12444 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Backgammon, Yatzy, and more!
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
Some of the suggestions here I liked are:
1.Glicko/Elo ratings for vote chess groups
11.being able to change your vote
12.In the case of a tie, the last move voted wins.
15. or have it built into the system that people cannot vote for the first half of their turn. Perhaps the name "vote chess" could be changed to "consultation chess," "discussion chess" or "team chess" to emphasize the need for cooperation.
20.an interface for organizing vote chess tournaments
22.in diagrams, being able to choose the current position as the start of the diagram. Also simplifying the diagram setup process, or having a link to a tutorial somewhere might make it easier for beginners to create diagrams.
It would also be nice if in the lists of completed vote chess games, it said the name of the teams who played the game and the result of the game.
I think each of those suggestions would make a good topic of it's own in the Vote Chess Forum group [LINK].
I believe the group names and the results can be seen at the list of completed games (example).
Unfortunately, you can only see the last 10 games. When you click "show all" it is missing the opponents group name and the result.
Youi do realize that there can be objections to each of your posts? How about giving pros and cons for each of your ideas. I am not saying you are wrong but there are pros and cons...
1. how can you create a vote chess rating--give an example?
2. this will not work as there are players on some teams who do not want to play rated games for various reasons.
3.There are problems with this one also. One problem is why?
4. There are some teams who only play a certain opening and do not want to play any other opening
5. this is probably a good idea!
6. no comment
7. This would ruin teams where all members participate. There is nothing wrong with having a low rated player on your team as there should be a discussion of each candidate move with the pros and cons.
8. dont understand this--why should someone be selected out of vote chess to play a challenge game?
9. good idea!
May comment on the other numbers/ideas later.
1. I'd love to see chess.com implement Glicko ratings for vote chess teams just like they do for individual accounts. In the meantime, you can check out the vote chess team Elo ratings published in the Vote Chess Elo Rankings group.
As Daws74 says, when you click on "Show all" though, there are no group names nor results. This is also true of the list found under Play - Finished Games - Completed games.
I think the hope is that chess.com will just use the Glicko system that they have in place for one-on-one Online Games, and apply it to group vote games.
Daws74 uses Elo, and recalculates the ratings for all groups for each new list, but if they just used the existing Glicko system, each group would get a new rating on the completion of a game, just as people do for their Online games.
Yes, that would be great if chess.com could just use their existing Glicko ratings for vote chess teams.
I do not know about Glicko ratings but you would be rating a team by its results with other Glicko ratings?
There are a lot of players who have no rating, including myself, who participate in vote chess--how will you rate those players? Or do you have to rate those players?
11. being able to change your vote--sound ok with limitations which would have to be spelled out?
12. In case of a tie--last move voted wins--the problem is this could slow down voting as a few players would like to make the last vote.
I don't like first vote breaks tie either for obvious reasons--suggest a coin flip by adminstrator
15. not allowing a vote for first half can be a problem as quite often the move is obvious and then why wait to vote--many will want to vote right away so it is not hanging over their head?
20 and 22 seem like good ideas [to me]
Right now if you play a one-on-one "Online" game or two against another player on chess.com, you will receive a Glicko rating based on your performance. What we are suggesting is that groups be rated in the same way, based on their wins and losses in vote chess. You only need to know which groups the group played against, and whether they won or lost those games to calculate the rating. You can read more about how Daws74 does his Elo ratings in his Vote Chess Elo Ranking group.
We are rating the teams by their vote chess performance, not the players on the team.
Here's an overview of the Glicko rating system:
People actually taking time to read the whole discussion, and then duelling against each other to be the last vote? That sounds a bit like heaven compared with the current situation.
Why not use dice? Or a roulette wheel? How about rock, paper, scissors.
I'll take the pass, black and good old dependable rock.
Thanks for information on Glicko Rating, Yes, it would probably be a good idea to rate each team by that rating system.
There are some large groups which have many different teams and probably teams change who is in each team at times--how would you handle that situation?
By the way, I hear a lot of talk about how teams having problems as there is little discussion before voting. The team I am on has much discussion before each vote and the discussion includes all members who wish to discuss and that includes lower rated players. We examine all suggestions and give the good and bad points for each and quite often we come to a consensus. About the only time we might not come to a consensus is when we are easily winning and any of several moves will maintain the win.
Generally, we are asked to wait until all discussion is over and then the captain calls for a vote--often only one move is suggested and sometimes there are two candidate moves.
The reason that often there is often only one move suggested is that a consensus is reached via the discussions.
In the discussions there is a learning process as subjects such as good and bad bishops come up. On one endgame which was a little unclear one of our members came up with a very nice essay on good and bad bishops and good and bad knights and this helped us to find the right move and futher sequences.
So, at least with our team, vote chess is a great learning process...
This sounds like a lot of work. But I'm sure it will have some great benefits.
All of the groups I manage operate as ponz111 has described. That's the way to do it.
if Fischer played in 75, could Kasparov have defeated him in 1984?
by bunicula a few minutes ago
Value of a second king
by 1NaturalDisaster 3 minutes ago
Why are so many non members on this site?
by BlargDragon 7 minutes ago
Post your best miniatures here
by W-Luke 10 minutes ago
Unusual but yet simple bishop for a new chess variant
by musketeerchess 13 minutes ago
10/23/2016 - One And Done
by Zagorske 23 minutes ago
Moves understandable only by gods?
by BronsteinPawn 43 minutes ago
beautiful game of chess matojelic
by apesusa 45 minutes ago
Images You Won't Find on the Web -untill now
by Captain_Fury 51 minutes ago
FIDE to create new titles
by leklerk1 52 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2016 Chess.com
• Chess - English
Try the new Chess.com!
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!