This sounds actually great.
Meritocracy Chess
Sort:
6 days ago
0
#3
Doesn't a high rating already carry extra weight? I've seen teams go off a cliff when a high rated player has a blind spot, and the rest of the team, trusting the rating, follow along.
Your Republican roots are showing, V. This sounds a little bit to me like the "money equals speech" rhetoric found in some political realms.
6 days ago
0
#4
odyson wrote:
Doesn't a high rating already carry extra weight? I've seen teams go off a cliff when a high rated player has a blind spot, and the rest of the team, trusting the rating, follow along.
Your Republican roots are showing, V. This sounds a little bit to me like the "money equals speech" rhetoric found in some political realms.
Hey. I'm just trying to Make Chess.com Great Again!
6 days ago
0
#6
badger_song wrote:
Sounds less like meritocracy and more like pontification.
Interesting idea.
How so?
4 days ago
0
#9
odyson wrote:
Doesn't a high rating already carry extra weight? I've seen teams go off a cliff when a high rated player has a blind spot, and the rest of the team, trusting the rating, follow along.
And sorry. I know you thought I was the next Bobby Fischer. Incapable of making mistakes. And I really tried my best, to live up to your lofty expectations. My apologies if I let you down.
This is an idea just popped into my head, a few moments ago. Is called Meritocracy Chess.
Is the same as Vote Chess. Difference being this: Say your daily rating is 1533. When you cast your vote, it will be worth 1533 votes.
So, you might have a situation where 4 higher rated players vote, for 1.e4, but 7 lower rated players vote for 1.d4. 1.e4 might win the vote, IF the combined ratings of those players are higher than that of those who voted for 1.d4.
What do you guys think? Do you think it might be interesting? Or just discouraging?