First Come First Served (Team Chess)

BEST MATCH - Algorithm

1.    When creating the Team Match challenge, specify the BEST MATCH option.
2.     AUTO-START will automatically be switched OFF (this is necessary to make the scheme work).
3.    Specify the lower and upper bounds for the team size (as currently).
4.   Specify the lower and upper limits for the rating (as currently).
5.    Allow both groups to form their squads.
6.     Once both groups have reached the minimum number for the team, both squads need to be LOCKed manually. (Neither squad can be larger than the maximum specified size of the team).
7.    If both squads are the same size, form the teams from the squads.(i.e. squad = team) DONE
8.    Determine N (where N is the team size both squads are large enough to support). i.e. the size of smaller squad.
9.   Determine the average rating of the top N players out of each squad.
10If the stronger top-N-squad is smaller than the weaker top-N-squad, then form the team from the strongest N players on both sides. DONE
1I If the difference in average rating between the two sets of top-N-players is less than some threshold (say 100), then just use the STRONGEST option for both squads. DONE

12.We now have a larger squad where the top N players are stronger (on average) than the top N players from a smaller squad.
13This is the tricky bit!
14For each player in turn from the weaker squad, starting with the strongest player, assign him to the AVAILABLE  player from the opposite (stronger) squad who is closest in rating. If two or more are equally close, choose the highest one. You must ALWAYS leave enough spaces below him for the rest of the weaker team – so you may have to move him UP away from his closest match.
15As soon as the number of spaces remaining at the bottom of the weaker team is EQUAL to the number of players remaining in the WEAKER squad, just fill the remainder of the places. DONE

A worked example.

Team size minimum = 4. Team size maximum = 15. (Specified on challenge)

Step#8:   N (the size of the smaller squad) = 5.

Step#9: average rating of top 5 of squad B is 1338.4

              average rating of top 5 of squad A is 1743.4

Step#10: stronger squad is larger than the weaker squad so continue.

Step#11: Difference in average rating is not less than 100 so continue.

Step#14: A-1780 is closest to B-1804. There are 4 A’s remaining and there are more than 4 spaces below this point.

A-1500 is closest to B-1492. There are 3 A’s remaining and there are more than 3 spaces below this point.

A-1241 is closest to B-1204. There are 2 A’s remaining and there are more than 2 spaces below this point.

A-1170 is equally close to the two B-1020’s – so pick the uppermost one. There is 1 A remaining and there is more than 1 spaces below this point.

A-1001 is closest to B-1020. There are no A’s remaining. DONE

Final Result

This is a great setup to use when a small group (like mine 12 members) is up against a big group, like for example The Dream Team (884 members). now I don't mind losing as any one who has played me is aware, but the weight of numbers is on the side of the biggest teams, and they're the ones accepting open challenges.

I know that this topic is old but I just wanted to post and say that I like the idea of first come first serve. It is not fare to some of the people in my group that came and joined up and then get spaced out because I was too slow to lock the team. I hope someone from chess.com read this post/forum and is working on it. It would be a great option when creating a seek.

Don't feel too bad about it, wildcard. With the current manual system and people in different time zones, these things happen.

Here's a typical scenario between a small group and a large group:

in which chess.com's default STRONGEST policy works against the smaller group. A simple WEAKEST policy (specified in advance on the challenge naturally) would be another, straightforward means of creating fairer team matches.

Here Here!  (parliamentarian bump)

I like the first come first served idea but I am not to strong on the grouping of weak vs weak, strong vs strong. Part of the reason I often play the team matches is so I can be ranked with a player that is not equal to me. Either I will teach them a thing or two, or they will teach me a thing or two. Team matches and tournaments to me are the best games to learn. Both players would be giving it everything they got and I just like it that way.

With tournaments, certainly, you can choose ones where the rating range across the tournament group will be wide (e.g. in open tournaments). Equally, you can enter rating-restricted tournaments to encounter more equal opposition.

I'm proposing a similar fine degree of control for team matches, particularly between disparate groups. Currently, there is a single automatic policy: each group fields their STRONGEST team. The mechanisms outlined in this thread: EARLIEST, BEST MATCH, FAIR MATCH and WEAKEST - would provide a set of alternative, optional policies.

 These would, in my opinion, rejuvenate the Team Match format, enhance the fun when playing against mega-groups (not least, for members of those mega-groups), and create more varied and interesting teams.

 Using AutoStart is a very bad idea, used by some in a mischievous way to gain team match supremacy, yo!

AutoStart is an approximation to the 'EARLIEST' policy. In that respect, it doesn't seem too bad.

Yeah, I do be a hearing ya Arty bro, though one time, I got in to a team match & did not notice the AutoStart, arch rivals & all that, our group filled up the spots, the next day when i logged on, not only did the other group retrive their lower rated players but they hit us with all their top guns, & we were badly out rated, in that sense I do not like AutoStart & refuse every challenge with AutoStart, yo!

I have often not entered team/group matches because my opponent is 300 and more points lower rated than me. I usually check to see how the teams match up on the top ten boards or so to see if my team really needs me or not. I think no matter how its done there are going to be problems. Teams want to win so its natural that they want to field a team of the strongest players possible and this often results in huge mis matches and slaughters. I dont like to take part in such slaughters on either side. Due to similar problems  in otb team chess concerning the higher rateds vs the more enthusiastic players who support the team/club all year and then get screwed at the national events because the strongest players get to go even though they havent supported the club as much during the year I am giving up otb team chess. Its just not fair to all involved and I want no part in it anymore.

Well, to be a telling ya the thruth, in team matches, I try to keep it even, often I have retrieved players of me own team, simply because they were heavily stronger than their adversaire, if it comes to huge clubs, I prefer to put in levels of play ex... 1500- 1699, so all the people are playing on similmar boards & having more fun actually playing fair chess, yo!

I would like to revive this thread for the porpose of using FCFS for the World League - why can it not be created for this? It would fix many oft complained about problems.

nwav wrote:

I would like to revive this thread for the porpose of using FCFS for the World League - why can it not be created for this? It would fix many oft complained about problems.

How is the World League going these days?

artfizz, the World League is going strong, but some of the Admins on Team Australia and New Zealand were expressing the concern that lower rated players were either getting excluded from matches or were having to face much higher rated players.  I suggested that some of your ideas might help.  David Pruess is currently talking over your ideas with Jay to see if any of them can be implemented.

They don't call you rigamagician for nothing!

Keep your fingers crossed.

Arty bro, the world league is going grand for the big teams, but for small teams like Team Ireland, most players are out rated by 200+ or even more for the lower tables, when you got for ex 20-30 2500+ players, in one Country team, then me Playing for Eire, I'll normally come up against players of 2200+ & I'm an average 1800+ player, so imagine for our players of say 1300, they'll be getting say players of 1700-1900+ or even more.

It seems to go the bigger the group the more certian the win, for we believe in letting all our players play, regardless of rating, but I've noticed, over the last year, that a lot of players are simply not playing for they'll know that they ain't got a chance, out ratted after too many games = no fun & hence, the will not to participate, sad as it is, I can relate with that.

I seriously think that The World League should be modified so that all that play, should have fun, I mean this in a sportsmans way, TBC, yo!

Does anybody know that if there is any progress about the opportunities regarding any other team compositon methods than the rating order?