Vote Chess

I see Vote Chess as a good way to learn more about chess. By following the discussions I see how other players think, and by posting own suggestions any weaknesses in my plans are soon pointed out to me.

However, many Vote Chess games are often spoiled by weak players submitting their votes with no regards to any ongoing discussion, or before a discussion even has had a chance to evolve. Efforts to analyse the possition to come up with the best moves are then rendered useless, and quite often you see stronger players loose interest the game towards the end due to poor play by the team.

To counter this i suggest that players rated less than f.x. 1400 get one vote, players rated between 1400 and 1600 get two votes, players rated between 1600 and 1800 get three votes and so forth.

In addition I suggest that the possibility to cast a vote is limited to f.x. the second half of the time given to make a move.

I see your problem but the solutions you give will lead to other problems.

pling: "To counter this i suggest that players rated less than f.x. 1400 get one vote, players rated between 1400 and 1600 get two votes, players rated between 1600 and 1800 get three votes and so forth."

This will lead to a situation in which the very high rated players determine the outcome. That makes the game totally uninteresting for low rated players. It will lower the fun of vote chess.

pling: In addition I suggest that the possibility to cast a vote is limited to f.x. the second half of the time given to make a move.

This is not a good idea because we are living in different time zones.

In most Vote Chess games low rated players are in a vast majority. My proposal aims to equlize this somewhat, increasing the quality of the play, leading to a more interesting game for all players.

I can't see how this will end up with high rated players determining the outcome of the games. In theory maybe yes, but in practical Vote Chess as we see it today, I think not. For that the majority of lower rated players in most games is far to big.

I see the problem with different time zones though.

Only one question: How do know that a player with high rating is a better player then one with low. This can you only know after many games. Remember all start with 1200 p.

 Probaby pling meant low rates which roughly statisticly have simmilar rate after played many games let say 200 games and the winning procentage under 50% for example. that also depand on the average opponents's rates that player played with. New commer start with 1200 can be real strong player, so never underestimate the newist ;) I got that experience myself, I was 1700 in rate and played with new member with 1200, he swept me with no MERCY!!! within a couple of days his rate was above 2300! his opponents mostly were strong players (1900 +).

Perhaps it's good to have different Vote Chess? Devided in different class in rate? Exp. class A: 200+   B: 1500-1999  C: under 1499  Hmmm,,,,,I wonder if that would work.

It's difficult to determine the strenght of a player before he/she has played any games. That's a problem which effects chess in general, but the inconvenience for the individual player is - at large - temporary. Inevitable as I see it.

Vote Chess - as today - has many good qualities, and I can't see any reason to change it.  The possibility to influence an ongoing team match, to post and read comments, and the freedom from obligation has great appeal to me and anyone who participates. The idea is not to change Vote Chess, but to expand the possibilities of it, and hopefully create a game which suffer less from the negative effects of drive-by voting, and low ranked players dominating the votes totally.

One way to achieve this could be by making the participants vote within a rating-group, and let the results from these groups-votes decide the move made by the team in a final vote between the different rating-groups.

Another way could be to let the vote of each participant relative to their rating. Either directly: a rating of 1200 gives 1200 votes, a rating of 1560 gives 1560 votes and so forth, or in a system as posted previously.

Today some games are restricted to players within a specific rating range. This takes away the possibility for low rated players to participate in - and learn from - the games played by our strongest players. By making systems which favors high rated players a lot: f.x. players rated 1200-1299 get one vote, players rated 1300-1399 get two votes, players rated 1400-1499 get four votes and so forth, the low ranked players could participate in these games, without influencing the outcome to a great extent as they would today.

I agree with you. Sounds kind of descrimination to see the rate devison  BUT I see it very positively and FAIR! coz the fact is in every Team Vote has this kind of problem you mentioned. There was one player with rate under 1400 was real pissed off and quited the vote,  he felt people rather listen to those higher rates opinions. So probably to provide Vote Chess in different rate cathegory would make a better result, everybody can take part the vote dicussion comfortably base on their rate levels. In Swedish words "LIKA BARN LEKA BEST"

either you displease the low-rated players or you displease the high-rated players.