Clans Forum

@Very-Rusty said
ATTENTION:

This post is for ALL CLANS!!!

In order to be a Number 1 Clan you have to play and beat all the best Clans not pick only the ones you know you can beat. Everyone of course will try to get an edge, but no can say they are a number one clan if they are avoiding any Clans. If you happen to be one of those Clans then you know who you are!!!

-VR

What if they have valid reasons to avoid certain clans? - Unfair pairings etc.

@Ghost-of-a-Duke said
What if they have valid reasons to avoid certain clans? - Unfair pairings etc.

It sounds more like excuses. I still believe you are not a number 1 clan unless you are playing all the other top clans. If you are playing the lower placed Clans all the time and never the top clans then you can never actually call yourself a NUMBER 1 CLAN in my humble opinion, and years of playing on this site in Clans has led me to that conclusion!!

-VR

@Very-Rusty said
It sounds more like excuses. I still believe you are not a number 1 clan unless you are playing all the other top clans. If you are playing the lower placed Clans all the time and never the top clans then you can never actually call yourself a NUMBER 1 CLAN in my humble opinion, and years of playing on this site in Clans has led me to that conclusion!!

-VR

You're still wrong.

@Ghost-of-a-Duke said
You're still wrong.

@Goad,
It like your football (soccer) we call it. If the two best Teams don't play one another you don't really have a best football Team!

The way they get there is by playing every other Team.

-VR

@Very-Rusty said
@Goad,
It like your football (soccer) we call it. If the two best Teams don't play one another you don't really have a best football Team!

The way they get there is by playing every other Team.

-VR

In the FA cup, for example, the best 2 teams might not get to play each other. Does that mean the winning team isn't really a winning team?

@Ghost-of-a-Duke said
In the FA cup, for example, the best 2 teams might not get to play each other. Does that mean the winning team isn't really a winning team?

YES it would, sorry to disappoint but the best team wouldn't have won if the best team wasn't playing!!!! 🙂

-VR

@Very-Rusty said
YES it would, sorry to disappoint but the best team wouldn't have won if the best team wasn't playing!!!! 🙂

-VR

In most sport tournaments (whether it be football, tennis or ice hockey) the best 2 teams have a good chance of 'not' playing each other, with one being knocked out before reaching the final. Their victory is no less a victory because of this.

@Ghost-of-a-Duke said
In most sport tournaments (whether it be football, tennis or ice hockey) the best 2 teams have a good chance of 'not' playing each other, with one being knocked out before reaching the final. Their victory is no less a victory because of this.

Yes, but they weren't allowed to avoid any Teams along the way is the point I am making.

That happens in Hockey all the time best teams getting knocked out, which means they actually were not the best just one of the best. In hockey everyone plays everyone the same amount of time as in most sports and the elimination begins.

I wouldn't even mind that to happen with our chess. I don't have a lot of say in the matter so have to go with the flow.

-VR

@Ghost-of-a-Duke said
What if they have valid reasons to avoid certain clans? - Unfair pairings etc.

Agreed. 🙂

@Michael-Martin said
Agreed. 🙂

Strongly disagree, still an excuse!!!!

An agreement can always be found even if you have to give a little to get a little, or in some cases a lot!

I'd love to see eliminations rounds with so many games played! That indeed would be quite interesting, and different.

Lets use football/soccer as an example as @Ghost pointed out. with say the top 10 teams playing off and the two best teams playing for the Championship. It could be done many ways so many games until the final two were left. Never been tried or done before, would be something new. Maybe the top 5 or 10 could do this and see how it worked out.

It has worked out in Hockey for many Decades now!!!

-VR

@Ghost-of-a-Duke said
What if they have valid reasons to avoid certain clans? - Unfair pairings etc.

The etc. is the key word here.

Some clan leaders can get upset and borderline abusive in the course of a "negotiation". As there is no way to win the Net Points title without grinding out 300 games a month - the abuse is just not worth it.

Not every clan is trying to finish on top of the Net Points table. That is not why I am here - I am here to play chess.

Just because it is important to finish first to some clans, that does not mean it has to be important to me. We all think for ourselves around here, as everyone has plainly seen. 😇

@Bish said
The etc. is the key word here.

Some clan leaders can get upset and borderline abusive in the course of a "negotiation". As there is no way to win the Net Points title without grinding out 300 games a month - the abuse is just not worth it.

Not every clan is trying to finish on top of the Net Points table. That is not why I am here - I am here to play chess.

Just becau ...[text shortened]... t has to be important to me. We all think for ourselves around here, as everyone has plainly seen. 😇

Indeed sir, and at the end of the day it is up to each clan leader who they set up challenges with.

If there were a league structure then every clan would play each other a set amount of times and the playing field would be level (in regards to games played). - If people want to keep the current set up where it is all about excessive challenges then they have to accept that clan leaders have the right to not pair challenges against them, whatever the reason.

You can't have your cake and eat it.

@Ghost-of-a-Duke said
Indeed sir, and at the end of the day it is up to each clan leader who they set up challenges with.

If there were a league structure then every clan would play each other a set amount of times and the playing field would be level (in regards to games played). - If people want to keep the current set up where it is all about excessive challenges then they have to a ...[text shortened]... to not pair challenges against them, whatever the reason.

You can't have your cake and eat it.

@Ghost,

The system isn't perfect but can always use tweaking for sure. If two Clan leaders can't come to an agreement in a Clan Challenge it is a pretty sad thing.

Actually what you said about every clan playing every other clan so many times does make some sense, they could pick what players they wanted to use, a small issue with that is so many clans have less than 10 players.

As you said and I agree you can't have your cake and eat it too, but we could try to at least make it a fair Challenge for everyone. Until things change some, we will continue unfortunately to see Clans not playing other clans. As Least Breaking Bad are playing Metallica now which is a positive in my way of looking at it.

-VR

@Very-Rusty said
@Ghost,

The system isn't perfect but can always use tweaking for sure. If two Clan leaders can't come to an agreement in a Clan Challenge it is a pretty sad thing.

Actually what you said about every clan playing every other clan so many times does make some sense, they could pick what players they wanted to use, a small issue with that is so many clans ...[text shortened]... Least Breaking Bad are playing Metallica now which is a positive in my way of looking at it.

-VR

Yes, smaller clans (below 10) would need to amalgamate to be viable.

@Ghost-of-a-Duke said
Yes, smaller clans (below 10) would need to amalgamate to be viable.

@Ghost,
Yes, my old friend I been saying that for years now. I have said better to have less clans and more competition than many clans with less competitive competition. We are certainly on the same page on that one. I know Michael enjoys the competition also, and he will play anyone if they have 2 players or 20 players doesn't matter. We need more Clan Leader who will do that too.

-VR