Clan Challenges

I sent a rec to the site admins suggesting that a clan challenge "odds factor" be an option for clan leaders. For instance, if Clan A and Clan B want a 20:20 challenge, but the rating differences show that Clan A is a statistical favorite by 4 games, then a leader can send a challenge for a 20:20 with odds of +4 games or -4 games. The other leader can return the challenge with the odds challenge adjusted. I think this would create a dynamic for larger and fairer clan matches.

Any support?

Originally posted by coquette
I sent a rec to the site admins suggesting that a clan challenge "odds factor" be an option for clan leaders. For instance, if Clan A and Clan B want a 20:20 challenge, but the rating differences show that Clan A is a statistical favorite by 4 games, then a leader can send a challenge for a 20:20 with odds of +4 games or -4 games. The other leader can retur ...[text shortened]... usted. I think this would create a dynamic for larger and fairer clan matches.

Any support?

How would the points figure into ratings? 1 point difference for 50 points each in rating? How does that work?

ratings would be completely unaffected. that is, the ratings would change they way they always do, but the clan points awarded would go to the winnng clan, with the odds factor weighed in to determine the winning clan.

Maybe you're forgetting that odds don't figure into mistakes in the game, and the occasional time out from a player absent.... this messes up the whole 'numbers' game.

Originally posted by SmookieP
Maybe you're forgetting that odds don't figure into mistakes in the game, and the occasional time out from a player absent.... this messes up the whole 'numbers' game.

Most important problem I see with this numbers game is sandbaggers. If you have a clan of sandbaggers they could win almost every clan challenge with this idea. And there are several sandbaggers in clans.
I think clan challenges work pretty well now if the clan leader does his or her job well. (If it works, don't fix it.)
Also I see no need to have 20 vs 20 or big clan challenges if the players are not evenly matched. It's nice if it works out to have a big clan challenge. But it is not required.
Every clan match a player plays in for their clan is just as important for the clan points wise, weather a big clan challenge or a small one,
My vote would be no on this idea.

We may have a misunderstanding but I don't think I'm overlooking anything and I don't think the issues that are being raised are a concern.

First, a clan leader can offer any odds for a match, presumably up to 39 games, which would mean that the clan would have to win every single game to get the points awarded. This would allow for uneven clan matches to take place with the odds built in.

As to sandbagging, I just don't see how this increases a problem with sandbagging any more than it currently exists.

Finally, ratings will be completely unaffected by this option. Only the awarding of clan match points would be affected.

Originally posted by coquette
We may have a misunderstanding but I don't think I'm overlooking anything and I don't think the issues that are being raised are a concern.

First, a clan leader can offer any odds for a match, presumably up to 39 games, which would mean that the clan would have to win every single game to get the points awarded. This would allow for uneven clan matches t pletely unaffected by this option. Only the awarding of clan match points would be affected.

As to sandbagging, I just don't see how this increases a problem with sandbagging any more than it currently exists.

If you have a clan of sandbaggers the odds are always going to be in their clans favor in clan matches with your suggestion, Think about it.

The only problem with sandbagging at present is a clan leader should take the time and do backround checks. It's time consuming.

I'm not saying the intent for your idea is a bad one. I'm just pointing out some problems I think I see with your suggestion.

Originally posted by KingDavid403
[b]As to sandbagging, I just don't see how this increases a problem with sandbagging any more than it currently exists.

If you have a clan of sandbaggers the odds are always going to be in their clans favor in clan matches with your suggestion, Think about it.

The only problem with sandbagging at present is a clan leader should take the ...[text shortened]... idea is a bad one. I'm just pointing out some problems I think I see with your suggestion.[/b]

I'm sorry, but I'm missing your point. Sandbaggers are obvious, but it takes time to check them out. Once you know who they are, you can decide to play them (challenge them) or not.

The odds factor are a negotiation. The leader can take the sandbaggers into consideration in offering the odds.

The problem you raise is neither lessened nor worsened by the odds factor, but the odds factor allows uneven match ups to take place with a level scoring field.

Originally posted by coquette
We may have a misunderstanding but I don't think I'm overlooking anything and I don't think the issues that are being raised are a concern.

First, a clan leader can offer any odds for a match, presumably up to 39 games, which would mean that the clan would have to win every single game to get the points awarded. This would allow for uneven clan matches t ...[text shortened]... pletely unaffected by this option. Only the awarding of clan match points would be affected.

We may have a misunderstanding but I don't think I'm overlooking anything and I don't think the issues that are being raised are a concern.
I was somewhat misunderstood with your idea. It's not a bad idea as you suggested. I think it would add some work and confussion, and complications for clan leaders thow. But it's a thought.

I don't see how any "odds factor" won't complicate the current system.

Please simplify what you're proposing.

Originally posted by coquette
, if Clan A and Clan B want a 20:20 challenge, but the rating differences show that Clan A is a statistical favorite by 4 games, then a leader can send a challenge for a 20:20 with odds of +4 games or -4 games. The other leader can return the challenge with the odds challenge adjusted.

Well first, if your suggestion is to have challenges that have even odds, why send a challenge with odds of +4 in the first place..

But okay, that aside..

I do not see this as a good idea, it would be a (bad) replacement of current player rating.. (and I think judging challenges just on current rating is already not a good measure, see Thread 82439)

If you would simply use your idea to come to a 'fair' challenge, sandbaggers can have a huge advantage then (I do agree with King David..)

Your system would also take away a lot of fun for Clan Leaders, it will be more of an auto-pilot thing: choose random clan to challenge, choose amount of members and hit the button until you have an 'even-odds' game (again, odds based on current rating will lead to advantage for sandbaggers, does not take any history into account, etc..)

I'd say, leave out any rating indication.. let the (good) Clan Leaders do their homework/research/investigations for the challenges.. the more dedicated Clan Leaders will have the advantage then..

(otherwise get rid of the Clan Leader principle, have an random / auto challenge set up, and let the individual members indicate whether they are available or not................................. don't think we want that right?)

But besides this, best wishes for 2008 and have a good year of chess at RHP!

Patrick aka Amsterdamn

Simplification: Odds and Ratings are separate. Rating calculations will not change. The only change recommended is how the scoring of clans is done for winning and drawing matches, not individual games.

Right now, a lot of desirable 20:20 matches can't take place. This is probably even true down to 14:14 matches.

Let's take pretend sample:

The top 20 members of RHP get together and form "The High Rated Players Clan," or THRP. THRP wins almost every clan match, and even would if the next 20 rated players formed a clan called "The Second Highest Rated Players Clan," or TSHRP. Clan matches lose their attraction because the decked is stacked in favor of the higher rated clan. However, TSHRP could challenge THRP with a 4 or 6 game advantage, and the statistical chances of an even match can be precisely calculated. Should THRP object, thinking that the ratings only suggest a 3 game advantage, then they can change that odds factor and return the challenge.

Can't someone familiar with horseracing and sports betting help out here please?

Originally posted by coquette
Simplification: Odds and Ratings are separate. Rating calculations will not change. The only change recommended is how the scoring of clans is done for winning and drawing matches, not individual games.

Right now, a lot of desirable 20:20 matches can't take place. This is probably even true down to 14:14 matches.

Let's take pretend sample:

The top ...[text shortened]... enge.

Can't someone familiar with horseracing and sports betting help out here please?

Can't someone familiar with horseracing and sports betting help out here please? lol, Well I see what your idea is more clearly now. And It's not all a bad idea either.
But I personaly don't care if our clan matches are 20 vs 20 or are all one on one. It's all points for our team, if we win them.
Bigger clan matches are somewhat more fun and I look for them whenever possible.
To make a long story shorter I think you idea is not all that bad. But I think it would just cause to many problems and confusion and open up new area's for possible unethical behavior in clan matches. I like it more the way it is now. But who am I. It's just my opinion on this matter.

I'm Shocked! Shocked, I say, that you think there is unethical behavior in RHP. Please take it back!

Originally posted by coquette
I'm Shocked! Shocked, I say, that you think there is unethical behavior in RHP. Please take it back!

lol,
Well I hate to break the bad news to you but there is. I have another word for alot of it, but I've been warned by the mods not to say it anymore in the forums.
So I can call it unethical, low down, underhanded, bad sportsmanship, etc. I just can't call it Ch@#$TYg.