the clans - what can be done

@lstcyr said
I guess you still have your problems. You are not in first.

Bump for Shortcircuit!

19 Feb '24 15:27
@medullah
Pete,

So far I have seen many positions on the matter of resigning meaningless games. Many of those expressing opinions are not looking at all of the ramifications of the actions, since many of the naysayers are the very ones that instituted the system we have in place now. I, for one, was not a proponent when it was instituted, but I really have never cared what rules they institute as long as everyone plays by the same rules and that the system change occurs at the beginning of the year and not during the year.

That being said, the claim that resigning meaningless games occurs nowhere else, well that simply isn't true. It happens in many major sporting event such as baseball, basketball, soccer, etc... When they set up a best of 7 or a best of 5 or even a best of 3 championship, it is the same thing. Once one team has achieved the necessary number of wins ( ie 4 in the the best of 7 and so on), the rest of the remaining games are not even played. If you look at a 5 man challenge, it simply becomes a best out of 10, or 5.5/6 out of 10 wins it. The rest are meaningless. In that regard it is a no brainer. I have played in team chess championships where, games were drawn once the title was decided. The Ryder Cup in golf was that way for years.

Now, for those who claim it is being done to reduce ratings, I laugh because the system is so miserably set up as it is. You have some many ways to manipulate the ratings, many being currently employed as we speak by the clan currently in first place. It isn't hard to spot, all you have to do is look. Some folks have championed a separate rating system for clan play, which would be great, except Russ doesn't want to spend the time, energy and money to set it up. That doesn't seem to be a viable solution. You could perhaps adjust the calculation for the rating so resignations don't lower the rating, but I am not sure how they would descriminate against a legitimate resignation because you are lost in the game.

Would you rather instead of resigning meaningless games, they just quit moving altogether until the time runs out and the opponent claims the skull? Same result/effect, just no resignation. You see, it is a silly notion. This is not about honor, and it never has been. The other thing that I have often laughed about is when the player who resigns his games because the match was over and was losing both games already. Everyone assumes they were not losing already.

Now, if you want to revise the scoring and make every game meaningful and played to the end, revise the scoring system. I personally am not sure rewarding the losing team has merit or not, but, you could make every won game a point for the winning team, but then you are just really playing a bunch of sigles matches. The team concept is moot. I don't think you could really add on a winning team bonus because a one man challenge vs a 10 man challege you not be able to win the same prize. Perhaps a staggered award might work, who knows?

There is a faction here who have actively tried to blow up the clan system for years now. There have been three sets of rules employed here since I began as a clan leader 16 years ago. They are still at it. Flipping the finger at the system won't solve anything. Changing the rules just changes the effect. Figure out how to stop the collusion. Figure out how to stop the ones hellbent on blowing things up and you have won the battle.

For the record, I avoid the forums these days because there are too many juveniles in here with their thumbs down or their sniping. I was asked to post a position, and I have done so. Anyone that wishes to speak about this intelligently can message me. I just don't have the time or the inclantion to play tit for tat.

Good luck

@Very-Rusty
Ah, yes, but facts don’t appear to be part of his vocabulary.

@shortcircuit

First of all can i thank you for the time and trouble that you took in a what I can only describe as a thoughtful and reasonable response to my post. I apologise for not responding to you sooner but I've had a lot of work pressures this week and chess has taken a bit of a back seat.

Drawing further on your rational and highlighting soccer as an example, where if there is a penalty shoot out (which is usually a set of five penalties) and a team goes 3-0 in the first six shots then that's the end of it, winner takes all as from 3-0 down it isn't possible to win. I follow and agree that that such a rationale is prevalent in a number of competitive situations, as you relate.

My tournament chess experience is not vast, but I have played OTB in FIDE affiliated club level tournaments; a five board match system with the home team claiming white on boards 1 3 and 5.

If team A a GOES 3-0 UP then the match isn't 5-0 to team A. If team B goes on to pull the last two games back, the score between the clubs is actually 3-2 (or 6-4 in RHP scoring). When the league tables are published, team A only gets credited for 3 points in the match and team B gets their 2. The teams are credited for the points that they actually score, so that every point is worth fighting for.

To my way of thinking, in a five match game where a team wins 3-2, it is a more honest and truer reflection of what has happened in that match for each team to get their points, than one team collecting the lot. If you are used to playing in the sort of chess environment that I highlight, then I can understand why you might not be overly impressed with the current system.

When all is said and done I think that all of us that even bother visit this forum want the clan system to thrive; the fact that so many clans are falling by the wayside suggest that something does need to be done, and they only way to get change is to do something different.

Thanks to all for their contribution. I'm now going to stuff my face with some home made Tiramisu which will be my first time that I've ever eaten it for breakfast.

The clan system is fundamentally different to OTB league team chess, and the more it is made to function like OTB league teams, the less sense there will be in continuing to have the feature at all. The great advantage in the clan system, compared to league teams, IMO, is this: in league team chess, the team with the most highest-rated players will probably come out on top, whereas in the clan system, it hardly matters what the players' ratings are: a clan with mid-range players or even wholly composed of beginners could, in theory, have an even chance against a clan with all 2000+ players. It's a great idea, in theory, and I would welcome changes to the clan system which would keep this feature, whereby the clan with highest-rated players would not almost inevitably come out on top.

The caveat is that the clan system can work only insofar as matches are fairly paired, and this presupposes that individuals' clan ratings are accurate. Ratings are accurate only if all of the following conditions hold: a) only clan games are used to calculate clan members' ratings, and b) every game counts towards ratings calculations of clan players (no voided games), and c) every player plays to the best of his ability and does not 'ditch' playable games, and d) every game result counts towards the final tally for both clans in every match (no voided games).

How this is to be implemented, as someone else already mentioned, is 'the devil in the detail' part, but presupposes a common level of sportsmanship in not 'ditching' playable games. Frankly, I do not see any enforceable mechanism for ensuring that playable games are not 'ditched'; voluntary cooperation ("sportsmanship" ) is sine qua non. Furthermore, the winner-take-all scoring system makes no sense. After the debacle of the 2016 season, a number of proposals to correct flaws in the clan system were proposed, and the clan captains voted to keep things as before (as they still are). Those were reasons why I left the clan system and chose to play in a club instead.

My 2 cents.


PS home-made Tiramisu -- yum !

@moonbus

I don’t remember any such vote, they must have left me off if the voting register.

@medullah said
@moonbus

I don’t remember any such vote, they must have left me off if the voting register.

@moonbus said
The clan system is fundamentally different to OTB league team chess, and the more it is made to function like OTB league teams, the less sense there will be in continuing to have the feature at all. The great advantage in the clan system, compared to league teams, IMO, is this: in league team chess, the team with the most highest-rated players will probably come out on top, w ...[text shortened]... clan system and chose to play in a club instead.

My 2 cents.


PS home-made Tiramisu -- yum !

@venda said
I think you've covered pretty much everything there Moonbus and your caveats have been voiced before in various forms.
We have to ask ourselves why players ditch playable games and why players manipulate their ratings to gain advantage in clan match pairings ?
The reasons in my opinion are the points system and the net points clan list.
If nothing changes more players will f ...[text shortened]... ges are not used to calculate a clans performance any list is just that and the order is irrelevant.

@moonbus

I’ve been in post since 2011 - maybe just forgotten 😉

@moonbus said
Why players ditch playable games? Easy peasy. Someone figured out how to game the system. Volume matters in the clan system, and ' moving on' to play more challenges is what wins the championship at the end of the day. The intent may not have been to skew the ratings, but it has that effect.

@stevehewitt said
… and another possible system enhancement to help clan leaders was something good that VESPIN told me - to check the game history of the two players you are assessing for a clan match. Could we just add the ability to select TWO players to see how they did against each other (rather than what we can do at the moment which is to just check ME against one other)?

@lstcyr said
@Very-Rusty
Ah, yes, but facts don’t appear to be part of his vocabulary.

@very-rusty said
Bump for Shortcircuit!

19 Feb '24 15:27
@medullah
Pete,

So far I have seen many positions on the matter of resigning meaningless games. Many of those expressing opinions are not looking at all of the ramifications of the actions, since many of the naysayers are the very ones that instituted the system we have in place now. I, for one, was not a proponent when it wa ...[text shortened]... ently can message me. I just don't have the time or the inclantion to play tit for tat.

Good luck