Re-posting from the main page just for clarity. Unfortunately I can't tell who posted this in the first place -sbc

A lot of players have observed the decreasing number of teams. If there are smaller number of teams, we could consider a two team section which doesnt merely have a number of matches, but rahter we can follow the scheveningen system wherein in round 1 the match is between the same board numbers as always, the second round is Bo1 versus 2, Bo2 versus 3 Bo 3 versus 4 and Bo 4 versus 1. In round 2 it is a two board shift etc. This has been used in high profile matches of one country versus the rest of the world contests in the past. This is a thought for an event for future leagues or maybe there can be a post team league match between two teams selected by some criterion.

I've played that kind of setup in an allegro league where everyone plays against everyone on the same night. It means we can fit four 15 0 games in the same time as 1 normal game.

However for TL I don't think it works as well as the shift is negated if the board 1 for a team can't make the following game. This means you would have 3 players facing exactly the same opponent 2 weeks in a row.

The other issue is that the bottom board is often heavily outgraded by the top board leaving some lopsided match ups. It depends on the players but some people might not relish facing opposition that are rated 400+ points from them.

I suggested a new format recently as well. It wasn't met with enthusiasm. To whoever made this Scheveningen proposal, I'll give you the answer I was hoping for myself:

- Thanks for your suggestion.
- Trying out new stuff is cool (as long as it doesn't overwhelm the TL programmers).
- Playing against opps 400 points stronger is fun and educational.
- If we don't like any new format after e.g. trying it in T85, we can easily revert to the current format for T86; or we can make the new format a one-time-only T85 excursion right from the start.

I am sorry, I wasn't aware of the protocol for posting a new topic, it was I who posted that. I am not very regular here, and have often only responded to existing threads. I usually come to this forum when one of my teammates (typically slek) or others like pchesso or prezandy or kurumim have explicitly messaged me that some topic is being discussed where i might want to give my input.

Some years ago, there were some players who conducted consultation games where the two or three players in a team can discuss and then propose a move and vote. This was conducted by capris and jammes who invited nraravind and me (blore) and I played. It is fun.

A third possible format is alternating moves by players of a team in the same game but without consultation.

I am posting these other ideas in the same thread as the Scheveningen system I created, because I am not aware of the process to create a new item or the appropriate choice.

Thank you smallblackcat for redirecting the item and apologies for placing in the wrong place.

One possibility is to have the play-offs in all four formats and the overall winner is the one who wins two and a half or more. One in the existing format. The others are schevinengen system. A third and fourth is the whole team playing the same game one with consultation, the other with alternating moves in rotation among the players, and without consultation.

blore, no worries about misposting it. The way new forum topics work isn't that user-friendly. Took me all of 30 seconds to re-post it.

Changing to a Scheveningen system would require changes to TL code; as to how onerous it would be to do so, I can't really say. Slek is probably the best person to ask about this.

The consultation games idea actually came up a few years ago (I think Boobyslegacy talked to me about it). My position then (and still now) was that none of the TL infrastructure (private game forums and pairings that are auto-created each round) is really necessary for consultation games. You can just run them on FICS (see "help teamgame"), use empty or near-empty channels for teams to discuss moves (there are plenty of those nowadays) and keep standings on a webpage.

Thanks smallblackcat. I remember teaming up with nraravind against jammes and (the sadly late) capris who was also my first teamleague captain in a team called last minute maniacs. I remember playing it but had forgotten how it was done as that was way back in 2011. Now that you have pointed out i will check the help files on teamganes.

Changing to a Scheveningen system would require changes to TL code; as to how onerous it would be to do so, I can't really say. Slek is probably the best person to ask about this.

I will look into this. I am a bit busy these days but I will try to do it this week. If I don't reply by next week please send me a reminder about it.

Well in theory it wouldn't be too hard to do. For example assuming that the lineup is held as an array then it just requires 1 line of code with 2 methods (unshift and pop in javascript) that you could loop based on the round number. Left team stays constant and right team is changed so pairings switch. So then you just need a separate variable to indicate whether Scheveningen system applies.

As far as how it would work it depends on the Sections. For example in the Spassky Section where LordTyraad (1531) could face MauLo (2222) gap is a bit excessive. However in the Kasparov Section the biggest possible gap is TragicPrinceFer(1722) vs leadermarcos(2053) so in that section it could work quite well although Alekhine and Capablanca Sections also have big gaps.

Having thought about it I think the best way to use it is in a Hybrid system. For example let's say that you have 17 teams. Currently we would have 5-6-6 and 5-4-4-4 as available options. However if you also used the Scheveningen system you would potentially have things like 7-2-8 or 5-4-2-2-4-4. Just to give an example in Capablanca Section you have teams rated 1793, 1769, 1658 and 1650.25. In the current setup we have to put these 4 teams in 1 group. in a Scheveningen system we could have the 1793 and 1769 in one group and 1658 and 1650.25 in another.

Now that I think about how this would work in a team format, it creates some weird incentives. Having a super strong board 1 and a very weak board 4 probably becomes a huge advantage, as your b1 will be favourite in most games (and a big favourite playing against lower boards) while your b4 is just a sacrificial lamb.

It would also mean the schedule would influence results (you would want to draw certain teams in certain rounds because of the board pairings), and forfeits and unplayed draws would likely become more contentious. Given that we have more double round robins these days I can see the desire to mix things up a bit, but I'm not convinced this is the way to do so.

I'll note that even in the current system a sacrificial board 4 works well. For example if I had a team with 2100, 2100, 2100 and 900 that gives an average rating of 1800 that would be in the bottom section with a board 3 higher than any board 1 and then team is likely to win every match 3-1. Having checked interested players I found basschestra with a rating of 866 so any team with 3 2000+ could do it quite easily.

I don't think Scheveningen system works well for changing teams for the simple reason that you can get the following line ups:

B1 vs B2
B2 vs B3
B3 vs B4
B4 vs B1

If you assume that B1 > B2 > B3 > B4 then that's a 3-1 win on paper and means you could beat a stronger team with favourable pairings so I think it really has to be all 4 games against the same team where you'll have equal boards, a 3-1 and a 1-3 along with a 2-2 predication (B1 vs B3, B2 vs B4 for both teams).

As far as unplayed draws go assuming that there's a 1 board difference would a 0.75-0.5 and for a 3 board difference going for a 0.80-0.20 to indicate that on paper the stronger player was likely to get more points work. Forfeits are always contentious so I don't think it would change much.