@Trev333 saidAppears he doesn't. (Or can't do that math).
Do you even know what 3/7 and 3/14 mean?
I'd favour 3/14 as a standard time control in Clan matches. (As a general compromise).
People who push heavily for the faster time control tend to be less concerned with inclusivity and more obsessed with churning through challenges as quickly as possible. (The very thing we need to get away from).
@Ghost-of-a-Duke said@Ghost,
Appears he doesn't. (Or can't do that math).
I'd favour 3/14 as a standard time control in Clan matches. (As a general compromise).
Much to long in my opinion. Challenge could go on for many Months. 3/7 seems to be the best and others agree. Do a poll if you wish...
-VR
@Ghost-of-a-Duke said@Ghost,
I give up. It's like talking to lettuce.
I feel the same way about you, like talking to a head of lettuce, right on the money!!!
-VR
@Very-Rusty saidSee my edit:
@Ghost,
Much to long in my opinion. Challenge could go on for many Months. 3/7 seems to be the best and others agree. Do a poll if you wish...
-VR
"People who push heavily for the faster time control tend to be less concerned with inclusivity and more obsessed with churning through challenges as quickly as possible. (The very thing we need to get away from). "
@Ghost-of-a-Duke said@Ghost,
See my edit:
"People who push heavily for the faster time control tend to be less concerned with inclusivity and more obsessed with churning through challenges as quickly as possible. (The very thing we need to get away from). "
You don't understand 3/7 can last a very long time as it is we don't want to add more time to it. Like I saId take a poll and you will see.
Not my fault people such as yourself want to take forever to make a move I think 3 days less 1 hour is lots of time to make a move.
One can wait 2 days and 23 hours before making a move and get their 3 days back. You don't seem to understand that part.
-VR
@Very-Rusty saidI understand 'you' don't' want games to take longer (being one of the people obsessed with quantity and churning through challenges).
@Ghost,
You don't understand 3/7 can last a very long time as it is we don't want to add more time to it. Like I saId take a poll and you will see.
-VR
A healthy clan system needs to be inclusive and widely competitive. The current system is neither of those things.
An agreed cap on the number of challenges a clan could make in a given year (for example) would disincentivise a clan to rush through its matches, slow down a little, put more focus on winning. (Quality of chess, not quantity of chess). It would also motivate other clan leaders to be competitive, if the cap was a reasonable target.
@Ghost-of-a-Duke said@Ghost,
I understand 'you' don't' want games to take longer (being one of the people obsessed with quantity and churning through challenges).
A healthy clan system needs to be inclusive and widely competitive. The current system is neither of those things.
An agreed cap on the number of challenges a clan could make in a given year (for example) would disincentivise a cl ...[text shortened]... s). It would also motivate other clan leaders to be competitive, if the cap was a reasonable target.
You want to play less games, you are only concerned about what a few of you would like. You have to be more concerned in what the Clan Challenge Players as a whole want.
Who is to say what the correct amount of games are, again a poll would be needed on that to find out what the Majority found acceptable.
As far as Quantity vs.'s qualilty may have been true with Breaking Bad I will say that much. With Metallica they have a good winning % I believe right now the hightest of everyone.
What do you consider a reasonable cap?
-VR
The first table is two columns of data - there is no way to format it better in a post
Clan---Clan Games to date---Predicted for year
Breaking Bad Clan---2,394---4,104
Metallica---1,760---3,017
CHESS Troopers---1,110---1,903
Wycombe Wanderers---1,080---1,851
The Bad Bishops---1,030---1,766
Celtic Druids---1,028---1,762
Popeye The Sailor Clan---930---1,594
Templar Oath---722---1,238
Sinéad's Sopranos---684---1,173
Phoenix---634---1,087
Average---1,137---1,950
New Table with three averages
Group---Clans---Avg to date---Avg predicted for year
All ten---10---1,137---1,950 (same as we saw above)
Minus Breaking Bad---9---998---1,710
Minus Breaking Bad and Metallica---8---902---1,547
Here is the data - everyone can draw their own conclusions.
2026 Year to Date
Challenges — winning percentage, draw equals half win half loss
Clan --- Win %
Oh Canada --- 100.0%
Metallica --- 73.9%
Sinéad's Sopranos --- 67.0%
MexUSA --- 66.7%
Breaking Bad Clan --- 62.7%
Woodpushers --- 61.8%
the dartmoor wolf --- 60.0%
CPU (Chess Players United) --- 59.3%
6 Max --- 57.4%
Breaking Others Brings Pleasure --- 57.0%
BEER CLAN!!! (www.LP.org) --- 56.7%
Wycombe Wanderers --- 56.2%
Express Lane --- 55.8%
Sussex by the Sea --- 55.8%
The Yorkshire Laikers --- 55.7%
Guitar Alliance --- 54.2%
Sons of Confederate Veterans --- 54.2%
Crystal Palace FC All stars --- 53.7%
Red Hot Rebels --- 52.4%
Pion van Oranje --- 52.1%
Coca Cola Clan --- 52.1%
Chess Bikers --- 51.4%
Nicholas --- 50.9%
The Expat's --- 50.7%
Tournaments On Demand! --- 50.0%
Liverpool. EST: 1892 --- 50.0%
In Vino Veritas --- 49.1%
Danger Mouse --- 48.5%
Popeye The Sailor Clan --- 48.5%
Mythos RW Essen --- 48.3%
The Moldavians --- 48.2%
Freethinker's Clan --- 48.1%
Macedonian Lions --- 47.6%
The Fast Players --- 46.9%
Wellington Chess Club --- 46.4%
The Mustangs --- 46.3%
King Davids Mighty Warriors --- 46.2%
Celtic Druids --- 45.5%
CHESS Troopers --- 45.0%
The Glorious Fifties --- 43.8%
Clan with a Mission --- 43.8%
The Bad Bishops --- 43.4%
Chessaroos --- 42.3%
classic cars --- 41.9%
FAITH HOPE LOVE --- 41.2%
Phoenix --- 41.1%
Bielsa's Boys (and Girls) --- 40.0%
CCCP © --- 38.9%
All African Pawn Stars --- 38.9%
The Chesshooligans --- 38.5%
The Jedi Knights --- 37.5%
Nemesis challenge --- 37.5%
Son of M.U.T.I --- 37.2%
Templar Oath --- 37.1%
Social Chess --- 35.7%
Caro-Kann Defence Lovers --- 35.2%
Team Canada --- 34.4%
Anonymous --- 34.0%
1949 Seniors Clan --- 33.8%
Tolkien Clan --- 31.5%
B.V.C.C. --- 30.0%
Zena --- 29.7%
Karma Sutra --- 29.2%
CHEERS of BOSTON --- 28.3%
Be :-) Clan! --- 25.0%
De Vlaamse Leeuwen --- 25.0%
Mad as the Mist and Snow --- 20.8%
Kiwi Clan --- 19.2%
Enjoyment clan ! --- 12.5%
Clan RUSH --- 0.0%
Portuguese Speakers --- 0.0%
Games — winning percentage, draw equals half win half loss
Clan --- Win %
Oh Canada --- 100.0%
MexUSA --- 62.5%
the dartmoor wolf --- 60.0%
Woodpushers --- 58.8%
Metallica --- 58.4%
Sinéad's Sopranos --- 56.2%
Express Lane --- 56.0%
Chess Bikers --- 55.8%
BEER CLAN!!! (www.LP.org) --- 54.9%
Breaking Bad Clan --- 54.5%
Sussex by the Sea --- 53.9%
Sons of Confederate Veterans --- 53.8%
Breaking Others Brings Pleasure --- 53.6%
6 Max --- 53.5%
CPU (Chess Players United) --- 52.8%
Crystal Palace FC All stars --- 52.7%
Guitar Alliance --- 52.4%
Coca Cola Clan --- 51.5%
Wycombe Wanderers --- 51.4%
Macedonian Lions --- 51.2%
Pion van Oranje --- 51.0%
Tournaments On Demand! --- 50.9%
The Expat's --- 50.6%
Clan with a Mission --- 50.4%
FAITH HOPE LOVE --- 50.4%
Liverpool. EST: 1892 --- 50.0%
Nicholas --- 49.8%
The Yorkshire Laikers --- 49.7%
The Moldavians --- 49.5%
The Glorious Fifties --- 49.4%
Danger Mouse --- 49.2%
The Chesshooligans --- 49.1%
Popeye The Sailor Clan --- 48.9%
Wellington Chess Club --- 48.9%
Red Hot Rebels --- 48.8%
Nemesis challenge --- 48.7%
classic cars --- 47.8%
Freethinker's Clan --- 47.7%
In Vino Veritas --- 47.7%
CHESS Troopers --- 47.6%
Mythos RW Essen --- 47.6%
The Fast Players --- 47.5%
Celtic Druids --- 47.3%
Team Canada --- 47.3%
All African Pawn Stars --- 47.3%
The Mustangs --- 47.0%
The Bad Bishops --- 46.8%
Phoenix --- 46.6%
Templar Oath --- 46.1%
The Jedi Knights --- 46.1%
Chessaroos --- 44.9%
1949 Seniors Clan --- 44.8%
King Davids Mighty Warriors --- 44.2%
CCCP © --- 44.0%
Son of M.U.T.I --- 43.3%
B.V.C.C. --- 42.7%
Caro-Kann Defence Lovers --- 42.6%
Anonymous --- 42.1%
CHEERS of BOSTON --- 41.2%
Tolkien Clan --- 40.2%
Zena --- 38.2%
Clan RUSH --- 37.5%
De Vlaamse Leeuwen --- 36.7%
Social Chess --- 35.7%
Mad as the Mist and Snow --- 35.7%
Bielsa's Boys (and Girls) --- 35.0%
Be :-) Clan! --- 33.3%
Portuguese Speakers --- 33.3%
Kiwi Clan --- 33.0%
Karma Sutra --- 32.8%
Enjoyment clan ! --- 12.5%
@Bish saidA 1500 to 2000 challenge cap (for a given year) would appear to be around the right level to make the clan feature more competitive across the board (not a 2 horse race) while still facilitating a high number of games. (Still a challenge for most clans, but far more achievable and more likely to encourage competitiveness). Combine this with a 3/14 time control and we're cooking with gas.
The first table is two columns of data - there is no way to format it better in a post
Clan---Clan Games to date---Predicted for year
Breaking Bad Clan---2,394---4,104
Metallica---1,760---3,017
CHESS Troopers---1,110---1,903
Wycombe Wanderers---1,080---1,851
The Bad Bishops---1,030---1,766
Celtic Druids---1,028---1,762
Popeye The Sailor Clan---930---1,594
Templar ...[text shortened]... g Bad and Metallica---8---902---1,547
Here is the data - everyone can draw their own conclusions.
Clans would have no incentive to rush through their challenges with such a cap in place (including abandoning perceived lost challenges) and the focus would be more on winning the challenges themselves and staggering them throughout the year.
The top 2 clans are currently doing nothing wrong in going for quantity, as that is how the system is set up. - But the same 2 clans being 3 times ahead of everyone else each year is a turn off for competitiveness - Again, managing a successful clan should require reasonable effort, and not be a full time job. - Where is the fun in that?
@Ghost-of-a-Duke saidFor the most part I loathe what the forums have become and I tend to stay away from them. Since I was requested to look at this particular thread, I did so. In my estimation 95% is wasted time reading.
Appears he doesn't. (Or can't do that math).
I'd favour 3/14 as a standard time control in Clan matches. (As a general compromise).
People who push heavily for the faster time control tend to be less concerned with inclusivity and more obsessed with churning through challenges as quickly as possible. (The very thing we need to get away from).
Your post however caught my eye and I have decided to respond to it. I don't know you nor do you know me, so there is nothing personal here, just exploring two sides of an argument.
Your position on the time limit that we need to get away from speed and get back to quality of chess versus quantity. Let's start here.
First of all, you can play all of the slow long drawn out chess matches you want to on this site. There are some massively long time limit tournaments. You can play skittles games with anyone you like. You can play postal chess if you like. Now, being an affectionado of the game as you present yourself to be, have you ever heard of speed chess? They offer it here. There are world championships for speed chess as well. The quality of chess is not diminished by the speed. Granted, the lack of time puts a strain on the the focus you are allowed. If you can honestly present me an argument that says a 3/7 time frame does not allow ample time to decipher a single move with some reasonable accuracy, I say you are not correct. There are some who want to play 1/3 or 3/3 which is doable, provided the outside world doesn't kick in and you are in here all of the time. I still work for a living and my time is somewhat limited, but 3/7 has ALWAYS provided me ample time to make moves. I back that up by showing that I have never lost a single game to a time out. It is not that hard, and to say it is any different, just isn't true.
Now, regarding Clan Chess in particular, there are several things about it that are good, and several that are bad. I have been here since 2008 and I have had more colorful adjectives and unfounded and unproven accusations hurled in my direction through the years by those who were pissed off for a variety of reasons.
However, the concept of Clan Chess differs greatly from anything else offered on this site. A lot of people flat out don't understand the concept of TEAM play. It is not individuals, it is about TEAM. It is a battle. It is a different form of competetion. Are there flaws in the system, yes sir there are. There are many.
First and foremost, it makes ZERO sense for players to be in multiple clans. Name me any sport in the world where players play on multiple teams within the same umbrell a of a game. There are none. This creates problems because it facilitates collusion. It also causes a problem because any time two clans who have a common player between them, that player is automatically excluded from being in that challenge. That is a limitation.
A second problem is the lack of a rating system that even makes sense, The currently overall rating system allows so much deception that it is not any sort of a measuring stick. It is easily manipulated. There are so many out there manipulating it and then trying to pass off a high caliber player as a weak player.
Every clan leader seems to have a different idea of how to judge the equality of a challenge. Who is to say which one is even correct? But the rating system is a huge flaw. Russ has been approached about this multiple times and has not seen fit to implement a rating system for clan play only. This would stop a huge portion of rating manipulation.
However, that leads us down the path of how teams play clan chess. Since this is not a game of individuals, but a team game, the needs of the team outweigh the needs of the individual. As the system is set up currently, there is nothing wrong with resigning games once a challenge has been decided. I have argued this ad nauseum as well. One side says play all games out. If you want that to become manditory, you have to insert a penalty/reward system. There have been many potential solutions brought forth, but none has received overwhelming favor from the majority. You could change how the challenge points are awarded. Say one point for a win and a minus point for a loss. As it is presently in the rules, the preponderance wof wins takes the entire points and the loser takes the entire loss. I didn't make the rules, I simply play by them. You want to change it, get it changed. Until this change happens, stop whining about playing within the rules.
Another problem is the 3 simultaneous challenge situation. This prohibits the massive amounts of games that would be possible, yes. But is also limits clans that like to play a lot of challenges against any other clan in particular. There is talk of playing fixed numbers of games to limit this, as you advanced the notion earlier. But did you also consider how many clans refuse to play other clans, for whatever reason? Why not make it manditory that all clans MUST play every other clan x number of games to even be considered for the top clan position?
Then, at least you would level the playing field.
Another possible fix was advanced creating divisions. The "super" clans who have full membership and participation and the "small" clans division for those clans who can't maximize the potential points needed to compete. You could also further skew it to be "fierce competitor" division and "casual play" division" Whatever floats your boat.
The idea of a tournament, at least to me, is silly because if you want to play tournaments, go play in the many tournaments on this site. Don't try to bastardize this faction which is unique.
Quite frankly, there is so much dissention here, I seriously doubt you would ever get a quorum to all agree. I have said this on many occasions, and I am but a single vote, but any changes that are made, evryone has to live with and they just need to be evenly and specifically ruled so all are treated equally. That equity is going to be difficult to achieve with everyone having their own idea of what they want. As for me, rule changes are not difficult. You just adapt and move on. The The real problem is a perceived hatred for those who play the game harder than they would like to play. Trying to come up with an reason/excuse why they cannot compete. No matter what you do with the rules, if you don't like it, quit. It is that simple.
So, while what Bish is attempting to produce won't solve the all of the problems. It fails to address several of the issues I spoke of and several others I didn't take the time to mention. You are living in a dream world if you think you are going to get a massive overhaul of this system without the blessing of Russ either. He has shown a reluctatance to spend a lot of coding time on this. Without that, this is all a bunch of lip service.
Not sure any of you will take the time to read this, and honestly, I am not sure why I took the time to type it out for you, but perhaps if may give you pause to consider things that haven't been taken into account.
@Ghost-of-a-Duke saidAgreed. And as both of the top two clans are probably always in the top five for challenges won percentage, clearly they are doing something right and it is not just a numbers game.
A 1500 to 2000 challenge cap (for a given year) would appear to be around the right level to make the clan feature more competitive across the board (not a 2 horse race) while still facilitating a high number of games. (Still a challenge for most clans, but far more achievable and more likely to encourage competitiveness). Combine this with a 3/14 time control and we' ...[text shortened]... ssful clan should require reasonable effort, and not be a full time job. - Where is the fun in that?
If there was an 1800 game limit per season - I suspect the top two clans would still be the top two clans fighting it out every year. It would be interesting to see.
@shortcircuit saidI read it all and there is not a lot to disagree with.
For the most part I loathe what the forums have become and I tend to stay away from them. Since I was requested to look at this particular thread, I did so. In my estimation 95% is wasted time reading.
Your post however caught my eye and I have decided to respond to it. I don't know you nor do you know me, so there is nothing personal here, just exploring two sides of ...[text shortened]... for you, but perhaps if may give you pause to consider things that haven't been taken into account.
The only thing I might quibble with is "there is so much dissention here, I seriously doubt you would ever get a quorum to all agree."
Suggesting an improvement (debatable I know) is not necessary dissention.
A new clan league would be fun. I don't see how anyone can disagree with that - if they do they can just not join.
@shortcircuit saidA lot to read indeed sir, so will respond in bites if that's ok.
For the most part I loathe what the forums have become and I tend to stay away from them. Since I was requested to look at this particular thread, I did so. In my estimation 95% is wasted time reading.
Your post however caught my eye and I have decided to respond to it. I don't know you nor do you know me, so there is nothing personal here, just exploring two sides of ...[text shortened]... for you, but perhaps if may give you pause to consider things that haven't been taken into account.
You ask, "Name me any sport in the world where players play on multiple teams within the same umbrella of a game.' - Fair question, but i ask you in return, 'Name me any sport in the world where a given league doesn't have a cap of some kind and where the winner is decided by the team who plays the most games? - Imagine Bolton winning the premiership because they were able to play more games than the other teams. - Would that make any sense?
You further ask, "Why not make it mandatory that all clans MUST play every other clan x number of games to even be considered for the top clan position?
Then, at least you would level the playing field."
Yes, great. - This could be achieved in a league with (automated) fixtures where all clans (who could commit to the agreed cap) play each other a set amount of times (like in the Premiership, for example) within a given year.