Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Site Ideas Forum

Site Ideas Forum

  1. Subscriber Marinkatomb
    wotagr8game
    01 May '07 11:57 / 1 edit
    This has bugged me for ages, so i'll air my thoughts. Why are the leagues judged on board score? If you look at any teams league in the World, the winners are the ones who win the most matches against the other teams in the league. Only in the case of a tie is board score used to select the winner.

    You might think this is neither here nor there, but it changes the outcome of the league substantially over the course of a whole season. If i had my choice of system, it would be this...

    Each division has a table of results in the same way we have currently, but instead of 'wins/loss/draw' as it is currently, it would be a cross table showing the over all result of each Clan v Clan contest. Only when all the games between two clans have been completed does the table show a result. 1 point for a win, 0.5 for a draw, 0 for a loss. This way each clan is in competition as a team. With the current system, it feels like a lot of individuals fighting to get the best individual score. If one team fields a particularly strong team, they just walk away with the league and become unstoppable. If they had to win 10 Matches, the circumstance is different. It is possible for a slightly lower graded side to cause an upset, for this reason...

    Team A
    Player 1 - 2350
    Player 2 - 2100
    Player 3 - 2000
    Player 4 - 1500
    Player 5 - 1300
    Player 6 - 1200
    Average:1741

    Team A
    Player 1 - 2000
    Player 2 - 1950
    Player 3 - 1850
    Player 4 - 1600
    Player 5 - 1400
    Player 6 - 1300
    Average:1683

    One would expect Team A to win because they have a higher average rating, however when you look at the individual pairings themselves, the match does not look anything like as one sided, in fact I would expect Team B to perhaps take the match. If Team B did cause an upset, then Team A lose a whole Match point. If these two teams went on to win their remaining matches, then Team B is rewarded for beating Team A with the title. Team A would probably end up with a higher board score. They might win their other matches more convincingly that team B, but they must actually BEAT Team B if they want to be champions.

    I hope this highlights my point clearly, i haven't really got time to iron it all out. I do believe this would make the Leagues far more interesting to everyone involved, not to mention those not involved too. Looking at the 7 day League, you can clearly see which teams are going to win each division, even though the season isn't even half way through. If a Clan v Clan system was introduced, then there would be a build up towards the end of the season which would be much more exciting, surely...?
  2. Subscriber Marinkatomb
    wotagr8game
    07 May '07 13:23
    Anyone?
  3. Standard member EveRyDay
    my pimp hand's strng
    08 May '07 11:11
    That actually is a good idea. At least I play the leagues to represent my clan (even if it wasn't so the first time I entered) and not to play some more games - I myself thought that the current system was more like an individual competition. (Even though you are wrong on how team competitions work - they work just like how it is now on RHP, with the exception of win = 1 point and draw = 0,5 - and _personnaly_ not /team. From the Olympiads right through all international/national divisions to the 'lowest' state/province leagues.)
    I think it would be especially nice, because this is a site for fun - not for being dead-serious. There are clans based on in real life or at least out of RHP relationships and this way a lower averaged team packed with friends would have more chances to place higher.
    On the other hand it would not solve your proplem - a clan could still recruit six 2100+ players and rule any leagues - but results would be much closer to each other from the third-fifth place.
  4. Subscriber Marinkatomb
    wotagr8game
    08 May '07 11:42
    Originally posted by EveRyDay
    (Even though you are wrong on how team competitions work - they work just like how it is now on RHP...
    Really? The league i play in (along with all the Leagues i am aware of in London for that matter) work this way. My team was relegated last season because we had the lowest match score, even though our board score was placed two places higher (we lost three matches by .5 of a point).
  5. Subscriber Marinkatomb
    wotagr8game
    08 May '07 11:47
    Originally posted by EveRyDay
    On the other hand it would not solve your proplem - a clan could still recruit six 2100+ players and rule any leagues - but results would be much closer to each other from the third-fifth place.
    This is of course true, there will always be teams with 4-6 2000+ players in, this can't be helped (nor should it be!) These teams however generally rise to the top. The leagues are slowly sorting themselves out by strength. I think the 7 day league will take two or three season more before the top division is exclusively the domain of 2000 strength players. Naturally there will be emerging teams that field particularly strong teams in lower divisions, this can't be helped really but the other teams would have a much greater chance of causing an upset if this system was introduced...
  6. Standard member EveRyDay
    my pimp hand's strng
    08 May '07 11:48
    Well if you take Eastern-Europe or the Olympiads they are like as it is on RHP now, to the bone.
  7. Standard member EveRyDay
    my pimp hand's strng
    08 May '07 11:54 / 1 edit
    And about top teams with six 2100+, they don't really concern me, I just mentioned the fact. In leagues I play for my team and just as in real life I don't mind if my team is not on the top. I play leagues because I'm happy to represent my team - and I think it's the same with most people. Since what you said would be better for such people and would not change the chances of all-around strong teams I think it's a great idea.