clan suggestions

A couple of observations.
Since just 2 individuals left the site, I have noticed that:
- accusations of sandbagging have virtually disappeared.
- as have accusations of challenge dumping, game dumping, etc ....
- clan player rotations and a few other loonies ....

While opportunities to improve the clan feature are still worthwhile,
the whole mess that was made of the clan feature was caused
by individuals that can be counted on the fingers of one hand.

Main discussion now is centered on how to improve the scoring system.
And the discussion has been respectful and the false accusations, slurs and
other forms of white noise has been noticeably absent.
Due to the departure of 2 individuals and the silencing of a couple of others.

I think Russ has seen enough of the clan feature in his IT work for now.
But at some point in future, we can do some solid work on this feature and improve it.

Originally posted by moonbus
You may be right that the clan system is just not to my taste and that a league would better suit me.

I appreciate that from the standpoint of a large-clan captain, there is a lot of administrative overhead involved in setting up a 10:10 challenge, and that such a captain would naturally like to see all his hard work acknowledged and rewarded in some way, ...[text shortened]... ussion and see whether we can get broad consensus on such a metric which would level the field.

Yes. I think the community is open to further discussions.
But there may be a cooling off period.
Site allocated their time on the clan feature for this year and may back off on further work for a while.

Originally posted by radioactive69
Why then does the larger clans (with the exception of Lemondrop who sandbags his rating and colludes with clans associated with last years cheating scandal) fill the top 15-20 placings every year.

Honestly I can't really understand what Moonbus and yourself are trying to say. Do you want the clan that plays the most challenges crowned the winner ??

Will there still be large challenges when clan leaders realise that what I say is the truth
You don't see as many 10 on 10's these days
Why would you when a result of 11 - 9 means losing 40 points for one game

Originally posted by padger
Will there still be large challenges when clan leaders realise that what I say is the truth
You don't see as many 10 on 10's these days
Why would you when a result of 11 - 9 means losing 40 points for one game

That is a good observation.
Clan leaders have backed off on larger challenges for a couple of reasons:
1 - the risk associated with the challenge.
2 - many challenges are between clans with smaller members.
also, you can have challenges between a 20 member clan and a 5 member clan. And these would be smaller challenges.

The only large challenges we saw in 2016 were between Easy Riders and their collusion clans.
Where there was no risk of losing for Easy Riders.

Originally posted by moonbus
It is not about penalizing any clan. It's about finding a metric which ensures that smaller clans compete on equal terms with large clans.

Of course, volume of games is not necessarily at the expense of quality games; I never said it was. But why should volume be the criterion of success, given that some clans play very well indeed and even beat clans at ...[text shortened]... ns which have anything to do playing good chess, and that is what I think needs to be addressed.

Volume only works if you win the preponderance of those games.
Playing a lot of challenges alone does not get the job done.
Give some credit where credit is due.

Originally posted by padger
Will there still be large challenges when clan leaders realise that what I say is the truth
You don't see as many 10 on 10's these days
Why would you when a result of 11 - 9 means losing 40 points for one game

First of all, an 11-9 challenge results in 20 point for victor and -20 for the loser.
It is not a 40 point award either way. The only two teams it appears that way to
is the two clans involved in the challenge.

It takes two clan leaders to agree to a large challenge.

I am willing and ready to take on large challenges and always have been.
I try to manufacture them and then the clan leaders kick them back to a single player or two.

It is risk / reward , as it always has been.

I have taken and lost a 20 man challenge against Smiffy. It was very close, I believe the
final score was 21-19 and we lost 40 points on it. We have also been on the winning side
of 20 vs 20 challenges. Based on your analysis, that was an 80 point difference between
Smiffy and us.

No guts...no glory....plain and simple.

Metallica has taken way too much heat for finding a winning strategy

For me, there were two main points of concern:
Early resignation, and lowered player rating as a result

I read through the posts on this forum

There has been good discussion on how to score clan challenges
I have to admit, at the beginning, I thought it was simple
Simplify the point system (no gross points, no negative points) it seemed sound
I realize now that it's more complicated, and for good reason

The system we have now is playable (actually, pretty darn good)

The changes we adopt should address the issue of early resignation
(hopefully, this will clear up artificial rating drop as well)

Please let me be absolutely clear

I admire Metallica, and I respect shortcircuit, I am not casting stones

I'd like us to look again at the suggestions for scoring that encourage every game to be played to completion, rather than resigned early if the clan challenge is already decided

The most complete suggestions have come from mghrn55 and radioactive69

Let's read, consider, and discuss them in detail

Originally posted by Giannotti
Metallica has taken way too much heat for finding a winning strategy

For me, there were two main points of concern:
Early resignation, and lowered player rating as a result

I read through the posts on this forum

There has been good discussion on how to score clan challenges
I have to admit, at the beginning, I thought it was simple
Simplify the ...[text shortened]... ons have come from mghrn55 and radioactive69

Let's read, consider, and discuss them in detail

Regarding early resignations, I do not favour any arbitrary cut-off, neither at 6 moves nor any other fixed number. Now that certain clans/players are no longer competing in this arena, we can assume that the issue is reduced to the point where the actual number of such resignations could be assessed on a case-by-case basis, whether it constitutes a real abuse of the system or is trivially incidental. If any captain thinks he has seen this behaviour operating to the detriment of his own clan, let him or her speak up.

Personally, I am concerned about it more because it highlights a fundamental difference of opinion about what constitutes good sportsmanship. In any FIDE- or USCF-organized event, every player is expected to play his best moves at all times (this is explicitly so stated in the rules governing tourneys) and any thrown games would get the whole team a severe reprimand or even ejected from the event. I appreciate that the clan system is not run according to such strict rules, but I would still like to see some clearer definitions of what constitutes good sportsmanship in the context of the clan system.

Originally posted by shortcircuit
First of all, an 11-9 challenge results in 20 point for victor and -20 for the loser.
It is not a 40 point award either way. The only two teams it appears that way to
is the two clans involved in the challenge.

It takes two clan leaders to agree to a large challenge.

I am willing and ready to take on large challenges and always have been.
I try ...[text shortened]... at was an 80 point difference between
Smiffy and us.

No guts...no glory....plain and simple.

The trouble with it is that if you win the challenge 19 - 1 or 11 - 9 or any combination in between the result is the same
+ 20 or - 20
Which once a clan has reached 11 wins they can forget the rest of the games and move onto the next challenge
this is rubbish

Originally posted by padger
The trouble with it is that if you win the challenge 19 - 1 or 11 - 9 or any combination in between the result is the same
+ 20 or - 20
Which once a clan has reached 11 wins they can forget the rest of the games and move onto the next challenge
this is rubbish

Have you read my suggestion for scoring. This will make every game in the challenge worth playing.

The current system just needs a few tweaks as stated to make every game count and reward losers of close challenges. My suggestions do both.

Unfortunately negative points are a must or the clan system just turns into a free for all with the winner the clan that plays the most challenges win, lose or draw.

Originally posted by radioactive69
... If the system is changed to (in the event of a 5 man challenge) the winning clan receives 5 points, the losing clan gets negative 5 points but added onto that points allocation is a point for each game won.

If a clan wins a 5 man challenge 6 games to 4 the winning clan receives 5 points for the win plus 6 points for each game won totalling 11 po ...[text shortened]... age clans to play challenges out to the end as points are still on the line for individual wins.

Yes, this looks like a workable hybrid metric: challenge points and game points. It appears to address the issue of thrown games in challenges which are already decided, by encouraging the clan bound to win anyway to play out all games and thereby increase their game point count.

It might make sense to maintain separate tallies though, rather than simply adding challenge points and game points to get a single sum, as this might shed some interesting light on the final result at the end of the year.

Originally posted by radioactive69
Have you read my suggestion for scoring. This will make every game in the challenge worth playing.

The current system just needs a few tweaks as stated to make every game count and reward losers of close challenges. My suggestions do both.

Unfortunately negative points are a must or the clan system just turns into a free for all with the winner the clan that plays the most challenges win, lose or draw.

Having gone back and read your proposal ,I could live with that
I still think negative points should not exist but hey nobody's perfect

Originally posted by Giannotti
Metallica has taken way too much heat for finding a winning strategy

For me, there were two main points of concern:
Early resignation, and lowered player rating as a result

I read through the posts on this forum

There has been good discussion on how to score clan challenges
I have to admit, at the beginning, I thought it was simple
Simplify the ...[text shortened]... ons have come from mghrn55 and radioactive69

Let's read, consider, and discuss them in detail

Giannotti,

Thank you for the compliment to the Metallica Clan and our clan leader.

I would agree with playing out a clan challenge even if the clan challenge was won if we were allowed to have more clan challenges going at one time. As it now stands the Clan Leaders can only have a few challenges on the go at one time, because of the fiasco that went on in 2016.

There is also the other side of the coin in a team concept what is the sense in holding up a challenge that is lost because one has not completed their game? It will not change the out come of that particular challenge.

Perhaps making every game count point wise may make some sense after all? Having said that wouldn't then become more about an individual than Clan?

-VR

There is also the other side of the coin in a team concept what is the sense in holding up a challenge that is lost because one has not completed their game? It will not change the out come of that particular challenge.

Have you looked at radioactive69 suggestion
It would solve a few problems

Originally posted by padger
There is also the other side of the coin in a team concept what is the sense in holding up a challenge that is lost because one has not completed their game? It will not change the out come of that particular challenge.

Have you looked at radioactive69 suggestion
It would solve a few problems

padger,

Yes I've seen radioactive69, it has been also suggested by others. Certainly something worth consideration.

I am just saying we don't want to get into individual stats because it is a team concept not an individual one. Completing games when a challenge is lost is not for the team/clan, it is for the individual.

The issues remains which is the better way to do it?

I know in hockey if one team scores 4 goals and the other team scores 5 there is no points for the team that scores 4 goals. (the exception would be if the game goes into overtime)

It is the same for all other sports, like football, baseball, basketball, etc., etc.. That is the way it has worked on here for years until the 2016 fiasco, lets call it.

-VR