Playing Team Matches
Sort:
blackfirestorm
Aug 15, 2010
0
#61
My teams play friendlies AND competitions on this site and while it's ok to make them unrated team matches you can't do that in tournaments ... At the end of the day if people want to play team matches it's not fair to let them jump in with 0 rated games played
I agree that there should be a min no. of games played before tourney or match play. I think that your 5 games is too low, 15-20 games seems a more reasonable number. After 15-20 games your rating should have stabilized somewhat.
Aug 15, 2010
0
#63
This is what i'm saying Karl they have this setting for tournaments so why not team matches too??
Aug 15, 2010
0
#64
I created this thread originally to see what kind of support my idea had but it's clear to see now this is something a lot of people want or need
thats nice but you shouldn't play for your rating you should play for fun :)
and 5 games is an eternity why not 3
Aug 16, 2010
0
#66
I play for fun in UNRATED GAMES I play team matches to be competitive all new players should play 5 at least to even up their rating to where it should be. It's not fair for an OTB player rated 1800+ to be playing team matches against people who are genuinely 1200
Aug 16, 2010
0
#67
pathfinder416 wrote:
The "provisional rating" used by the USCF (and CFC and others) is helpful for Swiss tournaments. For elimination tournaments it's much less helpful, but the 1200 starting point seems a lot worse (I'm sure a few of my early opponents didn't enjoy their games with me when I first came to chess.com, but there was no way around it for me).
What if, before being permitted to enter small tournaments, restricted-rating tournaments, or team matches, new players were obligated to enter an open tournament of 100 players or more and obtain an initial performance rating from this?
What would this accomplish? All you are doing is shifting the (potential) rating discrepancy from one venue (team match, small tournament) to another one (100 player tournament). An initial rating is just that. If you limit play for new players to "Let's play" only it will simply take longer for the player to reach its true rating as higher rated players are unlikely to accept challenges from 1200 rated players. Then if you consider that a turn based game can last quite a while. It can take a couple of months until the rating reaches a happy medium. It took me a year to complete 100 games. Sure, it does suck if you have team matches where the 1200 player morphs into a 2000 plus behemoth in the course of the match. But there are so many factors influencing it that it is rarely the decisive factor. First those 1200 players can be on either side, you have timeouts, players all of a sudden resigning their games and so on. Each of those decisions impact a team match. Should we kick players off Chess.com that sign up for matches and then resign their games immediately (just happened on either side of a team match that just kicked off in my group). Life is not perfect, nor is Chess.com. As the rewards for winning those matches are not material in nature I don't see much harm done. Compared to the overall number of games you will play the impact of those skewed matches will be near zero.
Aug 28, 2010
0
#68
Please feel free to also comment in this other thread I created for this subject in "The Cheating Forum" group:
http://www.chess.com/groups/forumview/this-has-to-be-dealt-with?page=2
Aug 28, 2010
0
#70
It isn't my group ... just click to join the group its open to anyone ~:)
Aug 28, 2010
0
#71
ah ok, thanks for that...I'll leave it, it just sounded contentious and I felt like getting into it...lol