343
5 Philippines Finest
Chess Club 6,523 52% 126,541
6 Team Russia 570 90% 111,971
7 Fast Thinkers Group 1,212 75% 74,319
8 We Chat Globally 1,696 50% 70,899
9 Team Philippines
United 1,829 50% 60,033
10 Chess Society 3,043 45% 67,345
-----------------------------------------------------
According to the points system all seems honky dory. Do you notice the differences when you look at the above table from a % basis?
I find it incredible that a teams with a 90% win ratio such as Team Russia are placed 6th. To me they are by far the best team. Remarkable achievement actually.
So yes, the % of wins would be the main indicator for me, on the Team Match Leader board.
How would that work practically?
Of course you could have a new team formed at Chess.Com and be top of the leader board based on the % of wins system. Won one match = 100%.
No, I am not suggesting that, it would be as impractical as the current point system.
Perhaps different leagues would be more appropriate. As in if your Team has played less than and up to 100 matches, you are in the minor league division. If your Team has played 500 matches or more - you enter the majors or premiere league.
With all the teams on here, there can possibly be lots of different leagues.
The way the system is now, it’s like saying to Roger Federer the tennis superstar: ‘Sorry Rog, the Wimbledon title is going to Joe Smoh this year. He has played a lot more than you, but has lost the majority of his matches.’
Attendance only is the current criteria for staking a claim to a top 10 spot on the Team Match Leader board.
I don’t mean to offend anyone, but the current system seems rather silly to me.
I wish I could lose the majority of my matches and see my chess rating rise. Incidentally - I do lose the majority of my matches and rightly so, my rating goes down, not up.
Some form of alignment with individual match scoring and team match scoring requires serious attention, in my opinion.
Then again, what do I know?
And no, I am not Russian.