i dont get the wacky part but this seems to be natural development of chess course and not only 1-2 teams but in bigger tourneys, as continental or somewhat other uniting principles can be basis for a team, and its not necessary that the team members couldn't play each other but to have initiative to score highest for the team or yourself , there is the cracka
#8
Scoring can be done in a few ways. The most basic would be a single head-to-head (each team is seeded by rating, and then everyone plays a single game against the opponent with the same seed). Or the double head-to-head with alternating colours.
But of course that would only really work for longer time controls. For short time controls it's a bit more complicated as you definitely want to play a bunch of games against a bunch of opponents.
A team round-robin seems the most straight forwards: everyone from team A plays everyone from team B. So, for a 20 v 20 match, each person would play 20 games, which is probably pretty good for time controls less than 5+0.
The round robin system can definitely be stream-lined a bit too. A lot of problems for round-based tournaments is that they usually force waiting times, but in this case it can be sped up by simply pairing someone from Team A against whoever they haven't yet played from Team B who is available.
But I think that the current tournament system is pretty functional because people can come and go when they please. Which is something that should be looked into when it comes to team tournaments.
I don't really have a solution to that problem. It'd need to be some kinda of armageddon/deathmatch system: "first to X points wins!" or "Most points in X minutes wins!" which would actually work regardless of the amount of players on either side or how they are stacked. i.e. if Team A is only 1 player and Team B is 10, well each person from Team B is going to have to wait their turn to play the one guy on Team A, and as long as that one guy wins more games than he loses, Team A will win the tourney.
Scoring can be done in a few ways. The most basic would be a single head-to-head (each team is seeded by rating, and then everyone plays a single game against the opponent with the same seed). Or the double head-to-head with alternating colours.
But of course that would only really work for longer time controls. For short time controls it's a bit more complicated as you definitely want to play a bunch of games against a bunch of opponents.
A team round-robin seems the most straight forwards: everyone from team A plays everyone from team B. So, for a 20 v 20 match, each person would play 20 games, which is probably pretty good for time controls less than 5+0.
The round robin system can definitely be stream-lined a bit too. A lot of problems for round-based tournaments is that they usually force waiting times, but in this case it can be sped up by simply pairing someone from Team A against whoever they haven't yet played from Team B who is available.
But I think that the current tournament system is pretty functional because people can come and go when they please. Which is something that should be looked into when it comes to team tournaments.
I don't really have a solution to that problem. It'd need to be some kinda of armageddon/deathmatch system: "first to X points wins!" or "Most points in X minutes wins!" which would actually work regardless of the amount of players on either side or how they are stacked. i.e. if Team A is only 1 player and Team B is 10, well each person from Team B is going to have to wait their turn to play the one guy on Team A, and as long as that one guy wins more games than he loses, Team A will win the tourney.
Great Idea KC !
Love the idea of different nations.
That would be the equivalent of the flair on reddit, wouldn't it?
I don't think people are really understanding the suggestion. He's not just suggesting putting people on teams.
I think teams must have equal number of players. If some team has excess of players, then
1) these players don't play at all
2) one half goes to team 1, the other half stays in team 2.
3) total number of team points don't include points from those players (not exactly them, but those who got the least score)
1) these players don't play at all
2) one half goes to team 1, the other half stays in team 2.
3) total number of team points don't include points from those players (not exactly them, but those who got the least score)
I am not suggesting at all teams need to be constructed.
I am talking about the existing hourly tournaments etc - you can choose which "tags" like in Formula 1 motor racing - and you see team results at the end of the tournament.
So for example the Daily Bullet tournament, I could select tags like "Ferrari", "UK" etc from the different tag competition sets - and we could see the results at the end of the tournament.
I am talking about the existing hourly tournaments etc - you can choose which "tags" like in Formula 1 motor racing - and you see team results at the end of the tournament.
So for example the Daily Bullet tournament, I could select tags like "Ferrari", "UK" etc from the different tag competition sets - and we could see the results at the end of the tournament.
Also, just for a bit of fun, some tournaments you could select your favorite twitch chess streamer, like Kingscrusher vs. Chessbrahs, or something like that.
Ideally the pairing algorithm would take the affiliations into account in order to avoid pairs of same affiliation.
Because otherwise it'd be a bit awkward, and may allow cheating-like strategies, like having one of the players quickly resign during those pairings.
Because otherwise it'd be a bit awkward, and may allow cheating-like strategies, like having one of the players quickly resign during those pairings.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.