different views

From the perspective of a new clan leader ...of an old clan:


Some clans focuses on clan play rather than individual play

Resigning from a game that does not effect the outcome of a clan challenge is not just acceptable, it's beneficial

The player's rating is lowered, they are therefore more matchable, have a smaller game load, and advantage in future challenges


From another point of view, the game of chess should be played, in the words of Bobby Fischer 'to the kings!'


These two schools of thought collided this year


Those who don't like the first idea, have been throwing away points to clans in order to de-throne a clan that uses the tactic

Call that collusion ...which lead to counter-collusion ...and things are a mess


I became aware of this (after a few mistakes) and made it my policy to decline challenges, with respect, from both camps


The Fast Players is more a draft horse than a race horse

We seek challenges that are fair, but have a bias in our favor ...we are trying to win

Clans at full strength can play a lot of games, the number of games we play tends to smooth out anomalies in ratings

A top 5 finish may be possible for us this year

All of that being said, I'd really like to see things change for the better


I've had correspondence with: leaders from both camps, folks stuck in the middle, my own players ...and I sent a suggestion or two to Russ


This is what I suggested


With little effort (the code need only be duplicated) another set of clans could be created, one with an 'honor code' to play 'to the kings!'

...and the other ... and damn ...it's tempting

'you're part of a clan ... go for a clan win all all costs!'


By this, the problem might be solved

Clans that value a clan win, rather than an individual win are cool

Clans that value each individual game are cool

No Judgement either way


Let the schism happen if the idea has enough support and Russ doesn't mind the additional effort


Thanks to All,
~leo

How about they hide the current results of clan match games from view until the end? Seems like easier code to write. Yes, clan leaders could work around this by asking members to report finishes as they'd happen, but it'd be much more work. (As far as I'm concerned, anyone who cares enough to go through that much can have the imaginary trophy.)

Only takes one bad actor to mess up your honor system.

Originally posted by Zseventyone
How about they hide the current results of clan match games from view until the end? Seems like easier code to write. Yes, clan leaders could work around this by asking members to report finishes as they'd happen, but it'd be much more work. (As far as I'm concerned, anyone who cares enough to go through that much can have the imaginary trophy.)

Only takes one bad actor to mess up your honor system.

A very interesting idea - i think hiding the results till the end (or maybe at the end of each month) would add some excitement

While I can appreciate your point of view, Chess would not be Chess without draws or resignations as well, in my opinion. I got involved in Clans to play more chess with more similarly ranked players from around the world. I would rather draw an obvious drawn position instead of continuing to play a boring endgame - which gives me an opportunity to find another opponent or focus on more interesting (hopefully winnable) ongoing games. And while member ratings (and Clan victory points) are a way of keeping score - all I want to do is play chess - win, lose or draw. Draws are a part of Chess and serve a purpose at the appropriate time. All of us have wins and losses with 10% or less draws. I never start a game looking for or playing for a draw.

Best - Mike

Ugh, wanted to reply to above and now I can't see how to delete this entirely.

Originally posted by mlctulsa
While I can appreciate your point of view, Chess would not be Chess without draws or resignations as well, in my opinion. I got involved in Clans to play more chess with more similarly ranked players from around the world. I would rather draw an obvious drawn position instead of continuing to play a boring endgame - which gives me an opportunity to find a ...[text shortened]... with 10% or less draws. I never start a game looking for or playing for a draw.

Best - Mike

I don't think he's suggesting that draws aren't honorable or wouldn't be allowed in the Honor Code Clans.

Hey Leo,

Interesting perspective on clan leader's theoretical practice. I don't think my theory of clan leadership is that cut and dried. However, if you condense the points to a main point, that might be it. These are items you failed to account for; the reason being that currently you have a dedicated and co-operative team of players. When players become board or broke, or dead; teams tend to be in a constant recruiting mode looking for players that won't time out or throw games that are winnable, leaving it difficult to recover lost points. (I have lost hundreds of net points this year alone to this unfortunate reality)

It is unfortunate as well that "a large portion of the chess playing world is aging", may not be an accurate assessment but for the online chess world (more specific: the subscribing world of this site and the ability to play clan games) - appears to be people who actually can afford to pay the subscription. That appears to be older people. What happens to older people when they get older? Doctors, hospital stays, extended vacations, dementia, dead; can throw complications into any clan leaders plans. Please don't take that as insensitive but as a consequence of life.

The Be Happy Clan has been on the first page all year hovering from 4-9th all year. It has not been easy, but necessary for some players to play dozens of clan games, myself over 50 always. Yes, I do manipulate the ends as much as I need to not drop in page order if possible, (don't resign a game that looses points with 2 weeks on the clock or have another challenge points winning to offset the loss) is an example. It may not be ethical or compassionate. It is good business to reward my team with the status of as high a score as I can achieve without cheating. The clans you are talking about as abusers are just better at staying on top. I think they do take it to the extreme, but I am doubtful that the sheer act of artificial ratings can stop a good clan leaders analysis.

I think the method you discuss is not as much of an obstacle to experienced clan leaders because rating history is available as is games of your team. If the match is not good for you (or fair), delete it, decline it, resubmit it, or quit. You are the clan leader and you have to either rally your team to put out, or except the outcome. Or, make an adjustment in your analysis to compensate for the abuse.

Dennis

Interesting thoughts here, even if they are somewhat flawed.

The main point I take away from the original post is that Giannotti makes a distinction between 2 philosophies.

Meaning that neither philosophy is tantamount to cheating !!

Which is what the accusations that have been tossed for years have been alluding to.

The few individuals that have been tossing the accusations have decided to engage in their form of retribution this year.

What is different is that their activities have been blatant !!

Some ideas that have been presented, while interesting, will not address the collusion that has been going on here.

For example, keeping the clan game results hidden till the challenge is complete does nothing to eliminate the tossing of clan games !!

Why would the perpetrators of the collusion care if the game results are hidden if they know some of the games are being tossed ??

Any feature that works off an informal honor system will require human intervention, meaning referees.
These referees can perform punitive correction like player suspensions, points rollbacks, etc .....

Site administration has performed these functions before.
And they can do it again.
They just have to get their hands dirty once in a while !!

thanks to all for the responses, we're off to a good start

i deliberately over-simplified the matter by saying there were two schools of thought

this was done to highlight the problem and encourage discussion

let's keep this light and polite, and let's keep this going

~leo

My view on this and life in general...control the things I can and don't let what others think/do control my happiness.

While I strive to put my clan on the first page, I don't lose sleep over it when we aren't. I've had a couple members checkout and lost due to timeouts. I think I've even had a couple moles sign up and throw games. Those are things I can't control.

My own rating bounces from 1100 - 1450 due to how busy I am with my life.

I agree with dsmith, it's up to the clan leaders to decide on the matches they will accept.

Personally, I think I run my clan in a similar fashion to gionnatti. I try to set fair challenges in our favor. That said, past picking who plays who, I generally run my clan with a very laissez faire style. Currently, we hover around the bottom of page 1 and have been there or better for a number of years.

One the challenges that I have had is finding players who don't leave the site, right now the team is rather good though.

Historically, one of the problems I have seen is the existence of what I call roadkill clans, living on the last page with many negative points while having points farmed from them like there is no tomorrow. Granted, there have been some measures taken to make that less of an issue, but the fact that the site is shrinking makes it harder to find different clans to keep playing making the roadkill clans that much more tempting.

I, sadly, don't have any real solutions, I just thought I'd mention another issue did seem to be touched on very much.

Leo,
I thank you for reaching out, and it has a very long time since I even cared to post in this forum. This has been very educational, I suggest another option: If you are in a clan, only play clan games for points, play all your other RHP games for no rating. Myself, I only play for the clan I head, The Guitar Alliance, and the few clans I've joined. I'm also in the ladder, but that would just be two games and it wouldn't make sense for me to try and dump those games, I'm trying to climb the proverbial ladder.

That is it JR, "moles". That explains the take 12 games and time out 10. I am also thinking I got a student or retarded kid, something. He played great for the first 10 games, then nothing for a month and 5 time outs.

Originally posted by beatlemania

Historically, one of the problems I have seen is the existence of what I call roadkill clans, living on the last page with many negative points while having points farmed from them like there is no tomorrow. Granted, there have been some measures taken to make that less of an issue, but the fact that the site is shrinking makes it harder to find different clans to keep playing making the roadkill clans that much more tempting.

.

So true Beatle. What if the clans were run like a season of baseball. Every clan has a challenge with every other clan, regardless of the disparity in rating or numbers. The number of matches per clan challenge is based on the maximum player roster (20). If clans challenging don't have that many members, they can substitute other or same members to play all of them. Like Lemondrop, the one man front page machine. I got 3 challenges going with him now; he would have 20 matches for the challenge, I would use several of my guys to fill those holes.

Then rating can be determined by also similar to pool tournaments. Players are rated by talent 2-7. Each match has a number of games based on something like: if a 1200 player plays a 1800 player = the 1200 player can win 2 games to take the match while the 1800 must win 4 to win the match.

What do you think?
Dennis

Originally posted by dsmith
So true Beatle. What if the clans were run like a season of baseball. Every clan has a challenge with every other clan, regardless of the disparity in rating or numbers. The number of matches per clan challenge is based on the maximum player roster (20). If clans challenging don't have that many members, they can substitute other or same members to play all o ...[text shortened]... es to take the match while the 1800 must win 4 to win the match.

What do you think?
Dennis

Not everybody would want to take up dozens of games a year. And for smaller clans the gameload would go into the hundreds...
Plus the rating problem would persist. We all know that a 1700 player in the clan system uses tournament resignations to keep thier rating around 1200...