15 Mar 03
2 edits
Originally posted by OmnislashThe matches should be of equal rating and all ratings are at stack unless there's a mismatch and that only happens when everyone agrees to play such a team of strength. You would be very suprised how many people would be interested in a team, both high rated and low rated. There's a certain mystique behind the team concept, it would go over well here. It would be great if we could get the webmasters to experiment with a couple prototype teams to test drive it. Like 2 four member teams to start to get the bugs out and see how it goes.
What a great idea! For RHP purposes though, I think it might be best if they were unrated. Of course there could always be rated and unrated, but the option of unrated tournaments is the only way I can see getting some of the players here ...[text shortened]... al hoot for those of us who don't care much about our ratings. 🙂
16 Mar 03
Originally posted by SkipSlotBob,
Mike,
As a captain of an internet chess team, they don't work that way. It's just like any other game you presently play, except they have a standard 3 day T/O. The highest rated player on team A plays the highest rated on team B and so forth. You get points for wins, none for draws and negative points for loses, but your individual accomplishments are recognized as well.
-Bob
That sounds like a much more efficient way of playing than what I had in mind. I was thinking more in terms of the 'Kasparov vs. the world' game that I had read about, where all of the players on the other team were voting on each move to make before it was made.
I think teams would be a fantastic way to get to know other players better and improve everyone's play who is involved. Plus it would give the higher rated players who are interested a chance to teach and help out lower ranked players who are still learning. Sign me up!
-mike