i think the winning clan should get points only for the games they won, the losing team none, in a 10 match challenge it does seem odd that if it finishes 6-4 you get 10 points as you only won 6 games so 6 points, none for the losing team, awarding points for all matches will just help the larger teams more as they can lose a large challenge and still rake in lots of points
Al, the purpose for the large point totals as rewards or penalties was originated to encourage large challenges. It is highly unlikely that in a 20v20 challenge you would have 28 draws and 12 defining games as Booger likes to insinuate. Do you believe that a team that wins a 20 man challenge 10.9 - 9.5 should only be awarded 1 point for such a huge investment in time and energy to play the match? Likewise, if a challenge is won 19-1, you are saying the winning team in only entitled to a 1 point win (as in a won challenge is +1 and a lost challenge is -1 )? Neither of those options are going to encourage large challenges. Based on this thought process, does a 10-10 challenge get zero points for each side?? Hardly seems fair because of the effort involved, does it?
You have seen many different approaches utilized to challenges. Taking on the challenges with maximum risk of lost points, should generate the most points for the winning team. Risk vs reward.
The true facts of the matter is all clans are not willing to put forth the effort necessary to get to the top. Since I began as a clan leader in 2008, there have been three different sets of rules changes in an attempt to thwart how clan chess was to be played. Each set of changes required a different mind set to play them, but in the end, most clans didn't want to play hard enough to get to the top.
I have listened for so long about people getting bent about resigning games once a challenge was already decided, I am deaf to it. The games are of no relevance, the challenge outcome will not change, everyone knows the rating system is a crock so it isn't bothering that (although that is the crutch they still rely on crying about). When professional sports teams play a best of 5 or best of 7 series in the playoffs, once one team has achieved the minimum number of wins necessary to win the challenge, they don't play any more games. Why? Because those games would be meaningless. No different here. Think about it.
If you really want to clean this mess up, limit all players to one clan only. Then you eliminate a bunch of the manipulation that is going on right now. The concept is this is a team endeavor, not an individual endeavor. Any time two clans match up where a player is a member of both clans, he/she is ineligible to participate in that challenge. Another problem is the physical make up of clans is not close to equal with some teams stacked with strong players and others will many lower rated players. I can go on for a long time on this, and it has fallen on deaf ears. Too many whining about the unfair advantage this team or that team has, while not realizing that the shortcoming is on them, the whiners. The goal of clan chess is to win more points than all of the other clans. Simple. To do so, you need to play a lot of games and win a lot of those games. Period. The team that wants it the most, in most cases ends up victorious.