PDA

View Full Version : 2016 Open Olympiad Selections Discussion



Kevin Bonham
31-03-2016, 10:43 PM
OLYMPIAD SELECTIONS

ACF Selections Director Tom Saltmarsh has advised that the following players have applied for selection for the 42nd Chess Olympiad to be held in Baku, Azerbaijan, from 1 to 14 September 2016.

Open team

Bobby Cheng, Junta Ikeda, Max Illingworth, Gary Lane, Moulthun Ly, James Morris, David Smerdon, Anton Smirnov, Justin Tan, Karl Zelesco and Zong-Yuan Zhao

Can't remember a stronger lineup for Olympiad selections! All the top-rated players have applied and a few people are going to be very unlucky!

Poll posted for those who wish to play selector. They may not be in exact new FIDE rating order as the ratings aren't up yet.

Thebes
31-03-2016, 10:47 PM
Very hard team to pick, but when you think realistically people like Anton//James could be board 5, makes you think Australia has a seriously good chance this year for upsets

Thebes
31-03-2016, 11:45 PM
With the new FIDE ratings, the new rating list in order is
1. Zhao, Zong-Yuan - 2541
2. David Smerdon - 2529!
3. Moulthun Ly - 2506
4. Anton Smirnov - 2479! (Playing in Bangkok Open)
5. Max Illingworth - 2458
5. James Morris - 2453!
6. Justin Tan - 2452
7. Bobby Cheng - 2428
8. Junta Ikeda/Gary Lane - 2375
10. Karl Zelesco - 2353

Garvinator
31-03-2016, 11:53 PM
And for bonus points, nominate your selections in board order in the thread.

ER
01-04-2016, 02:42 AM
And for bonus points, nominate your selections in board order in the thread.

Is this really the case?

Kevin Bonham
01-04-2016, 06:11 AM
Is this really the case?

People can do it if they want to; it's entirely up to them!

ER
02-04-2016, 12:07 PM
People can do it if they want to; it's entirely up to them!

fair enough!

pax
02-04-2016, 12:30 PM
What an outstanding lineup. Great to see David and Yuan both available. Perhaps they are realising they may not be automatic selections for much longer. It's quite remarkable that our newest grandmaster could be at risk of missing out due to James' stunning Doeberl. Personally, I would still be selecting Max ahead of James based on performances over a couple of years. Bobby Cheng and Justin Tan can consider themselves very unlucky.

pax
02-04-2016, 12:32 PM
Board order: Zhao, Ly, Smerdon, Smirnov, Illingworth.

Kevin Bonham
02-04-2016, 01:21 PM
Interesting that voters on the poll are not thinking much (so far) of the commonly-espoused idea that the Australian Champion should be an automatic selection (either by rule or by unwritten convention of how playing strength is interpreted). That said, the three highest rated applicants didn't compete.

pax
02-04-2016, 01:28 PM
If all players remain available, this is likely to be Australia's highest rated team in history.

ER
02-04-2016, 01:32 PM
Board order:

1. Zhao
2. Smerdon
3. Ly
4. Smirnov
5. Morris

According to Morris's great recent performances (Australasian Masters, Australian Championships and Doeberl)
I wouldn't mind elevating him to no. 4

The reason I kept him at no. 5 is that Anton is already an experienced (and undefeated) Olympian!

James needs a chance to catch up at international level.

James deserves the green and gold as much as Max deserves a break!

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
02-04-2016, 02:53 PM
Zhao, Smerdon, Ly, Smirnov, Illingworth.

Garvinator
02-04-2016, 03:01 PM
1. Zong Yuan Zhao
2. David Smerdon
3. Max Illingworth
4. Moulthun Ly
5. James Morris

I have listed Max at three because I have a bit of a suspicion that his latest results can be at least in part due to becoming a GM. A goal that he has worked hard for. After achieving it, it is not uncommon for sports people to wander a little bit with their results, whilst they find a new long term goal to achieve. Also, since becoming GM Illingworth, he is now a top player to beat and so is getting everyone's best games.

This can take some time to adjust to. At the Olympiad, Max will be competing against players of similar strength or better. I still recall his win in the last round of the last Olympiad.

Garvinator
02-04-2016, 03:04 PM
Interesting that voters on the poll are not thinking much (so far) of the commonly-espoused idea that the Australian Champion should be an automatic selection (either by rule or by unwritten convention of how playing strength is interpreted). That said, the three highest rated applicants didn't compete.
I think the voting so far does not mean that the Australian Champion should not be an automatic qualifier. As stated, the three highest rated applicants didn't compete, and for me the main factor is that it is likely that if being the current Australian Champion guaranteed automatic Olympiad selection, the field could have been quite different, or the pressure on the Australian players would be increased.

pax
02-04-2016, 04:43 PM
One might also argue that the qualification criterion could be along the lines of "an outright winner of the Australian championship qualifies". It gets into sketchy ground if you consider either joint winners or champions who don't win the event.

jammo
02-04-2016, 08:21 PM
1. Zong Yuan Zhao
2. David Smerdon
3. Max Illingworth
4. Moulthun Ly
5. James Morris

I have listed Max at three because I have a bit of a suspicion that his latest results can be at least in part due to becoming a GM. A goal that he has worked hard for. After achieving it, it is not uncommon for sports people to wander a little bit with their results, whilst they find a new long term goal to achieve. Also, since becoming GM Illingworth, he is now a top player to beat and so is getting everyone's best games.

This can take some time to adjust to. At the Olympiad, Max will be competing against players of similar strength or better. I still recall his win in the last round of the last Olympiad.

I think players should be selected based on their playing strength (results, ratings, etc) not on someone's suspicion of an excuse for poor results. You may have remembered Max's last round result in the previous Olympiad ... have you forgotten Anton's result there?

MichaelBaron
02-04-2016, 11:48 PM
Well Zelesco and Lane and Ikeda..no comment.
My team is:
1 Zhao
2 Smerdon
3 Ly
4 Smirnov
5 Morris or Cheng....or Justin Tan if he puts up some strong performance in Europe
Max is clearly a contender..but based on this years results i would not consider him, given his performances this year.
Out of Morris, Cheng and Tan...hard to make a pick...but may be pick James eventually.

David Webster
03-04-2016, 01:23 AM
Fairly easy choice of the five players for mine:
1. Zhao
2. Smerdon
3. Illingworth
4. Ly
5. Smirnov

Very hard to drop either Illingworth or Smirnov given how well they did at the previous Olympiad.

Max has had a couple of bad tournaments, I can imagine having a bit of a let down after achieving such a big goal, but give him the challenge of an Olympiad and I have no doubt that he'll rise to the occasion. He adds a lot to the team in terms of preparation and knowledge as well. Tempting to put him higher than Board 3 actually - my suspicion is that he's the player for whom the strength of opponent matters the least - when he's playing well he can beat anyone, so may as well put him up against the stronger players. But hard not to give Zhao and Smerdon the top two boards.

Morris, Cheng or Tan will do well if required, but I don't think you can reasonably pick them above any of five above, who all have proven strong results at Olympiads.

Thebes
03-04-2016, 01:36 AM
I think Moulthun should be ahead in board number, hes just come from europe drawing and beating 2600-2700 galore, I definitely think Moulthun should be board 3 or even 2 regardless of who is 4th and 5th

Carl Gorka
03-04-2016, 10:36 AM
I think Moulthun should be ahead in board number, hes just come from europe drawing and beating 2600-2700 galore, I definitely think Moulthun should be board 3 or even 2 regardless of who is 4th and 5th

I agree that Moulthun should be 3. He's been active and successful like you say:

1. Zhao
2. Smerdon
3. Ly
4. Smirnov
5. Cheng (I'd pick the current Australian Champion, though Max, James, or Justin would all be as good)

Tony Dowden
05-04-2016, 08:56 AM
I agree with everyone else over Zhao, Smerdon, Ly & Smirnov. In my opinion, Max Illingworth has to be selected (and not necessarily on Board 5) because selection should be based on the last 18 months or so, not the last three or four. In addition, there should be a case for omitting one or two obviously below-par performances which can usually be put down to illness, stress or exhaustion. When I played Max in Rd 3 of the Doeberl Cup it was obvious to me that he was exhausted and should not have been in Canberra. Interestingly, even though I would have liked to have seen James Morris in the top five, I'm not sure if he would even be my Reserve. This would have to be a toss-up between the incredible riches offered by Cheng, Morris or Tan.

Memo to Bjelobrk and Cheng (and any peripatetic Anglos): playing under the Kiwi flag is not so bad!

MichaelBaron
05-04-2016, 10:05 AM
Memo to Bjelobrk and Cheng (and any peripatetic Anglos): playing under the Kiwi flag is not so bad!

or Switch citizenship to Nepal...and can be board 1 for sure :).

On another note, would be great if there are more big tournaments in Australia as so far this year, there have been 2 big events only (Australian ch +Doebrl) as well as Ballarat (that had many strong players but still - slightly different callibre). It would make the selectors jobs easier as they would get a great idea about the form/level of play displayed by the applicants this year.

Thebes
05-04-2016, 12:45 PM
I agree with everyone else over Zhao, Smerdon, Ly & Smirnov because selection should be based on the last 18 months or so, not the last three or four

I have no problem with Max being chosen, but wouldn't it be smarter to chose the players in form? spending all the money etc to send a player who was in form 18 months (in this case, max had a brilliant second half of 2015) seems a bit of a waste, if he was exhausted at Doeberl what would prevent him from getting exhausted at Olympiad?

James is obviously in the best form of his life, his second half of 2015 was just as impressive as Max's and his 2016 has been better, and during this he was studying
and was renowned for just being talented and not putting work into Chess, seems now he's finally putting a lot of hard work in and the results are following through,
really tough decision for the selectors but I think realistically it has to be between James and Max.
Anton pretty much has to be chosen based on his age and his terrific track record overseas. He's putting that up to the test again in 5 days at the Bangkok Open so he should definitely get board 4 in my opinion.
Justin Tan is doing great work overseas but he hasn't had any real wow results in the last year compared to Moulthun, Morris, Anton and Max.

jammo
05-04-2016, 01:25 PM
I agree that Moulthun should be 3. He's been active and successful like you say:

1. Zhao
2. Smerdon
3. Ly
4. Smirnov
5. Cheng (I'd pick the current Australian Champion, though Max, James, or Justin would all be as good)

I agree with Carl. IF players are of equivalent standard preference should go to the Australian Champion ... So I'd pick Bobby just in front of James.

Capablanca-Fan
05-04-2016, 02:30 PM
I agree with everyone else over Zhao, Smerdon, Ly & Smirnov. In my opinion, Max Illingworth has to be selected (and not necessarily on Board 5) because selection should be based on the last 18 months or so, not the last three or four. In addition, there should be a case for omitting one or two obviously below-par performances which can usually be put down to illness, stress or exhaustion. When I played Max in Rd 3 of the Doeberl Cup it was obvious to me that he was exhausted and should not have been in Canberra.
Looking at their ratings leads to the same conclusion. Even with Max's exhausted play, he is still at the top of the March 2016 ACF rating list, which reflects his overall play and provides a good estimate of current strength.


Interestingly, even though I would have liked to have seen James Morris in the top five, I'm not sure if he would even be my Reserve. This would have to be a toss-up between the incredible riches offered by Cheng, Morris or Tan.
I know what you mean. I would favour Morris because of his great Doerberl Cup result, which was as strong as a GM norm.

ER
05-04-2016, 02:44 PM
It was only due to extremely detrimental and tragic circumstances that James Morris is not an automatic selection to our Olympic team.

For more than a year his studies, his social life, his chess career, his life itself came to a standstill as a result of that horrible accident.

James, unlike all other contestants was never given the opportunity to travel and play chess as well as gathering norms in Europe!

His only international experience is based on tournaments around South East Asia and New Zealand.

His titles and other remarkable achievements are a product of his sheer determination and talents.

He deserves a place in our Open Olympic team and he will do well representing the Green and Gold!

All he needs is a chance!

Give it to him!

pax
05-04-2016, 04:17 PM
James is obviously in the best form of his life, his second half of 2015 was just as impressive as Max's ...

This wasn't that long ago: http://ratings.fide.com/individual_calculations.phtml?idnumber=3205207&rating_period=2016-01-01&t=0

Thebes
05-04-2016, 04:20 PM
This wasn't that long ago: http://ratings.fide.com/individual_calculations.phtml?idnumber=3205207&rating_period=2016-01-01&t=0

I know I said that in Max's case his great form was the second half of 2015, which was zonal, Hjorth GM norm etc.. but James also had an impressive GM norm tournament
had a very impressive Australian Championship, and had an even more impressive Doeberl

Desmond
05-04-2016, 04:30 PM
It's very close, no doubt about it.

I also wonder where Brodie might have figured if also in the mix.

ER
05-04-2016, 05:08 PM
...
I also wonder where Brodie might have figured if also in the mix.

Another great talent!
I expect big things from him.
I reckon in the next couple of Olympiads we should
seriously start thinking of sending two teams. Australia A and Australia B.
Not sure if only the hosts have the right to do that though!

Kevin Bonham
05-04-2016, 06:41 PM
I reckon in the next couple of Olympiads we should
seriously start thinking of sending two teams. Australia A and Australia B.
Not sure if only the hosts have the right to do that though!

To my knowledge it is only the hosts. I have not seen nations other than the hosts do it and obviously if it were allowed, many nations would send multiple teams.

ER
05-04-2016, 07:26 PM
To my knowledge it is only the hosts. I have not seen nations other than the hosts do it and obviously if it were allowed, many nations would send multiple teams.

Fair enough thanks!

Kevin Bonham
05-04-2016, 08:55 PM
I posted a thread about the whole business of "form" over here: http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?16390-Form-in-chess-results-is-it-a-real-thing-or-just-random

It was a matter of broader interest for me but I won't deny that it was inspired by the ease with which declarations that Olympiad candidates are in good or bad form are made on the basis of results in a small number of tournaments, on the assumption that this "form" predicts their next results when actually it may be no more predictive than a run of one colour at the roulette table.

[NB I am not a selector this year - at least so far!]

simdeaf
05-04-2016, 09:37 PM
It shows how far Australia has come in terms of chess talent if some people here are discussing the possibility of NOT including a newly minted Grandmaster (i.e. Illingworth) in the Australian team.

Would also be interesting to know what sort of criteria the selectors use. Using Illingworth as an example, he certainly hasn't been playing at his best recently, and (from another poster) seems to be "exhausted". For me, I hope that the selectors will have (or take) the opportunity for face to face contact with the likely contenders before finalising their selections.

Looking forward to another terrific Olympiad performance from whoever gets selected.... and I don't envy the selectors' job!

MichaelBaron
06-04-2016, 12:11 AM
Would also be interesting to know what sort of criteria the selectors use. Using Illingworth as an example, he certainly hasn't been playing at his best recently, and (from another poster) seems to be "exhausted". For me, I hope that the selectors will have (or take) the opportunity for face to face contact with the likely contenders before finalising their selections.

Looking forward to another terrific Olympiad performance from whoever gets selected.... and I don't envy the selectors' job!

Very good point actually!~ Also this would give selectors a chance to learn, how much time the applicants have at their disposal to prepare if selected etc.

Capablanca-Fan
06-04-2016, 03:12 AM
To my knowledge it is only the hosts. I have not seen nations other than the hosts do it and obviously if it were allowed, many nations would send multiple teams.

Yes, that is my experience. Otherwise in years gone by, the Soviet Union could probably have won both gold and silver. But then, the USA team sometimes looked a little like Soviet B, and Israel like Soviet C.

Capablanca-Fan
06-04-2016, 03:18 AM
It's very close, no doubt about it.
For me, it was very close between Illingworth and Morris, but I leaned towards the former both because of his rating and because he is a recently qualified GM. Cheng would also be excellent as #5 on the ACF list, and it's a pity for him (but a good sign for Aussie chess) that there are too many others just above him.


I also wonder where Brodie might have figured if also in the mix.
I wondered that. He has beaten the formidable Ly a number of times, and convincingly as well. But he is still only #8 on the ACF list (which doesn't even have Smerdon) and #21 on FIDE.

jammo
06-04-2016, 01:41 PM
Very good point actually!~ Also this would give selectors a chance to learn, how much time the applicants have at their disposal to prepare if selected etc.

Actually it's a very bad point. You don't get picked for the Olympiad team based on your ability to do a good interview or your ability to claim that you have heaps of time to prepare. You get selected based on your playing strength ... which is established by results and ratings, not interviews.

William AS
06-04-2016, 02:55 PM
I am very glad I am not a selector for this years Australian Open Chess Olympiad team.
Most of the previous teams would have been an easy decision but this year the selectors will have a lot of heartache & sleepless nights.
There are only 5 places & that means some very good players will miss out.

MichaelBaron
07-04-2016, 12:41 AM
Actually it's a very bad point. You don't get picked for the Olympiad team based on your ability to do a good interview or your ability to claim that you have heaps of time to prepare. You get selected based on your playing strength ... which is established by results and ratings, not interviews.

Given that many of our chess players are not chess pros - it does matter!

ER
07-04-2016, 01:09 AM
... this year the selectors will have a lot of heartache & sleepless nights.
...

Hey Bill, we 've seen nothing yet, wait until the 2018, 2020 etc selections! :P :)

Capablanca-Fan
07-04-2016, 03:53 AM
It was only due to extremely detrimental and tragic circumstances that James Morris is not an automatic selection to our Olympic team.

For more than a year his studies, his social life, his chess career, his life itself came to a standstill as a result of that horrible accident.

James, unlike all other contestants was never given the opportunity to travel and play chess as well as gathering norms in Europe!

His only international experience is based on tournaments around South East Asia and New Zealand.

His titles and other remarkable achievements are a product of his sheer determination and talents.

He deserves a place in our Open Olympic team and he will do well representing the Green and Gold!

All he needs is a chance!

Give it to him!

However, I understand that the selectors are meant to select those who they think will deliver the best results for Australia. I doubt that those considerations are possible criteria.

I had forgotten about the horrific accident that killed two and seriously injured James. It was very pleasing to see his brilliant Doeberl Cup result. If it were not for such an exceptional standard of applicants, he would be as automatic as you say.

ER
07-04-2016, 04:55 AM
However, I understand that the selectors are meant to select those who they think will deliver the best results for Australia. I doubt that those considerations are possible criteria.


But of course I do understand that and I wholeheartedly agree with you!

However, in my plight to support and promote James Morris's case I tried not
to think and act as a selector (whose criteria, methods and approaches I know very little if any).

My intention was to add to the whole situation a bit of a sentimental, even parochial if you wish, touch!

By adding facts such as Morris's torment during that horrible period, his single handed destruction of a number of GMs who visited our shores during the last 4-5 months
combined with his admirable fighting spirit of playing to win each and every game he played, I believe I conveyed a frank
message on his behalf.

The selectors will do their job and I have no doubt that their decision will be the best possible for our Olympic team
and Australian chess in general.

I also hope that the name of IM James Morris will be considered during their selection process!

ER
07-04-2016, 05:12 AM
I also note that there were only 133 votes distributed instead of 135 (27x5)
I thought it was necessary for each person to tip 5 as implied by the thread's heading.

either that or I have made a mistake in counting! :P

Kevin Bonham
07-04-2016, 09:26 AM
I also note that there were only 133 votes distributed instead of 135 (27x5)
I thought it was necessary for each person to tip 5 as implied by the thread's heading.

either that or I have made a mistake in counting! :P

I haven't checked the counting but anyway, the software cannot force a person to tick a given number of boxes.

Kevin Bonham
07-04-2016, 09:32 AM
However, I understand that the selectors are meant to select those who they think will deliver the best results for Australia. I doubt that those considerations are possible criteria.

Selectors are currently required to rank the players in order of playing strength (however they think that is best determined.) Factors irrelevant to assessing playing strength must not be taken into account.

(This is almost the same thing as "deliver the best results for Australia" but not necessarily the same in every possible instance.)

In theory the ACF could alter the selection criteria but in practice this has never happened.

Ian Rout
07-04-2016, 11:32 AM
I haven't checked the counting but anyway, the software cannot force a person to tick a given number of boxes.A possible scenario is that somebody ticked four, then mis-hovered over their last tick and unticked one of the others.

It wouldn't be hard to work out which voter(s) have less than five if anyone desperately needs to know.

Kevin Bonham
07-04-2016, 11:55 AM
What happened is that Kaitlin voted for everyone who did not already have a vote and no others.

Capablanca-Fan
07-04-2016, 01:42 PM
Selectors are currently required to rank the players in order of playing strength (however they think that is best determined.) Factors irrelevant to assessing playing strength must not be taken into account.

(This is almost the same thing as "deliver the best results for Australia" but not necessarily the same in every possible instance.)

Right, so they can't put players in reverse strength order as a number of weaker countries have done?

pax
07-04-2016, 10:50 PM
Right, so they can't put players in reverse strength order as a number of weaker countries have done?

Mind you, I think the current team will probably be very even in strength. It wouldn't surprise me at all to see board four or five put in the strongest performance rating.

Kevin Bonham
07-04-2016, 10:50 PM
Right, so they can't put players in reverse strength order as a number of weaker countries have done?

Correct. The sum of selector rankings determines the board order for Australia. I am not sure what would happen if two or more Australian players consensually wanted to swap board orders since this has never come up.

The general Olympiad rule is that players can be put in any order - however absurd - in the presubmitted list but must remain in that order through the tournament. Sometimes when a team is blatantly out of rating order it is not an attempt to game the system for medals (though it can be that) but rather because someone has purchased a high-board position.

Thebes
08-04-2016, 07:31 AM
To make the selectors life harder, Justin Tan is currently +8.2 and performing 2550, this puts him live ahead of Max and James

Garrett
08-04-2016, 07:46 AM
Yeah I don't want to be a selector either !

Does anyone know how to get in contact with them ?

I want to send them some dice and a coin.

ER
08-04-2016, 05:15 PM
...
I want to send them some dice and a coin.

Hey Garrett, how about going halves to get them a roulette wheel? :P ;) :)

ER
08-04-2016, 05:23 PM
hmm I detect quite a number of fence sitters undecided members!
C'mon ladies and gentlemen!
Cast your vote and support your favourite Olympians!
A reminder that the poll closes on April, 22!

Garvinator
08-04-2016, 06:09 PM
Sometimes when a team is blatantly out of rating order it is not an attempt to game the system for medals (though it can be that) but rather because someone has purchased a high-board position.
It can also be in some of the lower ranked teams where one or two of the players have fide ratings and the other do not that, that they put the unrated players on the higher boards because they believe they are the better players and therefore are a better chance to get a fide title, rather than playing in 'rating order'.

MichaelBaron
08-04-2016, 08:00 PM
It can also be in some of the lower ranked teams where one or two of the players have fide ratings and the other do not that, that they put the unrated players on the higher boards because they believe they are the better players and therefore are a better chance to get a fide title, rather than playing in 'rating order'.

The new rating rating confirms that Zhao, Smerdon, Ly, Smirnov, Morris/Illingworth is the team to pick...with inform and motivated Morris selected as board 5 :)

Mischa
08-04-2016, 08:19 PM
April 22 is James' birthday

Thebes
08-04-2016, 08:34 PM
The new rating rating confirms that Zhao, Smerdon, Ly, Smirnov, Morris/Illingworth is the team to pick...with inform and motivated Morris selected as board 5 :)

This is the team I would go with, but if they chose Max over James I don't think anyone will be complaining, the fact they're both fighting for board 5 of all spots is saying something about how far Australia has progressed in the last two years alone.

jammo
08-04-2016, 09:14 PM
hmm I detect quite a number of fence sitters undecided members!
C'mon ladies and gentlemen!
Cast your vote and support your favourite Olympians!
A reminder that the poll closes on April, 22!

Oh, silly me. Can I change my votes? I thought we were picking the Olympiad team based on playing strength, not personal favouritism. No wonder James is doing so well.

Kevin Bonham
08-04-2016, 10:01 PM
hmm I detect quite a number of fence sitters undecided members!

Some of those will be people for whom voting in the poll is not appropriate because of positions they hold. It's always good to see a good level of interest though.

Possibly we should make the poll question "Pick the five strongest players from this list" in future years so that it is clear whether any votes that disagree with the eventual selections are doing so because they disagree with the selectors' assessment of the stated criterion - and not because they think the team should be picked on a different basis.

that Caesar guy
08-04-2016, 10:02 PM
Oh, silly me. Can I change my votes? I thought we were picking the Olympiad team based on playing strength, not personal favouritism. No wonder James is doing so well.

Good thing I'm not too bad at chess either then, hey?

ER
08-04-2016, 11:00 PM
Oh, silly me. Can I change my votes? I thought we were picking the Olympiad team based on playing strength, not personal favouritism. No wonder James is doing so well.
By "your favourite Olympians" I most certainly meant candidates who earned your favouritism due to their playing strength!
Since you referred to IM James Morris, I strongly believe that at this very moment he is the strongest Australian player and should be included in the Australian Olympic team!

ER
08-04-2016, 11:10 PM
Some of those will be people for whom voting in the poll is not appropriate because of positions they hold...

But of course!

MichaelBaron
09-04-2016, 12:16 AM
This is the team I would go with, but if they chose Max over James I don't think anyone will be complaining, the fact they're both fighting for board 5 of all spots is saying something about how far Australia has progressed in the last two years alone.

Absolutely...and if whoever is selected does badly...the selectors will be criticized from making a bad choice :)

Qbert
09-04-2016, 06:06 AM
Justin Tan's live rating has just passed 2460, which makes him my choice for board 5.

jammo
09-04-2016, 01:14 PM
By "your favourite Olympians" I most certainly meant candidates who earned your favouritism due to their playing strength!
Since you referred to IM James Morris, I strongly believe that at this very moment he is the strongest Australian player and should be included in the Australian Olympic team!

I note that apparently in your mind high playing strength makes a player one of your favourites. Others may have different criteria for establishing favouritism.

It's wonderful also that for reasons unknown, you think that James is currently the strongest Australian player. That's like me saying that I think Kyrgios is the best tennis player in the world at the moment. I don't however expect anyone to take any notice of my opinion. Fortunately for the ACF the Olympiad team is selected by a panel of experts who are in a better position to make a good selection than the average chess player.

jammo
09-04-2016, 01:16 PM
Justin Tan's live rating has just passed 2460, which makes him my choice for board 5.


So I gather that you are in favour on selecting based ratings alone and we do away with the ACF Selection panel?
When Justin loses his next game and his rating goes down will you be changing your selection?

jammo
09-04-2016, 01:19 PM
Good thing I'm not too bad at chess either then, hey?


Indeed. If we are changing our votes based on personal favouritism you go up a few places on my list.

ER
09-04-2016, 02:40 PM
I note that apparently in your mind high playing strength makes a player one of your favourites. Others may have different criteria for establishing favouritism.

Let me remind you that this is a public discussion forum, not restricted to expert opinion only! Of course people have different criteria. I respect different criteria.


It's wonderful also that for reasons unknown, you think that James is currently the strongest Australian player.

Reasons not unknown at all. I have listed them in previous posts. (#12, #27, #44)!


That's like me saying that I think Kyrgios (*) is the best tennis player in the world at the moment.

A bit of an inaccurate claim here. I can't think of any tennis tournament equivalent to Doeber in chess won by Nick!


I don't however expect anyone to take any notice of my opinion.

Your status precedes your expectation! :P :)



Fortunately for the ACF the Olympiad team is selected by a panel of experts who are in a better position to make a good selection than the average chess player.

Correct. But let me remind you that this is a public forum thread unless there's a "for panel experts only" sign outside which I didn't notice when entered.

(*) You wouldn't be alone in that category! I do claim that Collingwood FC is the best football club in Australia! :)

PS Also, let me add that my call (post #56) to the members to cast their vote was mainly an encouragement to the electorate to partake in this poll so we could have a more representative outcome!
It wasn't a "vote for James" call. I have to admit I was tempted to do it that way though! :)

Kaitlin
09-04-2016, 02:55 PM
experts should identify themselves with a " * " symbol, so that their comments can be treated in that regard. ... it will help save confusion later on....

Thebes
09-04-2016, 03:40 PM
I think the reason Justin Tan isn't getting many votes is that many people don't notice the work he's been doing in England, slowly grinding his rating to 2460+ very impressive
It's a shame the one event he played in Australia was an average performance in perspective to his potential otherwise he could have almost secured a spot on the team.

Qbert
09-04-2016, 04:34 PM
So I gather that you are in favour on selecting based ratings alone and we do away with the ACF Selection panel?
When Justin loses his next game and his rating goes down will you be changing your selection?

I don't have a problem with that, as long as the ratings are in the same system an based on a minimum level of activity. At least players know what to aim for. But I'm not an Australian, so your selection criteria are none of my business. This is not a selection forum, so I just drew attention to the factor that in my view does most to elevate his claim slightly above the others, rather than list them all and compare to all the other candidates. Considerable recent activity at a consistently high level is another. I hope the selectors won't be accused of singling out ratings as the only factor if their selections turn out to be the same as predicted by ratings.

jammo
09-04-2016, 06:27 PM
experts should identify themselves with a " * " symbol, so that their comments can be treated in that regard. ... it will help save confusion later on....

And clearly, judging by your frivolous votes, you will be the last person in line to get their "*".

Thebes
09-04-2016, 07:33 PM
And clearly, judging by your frivolous votes, you will be the last person in line to get their "*".

did you mean frivolous posts?

Kevin Bonham
09-04-2016, 09:52 PM
I hope the selectors won't be accused of singling out ratings as the only factor if their selections turn out to be the same as predicted by ratings.

I don't think they will be so accused by many people. Australian selectors have a long history of sometimes picking a team that happens to match the rating order and sometimes not, so if the team does happen to match the ratings I don't think anyone should assume it was because of the ratings. Some selectors may initially rank candidates in rating order and then consider whether there are reasons to differ from it.

Some people think ratings-based selection would be a good idea but in practice it would allow for applicants to try to game the system, including even withdrawing from tournaments midway to protect their rating. Devising a foolproof ratings-based selection system is very difficult.

jammo
09-04-2016, 10:23 PM
did you mean frivolous posts?

no.

jammo
09-04-2016, 10:44 PM
Elliot. I"m struggling to understand why, if you think James is the strongest player in Australia, then in post#12 you select him on board 4. You do understand that the best player should be selected on board 1?

Re Kyrgios, you don't seem to understand that I was offering an opinion (some might say equivalent to your opinion on James) so you are welcome to disagree with it but to claim an opinion is "inaccurate" is a nonsense. You will note that I did not state the basis for this opinion, hence whether or not Kyrgios has won a tournament equivalent to Doeberl is irrelevant to my opinion, although it may be relevant to yours.

Yes, this is a public forum and anyone can state their views. It is equally obvious that people who express strange views can be called to account to explain the basis of their non-expert opinion.

Vlad
10-04-2016, 12:48 AM
Below I provide some statistics for the top 8 applicants:

1) Yuan 2541 (-17, -32);
2) David 2529 (+8, +19);
3) Molton 2506 (+44, +66), SIO 2014 (2679) and Gibraltar 2016 (2647);
4) Anton 2479 (+69, +135), Olympiad 2014 (2612), Malaysian Open 2015 (2609) and Doeberl Cup 2016 (2617);
5) Max 2458 (-31, +11), First Saturday 2014 (2615) and Australian Masters 2015 (2665);
6) James 2453 (+52, +76), Doeberl Cup 2016 (2757);
7) Justin 2452 (+45, +89);
8) Bobby 2428 (-2, -18).

Note the first number in brackets is the rating change in the last 12 months, while the second number is the rating change in the last 24 months. I also list all the tournaments in the last 24 months where the applicants had 2600+ performance. Specifically, I used Pax's calculator to calculate the logistic performance, which is in brackets.

Bulldozer
10-04-2016, 06:39 AM
Note the first number in brackets is the rating change in the last 12 months
It's a good point. I believe if we add a half of this difference to the current ratings we will get a better estimate of the expected performance in a half a year.

1) David 2534.0
2) Yuan 2531.5
3) Molton 2528.0
4) Anton 2513.5
------------------
5) James 2479.0
6) Justin 2474.5
------------------
7) Max 2442.5
8) Bobby 2427.0

So, the real question shouldn't be "James or Max" but "James or Justin".

Regarding to the board arrangement, the top four player are very close, and we need a different criteria at least for them: "how good a player performs against opponents of certain skill ranges". The player #1 should be good against a strong opposition, #2-#5 should be good against weaker opponents.

ER
10-04-2016, 07:11 AM
Elliot. I"m struggling to understand why, if you think James is the strongest player in Australia, then in post#12 you select him on board 4. You do understand that the best player should be selected on board 1?

Not necessarily. This is a team event. Even Bobby Fischer accepted board 2 to Larsen's board 1 in the USSR vs Rest of the World (Belgrade 1970) There are several similar examples in Olympiad team line-ups


Re Kyrgios, you don't seem to understand that I was offering an opinion (some might say equivalent to your opinion on James) so you are welcome to disagree with it but to claim an opinion is "inaccurate" is a nonsense.

Well it is an unsuccessful attempt of an analogy whichever way you take it. I am sure you would settle for "irrelevant" instead of "inaccurate' then!


Yes, this is a public forum and anyone can state their views.

Agreed!


It is equally obvious that people who express strange views can be called to account to explain the basis of their non-expert opinion.

Whereas expert trolls who endlessly annoy others should be court-martialed? :)

Now Jammo, for quite some time I had you on the more general DFTT mode and we were all happy. Improving into DFJ mode (with more strict temporal terms) is only a post away! :P

Capablanca-Fan
10-04-2016, 11:03 AM
Elliot. I"m struggling to understand why, if you think James is the strongest player in Australia
From Vlad's stats, James has had the best single tournament performance by far in the last 24 months. The stats also reinforce the overwhelming top six choices among those polled.

simdeaf
10-04-2016, 03:50 PM
Thanks to Vlad for the number crunching.

From those numbers, and also from the polling, it seems that Yuan, David, Anton and Moulthun are locked in, and for fifth it becomes James or Max.

From the stats, it seems that James is playing better than his rating, but Max is somewhat off the boil. My inclination would be to select Max, he has worked hard for his GM title and that level of ability is to be respected. However, and a big however, if I were a selector I wouldn't pick Max unless I had a phone/face to face meeting with him to see how he is doing. Wouldn't want to pick someone on the verge of exhaustion or not feeling well. That applies also to the first four as well, although these should be formalities (just to check that they are all well and motivated).

This selection conundrum made me think about longer term planning - how do we support the top chess players in Australia, regardless of whether they are picked for the Olympiad? Ideally there would be some ongoing support, so for example James does not get picked, he would still have the support of the selectors/ACF to keep playing and to get a GM title (as it seems he is capable of doing). Bit like the Australian cricket squad - even if you don't get picked for the XI, you still have the support of the selectors, you have a central contract, and when the circumstances are right and form is good, you get a run.

That makes me think of something else, is there a strategy to support the top chess players in Australia, see more players becoming GMs and IMs and in the longer term make our Olympiad team really strong? I wasn't too thrilled in my local club championships to see two FMs (rated 300 points ahead of the rest of the field). How is that going to improve their chess, playing below strength opponents? I'm rated about 1600, I would never participate in any tournament that had only players up to 1300 strength - would be nice to win first prize, but wouldn't improve my chess any. They should be out there playing in stronger tournaments, improving their chess and making Olympiad selection tougher. Or maybe they would like to, but there no support for them to do that? But I suppose that is a subject for another thread....

Chris_Wallis
10-04-2016, 04:50 PM
Thanks to Vlad for the number crunching.

From those numbers, and also from the polling, it seems that Yuan, David, Anton and Moulthun are locked in, and for fifth it becomes James or Max.

From the stats, it seems that James is playing better than his rating, but Max is somewhat off the boil. My inclination would be to select Max, he has worked hard for his GM title and that level of ability is to be respected. However, and a big however, if I were a selector I wouldn't pick Max unless I had a phone/face to face meeting with him to see how he is doing. Wouldn't want to pick someone on the verge of exhaustion or not feeling well. That applies also to the first four as well, although these should be formalities (just to check that they are all well and motivated).

This selection conundrum made me think about longer term planning - how do we support the top chess players in Australia, regardless of whether they are picked for the Olympiad? Ideally there would be some ongoing support, so for example James does not get picked, he would still have the support of the selectors/ACF to keep playing and to get a GM title (as it seems he is capable of doing). Bit like the Australian cricket squad - even if you don't get picked for the XI, you still have the support of the selectors, you have a central contract, and when the circumstances are right and form is good, you get a run.

That makes me think of something else, is there a strategy to support the top chess players in Australia, see more players becoming GMs and IMs and in the longer term make our Olympiad team really strong? I wasn't too thrilled in my local club championships to see two FMs (rated 300 points ahead of the rest of the field). How is that going to improve their chess, playing below strength opponents? I'm rated about 1600, I would never participate in any tournament that had only players up to 1300 strength - would be nice to win first prize, but wouldn't improve my chess any. They should be out there playing in stronger tournaments, improving their chess and making Olympiad selection tougher. Or maybe they would like to, but there no support for them to do that? But I suppose that is a subject for another thread....

Hello Simon - As you say, questions about the availability of strong tournaments in Australia may be just slightly off-topic for a thread about the 2016 olympiad selections, but regarding the last paragraph above - I'd like to point out that Box Hill traditionally tended to have around 5 players rated over 2000 in the championship. This strength at the top of regular club tournaments provided a fantastic learning environment for up and coming juniors, and has been a very good thing for Victorian and Australian chess generally over the years (to tie back into the topic - this certainly helped several of the current applicants develop their chess earlier on) - so one of the reasons I am consistently entering events at BHCC is to help the club attract stronger players to its future events. Also, regarding the current tournament - there are many rapidly improving players in the field and so I think it is also interesting from a training point of view for both the FMs referenced in your post...even though we might like some other titled players to jump onto the bandwagon as well!

pax
10-04-2016, 05:44 PM
It's a good point. I believe if we add a half of this difference to the current ratings we will get a better estimate of the expected performance in a half a year.


This is a very silly idea. While there is some sense in the idea for steadily improving or declining players, very few players progress like that. It is manifestly unfair to a player like Max who has had a run of uncharacteristically poor performances. If anything, I would expect his rating to bounce back over the next year, not decline further.

jammo
10-04-2016, 09:46 PM
Not necessarily. This is a team event. Even Bobby Fischer accepted board 2 to Larsen's board 1 in the USSR vs Rest of the World (Belgrade 1970) There are several similar examples in Olympiad team line-ups


Well it is an unsuccessful attempt of an analogy whichever way you take it. I am sure you would settle for "irrelevant" instead of "inaccurate' then!



Agreed!



Whereas expert trolls who endlessly annoy others should be court-martialed? :)

Now Jammo, for quite some time I had you on the more general DFTT mode and we were all happy. Improving into DFJ mode (with more strict temporal terms) is only a post away! :P

I note that you have not explained the inconsistency of your posts (point 1 above); I do not agree with your comments on my Kyrgios analogy and your final post is gobbledegook.

No point in further discussion.

jammo
10-04-2016, 09:53 PM
One point regarding Olympiad selection that I don't think has been raised yet is that all results are not of equal value, For instance a game in a weekender where two, or even 3 games, may be played in one day has not been historically regarded as being of the same value as, say, a game in the Australian Championship (a more important event played at a round a day - like the Olympiad).

ER
10-04-2016, 10:05 PM
I note that you have not explained the inconsistency of your posts (point 1 above); I do not agree with your comments on my Kyrgios analogy and your final post is gobbledegook.

No point in further discussion.

You were warned.

BTW it's gobbledygook.

For your info:

DFTT = Don't Feed The Troll
DFJ = Don't Feed Jammo!

Capablanca-Fan
11-04-2016, 12:20 AM
I wasn't too thrilled in my local club championships to see two FMs (rated 300 points ahead of the rest of the field). How is that going to improve their chess, playing below strength opponents? I'm rated about 1600, I would never participate in any tournament that had only players up to 1300 strength - would be nice to win first prize, but wouldn't improve my chess any. They should be out there playing in stronger tournaments, improving their chess and making Olympiad selection tougher. Or maybe they would like to, but there no support for them to do that? But I suppose that is a subject for another thread....
I agree in general about playing in tournaments where people are around the same level. But this isn't always possible in the local club scene. Also, some 1600 players might be glad of the chance to play and learn from FMs. Some might be grateful that an FM consents to play rather than thinking that it's beneath his dignity. This certainly seemed the case back in my old club, the Logan City Chess Club in QLD. When IM Solomon played occasionally, he was also welcomed.

Capablanca-Fan
11-04-2016, 12:21 AM
This is a very silly idea. While there is some sense in the idea for steadily improving or declining players, very few players progress like that. It is manifestly unfair to a player like Max who has had a run of uncharacteristically poor performances. If anything, I would expect his rating to bounce back over the next year, not decline further.

I didn't understand BD's justification either, but thought that the stats provided by Vladimir Nikolaevich were helpful.

Bulldozer
11-04-2016, 12:35 AM
This is a very silly idea. While there is some sense in the idea for steadily improving or declining players, very few players progress like that. It is manifestly unfair to a player like Max who has had a run of uncharacteristically poor performances. If anything, I would expect his rating to bounce back over the next year, not decline further.
It's not specifically about improving or declining players. It's about the broken K-factor=10, which is still kept by FIDE for ratings above 2400. I'm just trying to fix it in a simple way.

Thebes
11-04-2016, 12:48 AM
It's not specifically about improving or declining players. It's about the broken K-factor=10, which is still kept by FIDE for ratings above 2400. I'm just trying to fix it in a simple way.

I think K40 is broken not K10, can still get punished from K10 look at George Xie

simdeaf
11-04-2016, 12:51 AM
Hello Simon - As you say, questions about the availability of strong tournaments in Australia may be just slightly off-topic for a thread about the 2016 olympiad selections, but regarding the last paragraph above - I'd like to point out that Box Hill traditionally tended to have around 5 players rated over 2000 in the championship. This strength at the top of regular club tournaments provided a fantastic learning environment for up and coming juniors, and has been a very good thing for Victorian and Australian chess generally over the years (to tie back into the topic - this certainly helped several of the current applicants develop their chess earlier on) - so one of the reasons I am consistently entering events at BHCC is to help the club attract stronger players to its future events. Also, regarding the current tournament - there are many rapidly improving players in the field and so I think it is also interesting from a training point of view for both the FMs referenced in your post...even though we might like some other titled players to jump onto the bandwagon as well!

Chris, it's certainly great for the club that you are in the championships, and great for the juniors and other improving players to be able to play against you (and Eugene as well). However, is it good for your chess? I couldnt sleep so thought I would look up your stats on the FIDE rating website to see the general strength of your opposition during 2015 and 2016. 13 tournaments, 114 games, 36 against 2300+ and 78 against sub 2300. Nine out of those 13 tournaments, it was 13 2300+ games out of 74 in total. The other four were stronger, 23 games out of 40 against 2300+ players. Tying this back to Olympiad selection, what does this example say about the opportunities available to top Australian players to play against consistently strong opposition?

Qbert
11-04-2016, 05:32 AM
Below I provide some statistics for the top 8 applicants:

1) Yuan 2541 (-17, -32);
2) David 2529 (+8, +19);
3) Molton 2506 (+44, +66), SIO 2014 (2679) and Gibraltar 2016 (2647);
4) Anton 2479 (+69, +135), Olympiad 2014 (2612), Malaysian Open 2015 (2609) and Doeberl Cup 2016 (2617);
5) Max 2458 (-31, +11), First Saturday 2014 (2615) and Australian Masters 2015 (2665);
6) James 2453 (+52, +76), Doeberl Cup 2016 (2757);
7) Justin 2452 (+45, +89);
8) Bobby 2428 (-2, -18).

Note the first number in brackets is the rating change in the last 12 months, while the second number is the rating change in the last 24 months. I also list all the tournaments in the last 24 months where the applicants had 2600+ performance. Specifically, I used Pax's calculator to calculate the logistic performance, which is in brackets.

Needs updating:
1) Yuan 2541 (-17, -32);
2) David 2529 (+8, +19);
3) Molton 2506 (+44, +66), SIO 2014 (2679) and Gibraltar 2016 (2647);
4) Anton 2479 (+69, +135), Olympiad 2014 (2612), Malaysian Open 2015 (2609) and Doeberl Cup 2016 (2617);
5) Justin 2469 (+62, +106); Crouch Congress 2016 (2641)
6) Max 2458 (-31, +11), First Saturday 2014 (2615) and Australian Masters 2015 (2665);
7) James 2453 (+52, +76), Doeberl Cup 2016 (2757);
8) Bobby 2428 (-2, -18).

Capablanca-Fan
11-04-2016, 11:11 AM
Oh, silly me. Can I change my votes? I thought we were picking the Olympiad team based on playing strength, not personal favouritism.

We are, so why did you deviate by selecting the one player on the basis of one tournament, the Aussie Champs?

Elliott and Qbert were at least trying to vote on the same basis as the selectors.

smurfo
11-04-2016, 06:18 PM
Just an aside, but I am amazed by the lack of votes for Justin Tan. That's no comment on my own opinion, but just an observation that I would have expected more of a spread if people were voting on rating, trend, GM norms, age etc. Maybe it's because he doesn't play much in Australia?

ER
11-04-2016, 06:29 PM
Maybe it's because he doesn't play much in Australia?
Hi David, yes because he doesn't play much in Australia and because he doesn't get much exposure! He doesn't beat his own drum much either!

MichaelBaron
11-04-2016, 06:42 PM
Just an aside, but I am amazed by the lack of votes for Justin Tan. That's no comment on my own opinion, but just an observation that I would have expected more of a spread if people were voting on rating, trend, GM norms, age etc. Maybe it's because he doesn't play much in Australia?

Absolutely! I think in cases of players of roughly similar level (Morris, Tan, Smirnov, Illingworth etc) - those with greater ''crowd exposure'' are likely to be more popular even with the seasoned voters.

ER
11-04-2016, 07:07 PM
Hi David, yes because he doesn't play much in Australia and because he doesn't get much exposure! He doesn't beat his own drum much either!

Once we had an Aussies Abroad thread here, in which you had the performances of young and not so young Australians in overseas tournaments at a glance. For some reason it disappeared!
Well, make no mistake a large number (I won't get into imaginary percentages) of our chess community know nothing about chess forums, polls and public discussions.
For those who aren't aware of this or other chess forums, I imagine the name Justin Tan doesn't mean much unless they are members of Noble Park Chess Club.
or have seen Justin play in tournaments they played or visited.

Thank God the ACF bulletin always has some article or news item in regards to Aussies overseas!

We need a campaign of support for our players who fight hard for GM, or IM norms overseas.
In most cases, their families and themselves go through big sacrifices and strenuous times to make ends meet.
People like Max, just to name one case, have given up their studies in order to pursue their goals as professional chess players!

We also need a campaign of support for our local players who for reason a or b aren't able to make the big step
and chase norms overseas. I don't want to put myself in the shoes of a talented youngster who knows
(and we all know) that he or she is able to achieve big things but his/her talents and efforts are saddled with
financial problems.

pax
11-04-2016, 07:09 PM
Just an aside, but I am amazed by the lack of votes for Justin Tan. That's no comment on my own opinion, but just an observation that I would have expected more of a spread if people were voting on rating, trend, GM norms, age etc. Maybe it's because he doesn't play much in Australia?

To be fair, the GM norm only came yesterday, long after most people made their votes. The thing that impresses me about Justin is the sheer volume of his international experience over the last year or so. His performances until last week were solid but not stellar, while most people were voting in this poll off the back of James' most extraordinary Doeberl.

pax
11-04-2016, 07:12 PM
Absolutely! I think in cases of players of roughly similar level (Morris, Tan, Smirnov, Illingworth etc) - those with greater ''crowd exposure'' are likely to be more popular even with the seasoned voters.

Go on, give the selectors a bit of credit. They will be making these decisions with all of the data (recent performances, ratings etc) right in front of them, I really doubt "crowd exposure" will come into it at all. One thing that is in no doubt is that they have an extremely tough job, and that at least three candidates will be able to consider themselves extremely unlucky.

pax
11-04-2016, 07:17 PM
I didn't understand BD's justification either, but thought that the stats provided by Vladimir Nikolaevich were helpful.

Indeed they are. The >2600 performances stat is interesting. There is a case to be made for omitting our top two rated GMs :). That's not a serious suggestion, but I think they may find it tough next time around.

ER
11-04-2016, 07:38 PM
... while most people were voting in this poll off the back of James' most extraordinary Doeberl.

Let alone the Victorian Champion IM James Morris's exceptional appearances and results in the Australasian Masters and the Australian Championship!

ER
11-04-2016, 08:34 PM
Talking about promotion of Aussies overseas and locally, ThebeJohnston's facebook site
does a tremendous job.
Give it a vist and a "like" it's worth it!

https://www.facebook.com/AusChess/

Garvinator
11-04-2016, 08:45 PM
Indeed they are. The >2600 performances stat is interesting. There is a case to be made for omitting our top two rated GMs :). That's not a serious suggestion, but I think they may find it tough next time around.
What I think those stats are showing, and the results and TPR's to go along with it, is that with respect to the next Olympiad, that Zhao and Smerdon are going to have to get into the team by their tournament performances over the next two years, just like the rest of the players. So basically after this Olympiad is finished, Australia could almost be in a position of having about 12 or so players who have near equal chances and that no one or so player is an 'automatic' selection.

smurfo
11-04-2016, 08:54 PM
Indeed they are. The >2600 performances stat is interesting. There is a case to be made for omitting our top two rated GMs :). That's not a serious suggestion, but I think they may find it tough next time around.

I've had a couple of >2650 performances in the past 24 months in European leagues, which perhaps reinforces Elliott's point about the forgotten overseas Aussies. Not that I made my comment in my own defence, let me be clear. It was more an observation about Justin. And I agree and hope that I'll have to fight hard for my place in 2018 - as it should be!

pax
11-04-2016, 09:33 PM
I've had a couple of >2650 performances in the past 24 months in European leagues, which perhaps reinforces Elliott's point about the forgotten overseas Aussies. Not that I made my comment in my own defence, let me be clear. It was more an observation about Justin. And I agree and hope that I'll have to fight hard for my place in 2018 - as it should be!

Fair point. Those performances are harder to pick up, not because they are overseas, but because they are over a long period of time and multiple rating lists. You are definitely not forgotten ;)

MichaelBaron
12-04-2016, 12:01 AM
I think David and Yuan are both GM and rated well above 2500 so their places on the team are beyond doubt irrespectively of recent performances (even though David's rating appears to be on the way up anyway)!

Thebes
12-04-2016, 12:09 AM
I think David and Yuan are both GM and rated well above 2500 so their places on the team are beyond doubt irrespectively of recent performances (even though David's rating appears to be on the way up anyway)!

I don't think anyone disputes they should be on this Olympiad team, what was said was that in the next 24 months Justin, Moulthun, Max, Anton and Morris's rating are going to be challenging the top boards, infact Moulthun is playing in Dubai Open and Churchie Open (in Queensland) this month so he could even overtake Smerdon if he plays well.

Kevin Bonham
12-04-2016, 12:27 AM
Once we had an Aussies Abroad thread here, in which you had the performances of young and not so young Australians in overseas tournaments at a glance. For some reason it disappeared!

I think what is happening now is better - people are starting to post continuing threads about particular players. Which is much easier than digging through many posts to find just the results for a player you want to check.

Kevin Bonham
12-04-2016, 12:29 AM
What I think those stats are showing, and the results and TPR's to go along with it, is that with respect to the next Olympiad, that Zhao and Smerdon are going to have to get into the team by their tournament performances over the next two years, just like the rest of the players. So basically after this Olympiad is finished, Australia could almost be in a position of having about 12 or so players who have near equal chances and that no one or so player is an 'automatic' selection.

This is a very good problem to have.

Capablanca-Fan
12-04-2016, 12:37 AM
Needs updating:
1) Yuan 2541 (-17, -32);
2) David 2529 (+8, +19);
3) Molton 2506 (+44, +66), SIO 2014 (2679) and Gibraltar 2016 (2647);
4) Anton 2479 (+69, +135), Olympiad 2014 (2612), Malaysian Open 2015 (2609) and Doeberl Cup 2016 (2617);
5) Justin 2469 (+62, +106); Crouch Congress 2016 (2641)
6) Max 2458 (-31, +11), First Saturday 2014 (2615) and Australian Masters 2015 (2665);
7) James 2453 (+52, +76), Doeberl Cup 2016 (2757);
8) Bobby 2428 (-2, -18).

I've had a couple of >2650 performances in the past 24 months in European leagues, which perhaps reinforces Elliott's point about the forgotten overseas Aussies. Not that I made my comment in my own defence, let me be clear. It was more an observation about Justin. And I agree and hope that I'll have to fight hard for my place in 2018 - as it should be!

OK, updated even more—good to have as much information as possible, not that I claim to have every >2600 performance below.

1) Yuan 2541 (-17, -32);
2) David 2529 (+8, +19); deutsche Schach-Bundesliga 2014/15 (2693 (http://chess-results.com/tnr154526.aspx?lan=1&art=9&wi=821&snr=46)), deutsche Schach-Bundesliga 2015/16 (2603) (http://chess-results.com/tnr191830.aspx?lan=1&art=9&wi=821&snr=37)
3) Moulthun 2506 (+44, +66), SIO 2014 (2679) and Gibraltar 2016 (2647);
4) Anton 2479 (+69, +135), Olympiad 2014 (2612), Malaysian Open 2015 (2609) and Doeberl Cup 2016 (2617);
5) Justin 2469 (+62, +106); Crouch Congress 2016 (2641)
6) Max 2458 (-31, +11), First Saturday 2014 (2615) and Australian Masters 2015 (2665);
7) James 2453 (+52, +76), Doeberl Cup 2016 (2757);
8) Bobby 2428 (-2, -18).

Chris_Wallis
12-04-2016, 12:42 AM
Chris, it's certainly great for the club that you are in the championships, and great for the juniors and other improving players to be able to play against you (and Eugene as well). However, is it good for your chess? I couldnt sleep so thought I would look up your stats on the FIDE rating website to see the general strength of your opposition during 2015 and 2016. 13 tournaments, 114 games, 36 against 2300+ and 78 against sub 2300. Nine out of those 13 tournaments, it was 13 2300+ games out of 74 in total. The other four were stronger, 23 games out of 40 against 2300+ players. Tying this back to Olympiad selection, what does this example say about the opportunities available to top Australian players to play against consistently strong opposition?

Yes, there are few tournaments in Australia where somebody rated 2300 would be expected to play mostly higher rated opponents, and that isn't a good thing for players who need to improve more than 100 points from 2300 in order to be seriously considered for the team. Even so, there exist various opportunities here to demonstrate improvement (at tournaments like Doeberl, the Australasian Masters and the Australian Championship) - and it's therefore important to be able to work effectively on one's chess between the major tournaments. On this note - it's probable that the improvement of Australian junior chess and the relative standard of our Olympiad team (despite isolation from the really big tournaments) is largely due to the judicious use of computers and the internet in chess training. (though it must be said that this kind of geographical problem didn't seem to stop players like Fischer or Anand, even pre-computers)
Thanks for presenting those interesting statistics Simon! I don't think it's actually bad for my chess to play lower rated opponents (imagine Magnus' predicament if this were true...), so I'll look forward to many more interesting games at BHCC in future.

Capablanca-Fan
12-04-2016, 02:16 AM
Just an aside, but I am amazed by the lack of votes for Justin Tan. That's no comment on my own opinion, but just an observation that I would have expected more of a spread if people were voting on rating, trend, GM norms, age etc. Maybe it's because he doesn't play much in Australia?

Or, because his rating was #7, or simply because it's too hard to work out who should be left out to give him a slot.

Rincewind
12-04-2016, 07:47 AM
Or, because his rating was #7, or simply because it's too hard to work out who should be left out to give him a slot.

Looking at the results it appears rating has the highest correlation and so being in the 7th slot does not help there. Second important factor is probably related to Australian activity or perhaps even state of origin.

ER
12-04-2016, 09:43 AM
IM James Morris, the Victorian Champion, and Doeberl Cup winner, added one more accolade to his collection by convincingly winning the prestigious title of the Melbourne Chess Club champion! Well done!

Vlad
12-04-2016, 10:20 AM
For consistency, I have changed David's performances to logistic performances. It looks to me David has a very strong case to lead the Australian team in the next Olympiad. :clap:

1) Yuan 2541 (-17, -32);
2) David 2529 (+8, +19); deutsche Schach-Bundesliga 2014/15 (2707), deutsche Schach-Bundesliga 2015/16 (2603)
3) Moulthun 2506 (+44, +66), SIO 2014 (2679) and Gibraltar 2016 (2647);
4) Anton 2479 (+69, +135), Olympiad 2014 (2612), Malaysian Open 2015 (2609) and Doeberl Cup 2016 (2617);
5) Justin 2469 (+62, +106); Crouch Congress 2016 (2641)
6) Max 2458 (-31, +11), First Saturday 2014 (2615) and Australian Masters 2015 (2665);
7) James 2453 (+52, +76), Doeberl Cup 2016 (2757);
8) Bobby 2428 (-2, -18).

Ian Rout
12-04-2016, 11:09 AM
Looking at the results it appears rating has the highest correlation ...
That may indicate that polling is influenced by rating, or it may be because they are attempting to measure the same thing. Or a bit of both.

Rincewind
12-04-2016, 07:23 PM
That may indicate that polling is influenced by rating, or it may be because they are attempting to measure the same thing. Or a bit of both.

Sure I just said that they're correlated. I didn't run the stats but it is pretty clear I think.

ER
12-04-2016, 10:26 PM
I think what is happening now is better - people are starting to post continuing threads about particular players. Which is much easier than digging through many posts to find just the results for a player you want to check.

It's all good! I was thinking more in line of an "In Search of the Holly Grail" "Pursuing the IM/GM norm" thread, with lists of candidates, statistical information, possibilities, number of efforts etc. Something like what Vlad. Qbert, Capablanka_fan and Buldozer do or have done. But it's OK!

Kevin Bonham
12-04-2016, 11:28 PM
It's all good! I was thinking more in line of an "In Search of the Holly Grail" "Pursuing the IM/GM norm" thread, with lists of candidates, statistical information, possibilities, number of efforts etc. Something like what Vlad. Qbert, Capablanka_fan and Buldozer do or have done. But it's OK!

I think I will start a thread soon (when time and energy permit) with a list of AUS players who have norms and/or rating requirements for titles. (Don't think I'll bother with "number of efforts" though since it's difficult to track and the number of failures doesn't matter.)

ER
12-04-2016, 11:43 PM
I think I will start a thread soon (when time and energy permit) with a list of AUS players who have norms and/or rating requirements for titles. (Don't think I'll bother with "number of efforts" though since it's difficult to track and the number of failures doesn't matter.)

That would be great thanks!

Kevin Bonham
13-04-2016, 12:34 AM
That would be great thanks!

Done. It's in the Aus chess section - only in draft form at the moment, probably full of mistakes!

Capablanca-Fan
16-04-2016, 02:45 PM
For consistency, I have changed David's performances to logistic performances. It looks to me David has a very strong case to lead the Australian team in the next Olympiad. :clap:
You may be right, but would he want this job? Compare last time, where he was apprehensive about leading in ZYZ's absence (http://www.davidsmerdon.com/?p=773) and you explained (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?13940-Olympiad-2012-in-Istanbul-(Aug-27-Sep-10)&p=343173&viewfull=1#post343173) by the Russian expression Ох, тяжела ты, шапка Мономаха! that you paraphrased as Heavy is the head that wears the crown.

But if he has earned this spot, then he should get it. I'm also not sure if players are permitted to step down a board voluntarily.

Garvinator
16-04-2016, 03:29 PM
You may be right, but would he want this job? Compare last time, where he was apprehensive about leading in ZYZ's absence (http://www.davidsmerdon.com/?p=773) and you explained (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?13940-Olympiad-2012-in-Istanbul-(Aug-27-Sep-10)&p=343173&viewfull=1#post343173) by the Russian expression Ох, тяжела ты, шапка Мономаха! that you paraphrased as Heavy is the head that wears the crown.

But if he has earned this spot, then he should get it. I'm also not sure if players are permitted to step down a board voluntarily.
It will be the selectors that decide the board order based on all the information provided to them and their considered knowledge and experience to rank the players after the applications closing date. A player could put in their application that they are willing to play down a board voluntarily, but the selectors are still to rank players based on 'playing strength'.

In terms of 'leading the team', I think this just means who plays board one, as there is also the role of team captain, who is not one of the five players. So David Smerdon or ZYZ is not expected to be team captain as well and make those decisions and duties.

Vlad
16-04-2016, 06:05 PM
You may be right, but would he want this job? Compare last time, where he was apprehensive about leading in ZYZ's absence (http://www.davidsmerdon.com/?p=773) and you explained (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?13940-Olympiad-2012-in-Istanbul-(Aug-27-Sep-10)&p=343173&viewfull=1#post343173) by the Russian expression Ох, тяжела ты, шапка Мономаха! that you paraphrased as Heavy is the head that wears the crown.

But if he has earned this spot, then he should get it. I'm also not sure if players are permitted to step down a board voluntarily.

That was 4 years ago, not last time.:) 4-6 years ago ZYZ was the clear leader in the Australian team. I do not believe this is the case any more. As Yuan puts it himself - "nowadays we have a team of similar strength players".

Kevin Bonham
16-04-2016, 07:51 PM
I'm also not sure if players are permitted to step down a board voluntarily.

The By-Laws don't provide for such a thing but the ACF Council can override the By-Laws by passing a motion to that effect whenever it likes. There are some parts of the selection process for which overriding the By-Laws would be a dangerous step opening up possibilities of legal action, but a consensual re-ordering of the team with the agreement of all affected and the captains wouldn't be one of them.

This is all purely hypothetical of course as it has never actually been proposed.

Vlad
16-04-2016, 08:27 PM
That is something which is very good to know.

Capablanca-Fan
17-04-2016, 10:18 AM
That was 4 years ago, not last time.:) 4-6 years ago ZYZ was the clear leader in the Australian team. I do not believe this is the case any more. As Yuan puts it himself - "nowadays we have a team of similar strength players".

Time flies … you are probably right in all the above. Even when I was still living in Australia, Solo thought that ZYZ was clearly the best, being very strong in all departments of the game. But like Botvinnik who went from clear #1 to primus inter pares when he devoted too much time to his engineering work, ZYZ seems to have devoted a lot of time (quite reasonably) to pharmacology rather than chess and done the same.

pax
18-04-2016, 12:35 PM
Time flies … you are probably right in all the above. Even when I was still living in Australia, Solo thought that ZYZ was clearly the best, being very strong in all departments of the game. But like Botvinnik who went from clear #1 to primus inter pares when he devoted too much time to his engineering work, ZYZ seems to have devoted a lot of time (quite reasonably) to pharmacology rather than chess and done the same.

I've had a look at ZYZ's performances since the beginning of 2014: in that time, he has consistently performed a bit below his rating, averaging at about 2503 (using my logistic calculator using the ratings on the FIDE performance lists which sometimes means rating-400 instead of actual rating). While there's no doubt he is in the top five, it's no longer clear that he is top. There is probably a case for Yuan, David or Moulthun on board 1.

Vlad
18-04-2016, 08:33 PM
As a feature for chesschat readers I am thinking about running an independent survey of Australian based IMs and GMs. I do not want to affect the official selection, so the average result of this survey will not be available until the official results are known and the team is decided.

So any Australian based IMs and GMs, who are reading this and who are neither players nor selectors, are welcome to send me their selection. Thanks.

At this stage I have 3 votes.

AzureBlue
18-04-2016, 09:54 PM
Applicants' names, as well as all material provided to selectors - e.g. ratings file; applicant lists or summary of game or tournament results; and applicant comments - will all be published online at an address to be announced, and available for public scrutiny, after applications close.

Has this been published? Would be interesting to read applications and see recent tournament stats for all applicants.

Kevin Bonham
18-04-2016, 11:05 PM
Has this been published? Would be interesting to read applications and see recent tournament stats for all applicants.

I am wondering if that bit might have been copied in from a past call for selections in error because I have not heard anything more about it and the deadline for corrections to that material was ten days ago.

Bereaved
23-04-2016, 12:45 PM
So are we seeing the selections today/soon?

Take care and God bless, Bereaved

Kevin Bonham
23-04-2016, 01:03 PM
So are we seeing the selections today/soon?

Changes passed by the ACF prior to the 2014 Olympiad mean that the selections are only officially released after it is known there are no appeals, or after any appeals are resolved if there are any. Provisional selections that are still subject to possible appeals are not officially released at the time. In theory since they are sent to applicants by April 25 someone might unofficially release them but any such release shouldn't be relied upon. Based on the published calendar, the earliest date on which official release of the (final) selections is possible if there are no appeals is May 2.

ER
23-04-2016, 09:15 PM
Would I be close to the truth if I suggested that this has been one of the most successful polls (in regards to participation) in the history of ChessChat? Taking also under consideration the relatively short time that it has been on?

Kevin Bonham
24-04-2016, 12:07 AM
Would I be close to the truth if I suggested that this has been one of the most successful polls (in regards to participation) in the history of ChessChat? Taking also under consideration the relatively short time that it has been on?

Yep, see post I'm about to post on Forum Statistics thread.

MichaelBaron
24-04-2016, 12:20 AM
I gather the best way to find out what the selections are is to send FB messages to those who applied :)

Thebes
24-04-2016, 12:25 AM
MCC Club Championship already FIDE rated, Morris +1.7

ER
24-04-2016, 12:29 AM
Yep, see post I'm about to post on Forum Statistics thread.

Thanks Kevin, I just noticed!

Vlad
26-04-2016, 12:08 AM
The selections were not communicated to the players on the 25-th of April (there has been no email). I presume all schedule has to be shifted.

HAHAHAHA
26-04-2016, 08:02 PM
The selections were not communicated to the players on the 25-th of April (there has been no email). I presume all schedule has to be shifted.

Yes, weren't selected players meant to be notified by now. End day isn't it the sort of thing the longer selection takes the less time for Olympiad Preparation/training. Yes I know its only end April. But I have a hunch that team will do really well regardless of who gets picked.

Garvinator
26-04-2016, 08:19 PM
Yes, weren't selected players meant to be notified by now. End day isn't it the sort of thing the longer selection takes the less time for Olympiad Preparation/training. Yes I know its only end April. But I have a hunch that team will do really well regardless of who gets picked.
The original notification deadline being important is not about training. It is so all applicants are notified by the due date of who the selectors have chosen, and then any of the players who have missed out have a week to appeal.

So if the original date has been missed for notification, or if one person has not been notified, then the appeal deadline should be changed as well. This is why it is important.

Kevin Bonham
26-04-2016, 08:42 PM
So if the original date has been missed for notification, or if one person has not been notified, then the appeal deadline should be changed as well.

This happens automatically as a result of the By-Laws. It is always seven days to appeal.

ER
26-04-2016, 08:55 PM
The original notification deadline being important is not about training.

Well selected or not won't a bit of training wouldn't hurt their feelings would it??? :P :)

Btw I like HAHAHAHA's (I hope I got the number of HAs right) attitude:


But I have a hunch that team will do really well regardless of who gets picked.

:clap:

Vlad
26-04-2016, 09:39 PM
Apparently, this is a good example of ACF's right hand not knowing what ACF's left foot is doing. While ACF newsletter advertised that the selectors are to submit their selections by the 22-nd, the director instructed the selectors to submit them by the 27-th. ;)

Kevin Bonham
26-04-2016, 09:56 PM
Apparently, this is a good example of ACF's right hand not knowing what ACF's left foot is doing.

It's not a case of any such thing (except that I didn't know until today, but I'm not actually officially relevant to the process). The ACF Newsletter advertised that schedule at the end of February (and also earlier). The delay arose in the last few weeks, well after the schedule was released.

Vlad
26-04-2016, 10:24 PM
Would you expect a civilized organization to send an email to all applicants notifying them about the change of the schedule?;)

Kevin Bonham
27-04-2016, 11:16 AM
Post deleted

A post has been deleted because it may have been in breach of the following Chesschat rule:


* Private communications of any sort, including but not limited to PMs, emails and letters, may not be posted or quoted publicly (including elsewhere in the case of PMs or emails from this site) without the written consent of the author(s) of all material being quoted. A communication is private if its author has, or may reasonably have, an expectation of confidentiality. Exceptions include tournament announcements, newsletters and some other materials with a wide circulation that are clearly not in confidence. Internal proceedings of chess organisations and businesses are in confidence unless stated otherwise no matter how many recipients there are.

If it turns out that the poster had written permission to post the email then the post will be reinstated.

If anyone wishes to discuss this, this may be done in the Help and Feedback section of the forum only - any discussion of this notice posted to this thread will be deleted.

Vlad
29-04-2016, 07:19 PM
As a feature for chesschat readers I am thinking about running an independent survey of Australian based IMs and GMs. I do not want to affect the official selection, so the average result of this survey will not be available until the official results are known and the team is decided.

So any Australian based IMs and GMs, who are reading this and who are neither players nor selectors, are welcome to send me their selection. Thanks.

At this stage I have 3 votes.

Well, the selections have been communicated to the applicants but I will not be posting them. Sorry.:cool:

As I promised I post the selections of 3 unofficial selectors: GM Ian Rogers, IM Leonid Sandler and myself (IM Vladimir Smirnov):

1. David Smerdon
2. Moulthun Ly
3. Zong-Yuan Zhao
4. Anton Smirnov
5. Max Illingworth

Ian Rout
29-04-2016, 07:32 PM
Well, the selections have been communicated to the applicants but I will not be posting them. Sorry.:cool:

As I promised I post the selections of 3 unofficial selectors: GM Ian Rogers, IM Leonid Sandler and myself (IM Vladimir Smirnov):

1. David Smerdon
2. Moulthun Ly
3. Zong-Yuan Zhao
4. Anton Smirnov
5. Max IllingworthDid the unofficial selectors nominate reserves or just the first-choice team?

Ian_Rogers
29-04-2016, 07:43 PM
I should note that the unofficial selectors asked for an opinion by Vlad did not have the comprehensive data which was sent to the official selectors.
The five official selectors came up with

1. David Smerdon
2. Zong-Yuan Zhao
3. Moulthun Ly
4. Anton Smirnov
5. Max Illingworth
----------
6. James Morris
7. Justin Tan
8. Bobby Cheng
9. Gary Lane
10. Junta Ikeda
11. Karl Zelesco

which will be the order for the Open team for Baku unless there are protests.

Vlad
29-04-2016, 10:31 PM
The only change from the previous team is that Junta is replaced by Yuan. The average age has increased from 22 to 25, as not only everybody is 2 years older but also Yuan is 5 years older than Junta.

jammo
29-04-2016, 11:10 PM
I should note that the unofficial selectors asked for an opinion by Vlad did not have the comprehensive data which was sent to the official selectors.
The five official selectors came up with

1. David Smerdon
2. Zong-Yuan Zhao
3. Moulthun Ly
4. Anton Smirnov
5. Max Illingworth
----------
6. James Morris
7. Justin Tan
8. Bobby Cheng
9. Gary Lane
10. Junta Ikeda
11. Karl Zelesco

which will be the order for the Open team for Baku unless there are protests.

Hmm. It seems that the ACF Selectors have something in common with the Australian Cricket selectors.

Ian_Rogers
29-04-2016, 11:23 PM
Hmm. It seems that the ACF Selectors have something in common with the Australian Cricket selectors.

That's not fair to the cricket selectors - they did include a Victorian player (Chris Rogers!) in the Australian team for a while.

Vlad
29-04-2016, 11:24 PM
Hmm. It seems that the ACF Selectors have something in common with the Australian Cricket selectors.

Why is that? Because one player is different from what you would have chosen?

Well, my selection was

1. David
2. Molton
3. Anton
4. Yuan
5. Justin

So I also lost one player. But I do appreciate that the majority of Australian players think that Max deserves to be on the team...

MichaelBaron
30-04-2016, 11:01 AM
I also got 4 out of 5 (I had Morris on board 5 instead of Illingworth). Also, I had different board order for Zhao and Smerdon. In any case, the team is looking quite strong.

Ian Rout
30-04-2016, 02:58 PM
That's not fair to the cricket selectors - they did include a Victorian player (Chris Rogers!) in the Australian team for a while.
Ian would know better than me, but I understood that the other Rogers was born in NSW.

As to the original point, it should be noted that the selectors don't pick a team or even pick single players, they vote individually for a pecking order and the rankings are collated. If it was an eight-player team the selectors' votes would have picked three Victorians, above pro-rata to national population. If it was a three-player team they would have picked two Queenslanders and one from not far away. So it's really FIDE that has determined the geographic composition of the team, not the selectors.

Retturning to the subject of cricket, I believe Australia is currently number one in the Test rankings and holds the one-day World Cup, so possibly they are getting something right. (I think there may have been the odd Victorian in the latest T20 squad.)

jammo
30-04-2016, 03:23 PM
But I do appreciate that the majority of Australian players think that Max deserves to be on the team...

Do they? And you established this how?

Andy009
30-04-2016, 03:30 PM
It will be a great disappointment if James Morris is not in the team.He is in great form with excellent recent tournament wins and sure will perform well at the olympiad.

SharathGM
30-04-2016, 03:41 PM
If Australia needs to perform well in Olympiad,James need to be in the Team.

Gattaca
30-04-2016, 04:07 PM
No problem.

Just point out to professional chessplayer and GM elect Max Illingworth that Australia 'can't perform well' unless he surrenders his place to James and that should repair the terrible damage to our chances done by the selectors.


Really, you get some amazing stuff on here... (shakes head)


Objectivity
Noun
Striving (as far as possible or practicable) to reduce or eliminate biases, prejudices, or subjective evaluations by relying on verifiable data.

Vlad
30-04-2016, 04:14 PM
Do they? And you established this how?

I find it bizarre that I am defending the inclusion of Max in the team given that I personally ranked him very low (in the 7-th position).

However, it is hard to argue with the data...

1) In the pool above Max is winning with 24 votes against 23 votes for James and 6 votes for Bobby. Note that both James and his mum participated, so the margin could actually be bigger.
2) The 5 official selectors ended up choosing Max.
3) The 3 unofficial selectors ended up choosing Max.

What else can one really do? It is very sad that James, Justin and Bobby miss out. Pretty much any other year they will be selected.

Garvinator
30-04-2016, 04:20 PM
What else can one really do? It is very sad that James, Justin and Bobby miss out. Pretty much any other year they will be selected.And I think this same argument could have been made if any of the three you had mentioned were selected depending on your point of view. We all knew it was going to be close between about eight candidates and three or so were going to be unlucky. This is just how it fell.

As Ian Rogers has said, the selectors had all the data in front of them and other information that we do not and they have made their decision. Of course a player could appeal.

Altecman
30-04-2016, 05:29 PM
What is the role of the unofficial selectors, and was the conflict of interest of Vlad being involved waived? The title of "unofficial selector" would make one believe that they have some influence to the selection of the team, if this is the case, what were the reasons for such a serious conflict of interest being waived?

Vlad
30-04-2016, 05:40 PM
Nope, nothing to do with the official selection. If you do not like this term - you may as well completely ignore this result.

I agree that there is a bias but as Anton was not marginal, I thought it could be interesting info. In addition, my ranking of James was higher than Max. So which bias are you concerned with??

Altecman
30-04-2016, 05:48 PM
My bias in concerned with the fact that a conflict of interest exists, and it needs to be both disclosed and waived. Its irrelevant that Anton would be picked in any event, as members of the ACF we're entitled to ensure that the ACF selections committee follows procedure. The ACF is an incorporated not for profit association, and has to follow prescribed procedures in relation to internal management, a conflict of interest falls within that purview. If you say that your role as an unofficial selector falls outside the scope of having a decision or opinion that can affect the official selectors then that is acceptable. That's why I requested for what the formal role of an unofficial selector is.

Kevin Bonham
30-04-2016, 05:56 PM
What is the role of the unofficial selectors, and was the conflict of interest of Vlad being involved waived? The title of "unofficial selector" would make one believe that they have some influence to the selection of the team, if this is the case, what were the reasons for such a serious conflict of interest being waived?

There is no role and they have no influence. It is nothing to do with the ACF or the formal selections process whatsoever. They are just observers who Vlad has decided to call "unofficial selectors" after taking a straw poll of three people with IM+ titles who were not official selectors. Anyone could have called themselves an "unofficial selector" but it doesn't mean a thing.

Altecman
30-04-2016, 05:59 PM
There is no role and they have no influence. It is nothing to do with the ACF or the formal selections process whatsoever. They are just observers who Vlad has decided to call "unofficial selectors" after taking a straw poll of three people with IM+ titles who were not official selectors. Anyone could have called themselves an "unofficial selector" but it doesn't mean a thing.

Thank you Kevin for the clarification. I'm not making the argument in relation to Anton's selection, I am only focused on the procedure, who was picked is irrelevant in this regard. I do request further clarification however, if they have no role with the ACF or selections what do you mean by they "observe" because I believe the ACF selects them to "observe"?

Thebes
30-04-2016, 06:00 PM
Also not sure why Morris' mum voting on the poll is very relevant, maybe she should've been invited as an unofficial selector instead

Kevin Bonham
30-04-2016, 06:12 PM
I do request further clarification however, if they have no role with the ACF or selections what do you mean by they "observe" because I believe the ACF selects them to "observe"?

No. I cannot stress this strongly enough. The ACF has absolutely no role whatsoever in the fact that a few people have called themselves "unofficial selectors" (or been so-called by one of their number). They are just the same as anyone who is looking on and making comments on this thread. They have absolutely no ACF-appointed role in the selections process or anything to do with it, whatsoever, at all, period. The ACF does not select "observers" of the selections process.

Altecman
30-04-2016, 06:21 PM
No. I cannot stress this strongly enough. The ACF has absolutely no role whatsoever in the fact that a few people have called themselves "unofficial selectors" (or been so-called by one of their number). They are just the same as anyone who is looking on and making comments on this thread. They have absolutely no ACF-appointed role in the selections process or anything to do with it, whatsoever, at all, period. The ACF does not select "observers" of the selections process.

Alright, can you explain why Vlad specified that Rogers, Sandler and himself were in the same capacity? I understand that anyone could call themselves unofficial selectors, so was this simply a title they gave themselves with no ACF involvement? It just seems strange that 3 people would classify themselves as in a different class in contrast to all other ACF members if the ACF had not given them a role themselves.

Kevin Bonham
30-04-2016, 06:26 PM
Alright, can you explain why Vlad specified that Rogers, Sandler and himself were in the same capacity?

Simply because they are two people who agreed to be part of his exercise. He limited his exercise to players with certain titles.


I understand that anyone could call themselves unofficial selectors, so was this simply a title they gave themselves with no ACF involvement?

Entirely correct.


It just seems strange that 3 people would classify themselves as in a different class in contrast to all other ACF members if the ACF had not given them a role themselves.

People do strange things sometimes.

Altecman
30-04-2016, 06:31 PM
Simply because they are two people who agreed to be part of his exercise. He limited his exercise to players with certain titles.



Entirely correct.



People do strange things sometimes.

Alright, thanks Kevin. I appreciate the quick response.

SharathGM
30-04-2016, 06:39 PM
It is not about objectivity but recognizing performance.

Ian Rout
30-04-2016, 06:43 PM
Perhaps a reference back to post 132 might short-circuit some grabbing of wrong ends of sticks:

http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?16387-2016-Open-Olympiad-Selections-Discussion&p=409478&viewfull=1#post409478

Altecman
30-04-2016, 06:46 PM
Perhaps a reference back to post 132 might short-circuit some grabbing of wrong ends of sticks:

http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?16387-2016-Open-Olympiad-Selections-Discussion&p=409478&viewfull=1#post409478

Thanks Ian, my concerns have been satisfied. I was only curious to the definition of their role if any.

Altecman
30-04-2016, 06:50 PM
It is not about objectivity but recognizing performance.

Performance can't be recognized objectively?

Ian Rout
30-04-2016, 06:57 PM
Thanks Ian, my concerns have been satisfied. I was only curious to the definition of their role if any.Yes, I was thinking maybe others might come in late.

Bulldozer
30-04-2016, 07:52 PM
What about personal responsibility of the selectors? I'd like that the selectors not demonstrating a good predictive power will be suspended from the next poll(s).

Garvinator
30-04-2016, 08:38 PM
What about personal responsibility of the selectors? I'd like that the selectors not demonstrating a good predictive power will be suspended from the next poll(s).
What are you talking about in all seriousness? Explain yourself.

Kevin Bonham
30-04-2016, 08:56 PM
As there seems to be no limit to how confused people might be about the process, just to be absolutely clear, the poll on this thread did not select the team either. The team was selected by the combined votes of a panel of five selectors appointed by the ACF at the recommendation of the Selections Director. The votes of individual selectors are typically known only to the Selections Director and, for oversight purposes, the ACF President.

Kevin Bonham
30-04-2016, 09:50 PM
What are you talking about in all seriousness? Explain yourself.

I assumed he was just saying that if selectors rank players who perform poorly highly (or rank players who perform well poorly) then they shouldn't be used as selectors again for a while. The problem with this is that there are unpredictable elements - someone might just have a good or bad event whatever their performance - so judging a selector from the results of one olympiad is like judging a player from the results of five games. Alex Wohl had one superb Olympiad and a number of bad ones, but that doesn't mean anyone should have predicted those performances either way. When I was SD I was more interested in whether selectors were reliable, unbiased and expressing sensible reasons for decisions (or at least not expressing stupid ones.)

Bulldozer
30-04-2016, 10:38 PM
I assumed he was just saying that if selectors rank players who perform poorly highly (or rank players who perform well poorly) then they shouldn't be used as selectors again for a while.
Correct.


The problem with this is that there are unpredictable elements - someone might just have a good or bad event whatever their performance - so judging a selector from the results of one olympiad is like judging a player from the results of five games.
No need in high certainty in judging selectors. For instance, a poor prediction (below the average) of a random selector means with certainty > 50% that he is likely to be worse than another random selector, so there is no sense to keep him for the next event. It's better to pick another random one from the same pool. We have a lot of good potential selectors - tens or hundreds. They don't need even to be strong chess players. More important that they have a good sense of probability. It's their job to predict who will likely perform better, and let us judge by their results.


reliable, unbiased and expressing sensible reasons for decisions (or at least not expressing stupid ones.)
Unbiasedness is the must of course.

Vlad
30-04-2016, 10:53 PM
I strongly disagree with the previous statement. In my opinion, a good selector for the Australian Open Team has to be at least 2300+. There are not that many players with this rating. So you can't just throw away selectors who have been unlucky...

The explanation by Kevin had a lot of sense. I think he was very good SD. We should start petition - Kevin, please come back...:)

Kevin Bonham
30-04-2016, 11:25 PM
No need in high certainty in judging selectors. For instance, a poor prediction (below the average) of a random selector means with certainty > 50% that he is likely to be worse than another random selector, so there is no sense to keep him for the next event.

There are a number of hidden assumptions here, among them:

* That a selector's skills do not improve with experience.
* That if a selector is replaced who would otherwise have been picked, a "random selector" who replaces them should be expected to be as good as the average of selectors in the past.
* That it is possible to compare between different selections objectively. Some years are easier than others. It wasn't difficult to predict that Anton would probably outperform his rating if picked in 2014, for example.


It's better to pick another random one from the same pool. We have a lot of good potential selectors - tens or hundreds.

We can only use those who are available, willing and not conflicted. The ACF selector panel from which selectors are chosen has about 30 names on it (haven't checked the exact number recently). Of these some are inactive, some are applicants, and some have conflicts of interest or possible biases, or decline when asked because of being too busy.

Possibly a call for expressions of interest would find some more good selectors - there hasn't been such a public call for a long time. However, in my experience, not many.

Capablanca-Fan
30-04-2016, 11:50 PM
I strongly disagree with the previous statement. In my opinion, a good selector for the Australian Open Team has to be at least 2300+. There are not that many players with this rating. So you can't just throw away selectors who have been unlucky...
There is something to be said for selectors being good players themselves, and even better if they have had Olympiad experience themselves. Certainly selectors should be judged on the basis of what could be reasonably known at the time, not with 20/20 hindsight.


The explanation by Kevin had a lot of sense. I think he was very good SD. We should start petition - Kevin, please come back...:)
I agree. But the current selectors likewise seem sensible. In the last few Olympiads, their selections have independently matched the Chesschat polls, although (fortunately) they were not poll-driven. Here, they chose the names picked by the plurality here, except maybe a different board order. I didn't expect ZYZ to be Board 3, but the information that you and Smurfo provided about recent 2600+ performances goes a long way to explaining that, and the selectors undoubtedly had that information and more.

Sir Cromulent Sparkles
01-05-2016, 01:10 AM
Congrats to those selected.

Best of luck.

Bulldozer
01-05-2016, 05:31 AM
There are a number of hidden assumptions here, among them:

* That a selector's skills do not improve with experience.
One Olympiad doesn't give a lot of experience. If you want experience, all candidates might be trained and evaluated participating in polls like this.



* That it is possible to compare between different selections objectively. Some years are easier than others.

There is information for comparison from one year. I didn't think about different years. Why not though? Comparison of different years' results is not that straightforward but still possible. Come on, ACF was able to understand and modify even Glicko. Create some rating for selectors. They need a feedback. :)

Ian Rout
01-05-2016, 10:29 AM
ACF was able to understand and modify even Glicko. Create some rating for selectors.When typing this, did you notice the irony in having selectors rather than choosing the team on ratings, but then having ratings to choose the selectors?

In principle it may be possible to somehow correlate a selector's votes with the performances of the players they vote for but in practice there are a number of factors that make it meaningless. Players are often playing to the match situation rather than for themselves; the opposition's rating may be inaccurate; the player may be ill; you don't have a selector rating for people who were not selectors so you can only compare within the panel; and perhaps the biggest point - the system can't evaluate the wisdom of votes for or against players who weren't selected, the sillier a vote is the more likely that it gets voted down by the other selectors and goes unpunished.

MichaelBaron
01-05-2016, 12:43 PM
I already wrote here on several occasions that I would rate James and Justin (and possibly Bobby who is current Australian Champion) higher than Max). However, now that the selection has been made, I think unless there is a formal review, nothing is going to change anyway but discussions of why someone else should be selected may put Max under more pressure when he is playing and may make it harder for him to play his best.

Also, I think voting was decided by order in which boards were allocated rather than being selected overall. Roughly same number of selectors voted for Max and James but some placed Max on higher boards and that decided the voting (I may be wrong in assuming this so please correct me If I am wrong). If this is the case then if I am for instance a selector and want James to be selected, what I can do is - place James on board 3 even though I feel that Molthun and Anton deserve to be placed higher...but I know that they will be selected anyway, so by putting James/Max/Justin on a higher board I am making a strong ''positional move'' to secure selection of the candidate that I believe is the strongest of the board 5 contenders. However, I trust that all of the selectors did not play such ''positional games'' and simply rated the applicants in order of their perceived strength.

Kevin Bonham
01-05-2016, 01:12 PM
Also, I think voting was decided by order in which boards were allocated rather than being selected overall.

Yes - each selector ranks the candidates and the rankings are summed. So for instance if player A has three 1 rankings and two 3 rankings, and player B has two 1 rankings and three 2 rankings, then player B is board 1 and player A is board 2.


Roughly same number of selectors voted for Max and James but some placed Max on higher boards and that decided the voting (I may be wrong in assuming this so please correct me If I am wrong).

So you're assuming something you don't know to be fact, then asserting it as if it is fact, and inviting people to correct you if you are wrong. The only people who should know if you are wrong or not are the Selections Director and the ACF President and they are certainly not going to comment. Basically unless you have some basis in fact for your assumption - like talking to every single selector - it should just be completely ignored.

As for the rest of the post, the possibility of strategic voting is a weakness of the current system in theory. However in the years when I was SD I didn't see a single clearcut or even suspicious possible case of it. An alternative would be to have a system that effectively "elected" each board in order but the arguable weakness of that is that when three selectors have a certain view then the input of the other two carries no weight at all.

SharathGM
01-05-2016, 06:09 PM
I already wrote here on several occasions that I would rate James and Justin (and possibly Bobby who is current Australian Champion) higher than Max). However, now that the selection has been made, I think unless there is a formal review, nothing is going to change anyway but discussions of why someone else should be selected may put Max under more pressure when he is playing and may make it harder for him to play his best.

Also, I think voting was decided by order in which boards were allocated rather than being selected overall. Roughly same number of selectors voted for Max and James but some placed Max on higher boards and that decided the voting (I may be wrong in assuming this so please correct me If I am wrong). If this is the case then if I am for instance a selector and want James to be selected, what I can do is - place James on board 3 even though I feel that Molthun and Anton deserve to be placed higher...but I know that they will be selected anyway, so by putting James/Max/Justin on a higher board I am making a strong ''positional move'' to secure selection of the candidate that I believe is the strongest of the board 5 contenders. However, I trust that all of the selectors did not play such ''positional games'' and simply rated the applicants in order of their perceived strength.

:hmm::hmm:

David Webster
01-05-2016, 06:33 PM
Hard to see why this is controversial to be honest. The selectors have chosen the five highest rated players. Four of them were almost unanimous choices in the poll above. The fifth place was a choice between recent form and long-term strength and they have gone with the latter. You can say that you would have chosen differently, but it's hard to argue that the selectors' choices were unreasonable.

There's also no foundation for what Michael Baron said above. It's entirely possible that all five selectors had Max in their top five. Or perhaps it was close between him and Anton for the 4th place and he missed out because one selector ranked Justin and/or James above him. We don't have enough information to say.

I would have thought that the most interesting/controversial selection is the Board 1 choice, but I absolutely understand that one as well given Smerdon's excellent results in Europe and the fact that Zhao hasn't been playing as much.

Frank
01-05-2016, 08:50 PM
Why have Olympiad selections been disclosed prior to expiration of appeal period and official ACF announcement?

Kevin Bonham
01-05-2016, 09:01 PM
Why have Olympiad selections been disclosed prior to expiration of appeal period and official ACF announcement?

They have to be sent to the applicants so that the applicants can decide whether to appeal them or not. There is then nothing to prevent applicants - even if asked not to do so - from sending them to someone who then decides to post them here.

The ACF used to officially release the provisional (pre-appeal) selections once they were determined, but prior to the 2014 Olympiad decided to stop doing so. I didn't oppose the change but I am struggling to see what benefit it has given that people just "leak" what are claimed to be the provisional selections anyway.

Garvinator
01-05-2016, 11:02 PM
The ACF used to officially release the provisional (pre-appeal) selections once they were determined, but prior to the 2014 Olympiad decided to stop doing so. I didn't oppose the change but I am struggling to see what benefit it has given that people just "leak" what are claimed to be the provisional selections anyway.
Whilst I can understand the motives for not wanting to release the official team list until the appeal period is finished, this does go against how almost all sports run their appeal process, I believe. They will announce their official team list and then give their standard period for any appeals, if the sport has an appeal process.

Australian Swimming until this Olympics being an example of a sport that did not have an appeals process, but they changed their regulations to something like 'exceptional circumstances'.

As has been shown, the idea of being able to not have the 'official' list for both teams not being released is almost impossible, so I think it is probably in the ACF's interest if they were at least in control of the release of the information by releasing the team list themselves on their webpage on the stated date.

Denis_Jessop
02-05-2016, 01:03 AM
I already wrote here on several occasions that I would rate James and Justin (and possibly Bobby who is current Australian Champion) higher than Max). However, now that the selection has been made, I think unless there is a formal review, nothing is going to change anyway but discussions of why someone else should be selected may put Max under more pressure when he is playing and may make it harder for him to play his best.

Also, I think voting was decided by order in which boards were allocated rather than being selected overall. Roughly same number of selectors voted for Max and James but some placed Max on higher boards and that decided the voting (I may be wrong in assuming this so please correct me If I am wrong). If this is the case then if I am for instance a selector and want James to be selected, what I can do is - place James on board 3 even though I feel that Molthun and Anton deserve to be placed higher...but I know that they will be selected anyway, so by putting James/Max/Justin on a higher board I am making a strong ''positional move'' to secure selection of the candidate that I believe is the strongest of the board 5 contenders. However, I trust that all of the selectors did not play such ''positional games'' and simply rated the applicants in order of their perceived strength.

Michael, if you were a selector, it would be wrong of you to act as you suggest. Selectors are required by the Selections By-law to make their selections on the criterion of playing strength. To rank a player above others you believe to be stronger (ie deserve to be placed higher) would be in contravention of the selector's duty under the By-law.

DJ

Frank
02-05-2016, 03:10 AM
They have to be sent to the applicants so that the applicants can decide whether to appeal them or not. There is then nothing to prevent applicants - even if asked not to do so - from sending them to someone who then decides to post them here.

The ACF used to officially release the provisional (pre-appeal) selections once they were determined, but prior to the 2014 Olympiad decided to stop doing so. I didn't oppose the change but I am struggling to see what benefit it has given that people just "leak" what are claimed to be the provisional selections anyway.

Agreed.

Frank
02-05-2016, 03:12 AM
Whilst I can understand the motives for not wanting to release the official team list until the appeal period is finished, this does go against how almost all sports run their appeal process, I believe. They will announce their official team list and then give their standard period for any appeals, if the sport has an appeal process.

Australian Swimming until this Olympics being an example of a sport that did not have an appeals process, but they changed their regulations to something like 'exceptional circumstances'.

As has been shown, the idea of being able to not have the 'official' list for both teams not being released is almost impossible, so I think it is probably in the ACF's interest if they were at least in control of the release of the information by releasing the team list themselves on their webpage on the stated date.

Yep.

pax
02-05-2016, 10:33 AM
Also, I think voting was decided by order in which boards were allocated rather than being selected overall. Roughly same number of selectors voted for Max and James but some placed Max on higher boards and that decided the voting (I may be wrong in assuming this so please correct me If I am wrong). If this is the case then if I am for instance a selector and want James to be selected, what I can do is - place James on board 3 even though I feel that Molthun and Anton deserve to be placed higher...but I know that they will be selected anyway, so by putting James/Max/Justin on a higher board I am making a strong ''positional move'' to secure selection of the candidate that I believe is the strongest of the board 5 contenders. However, I trust that all of the selectors did not play such ''positional games'' and simply rated the applicants in order of their perceived strength.

I'm sure the selectors clearly understand that this kind of positional voting is not permitted. A good SD could reasonably (as KB mentioned) not invite a selector again if they provided a ranking which could not be justified given the data available.

pax
02-05-2016, 01:42 PM
I should note that the unofficial selectors asked for an opinion by Vlad did not have the comprehensive data which was sent to the official selectors.
The five official selectors came up with

1. David Smerdon
2. Zong-Yuan Zhao
3. Moulthun Ly
4. Anton Smirnov
5. Max Illingworth
----------
6. James Morris
7. Justin Tan
8. Bobby Cheng
9. Gary Lane
10. Junta Ikeda
11. Karl Zelesco

which will be the order for the Open team for Baku unless there are protests.

Congratulations to the selected candidates. I very much hope that there are no appeals. Although at least three of the candidates who missed out had good claims for selection, this was surely the toughest selection in the history of the Australian team. I have no doubt that all three of those players will make very important contributions to Australia's Olympiad teams in the future.

Adamski
02-05-2016, 01:46 PM
However, it is hard to argue with the data...

1) In the pool above Max is winning with 24 votes against 23 votes for James and 6 votes for Bobby. Note that both James and his mum participated, so the margin could actually be bigger.
2) The 5 official selectors ended up choosing Max.
3) The 3 unofficial selectors ended up choosing Max.

What else can one really do? It is very sad that James, Justin and Bobby miss out. Pretty much any other year they will be selected.
Agreed. The main reason Max did so poorly at Doeberl was personal circumstances that I am not going to disclose here. And I think he is now a GM, no longer a GM-elect. He had to be in the team, IMHO.

simdeaf
02-05-2016, 02:19 PM
Agreed. The main reason Max did so poorly at Doeberl was personal circumstances that I am not going to disclose here. And I think he is now a GM, no longer a GM-elect. He had to be in the team, IMHO.

It is absolutely none of my business what Max's personal circumstances are, however I would presume that the selectors are aware of those circumstances and in their judgement those circumstances would not hamper Max's performance at Baku in September. This reinforces a point I made earlier in this forum about telephone interviews - this sort of (personal) information is relevant in selection so it is not just about playing strength. Can't play good chess if your mind is elsewhere or health poor, no matter what your title is.

Max (and the rest of the team), all the best for Baku!

lost
06-05-2016, 03:46 PM
I should note that the unofficial selectors asked for an opinion by Vlad did not have the comprehensive data which was sent to the official selectors.
The five official selectors came up with

1. David Smerdon
2. Zong-Yuan Zhao
3. Moulthun Ly
4. Anton Smirnov
5. Max Illingworth
----------
6. James Morris
7. Justin Tan
8. Bobby Cheng
9. Gary Lane
10. Junta Ikeda
11. Karl Zelesco

which will be the order for the Open team for Baku unless there are protests.

Has there been any appeal lodged at all?

lost

Kevin Bonham
06-05-2016, 07:49 PM
Has there been any appeal lodged at all?

lost

I have not heard of one, but that does not necessarily mean there hasn't been one.

Anyway, if the provisional selections were sent to applicants on 29 April, the appeal window would probably not close until midnight tonight.

Desmond
06-05-2016, 07:54 PM
Congrats to those selected.

Best of luck.

Ditto

lost
07-05-2016, 10:01 PM
I have not heard of one, but that does not necessarily mean there hasn't been one.

Anyway, if the provisional selections were sent to applicants on 29 April, the appeal window would probably not close until midnight tonight.

Since there is no appeals being registered I wish the Open team all the best in the Olympiad.

lost

Capablanca-Fan
08-05-2016, 02:53 AM
Since there is no appeals being registered I wish the Open team all the best in the Olympiad.

lost

Absolutely. And same for the Women's team. Will there be a different sort of Olympiad appeal, i.e. an appeal to help defray costs?

Andrew Hardegen
08-05-2016, 04:19 PM
Absolutely. And same for the Women's team. Will there be a different sort of Olympiad appeal, i.e. an appeal to help defray costs?

Yes there is -- here is the ACF Olympiad Appeal website: http://www.acfappeal.aunz.org/

Good luck to both Australian teams.

Kaitlin
08-05-2016, 05:43 PM
Yes there is -- here is the ACF Olympiad Appeal website: http://www.acfappeal.aunz.org/

Good luck to both Australian teams.

I'll do fund raising :)

Kaitlin
08-05-2016, 06:23 PM
Yes there is -- here is the ACF Olympiad Appeal website: http://www.acfappeal.aunz.org/

Good luck to both Australian teams.

Is the link working for people to put their name ... on Android it just brings up a screen with "Form Object" title and nothing else. But it must work on desktop or something because there is names in the list.

Andrew Hardegen
08-05-2016, 08:12 PM
I'll do fund raising :)

I'm sure the players will appreciate it. Each individual contribution will help to get them closer to Baku!


Is the link working for people to put their name ... on Android it just brings up a screen with "Form Object" title and nothing else. But it must work on desktop or something because there is names in the list.

Yeah, it didn't work on my phone either. It works on my PC.

Frank
08-05-2016, 09:33 PM
Only now do I see and appreciate in its entirety the result of the collegiate labour that goes into the careful selection of our national teams. Especially is this true for the man in the hot seat, ACF Selections Director Tom Saltmarsh

Capablanca-Fan
09-05-2016, 12:14 PM
Yes there is -- here is the ACF Olympiad Appeal website: http://www.acfappeal.aunz.org/

Good luck to both Australian teams.

Very good.

Any news on the team captain selections?

Kevin Bonham
09-05-2016, 08:41 PM
Very good.

Any news on the team captain selections?

They haven't been done yet. Suspect a week away or a bit more.

Narelle
24-05-2016, 12:15 AM
Have the team captains been chosen for either team yet?

Vlad
01-06-2016, 12:30 AM
Using an average of ACF and FIDE ratings one can get the following list... Players 3-6 are within 12 point difference.




2553 Zhao, Zong-Yuan [GM]
2529 Smerdon, David C [GM]
2498 Smirnov, Anton [IM]
2490 Illingworth, Max [GM]
2489 Ly, Moulthun [IM]
2486 Morris, James [IM]
2459 Cheng, Bobby [IM]
2449 Tan, Justin [IM]

Kevin Bonham
01-06-2016, 02:23 AM
Have the team captains been chosen for either team yet?

Yes, the incumbents (Manuel Weeks and Ian Rogers) have been retained, as noted in the Newsletter. Apologies for not replying to this post sooner.

A call for Head of Delegation applicants was also included in the Newsletter.

Davidflude
20-06-2016, 07:55 PM
Manual Weeks and ian Rogers are obvious selections. Both have performed admirably in the past.

As far as the team selection is concerned this is a thankless task. No matter who the selectors pick there will be disagreements. Australian chess as a whole is steadily improving and in my opinion the candidates for selection are also improving. The task of team selection is not going to get any easier in future years. We really need to address the question of who are the selectors. I am not complaining about the current team as selected.

Personally I think that no state should have more than one selector. This may seem overkill but the selection of Australian cricket teams indicates that Victorians do not get a fair go from New South Welshmen. Again the present government spends far more on infrastructure in New South Wales than in Victoria. As for arts funding the bias in favour of New south wales is shonky.

I know that the New South Wales drongos think that coalition voters are rusted on and would not vote labour if hell was freezing over. May I suggest to any coalition voters that they make a protest vote by voting for the nationals This could cost the libs several lower house seats.

Adamski
24-06-2016, 02:22 PM
Manual Weeks and ian Rogers are obvious selections. Both have performed admirably in the past.

As far as the team selection is concerned this is a thankless task. No matter who the selectors pick there will be disagreements. Australian chess as a whole is steadily improving and in my opinion the candidates for selection are also improving. The task of team selection is not going to get any easier in future years. We really need to address the question of who are the selectors. I am not complaining about the current team as selected.

Personally I think that no state should have more than one selector. This may seem overkill but the selection of Australian cricket teams indicates that Victorians do not get a fair go from New South Welshmen. Again the present government spends far more on infrastructure in New South Wales than in Victoria. As for arts funding the bias in favour of New south wales is shonky.

I know that the New South Wales drongos think that coalition voters are rusted on and would not vote labour if hell was freezing over. May I suggest to any coalition voters that they make a protest vote by voting for the nationals This could cost the libs several lower house seats.A curious yet interesting combination of 3 diverse issues by David. Olympiad team selection, State representation and the General Election on 2 July.

MichaelBaron
25-06-2016, 12:43 AM
Manual Weeks and ian Rogers are obvious selections. Both have performed admirably in the past.

As far as the team selection is concerned this is a thankless task. No matter who the selectors pick there will be disagreements. Australian chess as a whole is steadily improving and in my opinion the candidates for selection are also improving. The task of team selection is not going to get any easier in future years. We really need to address the question of who are the selectors. I am not complaining about the current team as selected.

Personally I think that no state should have more than one selector. This may seem overkill but the selection of Australian cricket teams indicates that Victorians do not get a fair go from New South Welshmen. Again the present government spends far more on infrastructure in New South Wales than in Victoria. As for arts funding the bias in favour of New south wales is shonky.

I know that the New South Wales drongos think that coalition voters are rusted on and would not vote labour if hell was freezing over. May I suggest to any coalition voters that they make a protest vote by voting for the nationals This could cost the libs several lower house seats.
Well, as far as chess selections are concerned - I do not think it matters which state the selectors are are from...