Personally, I'm a numbers guy, and would like to see individual rankings of all
the players! Hey, my internet chess site does it, why can't we? I'd like to
know who I'm playing with and against.........
Good point.
I am opposed, for reasons already clearly stated, to using the current VPs to generate rankings. Player rankings, on the other hand, should be easy to do. Give everyone a set starting point score, maybe based on wins+losses in their last 5 games or so. Average them to get a team score. If your team wins, add points to everyone in the team. If your team loses, subtract points from everyone in the team. Give less or no points to winning teammates who were eliminated during the game. Make the amount of points won or lost based on the amount of difference between the team scores, so beating a better team gives more points than beating a weaker team, and losing to a weaker team hurts you worse. More or less like the US Chess Federation system (I think FIDE is similar, I know someone will correct me if I'm wrong), except comparing your teams rating to the other team rating. This would give a ranking system where players who are regularly on winning teams come out high, as it should be. This way, as with chess ratings, only wins and losses and strength of opposition would matter. Unless your chess site ranking system is really unusual, it probably doesn't give more points for winning games with more material remaining, just for beating stronger players. A King & Rook or King Bishop+Knight checkmate is just as good as a game in which the winner never loses a piece. Anyway, if the other team is really horrible in some game, does the fact that some player racks up the biggest VP score ever seen really tell us anything about his quality of play?
Winn Keathley
ยทยทยท
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com