Dear TeamLeague Administrators, Tourney Directors and Leaguers!

As far as I understand, considering the teams distribution throughout Sections (7 Sections, each one comprising 4 teams), this Season implies Double Round Robin without Playoffs. Due to small size of each Section, the variety of opponent teams and sometimes personal opponents is limited within a Section.

At the same time, I personally (and I know other players who think the same) miss the stage of Playoffs, as this is an important adding to sportsmanship, and one more opportunity to see spectacular battles on the board. Moreover, this gives a chance to meet another strong team you haven't yet played and decide who stronger is :)

The idea is: to adopt Cross-Section Playoffs, where the winners of two neighboring Sections meet each other: the winner of Playoff to be awarded a title of "CS Champion [Section Names]", for example: "CS Champion (Fischer-Spassky)".

Still, all Section Champion titles should remain in force. "CS Champion" is proposed to be an extra title. So one team (or any squad of a big team) may take two titles during a season, having won the race in its respective Section and CS Playoff!

To my opinion, this change doesn't add much time to the season (just one more week), while the plot of the Season thickens dramatically!

As we have odd number of Sections this season, we need to decide what Section skips the CS Playoffs. I would suggest that it is Fischer which skips CS Playoffs, as the teams collected there considerably exceed in strength any other teams of TeamLeague.

On the other hand, we can propose to introduce a normal Playoff for Fischer this season, if captains of the teams in Fischer fancy this idea. At the same time, if next season we get even number of sections, CS Playoff (Fischer-Spassky) is feasible, of course.

Consequently, as a result of described changes, we get 7 rounds of play instead of 6, and bring novelty and much more fun to our TeamLeague activities!

Your feedback is highly appreciated!

Best regards,
Oleg [PreZandy]

Supplement

As a logic development of this idea, we can adopt in the same manner "CS Runners-Up" title for a winner of CS Runners-up Playoff (Playoff with participation of runners-up of two neighboring sections), thus involving even more teams in action in Round 7.

I agree with the fact that we need play-offs - but I'm stronly opposing the idea of cross-section play-offs because of the rating differences.

I really would like to see the old version of team-league return. while I did understand the actual version to make sense with a small number of teams it does not if we have enough teams. we could easily. have sections with seven or six teams or even some with five and some with six. why not have three five teams sections and two six teams?

with the experience of last season I have to say that it's boring to play the same team twice and not have play-offs. playing (five to six) different players and having the thrill of play-offs was what made TL special for me. also playoffs make a special team feeling which makes a huge difference between again TL and liches 45 45.

for me as a captain this is not worth the stress of trying to convince new players to join TL season after season. again: there's nothing special now that differs Teamleague from for instance 45 45 league on lichess.

to me the decision to keep it this way is quite disappointing.

For lichess, is there a such thing as watchbot?

For lichess, can you pick your team?

I feel like those are a couple advantages to FICS TL. That said, to adopt a playoffs system that might actually be equitable, you might need to adopt the lichess model of much greater variety in teammate strength (if I understand it correctly). E.G. board one is a 2200ish player, board 2 a 2000, board 3 an 1800, board 4 1600 etc.

I don't want to distract too much from PreZandy's proposal here, but evidently there's some disappointment about the make-up of sections this time, so I'll just address some of what went into my decision-making process.

One point that weighed on me was the fact that we have a tight schedule to fit three more tourneys in this year. As arranged, this tourney runs for 6 weeks and each team gets 6 games. If I'd gone with 7-team sections with playoffs, 75% of teams would still get 6 games, but we would run for two weeks longer. That's problematic from my point of view, as it means a very short turnaround before T78.

I have to say that it's boring to play the same team twice and not have play-offs. playing (five to six) different players and having the thrill of play-offs was what made TL special for me.

I get that playoffs are fun, and that more opponents are fun, but at the same time surely part of the fun of playoffs is that you are rematching someone from the regular season. So I don't fully agree with the idea that playoffs are awesome and double round-robins are bad. Also I'd note that with subs you are far from guaranteed playing the same person a second time.

I tend to prefer larger sections. However, my impression from the feedback from last season was that many TLers actually preferred the smaller sections (see the thread from T77; I'll note that Turamon made his contrary view known then too). I think for some the greater likelihood of playing similarly rated opponents is quite important, and this structure helps with that (it also means that no teams are massive underdogs in their sections, which always happened to one or two teams with larger sections).

Kurumim asked in that T77 thread (and again yesterday in a discussion in ch 101) if 4-team sections were going to be more usual now. I can't give a better answer at this stage than "it depends". And it depends in part on what kind of feedback I get from players and captains. If you aren't happy, say so and I can weigh that opinion as a basis for future decision making.

Also I just want to endorse Joshua's point about watchbot. FICS and TL stand apart because of the community around it. The ability to have live commentary (whispers) during games, which can then be read back by players and interested parties later is what makes TL special from my point of view. I would encourage more players and observers to take part in this aspect of the league.

I really like the team sections the way they are. In the past we have had frequent discussions about teams that involuntarily ended up in the Fischer Section. I remember some games I played against 1900ish FICS rated players on board 1 in the Fischer section. It was often clear before the start of the season which teams would make it to the playoffs.
This season with just four teams in Fischer Section, ratings are quite balanced and I doubt that we will see matches decided by 4:0 or 3,5:0,5 this season. Personally, I think it is way more fun this way.

I doubt that cross-section playoffs would be a good idea as there might be clashes (for instance Krmchess is playing for the top seeded team in Fischer and Spassky Section) and in addition, there would be huge rating difference.

Concerning the argument that one is likely to play the same opponent twice a season I would like to make some remarks:
- Over the years, by chance one plays the same opponent several times (especially in the highest and lowest section). For instance, I have played yoyoman, xandor, maras, fcspartak, diduk, ... at least four times.
- Having re-matches in the same season allows one to fight for revenge :)
- With a play-off round, the play-off teams face each other twice and in 50% of the cases even with the same colors.
- Especially on the lower boards it does not happen too often to play the same opponent twice, as most teams are rotating.

I agree that playoff rounds are special for the qualified teams and the spirit of the league, however for the teams not having qualified it means one game less to be played.

As a special event, one might consider a 8-16 board team battle, like Archbishops - RainbowWarriors.

Supplement 2

1) How CS Playoffs to be arranged:

Team from Lower Section will have White on Boards 1 and 3 and Draw Odds. I think this is a fair compensation for difference in ratings, especially considering that this is a match for extra (optional) title.

2) To Turamon:

but I'm stronly opposing the idea of cross-section play-offs because of the rating differences.

Again, let's consider the actual situation we have: 4-team sections, double RR, no playoffs.
My proposal in NO WAY cuts opportunities or damages anything, (please remember that Champion Section titles remain and are not affected by Playoffs), while introduces an extra opportunity for everyone - additional or, let's say, optional title and possibility to play another good team you haven't yet meet this season. So what are you so strongly opposing? New additional opportunity for everyone that doesn't affect anything? :)

Just imagine: your team has just won the Section Champion title. What's the harm in trying oppose a higher-rated Champion of adjacent (higher) Section for extra title, considering that it doesn't affect your existing title? We all know that we learn more from games against stronger opponents, and this is a good opportunity for a lower-rated team. And if your team manages to draw a match with that higher-rated team, it receives new title (thanks to Draw Odds!), double glory and respect!
This is a challenge also for a higher-rated team, who need to prove their status and win the match, because drawn = "lost" for them.

3) To Smallblackcat:
As arranged, this tourney runs for 6 weeks and each team gets 6 games.

Last season we had an extension week also for 6th Round for the same Double RR arrangement, so overall duration is 7 weeks, unless you decide to proceed without extension in the 6th Round.

If I'd gone with 7-team sections with playoffs, 75% of teams would still get 6 games, but we would run for two weeks longer.

Yes, you are right, and I do agree that normal Playoff in which the winner of a Section is defined, should take two weeks (considering second week as extension). So if we had 4 Sections by 7 teams, we would need 8 weeks to complete the season.

As I've already written in my initial post, I believe we need only one week (without extension) to decide CS Champions (and CS Runners-up), as these are OPTIONAL titles which doesn't affect existing Section Champions and Section Runners-up. So we can limit the CS match period by only one week. As I also mentioned here above, this extra match for CS title is more about playing opportunities, and not about standings, titles, etc. If one of CS matches fails due to non-availability of some players, there's no harm to anybody. We just do not award CS title for this particular duo of Sections.
At the same time, I do understand that it won't shorten the overall season duration, because in Double RR arrangement we need extension week for playing decisive 6th Round (unless you decide to skip extension week), so we have 7 weeks for regular season + 1 week for Optional CS Playoffs, which results in the same 8 weeks.

@smallblackcat

I really can't stress enough how disappointed the players in my team already have been last season about the lack of playoffs.

also, I don't want to downplay watchbot - which is a great thing to have (but lichess has the same feature, it's just part of your normal game storage)- and also not the company of other players in discussing games live while they happen. but when did the biggest discussion happen, which games did get the most comments? usually the playoff games. again: I can't understand that this is given up for whatever reason. if necessary just let there be three seasons/ year but please bring back playoffs in what form ever.

for me the lack of playoffs means I have a lack of "selling points" when I try to attract new players from anywhere (lichess, chess24, chess.com). they don't come for watchbot, they don't come for live discussion during games, a lot of them does not even watch their team mates' games live and almost none of the players I was able to gain as new member did join my team for being this team. I always have to explain who we are - so joining a certain team is for new players nothing they think about.


now while critizising let me say I'm here because I like TL and I appreciate the work of the Admins and Head Admin alot.


@prezandy: what is the harm for a lower rated team playing a much higher rated team? well if that's your point of view, why have sections at all? For me it's about not making players play a game with a forseeable result. A rating difference of 200 points if the rating is reliable often means that the lower rated player does not stand a chance. we don't need to prove that over and over again. this is a big bonus that TL has compared to similar events elsewhere: protection by section average and also the will to rather have a team not take part (happened in the past several times) then putting it in a section with a higher rating difference.

On the day sections were created there were: 7 teams above 2000, 7 teams in the 1900-2000 range, 7 more teams within practically 100 points (1878.75-1775), and 7 teams below 1700. Honestly I don’t recall ever seeing such a harmony, so I’d say numbers were screaming for the traditional scheme. What was wrong then? Besides the potential duration issue pointed out by sbc, it was Fischer. Not too long ago I predicted Fischer would become a 2100+ section, and there you have it. Teams in the 2000s simply feel totally out of place and unhappy there.

As schachbjm aptly noted, in the past we’d always see teams intended for Spassky (also below 2000) ending up in Fischer (I myself debuted in TL playing in Fischer when I should play in Spassky, it just wasn’t a bad thing for me), which generated a lot of frustration over the years, so any effort to avoid that is totally justified. But since T76 we’ve had only 4 teams really intended for Fischer, and now I think this is influencing the other sections when they’d actually work pretty well with other numbers. Notice that Spassky, Kasparov and Alekhine with 7 teams would have a much smaller gap between the top and bottom teams than what we see currently in Fischer with only 4 teams, which shows that larger sections can also meet the balance criterion, i.e, assuming that only 4-team sections provide balance is wrong.

In the future, if we’re forced to keep Fischer restricted to 4 teams, I’d suggest that admins could be more receptive to mixed/irregular schemes. Also, perhaps alternating between double round-robins and playoffs from season to season may work towards pleasing everybody. I agree with Turamon that 4-team sections are perfect with fewer teams (in T77 that scheme avoided many clashes and cleary worked towards a much better balance), whereas with more teams (say, from 24 on) larger sections tend to look more attractive.

You can also notice that only in Fischer it’s the exact same teams from last season playing – there are repetitions in the other sections, but never the exact same configuration from last season. This once again shows how restrictive Fischer has become.

Would 4-6-6-6-6 have been preferable over 7x4 this season? Pretty balanced, more variety and playoffs, the downside being that most teams would play 5 rounds instead of 6. As with our moves on the chessboard, there’re always concessions of some sort… As for duration, it’d also last 6 weeks (last round of the double round-robin in Fischer coinciding with the playoffs in the other sections), meeting sbc’s intent.

Is the idea of playoffs for double round-robins really too absurd or could it be considered?

By the way, this discussion shouldn’t eclipse the fact that we’ve jumped from 21 to 28 teams, which is something to celebrate – and try to hold on to.

A further idea: could we have an agreement on reserving Fischer for teams above 2100 beforehand? The current four teams there are likely to stay active in the long run, so we can always have a tourney there, and this way other teams can organise themselves without the "sword of Fischer" hanging over their heads. This means all the other sections would be formed just as they are now, counting from top to bottom, just the open section having a minimum limit.

I believe this would be a practical solution for a long-time problem that has caused a lot of headache to admins, captains and players.

If we get to know of any 2100+ teams returning to action (or appearing on scene), we can share the info here in the forum.

Would 4-6-6-6-6 have been preferable over 7x4 this season

This wasn't really considered. I saw two very logical options, 4x7 or 7x4. It appears I gave too much weight to how well the smaller sections were received last time, given that 7x4 clearly has its detractors this time.

Is the idea of playoffs for double round-robins really too absurd or could it be considered?

I think so, it really does seem redundant. Let me dangle a bit of a carrot for the future: once we get through this tourney in 6 weeks, we are pretty much back on schedule to complete 4 tourneys this year. Thus the consideration of wanting a shorter season would not really apply in T79 or T80.

@sbc: I'm not really a "detractor" of the 4-team scheme. It worked brilliantly in T77 and I agree with all the merits pointed out by schachbjm. In fact, when we were discussing new formats a while ago, I said I'd normally prefer sections with 4 teams over those with 5 or 6 because of the playing opportunities. Sections with 7 or 8 teams are the best, but, as this season has showed, it's not just a math matter.

Technically, 4x7 was just ideal here, but there was a major factor beyond the numbers, as I tried to show above. That's why I made a suggestion to finally and directly address it. If teams at 2080, 2050 or 2030 don't want to be in Fischer at all, they shouldn't be pushed and there shouldn't be any suspense before sections are created. We may even see a few more teams popping up, as captains will be more confident to plan their teams for Spassky and Kasparov. And notice I'm suggesting this even at the risk of having always the same teams in Fischer.

You said you didn't even consider 4-6-6-6-6 and I know you're not a fan of asymmetrical schemes, but I think they can be at least considered – sometimes they could prove good, even if just for a little change.

In short, with 28 teams, yes, at first I was very much hoping for playoffs this season, but after the initial shock (I admit it, and you know it :D ) I actually came to think this is, albeit not the most exciting, the best solution considering all factors involved and the attempt to please most, so I'd say you saw further. Sorry if any of the criticism or questions posed in ch 101 sounded harsh or detractive, not really my intent.

Hoping for good races within every section and an enjoyable season to all!

I agree that the 4-6-6-6-6 sections would have worked brilliantly this season.
On the other hand it is hard to set guidelines how sections should be generated in future as team number/strength/player clashes vary from season to season.

Setting a minimum rating for Fischer Section (and thereby a maximum rating for Spassky Section) may lead to two or three teams with rating averages between 2075-2100 and the former Fischer Section issue will be a new problem in Spassky Section.

Personally, I could think of a "player representation" (with 2-4 experienced players/captains) who support sbc in section creation or a one day forum discussion between submitting deadline and section creation.

At this point I would like to thank sbc and his staff for unbiased and time-consuming section making, organization (and the 100 things in the background we are not even aware of) in the past seasons knowing that it is not possible to make everybody happy. One big advantage of FICS-TL to other leagues is that players can give their opinion and propose ideas and if the majority supports them, they will be implemented.

@schachbjm: I don't think the problem with Fischer would be transferred to Spassky because it's not that difficult to have teams in the 2000s and upper 1900s. What bothers 2000 teams in Fischer is to play teams 200-300 points higher rated, a gap that surely wouldn't occur in Spassky.

And indeed it's never too much to say how grateful we are for sbc's and his staff's (voluntary, dedicated, ethical) work here. :)

@Turamon: But lichess' saved chat isn't tied to game moves, right? It's so much more convenient to see the whispers tied to the game moves/diagram. When/if I ever play TL again, I can't imagine choosing lichess over FICS, even though these days if I play any quick games I play on lichess.

Personally, I could think of a "player representation" (with 2-4 experienced players/captains) who support sbc in section creation or a one day forum discussion between submitting deadline and section creation.

I can get behind this. I could just create a forum topic when the team entries deadline passes, and leave it open for say two days for people to offer suggestions on section formation.

Just pointing out another highlight of the season: players in the 1500s and 1400s are finally getting closer opposition – I guess it's been a long while since there were 7 teams below 1700 in average.

I didn't check the forums so I've just noticed this post here. I'll mention a few things

1. I find that since we've had sections with 4 teams I've not really had any clashes of players. Also sections are a lot more competitive with small gaps. I don't mind playing same people as with colours reversed it's almost like a 2 legged tie.

2. Like kurumim mentioned it's actually made lower rated players a lot more viable. For example the 4th strongest players of the 7th weakest teams are 1516, 1563, 1443, 1486, 1437, 1289, 1412 that were players in danger of being squeezed out of TL with U1750ish sections.

3. I was willing to have our 2nd team in Fischer Section. It wasn't a preferred option but it was something I was prepared for when I entered the team.

4. One bit of feedback I'd give is that if it is intended to make sections bigger or smaller it would be worthwhile knowing in advance in the TL79 announcement. I think in small sections you can enter whatever team you want and it will be competitive. If you have bigger sections people need to start worrying about likely cut offs both to avoid/optimise sections and avoid clashes. For example if this season was 4x7 instead of 7x4 then I suspect many teams in the Spassky section if they were aware of it would have changed their lineups so team average was closer to 1950 even if cut off would be 2020 just to be safe as every team tries to undercut each other. In same way I imagine that instead of submitting a bottom team with an average rating of 1664.50 I would probably aim more towards 1750.

5. Team entries have increased since section sizes were reduced. With larger size it had gone from 24 to 21 and then after one season with smaller sections it's gone up from 21 to 28. Of course it could also be down to the Covid-19 pandemic keeping everyone at home so correlation isn't necessarily causation but I don't know if smaller sections encourage people to enter more teams.

Personally I'm quite happy with way sections have turned out and don't have any complaints about how it was done this season. I think smallblackcat is doing a great job at the moment but also know that he's quite open to new ideas. While happy with the status quo I don't have any particular objection to trying something new.

P.S. If really desperate to have cross section playoffs then probably only way team from bottom section can win is if they borrow a player from one of their rivals in their section to bump up team rating

For the record, we were able to keep all 21 teams from T77 and got 7 additions: 3 returning teams (Piazza.degli.Scacchi, Singularity and ViKing), 2 new teams (Arequepay and Salsipuedes) and 2 additional squads from TheRangers.

YavChess told me he has plans to form an all-female team (his new teammates sanabria and monitas are girls), but I don't know if that's happening anytime soon. In any case, I suppose we have good chances to stay around 25-30 teams in the next seasons.

@sbc: if we have at least two shorter seasons per year, may we get back to 4 seasons per year?

I see no reason why we can't go back to 4 tourneys per year.