FREE - In Google Play
FREE - in Win Phone Store
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?
Arpad Elo said rating chess players is like trying to measure the height of a cork bouncing up and down on the surface of a stormy ocean. Everyone's performance fluctuates from day-to-day, hour-to-hour. That is the nature of the beast. A rating is just a summary of an individual or a team's past performance, and doesn't always correlate with their actual skill or potential. If a team has trouble getting their best players to join the games, that would have an impact on their performance and thus their rating.
From one perspective it can seem ridiculous to rate vote chess teams when individual members will change from time to time. On the other hand, a VC team is not so different than in amateur and professional sports. If you consider the Miami Dolphins - how many of them are really from Miami? Is that really a reflection of Miami's ability to play football or the quality of it's citizens? Players get drafted and traded and that changes individual members and thus the performance of the team.
Ratings are an approximation. That's all they can or ever should be and yet everyone is obsessed about 'more acurate' rating systems, bringing in things like the RD factor which rewards activity.
The c.c method rewards VC teams for activity as much or more than for performance. In sports - they rank teams according to performance, regardless of which team members may have missed the most recent game.
In sports all teams play the same number of games during the season. In VC that's not the case. So I think a rating system like Elo is a better indicator than the c.c method and over time will display the team's overall performance level.
It is a rating for the team, so it doesn't matter who plays for them in any particular game. The results of the team are what matters for the rating.
Here's an idea that occured to me. Maybe an admin can have the option of cutting a player from a vote chess game with out kicking them out of the group? I say this because I have a vote chess game going on and we're having a problem and I don't to cut like some goth kid trying to get attention. I'd rather just prune the team down in the game, and if the problem persists across games, it might help narrow down who the culprits are and then just ban them from the group if needed. This also makes it so that if someone isn't participating (or if they're the dbv problem in the game) in a game, this is a way to remove them from the game in a way that doesn't really matter to them-- if that makes sense.
Maybe an admin can have the option of cutting a player from a vote chess game with out kicking them out of the group?
Apparently, you can do this by going to Manage Members in the group, clicking Ban next to that player's name, clicking Update, then clicking Unban next to the player's name, and then click Update. The player will be removed from all ongoing vote games in the group, but will still be a member of the group, and able to join future games. wormrose pointed this out.
wow, I missed that, but thanks Riga!
If a player is told at the start the vote chess rules and he breaks the rules, just ask him for an explanation. If he gives a good explanation then he only gets a warning. If he breaks the rules again, he better have a good explanation or he should be outed from the whole vote chess group.
This works because to join the vote chess you must agree to the rules of the vote chess team. Vote chess is not a place just to vote without listening to the various ideas of what move to vote for. [there are very good reasons for the rules]
I have recently created two tightly disciplined groups with a 25-membership maximum (King's Indian Corps and White Knights of the King's Indian Attack). I've made it clear what the requirements are to join. Everyone is expected to participate in one way or another. Random voting or abusive language merits deletion from the group. Silently following the games is not a problem until the 26th membership application is received. The latest candidate will be interviewed and asked if they agree to actively participate in the Vote Chess games and abide by the group rules. If they are agreeable, current silent or non-participating members will be asked if they wish to step down voluntarily in favor of the new candidate. If they refuse, then it will be explained that they must contribute in the future to remain a part of the group. ("I don't mind carrying you, but can you pick up your feet?") If there is no change in behavior or no answer, they are replaced. Eventually, the group will be composed of 25 interested, active members working together as a team on six Vote Chess games at all times, one move per day. There. That wasn't too hard, was it?
In Ponziani Power vote chess, we had a lot of active participants but also those who just watched. Almost all learned a lot about opening play during the time I was there. The education was one of the reasons they liked our vote chess. Another reason, was we played very well and for each move there were often pages of discussion and diagrams.
Our team was successful in terms of results. When I left there were 13 wins in a row. Here are my suggestions for a serious vote chess team...
Vote Chess Rules
1. When you become a member of our vote chess team you must read these rules and understand them and agree to them. If you have any questions, just ask.
2. Assuming 72 hour response time there can be no voting until there is a consensus. A "consensus" means all the voters are in agreement as to the best move in the position.
If a consensus cannot be reached in the first 48 hours then there will be a limitation of 2 or 3 candidate moves and these will be voted on with 12 hours left of the 72. Often there will be a consensus before there is only 12 hours left to vote.
3. If the move is very obvious or forced a consensus might be reached very quickly.
A suggested move must be submited to all and analyzed. Players can comment pro and con and make diagrams for any move.
Never vote for a move which has not been suggested and analyzed.
Any player may suggest any move. It is expected there will be much comment and analysis of various moves until a consensus is reached.
There are larger, older "learning" counterparts to my groups (1.d4 Nf6 Indians and KIA inc.) where members can passively watch the games and enjoy the forums. My smaller groups require more active participation. I guess it's the difference between sports fans and sports players.
Yes, we have similar guidelines in my groups as well. Although the voting window is wider, <24 hours. A move suggestion or agreement counts at least as some form of participation.
I heard good things about this Ponziani Power group through other venues as well. I sometimes join a well-run group just to take notes, leave, and apply what I've learned. I'll have to check it out.
I am not in Ponziani Power any more so what I posted is similar but not exactly the same as their rules.
I understand. I applied to the group. Hopefully, I'll see for myself.
Ponziani Power was excellently organized. I took several points for my other groups including sending a "Welcome" message filled with several helpful links to the groups Team Vote Chess Guidelines, Forums, and current Team Vote Chess games and Matches.
I have recently created a third and final 25-member group ["Black Defenders of Pirc Castle"] with a medieval castle theme. Half the roster filled fairly quickly and the group is looking forward to our first game. Ironically, finding a cooperative thematic comparable opposing group has been unbelievably difficult. There must be a hundred groups with "warrior" in the name but they're almost all inactive.
BTW, I highly recommend the ["Admin Training Camp"] for great tips on running groups.
I think a candidate move which there is substantial agreement that it is a bad move should have all but the move deleted with the comment such as 7.g4 not best per analysis.
or something like that to eliminate some clutter.
But in a well run Vote Chess game the players become so disciplined that you never see drive by votes. Also often votes are thrown out for discussion and after the discussion it can be clearly seen if the move is bad or needs more discussion.
All in all a very good list of ideas.
Agreed. However, I think running a group well is actually only half the equation for a good Vote Chess game. Finding good opponents is equally important.
A group that provides plenty of food for thought in selection is the ["Vote Chess Elo Rankings"] group. The forums keep up-to-date rankings based on actually performance. It is an open group for information only.
I also find it important to contact the admins beforehand to discuss the terms for the game. It can generate anticipation for both groups if posted. Anticipation leads to interest and greater participation.
I've joined and quit out of several run groups with hopes of playing them in the future. I check to see past archived games to see the level of group participation and discipline. I have been quite impressed with not a few groups.