OGS team league proposal

Tournaments
61

If you need an extra player (3k) I can join.

2 Likes
62

I think it’s time to hold a timing poll, since we now have twelve potential players, and I don’t think we want more than that for the first round (apart from reserves).

I’d like to define the format so that, if necessary, we can choose replacements if it’s inconvenient.

Please allow me to call everyone over:

@terrific @martin3141 @txwolf @Samraku @seequ @bswan @jiveo @Gia @Jakobb @BattlePrez

1. What is your preferred time to complete one round, which is to say to play three games?

  • < 1 week
  • 1 week
  • 2 weeks
  • 3 weeks
  • a month
  • more than a month

0 voters

2. What round times are you prepared to play at?

  • < 1 week
  • 1 week
  • 2 weeks
  • 3 weeks
  • a month
  • more than a month

0 voters

1 Like
63

Two weeks is the preferred time of 50% of the respondents and the reasonable time of 70%.

In comparison, three weeks polled 40% / 70% and one week polled 0% / 70%.

With that in mind, I’d suggest that players who find a two-week round intolerable drop out.

2 Likes
64

I’ve heard from Arclaw (15k) that she’d like to play.

We can expect that seequ (who hasn’t responded to the poll) won’t want to play the two week / round time control, based on comments he made to me on discord:

ah too much for me then

just too many games

We can replace him with Arclaw.

Here’s a four-team table. I’ve had the idea of adding players with their ranks descending in a simple boustrophedon order: left to right, down, right to left, down, left to right etc.

This ensures that all teams are both giving and taking handicap on at least one board, rather than one team doing only taking and another only giving.

I suggest handicap at half a stone per rank rounding down, ie. “H = floor(ΔR / 2)”.

Is there a mathematical sign for rounding down?

Board Team 1 Team 2 Team 3 Team 4 Handicap
1 terrific 5d Martin 4d drifterwolf 1k Samraku 2k T1, 2 → 3, 4 2H
2 jiveo 6k bswan 5k bugcat 3k jlt 3k T3, 4 → T1, 2 1H
3 BattlePrez 8k Jakob 8k Arclaw 15k Gia 21k T1, 2 → 3 3H T1, 2 → 4 6H T3 → 4 3H

Alternatively, we could still play as a three-team league if that’s preferred.

eg.

Board Team 1 Team 2 Team 3 Handicap
1 terrific 5d Martin 4d drifterwolf 1k T1 , 2 → 3 2H
2 bugcat 3k jlt 3k Samraku 2k N
3 bswan 5k jiveo 6k BattlePrez 8k T1 → 3 1H
4 Gia 21k Arclaw 15k Jakob 8k T3 → 2 3H T1 → 4 6H T3 → 3H

I’d rather play as a four-team league, because I don’t think it’s fair to put Jakob on fourth board if there isn’t another SDK there. We also each get an extra game that way.

Opinions welcome as always!

2 Likes
65

So you mean H = ⌊ ΔR / 2 ⌋

I prefer 4 teams.

3 Likes
66

Yes, bracket-style symbols with low extentions for rounding down ⌊X⌋
… and high extentions for rounding up: ⌈X⌉

I copied the symbols from this wikipedia article, but I have to say that in real life, I feel like the horizontal lines are usually made smaller.

//Edit: I got ninja-ed

1 Like
67

Reminds me of 「oriental quotation marks」.

2 Likes
68

Just one or two more polls, then I’ll take the league to the next stage.

Once players and format are decided, I’ll move discussion to an OGS Team League discussion thread.

So:

What is your favoured main time?

  • 30m
  • 45m
  • 60m

0 voters

What is your favoured overtime?

  • 5 x 30s
  • 10 x 30s
  • 5 x 45s
  • 10 x 45s
  • 5 x 60s
  • 10 x 60s
  • I prefer not to use byo-yomi

0 voters

69

May I suggest to build the teams in a way to minimize the average level difference between them?

1 Like
70

I can’t really understand your suggestion unless you make a table.

I’d certainly be interested to see an alternative system.

1 Like
71

I voted 30 minutes, but for this particular one I think I’ll need the 60 minutes thinking time…
I’m ok with any main time, but not too much byo-yomi.

72

I voted, but any of the proposed time settings is fine for me.

73

I mean that in the 3 teams scheme il looks well rounded but in the 4 teams, I would rather associate the lowest k with the highest dans.

1 Like
74

Could you make a table, though?

It’s all very well to speak generally, but a diagram has to be made to demonstrate which players are on which board and how that affects the handicap.

I’m open to your idea but can you give me something empirical?

1 Like
75

What about getting the geometric means of the ratings as close as possible?

1 Like
76

Would it make sense to have some qualifier match, since there’s enough of us that participate?

I think it would be better for the DDK to face a much stronger opponent in a qualifier and then that opponent to go on and play in the groups, that have matches with that much of a difference within the groups.

I don’t know if it makes sense from an organizing standpoint, I’m not good at this :woman_shrugging: .

1 Like
77

Yes, that.
Well I don’t want to interfere with all this goodwill and fresh energy.
My guess is it’s better if teams have some homogeneous levels between each other, even if some handicap is used. A low DDK may be feel better and give his best if in his team his captain is high Dan.

Nothing has to be perfect from the beginning, the team idea is nice I guess next will come maybe what identity have teams, it’s all prone to evolution.

1 Like
78

100%

1 Like
79

Can teams have more players than necessary, so that who don’t want to play so many games in a short period can also participate.

1 Like
80

Certainly, that was an idea I proposed in the OP.