There are a couple of reasons why a team in a match might have an average rating above 2400.75. They are:

1. Each team is allowed to use any rating list from September of the previous year through August of the current year. The ratings shown on this page will all be from August though - sometimes resulting in a seemingly higher rating average than would legally be allowed.

2. When a team uses a player rated above 2590, that player only counts as 2600 when determining a lineup's legality. However what is shown on this page will be the actual average which of course might be higher.

There are a couple of reasons why a team in a match might have an average rating above 2400.75. They are:

1. Each team is allowed to use any rating list from January through August of the current year. The ratings shown on this page will all be from August though - sometimes resulting in a seemingly higher rating average than would legally be allowed.

2. When a team uses a player rated above 2600, that player only counts as 2600 when determining a lineup's legality. However what is shown on this page will be the actual average which of course might be higher.

If there is a tie during the regular season as to the finishing order for playoff positioning, the following rules will be used (for instance if two teams are tied for second place with seven match points each). Tiebreak #1 is of course the first tiebreak with the lower ones being used only if all the above tiebreak procedures also result in a tie.

1. Total Team Game Points. Thus winning a match 4 - 0 will give you more tiebreak points than winning a match 3 - 1.

2. Average rating of opponents throughout the season, using the August rating list of that season.

3. Head to Head Results. If you have beaten the opposing team 1.5 - 0.5 during the regular season, you will get the higher seeding.

4. Total Match Points versus Divisional Teams. Thus if Team A went 4.0 - 2.0 in Divisional Matches while Team B went 3.5 - 2.5 then Team A would have the better tiebreaks.

5. Total Game Points versus Divisional Teams

6. Total Game Points from Board 1

7. Total Game Points from Board 2

8. Total Game Points from Board 3

9. Total number of team wins. Thus if one team has a total of twenty five points, with twenty of these points being from wins, whereas another team has a total of twenty five points with only nineteen being from wins, the team with twenty wins has the better tiebreaks.

10. An Armageddon blitz game between chosen members of the teams

If there is a tie between three teams in both match points and game points, we will use the above rules to decide the order amongst the teams. The last resort will be an online blitz game between chosen members of the teams.

If there is a tie during the regular season as to the finishing order for playoff positioning, the following rules will be used (for instance if two teams are tied for second place with seven match points each). Tiebreak #1 is of course the first tiebreak with the lower ones being used only if all the above tiebreak procedures also result in a tie.

1. Total Team Game Points. Thus winning a match 4 - 0 will give you more tiebreak points than winning a match 3 - 1.

2. Strength of Schedule; the team whose opponents have the highest combined record wins the tiebreak.

3. Average rating of opponents throughout the season, using the August rating list of that season.

4. Head to Head Results. If you have beaten the opposing team 1.5 - 0.5 during the regular season, you will get the higher seeding.

5. Total Match Points versus Divisional Teams. Thus if Team A went 5.0 - 3.0 in Divisional Matches while Team B went 4.5 - 3.5 then Team A would have the better tiebreaks.

6. Total Game Points versus Divisional Teams

7. Total Game Points from Board 1

8. Total Game Points from Board 2

9. Total Game Points from Board 3

10. Total number of team wins. Thus if one team has a total of twenty five points, with twenty of these points being from wins, whereas another team has a total of twenty five points with only nineteen being from wins, the team with twenty wins has the better tiebreaks.

11. An Armageddon blitz game between chosen members of the teams

If there is a tie between three teams in both match points and game points, we will use the above rules to decide the order amongst the teams. The last resort will be an online blitz game between chosen members of the teams.

If the regulation match is tied 2 - 2, the following tiebreak procedures will be take place after a ten minute break:

1. The fourth boards from each team will play each other. The team that won on the highest board during the original match will choose their color for the first game. If all regulation games were drawn, the lower rated team gets to choose colors for the first tiebreak game. The time control will be three minutes with a three second increment. The loser of this game will be eliminated, and the winner then faces Board Three of the opposing team.

2. This process continues with the next higher board on each team continually replacing any player of their team who gets eliminated.

3. If a game ends in a draw, both players are eliminated, except if at least one team is using its Board One in which case there is no elimination on a draw, instead colors reverse, and the game is replayed until there is a decisive result.

4. Colors will switch every game for the teams in all circumstances.

5. This process repeats itself until all four players from one team have been eliminated. Thus in order for your opponents to win the match, every one of your team members must be eliminated.

Player Stats

Stats current up to end of 2015




Highest Performance Rating (10 Game Minimum)

1.GM Wesley So (MIN)2860 (12.5/15)
2.GM Andrey Stukopin (RIO)2747 (14.0/18)
3.GM Varuzhan Akobian (STL)2742 (25.0/35)
4.GM Jaan Ehlvest (TEN)2714 (11.5/16)
5.GM Julio Sadorra (DAL)2708 (16.5/23)
6.FM Elliott Liu (LV)2706 (10.0/10)
7.GM Hikaru Nakamura (STL)2704 (18.0/27)
8.GM Alex Lenderman (MAN)2702 (21.5/29)
9.IM Priyadharshan Kannappan (STL)2702 (18.0/23)
10.GM Davorin Kuljasevic (DAL)2696 (15.5/20)
11.GM Sergey Erenburg (PHI)2696 (30.0/46)

Highest Win Percentage (10 Game Minimum)

1.FM Elliott Liu (LV)10.0/10 (100%)
2.GM Wesley So (STL)12.5/15 (83%)
3.NM David Golub (SEA)14.0/17 (82%)
4.SM Kapil Chandran (CON)10.5/13 (81%)
5.NM Levy Rozman (MAN)13.5/17 (79%)
6.NM Atulya Vaidya (DAL)9.5/12 (79%)
7.GM Zviad Izoria (MAN)15.0/19 (79%)
8.IM Priyadharshan Kannappan (STL)18.0/23 (78%)
9.GM Andrey Stukopin (RIO)14.0/18 (78%)
10.GM Davorin Kuljasevic (DAL)15.5/20 (78%)


All Star Teams

Board OneBoard TwoBoard ThreeBoard Four
 
1st Team 2015GM Zviad Izoria (MAN)GM Varuzhan Akobian (STL)FM Elliott Liu (LV)NM Nicholas Rosenthal (STL)
2nd Team 2015GM Jeffery Xiong (DAL)GM Joel Benjamin (NJ)NM Levy Rozman (MAN)NM Bryce Tiglon (SEA)
3rd Team 2015GM Andrey Stukopin (RIO)IM Andrey Gorovets (LUB)NM Atulya Vaidya (DAL)FM Jason Shi (CON)
 
1st Team 2014GM Wesley So (STL)GM Le Quang Liem (STL)NM Francisco Guadalupe II (DAL)NM David Golub (SEA)
2nd Team 2014GM Gata Kamsky (NY)GM Joel Benjamin (NJ)NM Richard Francisco (ATL)NM Karthik Ramachandran (DAL)
3rd Team 2014IM Georgi Orlov (SEA)GM Andrey Stukopin (RIO)FM Cameron Wheeler (SF)NM Levy Rozman (MAN)
 
1st Team 2013GM Zviad Izoria (MAN)FM Jeffery Xiong (DAL)IM Akshat Chandra (NY)NM Ryan Goldenberg (MAN)
2nd Team 2013GM Julio Becerra (MIA)GM Renier Gonzalez (MIA)FM Eric Rodriguez (MIA)Siddharth Banik (SF)
3rd Team 2013GM Vinay Bhat (SF)GM Daniel Naroditsky (SF)NM Vadim Martirosov (BOS)NM Lawyer Times (NE)
 
1st Team 2012GM Sergey Erenburg (PHI)IM Priyadharshan Kannappan (STL)FM Dov Gorman (PHI)Shaun Smith (MAN)
2nd Team 2012GM Varuzhan Akobian (SEA)IM Georgi Orlov (SEA)NM Joshua Sinanan (SEA)NM Alex King (MAN)
3rd Team 2012GM Julio Sadorra (DAL)IM Levon Altounian (ARZ)IM Levan Bregadze (STL)NM Alexander Katz (NY)
 
1st Team 2011SM Jorge Sammour-Hasbun (BOS)IM Conrad Holt (DAL)IM Jay Bonin (PHI)NM Willian Fisher (PHI)
2nd Team 2011GM Giorgi Kacheishvili (NY)IM Levon Altounian (ARZ)WGM Tatev Abrahamyan (LA)NM Sam Schmakel (CHC)
3rd Team 2011GM Ben Finegold (STL)GM Jesse Kraai (SF)IM Angelo Young (CHC)Roland Feng (SEA)
 
1st Team 2010GM Sergey Erenburg (BAL)IM Robert Hungaski (NE)FM Marcel Martinez (MIA)NM Alex Cherniack (NE)
2nd Team 2010GM Julio Becerra (MIA)GM Pascal Charbonneau (NY)FM Michael Lee (SEA)Alex Guo (SEA)
3rd Team 2010GM Hikaru Nakamura (STL)IM Marc Esserman (BOS)GM Ben Finegold (STL)FM Aleksandr Ostrovskiy (NY)
4th Team 2010GM Varuzhan Akobian (SEA)IM Julio Sadorra (DAL)IM Daniel Rensch (ARZ)Nicholas Rosenthal (MIA)
 
1st Team 2009GM Hikaru Nakamura (SEA)GM Boris Gulko (NJ)IM Angelo Young (CHC)NM Eric Rodriguez (MIA)
2nd Team 2009GM Julio Becerra (MIA)IM Dean Ippolito (NJ)FM Andrei Zaremba (MAN)SM Yaacov Norowitz (NY)
3rd Team 2009GM Alex Stripunsky (MAN)GM Pascal Charbonneau (NY)IM Marc Esserman (BOS)NM Yian Liou (SF)
 
1st Team 2008GM Julio Becerra (MIA)IM Davorin Kuljasevic (DAL)IM Alex Lenderman (MAN)WFM Bayaraa Zorigt (DAL)
2nd Team 2008GM Sergey Erenburg (BAL)FM Slava Mikhailuk (SEA)SM Marc Esserman (BOS)NM Eric Rodriguez (MIA)
3rd Team 2008GM Jaan Ehlvest (TEN)FM Tom Bartell (PHI)IM Sam Shankland (SF)NM Ilya Krasik (BOS)
 
1st Team 2007GM Julio Becerra (MIA)SM Jorge Sammour-Hasbun (BOS)IM Jacek Stopa (DAL)WFM Iryna Zenyuk (NY)
2nd Team 2007GM Joel Benjamin (NJ)IM Davorin Kuljasevic (DAL)NM Denys Shmelov (BOS)NM Chris Williams (BOS)
3rd Team 2007GM Larry Christiansen (BOS)IM Vinay Bhat (SF)IM Jay Bonin (PHI)WFM Bayaraa Zorigt (DAL)
 
1st Team 2006GM Julio Becerra (MIA)IM Jacek Stopa (DAL)FM Oleg Zaikov (CAR)NM Sam Shankland (SF)
2nd Team 2006IM Josh Friedel (SF)IM Vinay Bhat (SF)IM Richard Costigan (PHI))NM Craig Jones (CAR)
 
1st Team 2005IM Pascal Charbonneau (BAL)IM Lev Milman (CAR)NM Gregory Braylovsky (NY)NM Elvin Wilson (PHI)
2nd Team 2005GM Julio Becerra (MIA)FM Tegshsuren Enkhbat (BAL)FM David Pruess (SF)WGM Katerina Rohonyan (BAL)