Play online chess!

From	Message
gemfire 03-Sep-25, 23:46	Size Matters Creating a team from scratch is surely a rewarding endeavor. Having been around a few teams as co-captain, I think the optimum size should be around 15-20 players. I've been told by an experienced Captain that 20-25 is a very good size. Of course the number of games played per player determines what capability the team as a whole may navigate up the team ladder. Larger teams have the advantage as they can dictate the terms of suitable match criteria and trade match pairings with each other so that regardless of methodology, wins and losses keep them clustered around the top 10-20. Smaller teams must compensate by playing more matches to increase the turnover to compete with larger teams with more “churn.” The advantage comes at a price however. Captains and Co-Captains must devote hours doing the homework and eschew their own games to the extent they can handle the workload. Hypothetically, would a team member limit of lets say 25 or 40 benefit Captains in performing their duties? Would it also have a decentralizing effect fostering more varied matches? Over the past few years, teams have disappeared, through mergers or abandonment which has resulted in a consolidation limiting options for smaller players
dynamic-dv 04-Sep-25, 02:29	Personally I would say an ideal size would be 40-50 team players as there is always some dead wood on any team, that way you are not worried about watching your complement of free members but have enough players to choose from for fair matches. I speak from experience in the matter and have been around GK for a year or two.
gemfire 04-Sep-25, 03:25	Dynamic On a team with 40-50, what is the range of matches you would like to stay within? I think a team needs 3-4x matches per member ( based on 25 members) but that is not a linear formula that is always applicable because as the team grows, the amount needed may not scale properly. For instance, 100 games for 25 player team would mean 400 games for a 100 player team. I have seen where a team is winning matches consistently but because the wins come too far apart the volume of other team wins keeps bumping the said team down the ladder simply because more games are closing, relative to the slower team. Quantity matters too! .
dynamic-dv 04-Sep-25, 03:39	We are running at present circa 200 which seems about right, when I was co-capt at Templars we tried to run about 500 with a team of 150 which needed 2 co-captains ( myself and Emma ) working flat out to keep up. Possibly gives you some idea. What I do find is some teams just send out challenges to several teams with players who can only manage on extra game. first team to accept gets the match and the others get the dreaded msg such a player is not available challenge canceled
gemfire 04-Sep-25, 03:40	Correction Above 100 MATCHES for a 25 player team versus 400 matches for a 100 player team.
saguaro 04-Sep-25, 05:23	At the end of August, we had 228 matches going, for 64 players. Nearly not quite per player, on average.
gemfire 04-Sep-25, 05:32	Saguaro Dave, What I do is to subtract inactive players. Total matches divided by active players gives a number. My claim *read theory) is the higher the number the more likely the higher ladder rank!
saguaro 04-Sep-25, 05:39	Yes, that's what I did
gemfire 04-Sep-25, 06:00	David @ 3:39 Do you consider that bad form? Because I created an open challenge a while ago and challenged another team when the captain was online. The captain did not approve and went offline. Nota problem, this isn't fast food. But I consider it a benefit to get my matches approved quicker. Meanwhile another team accepted the offer and our two players became unavailable due to their limits.
dynamic-dv 04-Sep-25, 06:41	the odd one I don't mind, but when you look at a free player on 11 games and he has a +6 against his name I feel its a bit OTT then you get a message saying a team has sent a challenge when you look at the challenge it isn't there anymore - all within 10 mins, it gets my goat! Dave
gemfire 04-Sep-25, 06:53	Time is the enemy. I think that is a feature of a small team with few players available and/or not enough support for the Captain. If I had players with green lights right now, I would have +4 o +6 by name. I will remember that when I ever challenge your team! Open challenges can take a while to be accepted.
wasatch 04-Sep-25, 20:11	The way to bring back team play: have ladders for: 2 players per team 3 players per team 4 players per team 6 players per team 8 players per team Unlimited players per team (for the big teams)

GameKnot: play chess online, free online chess games database, chess teams, monthly chess tournaments, Internet chess league, chess clubs, online chess puzzles and more.