PDA

View Full Version : Olympiad selections [2004]



Pages : 1 [2] 3

Garvinator
28-01-2004, 11:06 AM
Do they have golf at the olympics?

not yet ;)

ok now you want team olympic sports that are selected. well actually athletics is selected by a panel, but yes the athetes have to meet basic set criteria.

So ill try a little harder.

Ok i think i might have come up with a better sport that is individual based but competed in as teams. I have a friend who is in gymnastics so Ill check with her. The sport is gymnastics. Each country selects six athletes i think to represent the country in the team all around event(meaning all team members compete on each apparatus)

jase
28-01-2004, 12:24 PM
What about Equestrian?

Seems to be a strong correlation with Chess, in terms of individuals competing within a team environment.

Don't know what their selection process is.

Kevin Bonham
28-01-2004, 03:27 PM
Your argument is you believe a panel of selectors will pick a stronger team than any artifical method. By that argument you would also replace the rating system by a panel of handicappers who would assign ratings to all players. Due to labour constraints maybe just the players who they consider to be the top 20 players.

I thought he was applying it more to the idea of selection based on one tournament than necessarily to any artificial method one could possibly think of.

It would be interesting to look statistically at how successful selectors were when attempting to second-guess ratings as a measure of player strength. The need for selection arises in cases where a player's rating is manifestly unreliable or manipulated.


My argument is that an objective, fair and transparent system will encourage players to improve as they know with certainty what is required to earn Olympiad selection. Finish in the top 3 at the Aust Champ or at the top of the rating list. Not "attract the eye of selectors" which may discourage players from committing 100% effort to chess as there is no goal of which they can be certain.

But the payoff for that hard work (except for those who will get in on ratings) is far more chancey under your system, for those outside the top 3 positions. They know with certainty that certain results are required, but no matter how hard they work and how much they improve there is still a high risk of failure. Whereas under the current system a player who works hard to raise their strength so that they are the 4th or 5th best in the country knows that what they have to do is play enough events and prove their form is good enough and they are almost certainly in the team.

Also, any system based on rating can encourage players to pick and choose events to manipulate their ratings, something a good selector will see through.


Is there any objective measurement of the selectors performance?

Is there any objective measurement of the performance of your system either?

Small sample size is always going to be an issue in measuring the performance of any system based on actual results. As a possible target, over sufficiently many olympiads (say a dozen or so) the mean performance rating of the selected Open team should exceed the mean ELO rating of the top six applicants for Open selection. However the later stat should be subject to any fudging required to account for Australian players being underrated or overrated at FIDE level if this is found to be the case.


It's fine to have FAITH in the selection process and selectors. But recognise that it is simply that, FAITH. Other countries use similar models to the one I've proposed as a strawman. Other individual sports use similar, or even more single-performance weighted system than that proposed.

Faith would be an issue with any system unless you had enough data.

Kevin Bonham
28-01-2004, 04:04 PM
You said you have a philosophical position that the human decision making process was necessary to determine who should be on the Olympiad team. As this basically consists of picking the player who will perform best under the specific conditions of a particular tournament several month ahead of time, the ratins system which effectively attempts to predict performance ni the next 3 months of chess play should also be best done by humans than some statistical algorithm.

This is ignoring the potential for a player to deliberately manipulate their rating to gain Olympiad selection if ratings were used. I am opposed to the use of ratings without any subjective veto for this reason alone. One of the reasons the rating system is so effective in Australia is that there is not much motivation for manipulation.

Rincewind
28-01-2004, 04:12 PM
Ok i think i might have come up with a better sport that is individual based but competed in as teams. I have a friend who is in gymnastics so Ill check with her. The sport is gymnastics. Each country selects six athletes i think to represent the country in the team all around event(meaning all team members compete on each apparatus)

The problem with gymnastics is they are entirely subjective anyway. The same is true of any sport where results are tallied by a number of judges and I agree that human selectors are the best in that environment as they have the best idea of what judges are looking for.

Pick a sport which is an objective measure of result like cycling, running, swimming (distance not synchronised), etc and then you have a better comparison.

Regarding equstrian, it would depend on the event. My understanding is that some events are judged like gymnastics (eg dressage) not sure about some of the other events.

Rincewind
28-01-2004, 04:18 PM
This is ignoring the potential for a player to deliberately manipulate their rating to gain Olympiad selection if ratings were used. I am opposed to the use of ratings without any subjective veto for this reason alone. One of the reasons the rating system is so effective in Australia is that there is not much motivation for manipulation.

Only the top few players have any motivation. Manupulation by not playing is catered for by the RD effect in the PMinR. Manipulation by picking a choosing tournaments to maintain a high ratings occurs today and I don't expect a change to this system would change things too much in that regard.

Rincewind
28-01-2004, 04:41 PM
I thought he was applying it more to the idea of selection based on one tournament than necessarily to any artificial method one could possibly think of.

The idea of the strawman approach is to put something up for people to pick holes in. This criticisms can be use to improve the next version of the proposal.

Jase was making the "philosophical" point that fundamentally humans would do a better job as only human could take into account the many variables, etc, etc, etc.

My argument is humans are not know for their objectivity or precision in such tasks.


It would be interesting to look statistically at how successful selectors were when attempting to second-guess ratings as a measure of player strength. The need for selection arises in cases where a player's rating is manifestly unreliable or manipulated.

Yep, it would be interesting. It would have been even interesting if we were already doing it before I asked. ;)


But the payoff for that hard work (except for those who will get in on ratings) is far more chancey under your system, for those outside the top 3 positions. They know with certainty that certain results are required, but no matter how hard they work and how much they improve there is still a high risk of failure. Whereas under the current system a player who works hard to raise their strength so that they are the 4th or 5th best in the country knows that what they have to do is play enough events and prove their form is good enough and they are almost certainly in the team.

Perhaps but the measure is known. Currently they can work their guts out, make the top 3 of the Champs and still not get selected. There are still 6 spots, I would imagine the chances of failure is roughly equal in both systems.


Also, any system based on rating can encourage players to pick and choose events to manipulate their ratings, something a good selector will see through.

If you are going to argue manipulation you must be more specific, how this manipulation would work and how it would improve theit chances of making the team under the proposed model.


Is there any objective measurement of the performance of your system either?

I proposed already we set a goal for position 25 in the olympiad over the next 10 years. Obviously other inititives will impact progress towards this goal but it is a measure of sorts.


Small sample size is always going to be an issue in measuring the performance of any system based on actual results. As a possible target, over sufficiently many olympiads (say a dozen or so) the mean performance rating of the selected Open team should exceed the mean ELO rating of the top six applicants for Open selection. However the later stat should be subject to any fudging required to account for Australian players being underrated or overrated at FIDE level if this is found to be the case.

I'm open to any other ideas, your performance to rating sounds interesting but how do we know how the players NOT selected would have performed?


Faith would be an issue with any system unless you had enough data.

We agree on this. In fact, I probably have less faith in my proposal than many poster do in the status quo. The purpose of the debate see if a better model can be developed. Hopefully people are genuinely thinking about how to improve the status quo rather than simply defend it.

I have more faith in the second strawman than the first (top 6 from the championship). I don't want to prune down team spot coming through from the qualifer too much as the idea is this will encourage greater competitiveness at the elite level. Another possibility would be top 3 fro champ plus 3 panel selections. The idea of having some rated qualifiers was to pick players who were automatic picks anyway and would make it easier to implement the cultural change of removal of appeals and granting the selectors complete discretion is their slbeit single candidate.

Kevin Bonham
28-01-2004, 05:53 PM
Perhaps but the measure is known. Currently they can work their guts out, make the top 3 of the Champs and still not get selected. There are still 6 spots, I would imagine the chances of failure is roughly equal in both systems.

But if they work their guts out and make the top 3 but still don't get selected that will be because their other results are unconvincing, in which case they don't deserve to go anyway. On your model a player who comes 3rd in the Aus Champs but otherwise has a dud year trumps a player who comes 4th in the Aus Champs, and 2nd or so in every other major event they play in. The latter may get in as the selected player or on rating, but is by no means assured.


If you are going to argue manipulation you must be more specific, how this manipulation would work and how it would improve theit chances of making the team under the proposed model.

An obvious one - peaking. Most players' ratings bob up and down a bit, especially under Glicko. Wait til your rating peaks in the top 2 (or whatever number will ensure your selection depending on who is already in or out) and at a level about 50 points above your real playing strength, so that you're confident no one will catch you, then just stop playing.

Pick and choose your events. Avoid places rumoured to have deflated ratings. Avoid events swarming with juniors. Avoid events with few other strong players (since it's widely suspected that the performance expectancy curve is a tad harsh on the higher player). All those draws against low-rated players you normally take in the last round to win the tournament, don't take them anymore, play for wins for ratings points even though you risk 1st prize.


I proposed already we set a goal for position 25 in the olympiad over the next 10 years. Obviously other inititives will impact progress towards this goal but it is a measure of sorts.

I don't have a problem with the goal, but I don't believe the selection method will make even 5% of the difference towards whether it is acheived or not. Other factors would be far more important.


I'm open to any other ideas, your performance to rating sounds interesting but how do we know how the players NOT selected would have performed?

We don't. All other things being equal we'd assume they'd perform, on average, at rating. Thus where the selectors upset the rating order of players, the onus would be on them to pick players who outperformed the ratings of those not picked. I'm not sure what you'd do if there was a particular applicant who was persistently not picked and manifestly overrated, but I cannot think of one.

Rincewind
28-01-2004, 06:49 PM
But if they work their guts out and make the top 3 but still don't get selected that will be because their other results are unconvincing, in which case they don't deserve to go anyway. On your model a player who comes 3rd in the Aus Champs but otherwise has a dud year trumps a player who comes 4th in the Aus Champs, and 2nd or so in every other major event they play in. The latter may get in as the selected player or on rating, but is by no means assured.

That is unfortunate you you only get one try every two years. The average peaked duration of chess players is quite long perhaps as long as 20 years that is 10 or 11 shots and more if they are very good.


An obvious one - peaking. Most players' ratings bob up and down a bit, especially under Glicko. Wait til your rating peaks in the top 2 (or whatever number will ensure your selection depending on who is already in or out) and at a level about 50 points above your real playing strength, so that you're confident no one will catch you, then just stop playing.

Pick and choose your events. Avoid places rumoured to have deflated ratings. Avoid events swarming with juniors. Avoid events with few other strong players (since it's widely suspected that the performance expectancy curve is a tad harsh on the higher player). All those draws against low-rated players you normally take in the last round to win the tournament, don't take them anymore, play for wins for ratings points even though you risk 1st prize.

And this would be different from current practice how?


I don't have a problem with the goal, but I don't believe the selection method will make even 5% of the difference towards whether it is acheived or not. Other factors would be far more important.

I guess we have to agree to disagree.


We don't. All other things being equal we'd assume they'd perform, on average, at rating. Thus where the selectors upset the rating order of players, the onus would be on them to pick players who outperformed the ratings of those not picked. I'm not sure what you'd do if there was a particular applicant who was persistently not picked and manifestly overrated, but I cannot think of one.

But how do you know the overperformance (if there is one) is cause by player playnig wel in tha environment or a general underratedness of Australian Players? How do we know other players would not have performed even better under the same conditions?

chesslover
28-01-2004, 08:48 PM
I was watching American Idol with my daughter yesterday, and i thought back to the objections raised by some in this thread about choosing players on the basis of just one tournament - the ACC

However in Idol people are selected on the basis of a few minutes! Also when you go for jobs, decisions to hire are made on the basis of a series of interviews. These decisions are not made on the basis of your singing career, or how you performed the whole year, but on that audition/ interviews

peanbrain
28-01-2004, 10:19 PM
I was watching American Idol with my daughter yesterday, and i thought back to the objections raised by some in this thread about choosing players on the basis of just one tournament - the ACC

However in Idol people are selected on the basis of a few minutes! Also when you go for jobs, decisions to hire are made on the basis of a series of interviews. These decisions are not made on the basis of your singing career, or how you performed the whole year, but on that audition/ interviews

what the hell was your point?! is there any link between american idol and chess?? I think not!!

CL - I'm really beginning to suspect you are actually an one-eyed american or you just got brainwashed by the CIA - either way, you are beginning to get on my nerves!

chesslover
28-01-2004, 10:29 PM
what the hell was your point?! is there any link between american idol and chess?? I think not!!



The point I am making my not so dear Mr peabrain, is that serious decisions on life is made in minutes or hours - not dragged out on the basis of performance the whole year long. It may not be fair, but that is the fact

I just thought that the examples I gave would add more weight to barry's idea to choose half teh Open and Women's Olypiad team on the basis of one tournament

peanbrain
28-01-2004, 10:36 PM
The point I am making my not so dear Mr peabrain, is that serious decisions on life is made in minutes or hours - not dragged out on the basis of performance the whole year long. It may not be fair, but that is the fact



CL you silly little man - what happened to the "clear, transparent appeal process" you always shi$ing about then"?! Based on your argument, any selection may not be fair, "but that is the fact"!!

Bill Gletsos
28-01-2004, 10:36 PM
The point I am making my not so dear Mr peabrain, is that serious decisions on life is made in minutes or hours - not dragged out on the basis of performance the whole year long. It may not be fair, but that is the fact

I just thought that the examples I gave would add more weight to barry's idea to choose half teh Open and Women's Olypiad team on the basis of one tournament
If you beleive your examples added more weight to barrys idea, I would suggest that the extra weight is simply making it sink. :rolleyes:

chesslover
28-01-2004, 10:45 PM
CL you silly little man - what happened to the "clear, transparent appeal process" you always shi$ing about then"?! Based on your argument, any selection may not be fair, "but that is the fact"!!

stop talking down to me, and misquoting what i say to make me look silly :mad: Your posting name aptly reflects the size of your brain indeed!

What I said, is that in Australian Idol and job interviews, an assessment and decision is made on the basis of one audition and one interview - mush like the proposal for half the Olympiad teams to be decided on one tournament

That is all, and I was drawing parrallels to the American Idol and the chess ie the ONE audition/ tournament process. Obviously these comparisons are not falling on receptive minds, so I wonder why I even bothered to make this point...

peanbrain
28-01-2004, 10:54 PM
stop talking down to me, and misquoting what i say to make me look silly :mad: Your posting name aptly reflects the size of your brain indeed!

What I said, is that in Australian Idol and job interviews, an assessment and decision is made on the basis of one audition and one interview - mush like the proposal for half the Olympiad teams to be decided on one tournament

That is all, and I was drawing parrallels to the American Idol and the chess ie the ONE audition/ tournament process. Obviously these comparisons are not falling on receptive minds, so I wonder why I even bothered to make this point...

say no more, bushlover ... oops, I mean chesslover. We all know you watching too much american junk tv. while you are on the subject of american idol, can you compare our olympiad selection process against say "fear factor"?!

arosar
29-01-2004, 08:26 AM
This is just so hilarious! :lol:

AR

Rincewind
29-01-2004, 09:06 AM
That is all, and I was drawing parrallels to the American Idol and the chess ie the ONE audition/ tournament process. Obviously these comparisons are not falling on receptive minds, so I wonder why I even bothered to make this point...

The problem was your analogy falls down for a couple of reasons.

* American Idol contestants are judged by a panel (or voted for by the audience) so the measurement is a subjective popularity contest anyway
* Entertainment value has nothing to do with chess ability (just look at a collection of Petrosian games) :whistle:
* Reality TV is hopeless and should be derided at every opportunity. :eek:

Garvinator
29-01-2004, 09:43 AM
* American Idol contestants are judged by a panel (or voted for by the audience) so the measurement is a subjective popularity contest anyway

and then home viewers make the final decision of who wins, even though most of them are voting for a person because they like them or think that person is hot, not because they know an A chord from an E minor.

Im still chasing up about gymnastics :owned:

jase
29-01-2004, 12:43 PM
I'll save you the time ggray:

For both Gymnastics and Equestrian there is a selection panel.

This panel selects a "shadow" team, from which the final team must come. All results are taken into account. All candidates must compete in the Australian Championships. They must also take part in other events [a sort of activity].

These sports have very strong correlations with chess, use precisely the same mechanisms to select teams as we do not, [i]with the added requirement that candidates must take part in the National Championships.

Barry - look up 3 Day Eventing if you're unsure how Equestrian could correlate to chess.

jase
29-01-2004, 12:44 PM
I'll save you the time ggray:

For both Gymnastics and Equestrian there is a selection panel.

This panel selects a "shadow" team, from which the final team must come. All results are taken into account. All candidates must compete in the Australian Championships. They must also take part in other events [a sort of activity].

These sports have very strong correlations with chess, use precisely the same mechanisms to select teams as we do, [i]with the added requirement that candidates must take part in the National Championships.

Barry - look up 3 Day Eventing if you're unsure how Equestrian could correlate to chess.

Rincewind
29-01-2004, 01:06 PM
These sports have very strong correlations with chess, use precisely the same mechanisms to select teams as we do, with the added requirement that candidates must take part in the National Championships.

Barry - look up 3 Day Eventing if you're unsure how Equestrian could correlate to chess.

Not sure about very strong correlation. Gynmnastics performances are judged by panels. I'm not sure how equestrian goes but in that you are talking about a rider and a mount which is should fairly different to chess as I know it. And you may also be talking about the same team members competing in various events. Further the cost of transporting the hourses around the world I would assume that places additional constraints on the size of teams etc.

But as I said, I know very little about equestrian events that you can't gamble on so please post the links and I'll take a look.

ursogr8
29-01-2004, 01:43 PM
While all you NSWelshmen, and one lone Qlder, spend so much time on devising selection criteria to pick who you want in the first place, you might turn your attention to three similar questions.

1 Who was the last Victorian batsman to be selected in the Australian 11? (And why are there not more). :wall:

2 When Simon Katich was given his Baggy Blue, in a presentation ceremony last year, did they give him a Baggy Green (in a brown paper bag) so as to economise on presentation ceremonies. :rolleyes:

3 How much has Shane Warne's fingers been enhanced from the slimming tablet, and will he now be bowling faster than 87 mph when he returns as the Sultan of Slim (ne Spin). :hmm:

POPO

Garvinator
29-01-2004, 01:53 PM
1 Who was the last Victorian batsman to be selected in the Australian 11? (And why are there not more). :wall:
i think it was matthew elliott and cause they suck lol, but qld ask about nathan hauritz, wade seccombe and michael kaspowicz too :hmm:


2 When Simon Katich was given his Baggy Blue, in a presentation ceremony last year, did they give him a Baggy Green (in a brown paper bag) so as to economise on presentation ceremonies. :rolleyes:
yes david hookes :p


3 How much has Shane Warne's fingers been enhanced from the slimming tablet, and will he now be bowling faster than 87 mph when he returns as the Sultan of Slim (ne Spin). :hmm: not sure of the relevance of this comment??

Ian Rout
29-01-2004, 03:19 PM
This panel selects a "shadow" team, from which the final team must come. All results are taken into account.

On this subject, what happened to the "shadow" team system that applied in 2000 (without the "must" part)? I seem to recall that it wasn't used in 2002. Was it just an experiment that was considered to be unsuccessful or unnecessary? This has probably been discussed elsewhere but I don't remember.

Kevin Bonham
29-01-2004, 05:54 PM
And this would be different from current practice how?

Ratings not being the be-all-and-end-all under subjective selection, factors affecting a player's rating can be looked at and taken into account. Two players might have the same incidence of draws vs lower rated opposition but one tends to take these draws strategically in the last round to win tournaments while the other takes them more or less randomly and is sometimes disadvantaged in the tournament results by taking them. Their ratings are the same but the hint is that the first player is more likely to be stronger.

Also if it becomes suspected that a player is deliberately manipulating their rating to boost selection chances (as was alleged once several years ago) then the selectors will know of that and can take it into account.


But how do you know the overperformance (if there is one) is cause by player playnig wel in tha environment or a general underratedness of Australian Players? How do we know other players would not have performed even better under the same conditions?

I already suggested that tweaks to take this into account could be used if there was evidence of general underratedness. This could perhaps (roughly) be measured by comparing other (non-Olympiad) Australian FIDE-rated player performances vs FIDE rated players overseas and at home and vice versa, using appropriate rating brackets.

It is indeed very difficult to come up with a rigorous test for the performance of any selection method, including yours - I'm just saying it's not impossible.

Kevin Bonham
29-01-2004, 06:03 PM
However in Idol people are selected on the basis of a few minutes! Also when you go for jobs, decisions to hire are made on the basis of a series of interviews. These decisions are not made on the basis of your singing career, or how you performed the whole year, but on that audition/ interviews

Extremely weak analogy. The credibility of talent quest selections is compromised by the need to market them for a TV audience with a short attention span. And you don't get a job on an interview performance alone (though that may cost you the job) - the thing that makes you a candidate is your CV which is a summary of your performance through your life. In some cases references from your former employers are relevant.

Even the job interview process is shorter than ideal because time is money for the employer. The employer cannot generally afford to give every applicant a 1-day trial even though this would probably lead to a better selection; the cost isn't worth it.

In this case we do have people willing to put many hours (and I can tell you it really is "many") into picking the best team for no charge. So there is no need for picking someone based on a flash in the pan performance.

Kevin Bonham
29-01-2004, 06:05 PM
Gynmnastics performances are judged by panels.

I can't see how that difference is relevant unless you know in advance who will be on the panel. A gymnast still has a statistical record in terms of their ability to impress panels in general.

Rincewind
29-01-2004, 09:27 PM
I can't see how that difference is relevant unless you know in advance who will be on the panel. A gymnast still has a statistical record in terms of their ability to impress panels in general.

Firstly there is the culture of that is how things done.
Secondly they probably do know some of the who will be on the panel
Thirdly even if they don't know the who there may be fashionable trends which need to be considered.

That's just off the top of my head. There is even an argument that the selection panel is going through the same process that would normally happen in a copetition so it is, in effect, a selection by cmopetition anyway.

Rincewind
29-01-2004, 09:29 PM
It is indeed very difficult to come up with a rigorous test for the performance of any selection method, including yours - I'm just saying it's not impossible.

I agree, and whether the selection process is left as is or changed, I think it is a topic which needs to be addressed.

Kevin Bonham
29-01-2004, 11:52 PM
Firstly there is the culture of that is how things done.

Not relevant. Many sports that are considerably more objective (subjectivity in umpiring but not in scoring) have panel selection for places.


Secondly they probably do know some of the who will be on the panel

Would be interesting to know if this is true and how much difference it makes.


Thirdly even if they don't know the who there may be fashionable trends which need to be considered.

Chess has its fashionable trends too, eg in opening theory. In any case a fashionable trend that had been going for a while would have affected the scores of those with different styles.

I suspect that the judging in some of these sports is actually more objective and predictable than us inexpert armchair-dwellers might think from watching it.


That's just off the top of my head. There is even an argument that the selection panel is going through the same process that would normally happen in a copetition so it is, in effect, a selection by cmopetition anyway.

Are you saying they select based on a competition-like trial or are you saying that they select based on a judgement of style similar to the way styles are judged in competition? If the latter the difference is that their judgement is based on far more evidence.

Rincewind
30-01-2004, 07:33 AM
Not relevant. Many sports that are considerably more objective (subjectivity in umpiring but not in scoring) have panel selection for places.

True but the purpose of umpiring is just to ensure the competitors follow the rules, not place a value on the performance. It is reasonable to assume that umpiring niaccuracies cancel out over time, this cannot be true of judging panels.


Would be interesting to know if this is true and how much difference it makes.

Until we know either way, the point is moot.


Chess has its fashionable trends too, eg in opening theory. In any case a fashionable trend that had been going for a while would have affected the scores of those with different styles.

Fashion in ways of executing a chess game is different to fashions in a field which performances are judge by a panel. In chess it is chess that will decide if an idea is any good. In the latter it is the aesthetic appeal of the fashion.


I suspect that the judging in some of these sports is actually more objective and predictable than us inexpert armchair-dwellers might think from watching it.

No doubt. However, their have been numerous scandals so it is far from totally objective and transparent.


Are you saying they select based on a competition-like trial or are you saying that they select based on a judgement of style similar to the way styles are judged in competition? If the latter the difference is that their judgement is based on far more evidence.

I'm saying that it is entirely possible (perhaps even inevitable) that in competition, judges also take into account previous performances and practice sessions not forming a part of the competition. So this is analogous to chess how? :confused:

chesslover
30-01-2004, 08:13 AM
The problem was your analogy falls down for a couple of reasons.

* American Idol contestants are judged by a panel (or voted for by the audience) so the measurement is a subjective popularity contest anyway
* Entertainment value has nothing to do with chess ability (just look at a collection of Petrosian games) :whistle:
* Reality TV is hopeless and should be derided at every opportunity. :eek:

Barry, all I was doing to was to provide support for your idea of having half the Open and Women's Olympiad team chosen from the results of one tournament

I was giving examples of how important decisions that alter a person's life aree made as a result of one audition or one interview

I was being your friend in this issue, and giving evidence for you

Kevin Bonham
30-01-2004, 04:36 PM
True but the purpose of umpiring is just to ensure the competitors follow the rules, not place a value on the performance. It is reasonable to assume that umpiring niaccuracies cancel out over time, this cannot be true of judging panels.

Exactly. So these sports are not especially subjective but still have a culture of utterly subjective selection. Why then does it follow that subjective selection for a subjectively judged sport must "go with the culture of the thing", a point you were using to dismiss comparisons with subjective selection in gymnastics etc as irrelevant?


Fashion in ways of executing a chess game is different to fashions in a field which performances are judge by a panel. In chess it is chess that will decide if an idea is any good. In the latter it is the aesthetic appeal of the fashion.

Chess will decide if an idea is good but only over time and with research. Sometimes a new opening fashion can secure excellent results for a time before being refuted. Also certain players are stronger in certain types of positions. I've never done this personally, but a selector might take into account that X is good against opening Y and opening Y is currently trendy therefore this is a little point in X's favour. Although X's opponents will probably use their databases wisely and dodge opening Y against X at least they are forced to a second choice.


No doubt. However, their have been numerous scandals so it is far from totally objective and transparent.

The only one of this kind I remember recently, not that I follow this kind of stuff, was the figure skating furore at (I think) the last winter Olympics. Can you remember others in (say) the last 15 years?


I'm saying that it is entirely possible (perhaps even inevitable) that in competition, judges also take into account previous performances and practice sessions not forming a part of the competition. So this is analogous to chess how? :confused:

That's possible, a judge's impression of a performance could be conditioned by knowing who the performer is and knowing their past record. (I doubt an international judge would have seen a candidate's practice sessions though).

Garvinator
30-01-2004, 05:21 PM
The only one of this kind I remember recently, not that I follow this kind of stuff, was the figure skating furore at (I think) the last winter Olympics. Can you remember others in (say) the last 15 years?

Just to add to this, players can also be influenced to acheive a certain result(cricket match fixing). So either way(selector based sides, or performance based, barry cox model) are both flawed because humans are humans.

So the relevant question to me is, who is more likely to make a biased decision in favour of someone?

A selector who should have very little or no conflict of interest whatsoever in selecting a side, or a player who is trying to get into the olympiad or help out a mate to get there. :hmm:

Rincewind
30-01-2004, 06:14 PM
Exactly. So these sports are not especially subjective but still have a culture of utterly subjective selection. Why then does it follow that subjective selection for a subjectively judged sport must "go with the culture of the thing", a point you were using to dismiss comparisons with subjective selection in gymnastics etc as irrelevant?

Objective is better that subjective. If there system of scoring is subjective is there any point to trying to have an objective selection process as the figures driving that process are entirely subjective.

All sports have subjective components but not all sports have subjective judging. It is the judging being subjective which renders any sort of selection of performance by objective means useless.

Subjectivity in umpiring, etc does taint the system but it can be reasonably assumed that such subjectivity is not favouring any individual or group of individuals.


Chess will decide if an idea is good but only over time and with research. Sometimes a new opening fashion can secure excellent results for a time before being refuted. Also certain players are stronger in certain types of positions. I've never done this personally, but a selector might take into account that X is good against opening Y and opening Y is currently trendy therefore this is a little point in X's favour. Although X's opponents will probably use their databases wisely and dodge opening Y against X at least they are forced to a second choice.

Ingenious argument but I think you will agree tenuous to say the least. I think it can be said I basically won this point.


The only one of this kind I remember recently, not that I follow this kind of stuff, was the figure skating furore at (I think) the last winter Olympics. Can you remember others in (say) the last 15 years?

I can remember it happening in other sports but I can't recall the details. You'll have to give me time to do some reasearch to see if they fall within the 15 year statute of limitations.


That's possible, a judge's impression of a performance could be conditioned by knowing who the performer is and knowing their past record. (I doubt an international judge would have seen a candidate's practice sessions though).

I believe judges to have access to training sessions of athletes in competition in ice skating. Not sure if it is generally frowned on or not. Either way it is irrelevant to the main thrust of my argument.

Rincewind
30-01-2004, 06:20 PM
Barry, all I was doing to was to provide support for your idea of having half the Open and Women's Olympiad team chosen from the results of one tournament

I was giving examples of how important decisions that alter a person's life aree made as a result of one audition or one interview

I was being your friend in this issue, and giving evidence for you

I'm not particularly fussed wither way. I just thought your analogy was not very good.

How about the anlogy that this is not that different to the system the CFC use to select their Olympiad team? I know that has already been pointed out before but if we could find out how some other chess federations select then that might make a better analogy. Failing that perhaps another sport olympic selection. Especially where that sport has parallels in chess.

I just can't see sufficient commonality between the two for it to lend weight to the argument for team selection by qualification.

arosar
05-02-2004, 11:17 AM
Hey you blokes!!! Have a bit of a read of this: http://dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story.jsp?sectionid=1264&storyid=848582

How funny is that eh?

AR

jase
05-02-2004, 11:57 AM
And these links also:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/02/04/1075853941865.html

http://www.abc.net.au/sport/content/s1038311.htm

Triathlon Austalia's selection policy is automatic selection for the top 2 based on one performance, with the last spot chosen by selectors. Consequently our current World Champion, Emma Snowsill, doesn't make the cut. She finished 3rd and 4th in the two races that were automatic qualifiers, having won the Worlds in 2003.

Triathlon is another sport where there are at least half a dozen top athletes capable of beating each other [eg the Men's World Champion, Australian Peter Robertson, had to rely on the one selector's choice because he had a poor performance in the selection trial.

Using just one event is fraught with danger. You're verly unlikely to come up with your best team.

Rincewind
05-02-2004, 01:17 PM
And these links also:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/02/04/1075853941865.html

http://www.abc.net.au/sport/content/s1038311.htm

Triathlon Austalia's selection policy is automatic selection for the top 2 based on one performance, with the last spot chosen by selectors. Consequently our current World Champion, Emma Snowsill, doesn't make the cut. She finished 3rd and 4th in the two races that were automatic qualifiers, having won the Worlds in 2003.

Triathlon is another sport where there are at least half a dozen top athletes capable of beating each other [eg the Men's World Champion, Australian Peter Robertson, had to rely on the one selector's choice because he had a poor performance in the selection trial.

Using just one event is fraught with danger. You're verly unlikely to come up with your best team.

Seems the main issue seems to be inconsistency in the discretionary selection not unfairness in the selection by event.

jase
05-02-2004, 01:45 PM
Seems the main issue seems to be inconsistency in the discretionary selection not unfairness in the selection by event.

I don't see that as the main issue. In short, the Men's World Champion was chosen by the selectors but the Women's World Champion was not. Largely because in the Women's event, there was a performance so outstanding that selectors felt compelled to include her. However I think Triathlon selections highlights two core problems with the one-event selection concept:

1. You have two different selection methods for the same purpose - one by event and the other by selectors. It's a 'happy medium' concept that just doesn't gel.

2. Athletes who put in one excellent performance in the selection event make the team largely irrespective of other results, such as World Cup, World Championships, and other top level performances.

In this instance, both the Men's and Women's World Champions are considered among Australia's top 3. However the consistent non-winner Rina Hill snuck into 2nd place in the Women's selection event, leaving the young star on the scene and the World Champion praying for the one selector's spot.

Rincewind
05-02-2004, 03:27 PM
Jase, I think you have it completely wrong this time.


1. You have two different selection methods for the same purpose - one by event and the other by selectors. It's a 'happy medium' concept that just doesn't gel.

That's a ludicrous claim. No one has criticised the combination of panel and event selected places. What has been criticised is the panel selection policy being apparently different between genders and the event selection policy being confusing (although this second claim was not made, as far as I can tell, by anyone but the reporter).


2. Athletes who put in one excellent performance in the selection event make the team largely irrespective of other results, such as World Cup, World Championships, and other top level performances.

Not true. Seear won one of the selection races but did not qualify on that basis. She qualified because selectors thought that result was more important than Snowsill's or Jones' claim via more consistent but less recent events.


In this instance, both the Men's and Women's World Champions are considered among Australia's top 3. However the consistent non-winner Rina Hill snuck into 2nd place in the Women's selection event, leaving the young star on the scene and the World Champion praying for the one selector's spot.

Rina may not have won but she must have been a high finisher in the qualification events to make the team.

Obviously a headline of "Triathlon Team named without controversy" won't sell papers. So we should be cautious about making too many judgements in a trial by media.

Garvinator
05-02-2004, 03:40 PM
my money says someone will appeal :lol: :confused:

Rincewind
05-02-2004, 03:42 PM
my money says someone will appeal :lol: :confused:

My money says that what the media are hoping for. :whistle:

Kevin Bonham
05-02-2004, 04:52 PM
Objective is better that subjective. If there system of scoring is subjective is there any point to trying to have an objective selection process as the figures driving that process are entirely subjective.

This is tantamount to saying that you cannot statistically study and predict the outcomes of decision making processes involving subjectivity, which is simply incorrect. If A has scored significantly better than B under a subjective judging system in the recent past, then A is more likely than not to do so again, and all other things being equal, a selection process that picks A ahead of B for a spot based on these results will be superior to one that randomises between them. A subjective process may outperform either, but this is much the same as in an objectively measured system. Whether performance is measured objectively or subjectively makes very little difference to whether it can be predicted again. It might even be the case that past results were better predictors in these sports than chess (where the crude rounding of each game performance to 1, 0.5 or 0 introduces a large stochastic element compared to, say, a routine marked out of 10 to one decimal point by seven judges.)


Ingenious argument but I think you will agree tenuous to say the least. I think it can be said I basically won this point.

What do you know that is more than tenuous about the impact of fashion on judging in judged sports?

Kevin Bonham
05-02-2004, 05:03 PM
No one has criticised the combination of panel and event selected places. What has been criticised is the panel selection policy being apparently different between genders and the event selection policy being confusing (although this second claim was not made, as far as I can tell, by anyone but the reporter).

I couldn't help noticing this in the Australian today and there it did appear that there was criticism both of the apparently different standards between the two genders (in one case selecting an established performer who flunked the qualifiers, in the other someone who suddenly performed spectacularly in the qualifiers but had little reputation) but also that there was some (implied) outright criticism of the women's selection. And while there's probably a large element of media beat-up I wouldn't be surprised if the women involved were muzzled from making too outspoken a criticism of the selections, as is often the case with physical sport selections.

It does show up the potential for a mixed qualify/selection policy to throw up more controversy than a straight selection or a straight qualify. If there are upset qualifications then the selectors will be dividing fewer spoils among very good candidates. Probably not especially relevant to your model as with a qualify/ratings/selection hybrid the ratings spots would hopefully take the heat out of the selection squabbles among those missing out.

jase
06-02-2004, 11:46 PM
That's a ludicrous claim. No one has criticised the combination of panel and event selected places.

Presumably you'll change your tune when you read the papers. If selection by one event was the bees kness you'd advocate it. You advocate a hybrid system because you recognise the immense frailty of selecting from one event.



Not true. Seear won one of the selection races but did not qualify on that basis.

I was not referring to Seear but Rina Hill. As noted in my post, Hill was the highest finisher of a large "shadow team" and was therefore granted automatic qualification. I don't think any good judges rank Rina Hill as one of Australia's top three female triathletes.

The issue for Australian triathletes is that so many of their performances are so close - the winner one week finishes 3rd or 4th the next. Much like the scene with Australia's IM contingent. Measuring this group's performance on one result is short-sighted and ill-informed.

Fortunately those involved in that process are not so lacking in judgement.


It might even be the case that past results were better predictors in these sports than chess (where the crude rounding of each game performance to 1, 0.5 or 0 introduces a large stochastic element compared to, say, a routine marked out of 10 to one decimal point by seven judges.)

Hadn't considered this. I think I agree [after looking up the meaning of 'stochastic'] :eh:

Kevin Bonham
07-02-2004, 01:06 AM
Actually the word I should have used was "granular", though that's not much less obscure. Rounding error, that sort of thing.

Rincewind
07-02-2004, 09:25 AM
This is tantamount to saying that you cannot statistically study and predict the outcomes of decision making processes involving subjectivity, which is simply incorrect. If A has scored significantly better than B under a subjective judging system in the recent past, then A is more likely than not to do so again, and all other things being equal, a selection process that picks A ahead of B for a spot based on these results will be superior to one that randomises between them. A subjective process may outperform either, but this is much the same as in an objectively measured system. Whether performance is measured objectively or subjectively makes very little difference to whether it can be predicted again. It might even be the case that past results were better predictors in these sports than chess (where the crude rounding of each game performance to 1, 0.5 or 0 introduces a large stochastic element compared to, say, a routine marked out of 10 to one decimal point by seven judges.)

I think you totally miss my point. While such a subjective study is possible it would be interesting to see the predictive power of such a system. Especially where the judgnig panel is either unknown or unstudied. My actual point is why objectively study a subjective system when it is far easier to just make a subjective decision?

Regarding the granularity of measurement. Remember we are talking about a selection event involving say 11 rounds. That is a granularity of 23 distinct points. Further to this tiebreaking systems (while not necessarily accurate) would general have a granularity in the hundreds of distinct points.


What do you know that is more than tenuous about the impact of fashion on judging in judged sports?

I don't think this is tenuous at all. I'm no expert in the field of sports but I believe there at different times certain element are emphasised morethan others. In gymnastics the gesturing at the start and end of elements. Certain elements impressing judges more than others, etc. I believe the same is true of most of these sports.

Rincewind
07-02-2004, 09:31 AM
Presumably you'll change your tune when you read the papers. If selection by one event was the bees kness you'd advocate it. You advocate a hybrid system because you recognise the immense frailty of selecting from one event.

I think you have lost the thread. You were claiming event and selection combination doesn't "gel". Not that selection by a single event was frail.

I see no problem with a hybred system provided it is well defined.


I was not referring to Seear but Rina Hill. As noted in my post, Hill was the highest finisher of a large "shadow team" and was therefore granted automatic qualification. I don't think any good judges rank Rina Hill as one of Australia's top three female triathletes.

The issue for Australian triathletes is that so many of their performances are so close - the winner one week finishes 3rd or 4th the next. Much like the scene with Australia's IM contingent. Measuring this group's performance on one result is short-sighted and ill-informed.

Fortunately those involved in that process are not so lacking in judgement.

Rina has shown a high performance of results over the selection races. Who's to say these "good judges" you mention are right? Or even exist?

As you say the person who comes first this week might finish fourth next week, and vice versa. At Athens, that might be Rina.

Kevin Bonham
07-02-2004, 09:57 PM
I think you totally miss my point. While such a subjective study is possible it would be interesting to see the predictive power of such a system. Especially where the judgnig panel is either unknown or unstudied. My actual point is why objectively study a subjective system when it is far easier to just make a subjective decision?

Why objectively study any system then? There are all kinds of things that make it difficult to interpret chess data despite the (essential)objectivity. For instance, the pointscores in chess do not measure a player's performance in the game, they only measure relative performance cf. the opponent (who may, despite their rating, have played at a range of levels in each game.)


Regarding the granularity of measurement. Remember we are talking about a selection event involving say 11 rounds. That is a granularity of 23 distinct points.

So that is one performance with a granularity of 23 distinct points (although in practice you can forget candidates acheiving at least half of those). Realistically, about the same granularity as a single gymnastics routine. Would anyone pick an Olympic diver on one dive ?


I don't think this is tenuous at all. I'm no expert in the field of sports but I believe there at different times certain element are emphasised morethan others. In gymnastics the gesturing at the start and end of elements. Certain elements impressing judges more than others, etc. I believe the same is true of most of these sports.

I'll accept that for the sake of argument (not knowing any better) and say that even if it is not tenuous in at least some of these sports, it would be nice to know how significant it is.

Rincewind
07-02-2004, 11:19 PM
Why objectively study any system then? There are all kinds of things that make it difficult to interpret chess data despite the (essential)objectivity. For instance, the pointscores in chess do not measure a player's performance in the game, they only measure relative performance cf. the opponent (who may, despite their rating, have played at a range of levels in each game.)

Not all systems involve the vagarities of the human thought processes. I would think most outside of physiology and psychology don't. The main reason though is that there is a culture of value of performance being decided by human judges. In that environment it is more likely that selection by panel be adopted.


So that is one performance with a granularity of 23 distinct points (although in practice you can forget candidates acheiving at least half of those). Realistically, about the same granularity as a single gymnastics routine. Would anyone pick an Olympic diver on one dive ?

Actually it is many performances with an aggregate score with a granularity usually sufficient to separate the first 3 places. This is all that is necessary.


I'll accept that for the sake of argument (not knowing any better) and say that even if it is not tenuous in at least some of these sports, it would be nice to know how significant it is.

Fashion is a major part of almost all human activities, including chess. However in first past the post sports (like chess) it does not form a part of performance evaluation. I suspect in sports with a human judging, fashion has a significant effect.

I don't know for sure but it certainly make sense to me and seems considerable less tenuous than the argument of selectors picking players based the players' expertise in particular trendy opening systems.

Kevin Bonham
08-02-2004, 12:49 AM
Not all systems involve the vagarities of the human thought processes. I would think most outside of physiology and psychology don't. The main reason though is that there is a culture of value of performance being decided by human judges. In that environment it is more likely that selection by panel be adopted.

I think we may be starting to circumnavigate here. ;) (And there are heaps of academic fields that involve measuring and predicting outcomes of human choice based on past human choice data, if that's what you're referring to, which I'm not clear on).

In the actual chess performance, decision making (yours and the opponent) play a huge role in the performance that leads to the eventual score. Just as you cannot know (without subjectivity) whether Judge Z will have the same biases as Judge Y, you cannot know (without subjectivity) whether A's next ten opponents will have the same playing style biases as A's last ten. Yet the latter is relevant to predicting A's performance.


Actually it is many performances with an aggregate score with a granularity usually sufficient to separate the first 3 places. This is all that is necessary.

But because of the granularity of the individual game totals, the player's score could easily be more than 0.5 a point out from what their standard of play against those specific opponents would normally have brought them.


I don't know for sure but it certainly make sense to me and seems considerable less tenuous than the argument of selectors picking players based the players' expertise in particular trendy opening systems.

OK, but there are many other examples of ephemeral behaviour in chess that could be relevant. For instance, at the time of his so-called "phantom leap", Chris Depasquale outperformed his rating by about 200 points over three straight tournaments. From memory this included the Aus Champs where Depasquale finished on the podium. One of the many factors I might have taken into account (had I been a selector) is that Depasquale acheived this phantom leap while ditching large sections of his previous opening repertoire, which could have surprised Australian opponents unused to him playing these different systems - probably rather more than they would surprise an opponent just looking up Depasquale's games on a database. A small number of games played against opponents who know you, may not be an accurate model for games played against opponents who generally don't.

Rincewind
08-02-2004, 01:17 AM
I think we may be starting to circumnavigate here. ;) (And there are heaps of academic fields that involve measuring and predicting outcomes of human choice based on past human choice data, if that's what you're referring to, which I'm not clear on).

In the actual chess performance, decision making (yours and the opponent) play a huge role in the performance that leads to the eventual score. Just as you cannot know (without subjectivity) whether Judge Z will have the same biases as Judge Y, you cannot know (without subjectivity) whether A's next ten opponents will have the same playing style biases as A's last ten. Yet the latter is relevant to predicting A's performance.

Yes but being a part of the performance and not the judgement of the performance makes a difference. These thought processes are taking part in the minds of the competitors and not a 3rd part whose job it is to evaluate the performance.


But because of the granularity of the individual game totals, the player's score could easily be more than 0.5 a point out from what their standard of play against those specific opponents would normally have brought them.

So are you saying Rogers is the real Australian Champion? ;)


OK, but there are many other examples of ephemeral behaviour in chess that could be relevant. For instance, at the time of his so-called "phantom leap", Chris Depasquale outperformed his rating by about 200 points over three straight tournaments. From memory this included the Aus Champs where Depasquale finished on the podium. One of the many factors I might have taken into account (had I been a selector) is that Depasquale acheived this phantom leap while ditching large sections of his previous opening repertoire, which could have surprised Australian opponents unused to him playing these different systems - probably rather more than they would surprise an opponent just looking up Depasquale's games on a database. A small number of games played against opponents who know you, may not be an accurate model for games played against opponents who generally don't.

I haven't heard a convincing argument that selectors evaluate any ephemeral effects to a degree of accuracy greater than event performance selection. If the top 3 place getters secured Olymiad places I think there would be more players trying to effect the phantom leap, which I don't think would be a bad thing for Australian chess.

I think the phantom leap effect (as you describe it) would have a positive effect at an olympiad too. Provided the player did not play too many published games between the Aust Champ and Olympiad where he employed the new repertoire.

Kevin Bonham
08-02-2004, 01:44 AM
Yes but being a part of the performance and not the judgement of the performance makes a difference. These thought processes are taking part in the minds of the competitors and not a 3rd part whose job it is to evaluate the performance.

So in one case we have a number which is produced through two mental processes - performance and judging. Actually the first has a large physical/training element and the last is probably very regulated. In the other case we have a number which is produced through an objective resolution of a contest between two mental processes. True, the two things are not the same but so many arguments can be made this way and that as to how different forms of subjectivity might affect predictability - something which is not the be-all and end-all of which one is more predictable anyway.


So are you saying Rogers is the real Australian Champion? ;)

Not necessarily, because rating is only accurate to a certain level as a measure of performance in a given event. You'd have to look at the games in detail to draw a conclusion about who played the better chess. :silenced:


I haven't heard a convincing argument that selectors evaluate any ephemeral effects to a degree of accuracy greater than event performance selection. If the top 3 place getters secured Olymiad places I think there would be more players trying to effect the phantom leap, which I don't think would be a bad thing for Australian chess.

But the phantom leap lasted three events then returned to base. We have to distinguish between real improvement and spectacular results in attempts to impress the selection mechanism. A selector can try to do that, a mechanism, if faulty, cannot.

I'll agree I can't prove that selectors will pick ephemera better than a tournament. Depasquale is a selective example because his form did return to base, I guess to counter that it would be nice to see an example where an apparent ephemeral effect that could have been easily written off proved to be permanent.


I think the phantom leap effect (as you describe it) would have a positive effect at an olympiad too. Provided the player did not play too many published games between the Aust Champ and Olympiad where he employed the new repertoire.

You only have to buck the trend once and you switch from a player who invariably plays repertoire X to a player who's up to something. Opponent preparation changes a lot with the difference between "always" and "usually".

ursogr8
08-02-2004, 07:08 AM
OK, but there are many other examples of ephemeral behaviour in chess that could be relevant. For instance, at the time of his so-called "phantom leap", Chris Depasquale outperformed his rating by about 200 points over three straight tournaments. From memory this included the Aus Champs where Depasquale finished on the podium. One of the many factors I might have taken into account (had I been a selector) is that Depasquale acheived this phantom leap while ditching large sections of his previous opening repertoire, which could have surprised Australian opponents unused to him playing these different systems - probably rather more than they would surprise an opponent just looking up Depasquale's games on a database. A small number of games played against opponents who know you, may not be an accurate model for games played against opponents who generally don't.

Quick, now where has that Fischer-Random thread scrolled to. You guys have discovered a new argument in favour of F_R.
That is, F_R finds the best inately performed chess decision-maker, and naturally that is the guy who ought to be declared Aus. Champion (instead of the best book-preparer). Unless of course the purpose of the Aus CHP is to find the best book-preparer to go O/S to play other book-preparers?

starter

Rincewind
08-02-2004, 11:34 AM
Quick, now where has that Fischer-Random thread scrolled to. You guys have discovered a new argument in favour of F_R.
That is, F_R finds the best inately performed chess decision-maker, and naturally that is the guy who ought to be declared Aus. Champion (instead of the best book-preparer). Unless of course the purpose of the Aus CHP is to find the best book-preparer to go O/S to play other book-preparers?

You've bviously seen the flaw with your own argument.

People with good memories should not be treated as pariahs.

ursogr8
08-02-2004, 05:17 PM
You've bviously seen the flaw with your own argument.

People with good memories should not be treated as pariahs.

Baz,

I can't remember why I startered to reply to your quote.

starter

arosar
10-02-2004, 09:25 AM
Diamond in shootoff. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/02/09/1076175106294.html

AR

Kerry Stead
13-02-2004, 02:02 PM
This thread is largely ridiculous. :wall:

From my reading of it (it has taken me a number of days and many hours to get through it all), only 2 people seem to really know what goes on with selections - Kevin & Jase - and strangely enough, they are the only ones who have been regularly posting on this topic who have been directly involved in the process discussed (whether it be as a selector or as a team captain).
In the meantime, the rest of the people who have had something to say seem to go around in circles in something resembling a schoolyard 'I'm right, you're wrong! Ner ne ner ne ner ner' type of argument. :eek:

Some points which have come up that would be worth considering:
Comparissons with other sports:
Equestrian (and in particular the 3 day teams event) has (I think), as Jase pointed out, a large number of similarities with the chess Olympiad. From what I know, the judging criteria ranges over a number of events, from dressage (which Barry will complain about it being subjective) through to cross country, which uses time and penalties (for obstacles knocked over, etc) as its measure. The totals are then added up amongst the team members, with the higest total winning. What one member of the team does has no influence on the rest of the team (in just the same way that for example Rogers can't point out a good move to Speck during a game), however in the most famous instance in recent years of the equestrian, it was essential for Gillian Rolston (spelling?) to finish her cross country ride in spite of her broken bones, as it would have effected the team performance (in much the same way as having a member of the Olympiad team forfeiting a round due to illness, etc).
Tennis is something that I don't think has been brought up. I was thinking in this context of tennis at the Olympics. I believe (perhaps someone could check and correct me if I am wrong) that each country has a limited number of places available in the event (unlike a typical tournament such as the Australian Open), therefore one would assume that there was some selection process involved in selecting the participants. It may be that it is simply the higest ranked players who go, but I am not sure of this. A further complication would be a doubles combination - 2 players who may be the highest ranked may not necessarily be the best TEAM. Something to consider.

Comparisson with other selection methods:
Yes, there are alternative methods of selecting an Olympiad team, but we all seem to be in agreement that the AIM of selection (however it is done) is to be to get the best possible team result in the Olympiad. To my mind, the 'objective' system which Barry and chesslover have been trumpeting about does not necessarily do this.

How about this as something to consider:
Lets say we have player A and player B who are in the running for the 6th spot on the team. Both players are titled and finished tied for 5th in the Australian Championship (so they miss out on Barry's 'top 3' qualification system). Player A is rated 2350, and his results are such that he has a 100% record against players under 2250, and a less-than-impressive record against 2250+ players (although obviously he must score some points to finish =5th, these results are inconsistent at best). Player B is rated 2330 and has a reasonable record against sub-2250 opposition, but is prone to the occasional poor result, something which one would not expect from a 2230 player. However by contrast, he has an excellent record against 2250+ players (say 70% for the sake of argument), however given that he does not get to play much 2250+ opposition, his rating does not necessarily show this apparent strength in his play. He has also scored wins against a number of GMs and IMs, both locally and on his one chess trip overseas, where he unsuccessfully tried to earn a title.
Both these players go to the hypothetical Olympiad. Player A comes up against a string of 2300 players (given that the Australian team are doing so well), and given his poor record against such players, scores 2/9 (he is rested for 5 rounds as not only is he board 6, but he is also performing poorly). Player B comes up against the same string of 2300 players, and given his excellent record against such opponents, scores 7.5/11 (obviously playing more games because he is performing well). Which of the above is better for the team performance? Which player would be selected under each of the selection models discussed here? Think about it ...

For a 'here and now' comparisson, take a look at the NECG Squad selection process currently underway. The squad is using a panel of SELECTORS, not a single performance or rating-based criteria. The squad will most likely be announced in three parts: those 9 that have already been announced, a further group whom most (if not all) the selectors agree should be in the squad, and a final group that is decided after further deliberations amongst the selection panel.
The squad has a number of mandatory requirements, including both activity and playing particular events ... if the kids don't meet the requirements, they are out.
Of the kids already selected, Raymond Song had by far the worst performance of any of the kids in the Australian Juniors. Do the selectors count that against him to the point of excluding him from the squad? NO. He is to my mind, the other selectors, and I would say almost everyone who knows anything about Raymond and junior chess, a MUST PICK player.
Although it is not the best analogy to draw (he might make a rating-based qualification), it still helps to show my point about the value of selectors in a process such as selecting the Olympiad team.

One issue that has been raised is in regards to the womens team and the general lack of activity from many of the country's leading female players. I am not sure how to solve this. Perhaps this may be one case when an automatic selection could be useful - however I would limit it to at most 1 place on the 4 player team. Basically the problem that needs to be overcome is to ensure that the leading female players compete on a regular basis. Most of the leading male players regularly compete in tournaments (although the definition of 'regular' is different for different people), so why is there a difference for females? If this reason can be found, then perhaps we will be closer to a solution to the problem. Regardless of this problem, as Jase has pointed out, the women's team have typically over-performed in recent years, adn have come home with one of the few medals that Australia has recieved from an Olympiad (I also think Terrey Shaw won a medal at an Olympiad in addition to Darryl, but I may be wrong). Perhaps this would suggest that inactivity is not a problem?

To my mind, the best way for Australia to improve its Olympiad performance is to ensure that our players are getting competition against world-class opposition, and are playing on a regular basis. That way they are not only able to test themselves in a field that may be similar to that which they may play at the Olympiad, but they are also active enough to ensure that they don't become rusty as a result of inactivity.

Food for thought ....

Rincewind
13-02-2004, 02:41 PM
This thread is largely ridiculous. :wall:

Kerry, an inauspicious way to start a page long response. :eek:


From my reading of it (it has taken me a number of days and many hours to get through it all), only 2 people seem to really know what goes on with selections - Kevin & Jase - and strangely enough, they are the only ones who have been regularly posting on this topic who have been directly involved in the process discussed (whether it be as a selector or as a team captain).
In the meantime, the rest of the people who have had something to say seem to go around in circles in something resembling a schoolyard 'I'm right, you're wrong! Ner ne ner ne ner ner' type of argument. :eek:

I think youd better reread the thread if that was your general impression. I agree that Kevin and Jase know more than anyone else about the current selection processes. However, my responses to their points have not been school-yard naysaying. What I have asked for were logical reasons for their beliefs. The other point which I was making was that an objective method may improve competitiveness in Australian chess as the link between performance and reward would be clear and unambiguous.


Some points which have come up that would be worth considering:
Comparissons with other sports:
Equestrian (and in particular the 3 day teams event) has (I think), as Jase pointed out, a large number of similarities with the chess Olympiad. From what I know, the judging criteria ranges over a number of events, from dressage (which Barry will complain about it being subjective) through to cross country, which uses time and penalties (for obstacles knocked over, etc) as its measure. The totals are then added up amongst the team members, with the higest total winning. What one member of the team does has no influence on the rest of the team (in just the same way that for example Rogers can't point out a good move to Speck during a game), however in the most famous instance in recent years of the equestrian, it was essential for Gillian Rolston (spelling?) to finish her cross country ride in spite of her broken bones, as it would have effected the team performance (in much the same way as having a member of the Olympiad team forfeiting a round due to illness, etc).

Equestrian is an interesting comparison but I would have thought the Canadian, Irish and US chess olympiad selection processes would have been closer. There are also numerious individual events which include hybred systems with some performance, some ranking and/or some panel chosen team selections.


Tennis is something that I don't think has been brought up. I was thinking in this context of tennis at the Olympics. I believe (perhaps someone could check and correct me if I am wrong) that each country has a limited number of places available in the event (unlike a typical tournament such as the Australian Open), therefore one would assume that there was some selection process involved in selecting the participants. It may be that it is simply the higest ranked players who go, but I am not sure of this. A further complication would be a doubles combination - 2 players who may be the highest ranked may not necessarily be the best TEAM. Something to consider.

Doubles tennis is fairly different to chess teams as the players are co-competitors in a single struggle rather than solo competitors in struggles which are aggregated.


Comparisson with other selection methods:
Yes, there are alternative methods of selecting an Olympiad team, but we all seem to be in agreement that the AIM of selection (however it is done) is to be to get the best possible team result in the Olympiad. To my mind, the 'objective' system which Barry and chesslover have been trumpeting about does not necessarily do this.

As I pointed out before selecting the best team is of high importance, but how do we know the present system does this better than any other? I advocate developing a means of measuring the performance of the olympiad selection process ad presently none seems to be evidently in place.


How about this as something to consider:
Lets say we have player A and player B who are in the running for the 6th spot on the team. Both players are titled and finished tied for 5th in the Australian Championship (so they miss out on Barry's 'top 3' qualification system). Player A is rated 2350, and his results are such that he has a 100% record against players under 2250, and a less-than-impressive record against 2250+ players (although obviously he must score some points to finish =5th, these results are inconsistent at best). Player B is rated 2330 and has a reasonable record against sub-2250 opposition, but is prone to the occasional poor result, something which one would not expect from a 2230 player. However by contrast, he has an excellent record against 2250+ players (say 70% for the sake of argument), however given that he does not get to play much 2250+ opposition, his rating does not necessarily show this apparent strength in his play. He has also scored wins against a number of GMs and IMs, both locally and on his one chess trip overseas, where he unsuccessfully tried to earn a title.
Both these players go to the hypothetical Olympiad. Player A comes up against a string of 2300 players (given that the Australian team are doing so well), and given his poor record against such players, scores 2/9 (he is rested for 5 rounds as not only is he board 6, but he is also performing poorly). Player B comes up against the same string of 2300 players, and given his excellent record against such opponents, scores 7.5/11 (obviously playing more games because he is performing well). Which of the above is better for the team performance? Which player would be selected under each of the selection models discussed here? Think about it ...

Interesting scenario. As the latest model I proposed for discussion involved the sixth place be selected by a panel of selectors then they would give it to the player who they thought would do best at the olympiad. In case you missed it the selection process under discussion was.

Top 3 place getters from the Australian Championship
Top 2 rated players from the ACF rating list using (Rating - RD) (Probably Minumum Rating)
Final place selected by panel and totally discretionary

Appeal process removed from by-laws.


For a 'here and now' comparisson, take a look at the NECG Squad selection process currently underway. The squad is using a panel of SELECTORS, not a single performance or rating-based criteria. The squad will most likely be announced in three parts: those 9 that have already been announced, a further group whom most (if not all) the selectors agree should be in the squad, and a final group that is decided after further deliberations amongst the selection panel.
The squad has a number of mandatory requirements, including both activity and playing particular events ... if the kids don't meet the requirements, they are out.
Of the kids already selected, Raymond Song had by far the worst performance of any of the kids in the Australian Juniors. Do the selectors count that against him to the point of excluding him from the squad? NO. He is to my mind, the other selectors, and I would say almost everyone who knows anything about Raymond and junior chess, a MUST PICK player.
Although it is not the best analogy to draw (he might make a rating-based qualification), it still helps to show my point about the value of selectors in a process such as selecting the Olympiad team.

Selecting player for a junior elite squad is an entirely different matter and I was only proposing my system for Olympiad Selections. So your paragraph above is not relevant to the discussion.


One issue that has been raised is in regards to the womens team and the general lack of activity from many of the country's leading female players. I am not sure how to solve this. Perhaps this may be one case when an automatic selection could be useful - however I would limit it to at most 1 place on the 4 player team. Basically the problem that needs to be overcome is to ensure that the leading female players compete on a regular basis. Most of the leading male players regularly compete in tournaments (although the definition of 'regular' is different for different people), so why is there a difference for females? If this reason can be found, then perhaps we will be closer to a solution to the problem. Regardless of this problem, as Jase has pointed out, the women's team have typically over-performed in recent years, adn have come home with one of the few medals that Australia has recieved from an Olympiad (I also think Terrey Shaw won a medal at an Olympiad in addition to Darryl, but I may be wrong). Perhaps this would suggest that inactivity is not a problem?

I agree with all that and as I have stated on previous occasions, I know very little about women's chess. If some of the ideas stimulated by this discussion have application to women's chess then I am glad.


To my mind, the best way for Australia to improve its Olympiad performance is to ensure that our players are getting competition against world-class opposition, and are playing on a regular basis. That way they are not only able to test themselves in a field that may be similar to that which they may play at the Olympiad, but they are also active enough to ensure that they don't become rusty as a result of inactivity.

True, a higher standard of regular play will improve chess in general. That's why I believe a clear unambigious link between performance and olympiad selection would improve the standard of chess in this country. The incentive this would provide would encourage more player to go overseas to improve their chess and try harder locally as well. As Australian chess performance at the olympiad improves, overseas players will become more inclined to play in our tournaments which will also have a positive effect.


Food for thought ....

Indeed.

Ian_Rogers
13-02-2004, 10:12 PM
From talking to players from other Olympiad teams over many years, it seems that most regard the Australian selection system very highly.

Systems based on rating are the most hated, probably because they are the easiest to abuse. (Actually that's not quite true - systems where the sponsor of the team gets to play are the most hated.) The US uses such a ratings-based system because it is clear-cut and avoids lawsuits, but the consequence is that they raraley send their best team to the Olympiad.

Systems where the national Champion is an automatic selection is tolerated until for some reason (poor organisation, lack of prize money, conflicting events) there is an unrepresentative Championship, enabling a relatively weak player to take a place on the team. (Think back to Savon bombing out for the USSR, or Lee for England.) Of course adding extra Olympiad places for Championship place-getters makes the potential problems worse.

Selection based systems vary in players estimation - sometimes the Federation chief or team captain is the only Olympiad selector - but rarely are so many selectors presented with such comprehensive information as in Australia. With so much player data, even an ill-informed selector has a chance to get it right and if they don't there is a good chance there vote will be counterbalanced by more knowledgeable selectors. (Unfortunately, Australian selectors are not, as a matter of course, provided with all the candidates' results in FIDE rated tournaments, although nowadays this should be easier to organise than in the past.)

The English system is often seen as a model, with a committee of active and knowledgeable people, including some of the top players, meeting to discuss the team. Unlike the Australian system, this allows the selectors to agree on particular boards for particular players if, e.g., they think a player was only a good scorer against weaker players and would score best on board six.

The downside of the English system was seen in 1986, when up and coming player Nigel Short believed that the top players on the committee conspired against him receiving board one. This may have been an irrational belief, but a possible conflict of interest was certainly there.

The Dutch system is also interesting, a committee meeting every few months to update a comprehensive national ranking list for men and women. Players know where they are ranked in the selectors' eyes well before the Olympiad and this enables the final selection meeting to be held quite close to the date for the Olympiad. The committee, which sometimes includes top players, does not have quite the comprehensive results list provided to Australian selectors but because their domestic rating list includes results of Dutch players in international events, they feel a bit safer to look at ratings plus recent results in moving players up and down the ranking list.

While I have no desire to change the essence of the Australian system, there are possible minor improvements which could be made:

(i) Move from 5 selectors to six or seven, thus reducing even further the influence of a bizarre selection by one selector.

(ii) Ensure that all the selectors are active on the chess scene and have seen most or all of the candidates in action and, where possible, have played through their games. This may mean different selectors for the Open and Women's teams.

(iii) Encourage the selectors to talk to each other, to share local knowledge about various players.

(iv) The most radical propoasal would be to do away with applications. The top players then be ranked in order by the selectors and invited to play on the team. An invitation not accepted by a certain date would be passed on to the next candidate.
Most countries operate this way and we might then help solve the problem of players not applying because they don't think they can afford the trip. If a player was invited and said that he or she could not accept for financial reasons, a big effort could be made to ensure that this particular player was able to go.

Ian Rogers

Kevin Bonham
13-02-2004, 10:50 PM
Thanks Ian for an informative post with what I believe are some constructive suggestions for improvement.

Actually re (i) in an ideal world seven selectors with the highest and lowest ranking for each candidate discarded could work well, but finding seven selectors who satisfy (ii) would not be easy.

Rincewind
13-02-2004, 11:04 PM
Ian,

Regarding rating based selection. I think the manner and scale proposed means the potential to manipulate the system to one players advantage is negligible. Of course some players might not like the system but I think it provides the best objective measure of player strength. Winning games against strong players will increase rating and therefore improve selection chances. Remaining active will minimise RD and therefore maximise probably minimum rating.

Unrepresentitive champion is a risk should the selection event fall on hard times or suffer from poor organisation. However, part of the side benefits of this proposal is to increase interest in the selection event so this should improve from the current situation, not detract from it, and should help the championship remains representitive.

Of course, should the situation change and Aust top players begin to shun the Champ then perhaps the system would need to be re-evaluated then.

Thanks for the reasonably balanced overview of the English and Dutch selection processes. If you are aware of the details of other countries' selection processes that would be great interest too.

I think your suggested improvement (iv) (doing aware with applications) sounds a good idea.
______________________

One of the main points which I think is in favour of selection by performance at an event is that it encourages competition and therefore will improve the level of chess played.

I'd be interested if you suspect there might be anything to this belief or not. It seems logical to me that the competitors at an Aust Champ would try that little bit harder if they knew that a top 3 place would book a berth to the olympiad. This extra effort would also trickle down to state championships, juniors, etc, etc.

Any comments (by anyone) on this last point would be gratefully received, even if it is to tell me I'm greatly mistaken. ;)

chesslover
01-03-2004, 05:27 PM
This is the Top 10 players in Australia after this new March ratings list:

1. Rogers, Ian [GM] NSW 2668!! 23
2. Johansen, Darryl K [GM] VIC 2509!! 11
3. Wallace, John-Paul [IM] NSW 2505! 0
4. Lane, Gary W [IM] NSW 2493!! 18
5. Gluzman, Michael [IM] VIC 2458! 0
6. Solomon, Stephen J [IM] QLD 2446!! 18
7. Tao, Trevor SA 2439! 11
8. Froehlich, Peter [IM] VIC 2400!! 0
9. West, Guy [IM] VIC 2383! 0
10. Chapman, Mark [IM] SA 2381!! 11

The main features in relation to the previous rating lists are:
a. Rogers, Johansen and Jean-paul continue to hold the top 3 positions - even though Jean-Paul did not play a game this rating period
b. Lane has moved from no 5 to number 4
c. Gluzman who did not play a game in the last period dropped one spot to number 5
d. Solomon continued to hold number 6
e. tao and Chapman both blazed into the top 10, at number 7 and 10 respectively
f. Despite not playing a game, Froehlich moved up two spots to number 8
g. despite not playing a game Guy West moved into the top 10
h. Smeardon and Sandler all dropped out of the top 10, after playing some bad games this period
i. Wohl and Speck have now dropped out of the active player list
j. Rogers, Lane and Solomon were the only top 10 players to play approx 20 ACF rated games this period
k. We have 3 of the top 10 players, Victoria has 4, SA has 2 and Queensland just 1

The status of the current Olympic reps are:
GM Ian Rogers - number 1
GM Daryl Johansen - number 2
IM Gary Lane - number 4
IM Michael Gluzman - number 5 (did not play this period)
IM Alex Wohl - not in the active list
Nick Speck - not in the active list

chesslover
01-03-2004, 05:55 PM
These are the top 10 females in Australia after the march ratings

1. Berezina - Feldman, Irina [IM] NSW 2245!! 8
2. Sorokina, Anastasia [WIM] QLD 2204!! 0
3. Eriksson, Ingela NSW NSW 2102!! 11
4. Nguyen, Giang SA 2098! 0
5. Dekic, Biljana [WIM] NSW 1992! 12
6. Lip, Catherine [WFM] NSW 1950! 0
7. Mills, Natalie WA 1926! 0
8. Klimenko, Veronica [WFM] NSW 1923! 0
9. Moylan, Laura A [WIM] NSW 1914! 6
10. Lane, Nancy L [WIM] NSW 1832!! 7

The main features of this list in realtion to the last ratings list were:
a. Irena Feldman, showing that she is the "female Ian Rogers" by cementing her place as the number 1 female in the country
b. NSW having 7 of the top 10 females, with WA, SA and QLD having 1 each
c. Sorokina and Ingela Eriksson holding onto number 2 and 3 as in the last list
d. Slavica Sarai who was number 4 in the last list, dropped out of the active player list
e. As a result Giang Nguyen, Biljana Dekic and Lip moving up one spot each to hold down no 4, 5 and 6 respectively
f. Mills and Klimenko moving up 2 spots each despite playing no games in this rating period
g. Laura Moylan dropping one spot to number 9. However it must be noted that she was just one of the 5 females in the top 10 who even played a game this rating period, and that if she did not play a game she would be no7. Another thing to remember is that laura remains the only female to win a Olympiad medal, proving that she can match and triumph at the highest level.
h. Nacy Lane making the top 10 (she was number 11 last time)

This is the status of the current 4 Olympiad reps;
IM Irena feldman - 1st,
WIM Phan-kohstinsky - out of active list
WIM Biljana Dekic - 5th
WIM Laura Moylan - 9th

chesslover
10-03-2004, 10:51 PM
the results of australia'snumber 2 weekender shows the form of the top Olympiad contenders

these were the top 6 placings
1 SOLOMON, Stephen VIC 2446 6.5
2-4 WEST, Guy VIC 2383 6
SMERDON, David VIC 2380 6
SOROKINA, Anastasia QLD 2204 6
5-6 RUJEVIC, Mirko VIC 2276 5.5
HUMPHREY, Jonathan QLD 2062 5.5

The top 5 men did not play, the no 6 man won the tournament, and Guy West who did not play a tournament last rating period came equal second. The 2 SA players in the top 10 did not play, and Peter Forehlich our number 8 player did not perform as well. Other thing to note is that David smerdon came equal second after his failure in the aust champs. If he repeats this performce in the doeberl he may well be in contetnion for the last couple of Olypic spots

As for the women, no question who was the standout. WOW Anastasia. Performance like this backed by her strong rating now make her a very strong contender for the female Olypiad team. She is now the number 2 female in Australia, and just 41 points behind Irena Feldman

Wonder if she will be the number 1 female the next rating period - somnething that should guarantee her an Olympic spot

Alan Shore
10-03-2004, 11:16 PM
Is Anastasia eligible?

Bill Gletsos
10-03-2004, 11:37 PM
Is Anastasia eligible?
I know FIDE have offically transferred her Federation to Australia on the FIDE rating list.

Bill Gletsos
11-03-2004, 11:54 AM
Does anyone know when applications for the olympiad squads will be announced.

Kevin Bonham
11-03-2004, 04:37 PM
Does anyone know when applications for the olympiad squads will be announced.

Shouldn't be too far away (since that's my job.) Just have to get five selectors together first. Have had some delays in this because emails to people who might know the makeup of the existing selection panel have not been replied to. If anyone knows this, please let me know. It is not essential as selectors can be added to the panel at will, but I would prefer not to overlook anyone on the existing panel without valid reasons.

chesslover
11-03-2004, 07:53 PM
I know FIDE have offically transferred her Federation to Australia on the FIDE rating list.

Supreme Leader and All Knowing Rating Guru, has ansatasia's performance in Ballarat, put her ahead of Irena in the australian rating?

Bill Gletsos
11-03-2004, 08:59 PM
Supreme Leader and All Knowing Rating Guru, has ansatasia's performance in Ballarat, put her ahead of Irena in the australian rating?
No idea. Ballarat wont be processed for rating till the June list.

PHAT
11-03-2004, 09:02 PM
Does anyone know when applications for the olympiad squads will be announced.

ACF working via a grapevine again?

Bill Gletsos
11-03-2004, 10:05 PM
ACF working via a grapevine again?
No, not at all.
If it was imperative that I found this out immediately, I would have sent an email.
However since both Kevin and George read the BB I figured it was just as easy to post the question here.
If after a week of two there had been no response, I would have sent an email.

Oepty
12-03-2004, 04:37 PM
The Following is the eligibility rules as shown in the FIDE Handbook on the FIDE web site. I have no idea if this is completely up to date. If anyone knows of any changes to this please post them.


2. Eligibility for participation in FIDE team competitions

2.1 For all FIDE team competitions namely the Chess Olympiad, the World Chess Team Championship, the Continental Chess Team Championship, the World Under-26 Team Championship and the World Students Team Championship (but excluding continental club competitions) the following eligibility rules shall apply to the composition of teams representing Federations

2.2 The players representing a Federation must be qualified by birth, citizenship or naturalisation to represent that Federations, save as otherwise provided in 2.3, 4.1, 4.2 or 4.3

2.3.1 A player who has resided for at least three years in a country of which he or she is not a citizen after the date on which FIDE shall have received notification of change of Federation pursuant to 5.2 and who proves that he or she has applied for citizenship in that country or intends to do so as soon as the legal requirements are fulfilled may become a team member of a Federation after a thorough examination and clearance of the case by the FIDE President.

2.3.2 Provided that a player did not participate in a FIDE competition including continental Individuals and Team events 5 years prior to the date of notification, the period of residence shall be reduced to 2 years in his new Federation before he can play for this Federation (EB '99).

2.3.3 Players who are up to and under the age of 14 years prior to the day of notification shall have their period of residence reduced to 12 months or 1 year in his new Federation before he can play for this Federation (EB '99).

Based on this being strictly enforced I doubt Sorokina and Giang Nguyen qualify to represent Australia. Sorokina would have only been in Australia for around a year when the Olympiad is held, while Nguyen does not appeared to have changed her federation to Australia becasue she is still listed on the Vietnam list as Giang Nguyen Thu.

Scott

george
12-03-2004, 07:28 PM
Hi all,

Anastasia can play for Australia if she so wishes at the next Olympiad. There are certain considerations but the verdict of FIDE Vice-President Ignatious Leong is that she can play.

George Howard

Ian_Rogers
12-03-2004, 07:45 PM
The details on Sorokina's eligibility can be found in the Columns section of the ACF website, Canberra Times February 15.
FIDE subsequently had a board meeting to discuss claims that the new rules were not legal under FIDE statutes, but decided to stay with with them anyway.
Ian

samspade
12-03-2004, 07:49 PM
Diamond in shootoff. AR
That's the way to do it-pistols at thirty paces! No appeals, too!

Oepty
13-03-2004, 01:52 PM
Thank you Georg and Ian for your repsonses. The pay to play seems to be full of danger with rich countries being able to theoretically buy players, but I would have no problem with Froelich or Sorokina using this avenue to play for Australia at the olympiad. Sorokina's performance at Ballarat has probably put her in a very good position to gain a spot in the Olympiad team, and a equally good performance in Doeberl should confirm it. I think she is quite a bit stronger than Moylan.
Scott

Garvinator
13-03-2004, 10:45 PM
thank goodness olympiad selections arent based on one big tournament ;) :doh:

Rincewind
13-03-2004, 11:15 PM
thank goodness olympiad selections arent based on one big tournament ;) :doh:

<sniff>

Is that...

<sniff>

the smell of burning straw? :lol:

Garvinator
13-03-2004, 11:18 PM
<sniff>

Is that...

<sniff>

the smell of burning straw? :lol:
i was wondering when you would get around to me :p

Oepty
14-03-2004, 03:26 PM
I DID NOT make up my opinion based on one game. I have looked at some of her results overseas before she came to Australia. Based on that, not just her performance in Ballarat did I base my comments on her strength being higher than Moylans. Her FIDE rating is almost 100 points higher than Moylan. Moylan has had a couple of excellent results at Olympiads and it would be a pity of she did not make the team, but I think at the moment there is a possibility that both Sorokina and Moylan might make the team. Alot depends on who actually applies.
Scott

chesslover
14-03-2004, 04:39 PM
Sorokina's performance at Ballarat has probably put her in a very good position to gain a spot in the Olympiad team, and a equally good performance in Doeberl should confirm it. I think she is quite a bit stronger than Moylan.
Scott

But Laura's performance in the Olympaid is the best ever by a female and she won a silver medal. Fot all her past perfromance we should include her in the Australian team. Where is the loyalty otherwise?

It is like you work hard for your company, increase a lot of revenue and profit and then a bad boss comes and disreagrds the whole effort you have put into the company. Loyalty is important

Given her previous performance and the Medal Laura should be there. I agree that Sorokina should be there too, as should Irena, so have all these 3 in the team, and let the other's fight out for the 4th sport. There is noi way you cannot select Irena or Sorokina or laura.

Kerry Stead
14-03-2004, 05:38 PM
But Laura's performance in the Olympaid is the best ever by a female and she won a silver medal. Fot all her past perfromance we should include her in the Australian team. Where is the loyalty otherwise?

It is like you work hard for your company, increase a lot of revenue and profit and then a bad boss comes and disreagrds the whole effort you have put into the company. Loyalty is important

Given her previous performance and the Medal Laura should be there. I agree that Sorokina should be there too, as should Irena, so have all these 3 in the team, and let the other's fight out for the 4th sport. There is noi way you cannot select Irena or Sorokina or laura.

Chesslover, correct me if I'm wrong (as in W-R-O-N-G), but isn't the point of the Olympiad to send the best possible team to represent Australia? Because the Olympiad comes around only every two years, its not like say the Australian cricket team, where you are 'established' until someone is performing better than you to take your place. The 4 places in the team are up for grabs each time, and should go to the four most deserving players. There are a number of players who would do a great job for Australia at the Olympiad, however none of the places are certain, and someone like Laura can hardly rest on her laurels and expect to walk into the team. Yes, she has performed exceptionally well in the last two Olympiads, however that does not mean that she should automatically go this time.

Somewhat related question, but are you a card-carrying member of the Laura Moylan fanclub, and why did you join? :hmm:

chesslover
14-03-2004, 05:54 PM
Chesslover, correct me if I'm wrong (as in W-R-O-N-G), but isn't the point of the Olympiad to send the best possible team to represent Australia? Because the Olympiad comes around only every two years, its not like say the Australian cricket team, where you are 'established' until someone is performing better than you to take your place. The 4 places in the team are up for grabs each time, and should go to the four most deserving players. There are a number of players who would do a great job for Australia at the Olympiad, however none of the places are certain, and someone like Laura can hardly rest on her laurels and expect to walk into the team. Yes, she has performed exceptionally well in the last two Olympiads, however that does not mean that she should automatically go this time.

Somewhat related question, but are you a card-carrying member of the Laura Moylan fanclub, and why did you join? :hmm:

dont be silly. I am not a member of the laura fan club, and there is no such thing as a laura fanclub. I am just trying to say that past performance at an Olympiad should be a big factor in choosing a person. The person has performed well,given Australia it's best performance and then does not get selected? :confused: :eek:

It is like being picked for Australia, breaking the 380 runs record of Hayden and then being dropped. If someone has performed well in the past, then I think there should be such a thing as loyalty

If a person has performed so well as to get a MEDAL (WOW!!!!!!!) then that means that they can handle the pressure and the competitiveness at the highest level. They have not showed that they have the potential or ability, but they have PROVEN it in spectacular fashion.

Bill Gletsos
14-03-2004, 05:56 PM
dont be silly. I am not a member of the laura fan club, and there is no such thing as a laura fanclub. I am just trying to say that past performance at an Olympiad should be a big factor in choosing a person. The person has performed well,given Australia it's best performance and then does not get selected? :confused: :eek:

It is like being picked for Australia, breaking the 380 runs record of Hayden and then being dropped. If someone has performed well in the past, then I think there should be such a thing as loyalty

If a person has performed so well as to get a MEDAL (WOW!!!!!!!) then that means that they can handle the pressure and the competitiveness at the highest level. They have not showed that they have the potential or ability, but they have PROVEN it in spectacular fashion.
Are we not supposed to be choosing players based on their current chess strength and not how well they may have performed in the past.

chesslover
14-03-2004, 07:20 PM
Are we not supposed to be choosing players based on their current chess strength and not how well they may have performed in the past.

so what value due to put on experience, and exceptional performance in the past?

would you hire a plumber who has done a brilliant job, or a plumber who has a PhD in Plumbing but has never done a plumbing job before?

Bill Gletsos
14-03-2004, 07:40 PM
so what value due to put on experience, and exceptional performance in the past?

would you hire a plumber who has done a brilliant job, or a plumber who has a PhD in Plumbing but has never done a plumbing job before?
Totally irrelevant.
We are picking chess players who have actually played chess before, not people who just know the rules, but have never actually played.

shaun
14-03-2004, 07:50 PM
Somewhat related question, but are you a card-carrying member of the Laura Moylan fanclub, and why did you join? :hmm:

Because team mates look out for one another?

Kerry Stead
14-03-2004, 08:10 PM
Because team mates look out for one another?

so who's your next suspect Shaun?

arosar
15-03-2004, 10:29 AM
. . . there is no such thing as a laura fanclub.

You could start one. It could be your crusade for the next several months.

AR

chesslover
15-03-2004, 09:05 PM
Look, I have no impure thoughts or motive in pushing laura's claims and am not trying to gain her approval that way :mad: :mad: :mad:

People here are very fickle and disloyal, and forget the past performance very easily. Laura's performance in the Olympiad was the best ever by a female and she won a medal for Australia. Think about that

And then people want her to be kicked out, just because someone else with a higher rating comes up. So what happens to all the hard work by Laura and her brilliant brilliant brilliant efforts in winning a medal. Noone appreciates that?

Think about how you would feel atwork. You work hard, and slave and sweat for your company and do a brilliant job in raising the revenue and profit for your store and then your new boss does not appreicate it.How would you feel?

Would you want someone who is tried and tested and who has shown that they arethe person who can has done the job in the past, or do you go with someone who has never done the job before but who on paper and theory looks good??

I think I have proven my point

Garvinator
15-03-2004, 09:19 PM
Look, I have no impure thoughts or motive in pushing laura's claims and am not trying to gain her approval that way :mad: :mad: :mad:

People here are very fickle and disloyal, and forget the past performance very easily. Laura's performance in the Olympiad was the best ever by a female and she won a medal for Australia. Think about that

And then people want her to be kicked out, just because someone else with a higher rating comes up. So what happens to all the hard work by Laura and her brilliant brilliant brilliant efforts in winning a medal. Noone appreciates that?

Think about how you would feel atwork. You work hard, and slave and sweat for your company and do a brilliant job in raising the revenue and profit for your store and then your new boss does not appreicate it.How would you feel?

Would you want someone who is tried and tested and who has shown that they arethe person who can has done the job in the past, or do you go with someone who has never done the job before but who on paper and theory looks good??

I think I have proven my point
should a person who has proven themselves playing for another country be discounted?

Bill Gletsos
15-03-2004, 10:15 PM
Look, I have no impure thoughts or motive in pushing laura's claims and am not trying to gain her approval that way :mad: :mad: :mad:

People here are very fickle and disloyal, and forget the past performance very easily. Laura's performance in the Olympiad was the best ever by a female and she won a medal for Australia. Think about that

And then people want her to be kicked out, just because someone else with a higher rating comes up. So what happens to all the hard work by Laura and her brilliant brilliant brilliant efforts in winning a medal. Noone appreciates that?

Think about how you would feel atwork. You work hard, and slave and sweat for your company and do a brilliant job in raising the revenue and profit for your store and then your new boss does not appreicate it.How would you feel?

Would you want someone who is tried and tested and who has shown that they arethe person who can has done the job in the past, or do you go with someone who has never done the job before but who on paper and theory looks good??

I think I have proven my point
I think you have proven nothing.

Your work analogy is way off the mark.
So what if you have done a brilliant jobb in the past.
There is a new boy in town and he just made your contribution to the bottom line look like pocket change.
Yeah the boss is really going to ignore him in favour of you.
Get real CL.

As for someone on who has never done the job before but is good on paper, again you are way off the mark.
This so called someone on paper didnt get their WIM title from a corn flakes packet. Sorokina is rated 13,911 in the world, Moylan is rated 25,393. That is just a slight difference.

You really do come across as a total goose at times.

Bill Gletsos
15-03-2004, 10:15 PM
should a person who has proven themselves playing for another country be discounted?
Of course not.
CL is being a goose as usual. ;)

Kerry Stead
15-03-2004, 10:25 PM
Look, I have no impure thoughts or motive in pushing laura's claims and am not trying to gain her approval that way :mad: :mad: :mad:

Think about how you would feel atwork. You work hard, and slave and sweat for your company and do a brilliant job in raising the revenue and profit for your store and then your new boss does not appreicate it.How would you feel?

I think I have proven my point

Let me just run with a few points of your previous post.

No-one (I don't think) was suggesting any kind of bad-intentioned motive ... I was just curious at to why you seemed to think so strongly about it.

I don't think your work analogy is appropriate ... unless you can tell me a job where you work for 2 weeks and then get 2 years 'off'. :hmm:

As for proving your point, how about you explain what happened to another Olympic medal winner. Why wasn't Terrey Shaw a permanent fixture in the Open team? He played a number of Olympiads, yes, and he won a medal twice (silver board 6 in 1968 & gold board 6 1972) and scored an IM Norm in 1980 (again on board 6), yet by 1986 he was out of the team. Based on your theory, shouldn't he have been able to live on his past glories indefinitely?

I think others have also said enough about it.

jase
19-03-2004, 11:09 AM
Shouldn't be too far away (since that's my job.) Just have to get five selectors together first. Have had some delays in this because emails to people who might know the makeup of the existing selection panel have not been replied to. If anyone knows this, please let me know. It is not essential as selectors can be added to the panel at will, but I would prefer not to overlook anyone on the existing panel without valid reasons.

I think it quite important that a timeline for player + captaincy applications, selections, announcements etc be established as soon as possible.

Players may be scheduling tournaments to press claims, and need to know which events will be considered [eg ANU Open]. Time is also required to raise funds, which won't happen until after team + captains are selected.

The Olympiad starts in mid-October. I think the teams should be announced 3 months prior [the later you leave it, the more likely that players will drop out for financial reasons].

A couple of months are needed to allow for players to apply, selectors to sort through data and criteria, players to be selected, and then in turn select captains. How about:

Applications : May
Selections: June
Announcements: July

jase
19-03-2004, 11:58 AM
On the topic of Women's team selections, it's essential to ascertain who is available/applying, before declaring any certainties. The top 10 on ratings in March were as follows:

1. Berezina - Feldman, Irina [IM] NSW 2245
2. Sorokina, Anastasia [WIM] QLD 2204
3. Eriksson, Ingela NSW NSW 2102
4. Nguyen, Giang SA 2098
5. Dekic, Biljana [WIM] NSW 1992
6. Lip, Catherine [WFM] NSW 1950
7. Mills, Natalie WA 1926
8. Klimenko, Veronica [WFM] NSW 1923
9. Moylan, Laura A [WIM] NSW 1914
10. Lane, Nancy L [WIM] NSW 1832

Add to this list Ngan Koshnitsky, Petra Blazkova, Arianne Caoili, Slavica Sarai, and Dana Nutu-Gagic, and I think we can cap our discussions at 15 potentials.

Giang - I have spoken with her online a few times, and it seems she's ineligible.
Petra - I am almost certain she is ineligible.
Arianne - currently listed as representing the Philippines, but may be eligible if she wanted to play for Australia.
Dana - has never played here as far as I'm aware. We can probably rule her out.
Anastasia - I get the impression she is eligible and keen[?]
Slavica - doesn't play tournaments
Veronica - very inactive
Natalie - ditto

Despite her rating Laura has to be moved into contention because of her Istanbul Olympiad performance.

Assuming the above points, we're down to Irina, Anastasia, Ngan, Ingela, Biljana, Laura, with rough hopes for Nancy and Catherine, plus a question mark over Arianne - the makings of a really good team.

Assume then that all of those mentioned in the above paragraph were available, and applied. Good luck, ye fab five selectors!

arosar
19-03-2004, 12:25 PM
Yo jase - has Arianne finally said she'll play for Australia? If you do manage to poach her from RP, wouldn't this disrupt the rest of the Aussie gals and make 'em upset

AR

jase
19-03-2004, 12:59 PM
Well Amiel, given that you've been pissing in Arianne's ear for the past 12 months telling her precisely that, with the aim of keeping her as part of the Filipino team, your question is somewhat loaded, wouldn't you say?

Contrary to your assertions, the top Aussie females have been unanimous in expressing their desire to have Arianne represent Australia.

Garvinator
19-03-2004, 01:05 PM
Petra - I am almost certain she is ineligible.

i can guarantee you without a shadow of a doubt that she is ineligible :clap:

arosar
19-03-2004, 01:18 PM
Well Amiel, given that you've been pissing in Arianne's ear for the past 12 months telling her precisely that, with the aim of keeping her as part of the Filipino team, your question is somewhat loaded, wouldn't you say?

Contrary to your assertions, the top Aussie females have been unanimous in expressing their desire to have Arianne represent Australia.

I've no idea what you're yappin' on about now man...anyways, at least you know how to spell Filipino.

AR

Kevin Bonham
19-03-2004, 05:01 PM
I think it quite important that a timeline for player + captaincy applications, selections, announcements etc be established as soon as possible.

Yes I'll be getting on to this very soon. I was hoping to be able to name the selectors at the same time as calling for applications but determining selectors is taking considerably longer than expected. Therefore, if necessary, I will announce a timetable before all the selectors have been determined.


The Olympiad starts in mid-October. I think the teams should be announced 3 months prior [the later you leave it, the more likely that players will drop out for financial reasons].

There is a constitutional requirement to complete selections 120 days in advance of the Olympiad and I will be allowing slightly more than that in view of the recent frequency of appeals.


Applications : May
Selections: June
Announcements: July

It will be something very much like that. Selections will be held in about June. I'll be announcing exact dates in the Bulletin either this week or next.

PHAT
19-03-2004, 05:38 PM
Yes I'll be getting on to this very soon. I was hoping to be able to name the selectors at the same time as calling for applications but determining selectors is taking considerably longer than expected.

Are you concidering letting a computer program apply to be selector?

Ian_Rogers
20-03-2004, 09:37 AM
Kevin,

I think you should take into account the tournament calendar when setting the final date for results to be considered by the selectors. Given the large number of high profile tournaments in June and early July (various Queen's Birthday weekenders, Gold Coast Open, Caloundra Open, Adelaide Uni Open, Australian Masters) it would seem that a selection date of mid-July, after the Masters, would make the most sense.

Ian

samspade
20-03-2004, 11:39 AM
Are you concidering letting a computer program apply to be selector?
Hey that's an idea-can swiss perfect do olympiad selections?:)

Alan Shore
20-03-2004, 06:42 PM
Hey that's an idea-can swiss perfect do olympiad selections?:)

Hehe, that'd be cool if it could! I'd have faith that a comittee would be able to make good Olympiad selections based upon both current ability (highest priority) and past performance. Hopefully there won't be a repeat of the Depesquale thing re: selections.. :uhoh:

chesslover
20-03-2004, 09:14 PM
how can swiss perfect do selections??????????

but you could program a program to pick people by saying the percentages that should be weighed for selection. It could be 25% rating 50% previous Olympiad performance and 25% recent australain chess performance

PHAT
21-03-2004, 06:15 AM
how can swiss perfect do selections??????????

but you could program a program to pick people by saying the percentages that should be weighed for selection. It could be 25% rating 50% previous Olympiad performance and 25% recent australain chess performance

I have a book for you, "The Curious Incident of the Dog in the
Night-Time". You might recognise yourself and begin to understand why you are having trouble staying out of trouble.

jase
21-03-2004, 12:26 PM
Matt - can you please loan me that book?

We listened to a reading of it over the course of a couple of weeks on ABC 702's 'Nightlife" program late last year and, owing to the hour, drifted off to sleep during some of the passages

PHAT
21-03-2004, 10:58 PM
Matt - can you please loan me that book?

We listened to a reading of it over the course of a couple of weeks on ABC 702's 'Nightlife" program late last year and, owing to the hour, drifted off to sleep during some of the passages

:lol: I would if I had it. I too have only heard readings ...

Kevin Bonham
22-03-2004, 01:14 AM
Kevin,

I think you should take into account the tournament calendar when setting the final date for results to be considered by the selectors. Given the large number of high profile tournaments in June and early July (various Queen's Birthday weekenders, Gold Coast Open, Caloundra Open, Adelaide Uni Open, Australian Masters) it would seem that a selection date of mid-July, after the Masters, would make the most sense.

Yes I will be looking at the tournament calendar very carefully to try to leave room for as many significant tournaments as possible to fall either before the selection period, or during it, while still meeting all the other scheduling objectives. Selectors are allowed to take events occurring during the selection period into account.

PHAT
22-03-2004, 07:04 AM
Actually people, I was not joking about having a computer on the selection panel. In fact, there already is one - its name is Glicko. Glicko "understands" how to pick on the basis of OTB performance.

Question: Could an algorithm be designed to rate those non-OTB factors that the selectors take into account.
Answer: Yes. It is called an expert system. Such systems can be of the "sum/product of points for/against" type, or binary "if-then" type. In either case, it is labour saving device.

Isn't it time to ditch selectors and welcome actuaries?

Kevin Bonham
22-03-2004, 03:33 PM
The whole discussion about whether there should be selectors at all rather than defined processes for determining a team reminds me of one of my favourite dilemmas in political thought: the theory of the exception.

Basically the selector question is very similar to this question that comes up in constitutionalism - is it better to have a set constitution that defines what to do in every imaginable situation or is it better to have some individual with reserve powers that are essentially subjective (whether that individual is a monarch or a government appointee). The problem is that if you don't have a sovereign who can intervene when an unanticipated and disastrous "exception" to anticipated processes occurs, then as soon as such a thing happens, you're up the creek and shopping for a new Constitution. But if you do have a sovereign who can intervene, there's the risk of them using their subjective power unwisely or unnecessarily, again forcing you to go outside your Constitution for solutions. (If you're mathematically minded and think this sounds a bit like Godel, you're not alone.)

The "exception" in chess selection by objective means would be something like: an unexpected tournament result in selection by tournament, or a deliberate bumping-up of a player's own rating by being selective about opponents if selection is based on rating (no rating system I'm aware of is immune to this). That's why I prefer the solution of subjective selectors who are in turn subject to an appeals committee, with the whole process subject to courts where needed. At least a bad subjective selection might well be overturned whereas a bad selection by defined "objective" means cannot.

[EDIT: I thought I had put a sentence in suggesting that anyone interested in discussing non-chess aspects of this do so in the non-chess section, but it looks like I forgot. Anyway I have now abused my sovereign power to effect this by moving AR's post and deleting all those after it. :p ]

firegoat7
22-03-2004, 11:40 PM
The olympic selections are going to be very tough this year. I pity any selector who is given the task. I think however three points ought to be raised.
1/ Anybody who is in line for any position ought not to have any influence in regards to the olympic selection committee. In other words nobody should be appointed a selector on the recommendation of any possible realistic candidate.

2/ Possible candidate ought to sign a disclaimer that prevents them from sueing the ACF if there application is rejected. This hopefully would prevent unnecessary legal action.

3/ There ought to be a completely independent disputes committee, made up of non participants who can investigate and overturn any upheld claim from a participant.


Now I also would like to add that it would be a lot easier if the ACF could produce documents showing how much certain tournaments hold sway. It is generally accepted, for example, as an unwritten rule of thumb ,that Lane ought to get a gurnsey, simply for winning the Australian championship. But a key issue may be Doeberl cup results. Would it be realistic fair to suggest that Doeberl is a stronger tournament then the Vic Championships? It probably is not. How much credence should the Begonia open carry? etc etc

It would also be easier if there was some pre-emptive agreement about what really constitutes playing strength. In all probability a quick appraisel by everyone in the top twenty ought to ensure that realistic guidelines may follow. In this way the selectors, who ever they may be, would at least have some guiding light, that shouldn't upset to many of Australias leading players.

Cheers FG7

Kevin Bonham
23-03-2004, 12:13 AM
1/ Anybody who is in line for any position ought not to have any influence in regards to the olympic selection committee. In other words nobody should be appointed a selector on the recommendation of any possible realistic candidate.

I agree and you have my absolute guarantee as Selection Co-Ordinator that this won't be happening (assuming Council accepts my recommendations for the selection panel).


2/ Possible candidate ought to sign a disclaimer that prevents them from sueing the ACF if there application is rejected. This hopefully would prevent unnecessary legal action.

There is no mechanism for this at present and I am not personally in favour of it. Sometimes (eg public liability) such disclaimers are not legally binding anyway, although I don't know if that's the case in this instance.


3/ There ought to be a completely independent disputes committee, made up of non participants who can investigate and overturn any upheld claim from a participant.

The appeals committee is appointed by the ACF as required and must consist of non participants in the process to that point. No probs there.


Now I also would like to add that it would be a lot easier if the ACF could produce documents showing how much certain tournaments hold sway.

This has been discussed before and I'm not personally in favour of it because different selectors can and do have legitimately different views on how much weight a different event may deserve. Also I feel it would place selectors under too much pressure to just consider the raw result from such an event and disregard any other circumstances they might or might not consider relevant, such as how that result was acheived.


It would also be easier if there was some pre-emptive agreement about what really constitutes playing strength. In all probability a quick appraisel by everyone in the top twenty ought to ensure that realistic guidelines may follow.

I would not automatically equate "being a top 20 player" with "being best able to determine what really constitutes playing strength", although being a top 20 player does involve the advantage of close competition against the likely candidates. (Also, wouldn't they have a vested interest in the nature of their feedback? ;) )

Garvinator
23-03-2004, 11:28 AM
2/ Possible candidate ought to sign a disclaimer that prevents them from sueing the ACF if there application is rejected. This hopefully would prevent unnecessary legal action.
Sorry fg7, but this cant be done. It is illegal for a start. A person cannot be made to sign a form which states that they cant appeal to the courts if they believe their legal rights have been infringed.

It is also illegal as far as i understand it for the acf to say to a prospective olympiad contender- sure, we will consider you, as long as you sign this form saying that you wont sue us if you think we didnt follow our own guidelines and rules.

Something i have noticed, most ppl want appeals done away with, until they feel the right to appeal a decision, then they are all in favour of it. :hmm:

chesslover
23-03-2004, 06:00 PM
Sorry fg7, but this cant be done. It is illegal for a start. A person cannot be made to sign a form which states that they cant appeal to the courts if they believe their legal rights have been infringed.

It is also illegal as far as i understand it for the acf to say to a prospective olympiad contender- sure, we will consider you, as long as you sign this form saying that you wont sue us if you think we didnt follow our own guidelines and rules.

Something i have noticed, most ppl want appeals done away with, until they feel the right to appeal a decision, then they are all in favour of it. :hmm:

It is illegal to take away a person's right to appeal by court and make that a condition of entry for selection. You need some reassurance that a person can appeal outside the Australian Chess fed if they believe that they have been unjustly wronged.

This of course should be in addition to an appeal process within the Aust Chess fed. This is absolutly needed to ensure that there is democratic accountability and that fairness is supreme.

Anyway I have said enough about appeals in other threads and if i continue to argue with fools who refuse to understand the need for appeals I will raise my blood pressure and it is not good for me and will make me sick

Bill Gletsos
23-03-2004, 06:30 PM
This of course should be in addition to an appeal process within the Aust Chess fed. This is absolutly needed to ensure that there is democratic accountability and that fairness is supreme.
Not accordingh to what came out of the Depasquale court case. The ACF could quite legally have no appeal process.


Anyway I have said enough about appeals in other threads and if i continue to argue with fools who refuse to understand the need for appeals I will raise my blood pressure and it is not good for me and will make me sick
Those arguing with you in other threads would very likely describe you as the fool(or goose).

Oepty
25-03-2004, 10:50 AM
Does anyone (not connected with the Olympiad selection process, presumably) want to have a guess who'll be selected? Does anyone want to have a shot at the team they'd pick? I'm keen... any takers?
Perhaps after the applications are in, it is a bit hard when we don't know who wants to go.
Scott

Rincewind
25-03-2004, 12:48 PM
Does anyone (not connected with the Olympiad selection process, presumably) want to have a guess who'll be selected? Does anyone want to have a shot at the team they'd pick? I'm keen... any takers?

A lot depends on availability but my dream team for the open would be...

M Chapman
D Johanssen
G Lane
I Rogers
JP Wallace
A Wohl

Order is alphabetic, not board.

Alan Shore
25-03-2004, 02:32 PM
Ian, Daz, Gaz, Aleks, Chappy and Solo.

If any of these guys were unavailable would be great to include people like Trevor Tao and Igor Bjoelbrk to give them experience and reward them for good form.

shaun
25-03-2004, 02:41 PM
Ian, Daz, Gaz, Aleks, Chappy and Solo.

If any of these guys were unavailable would be great to include people like Trevor Tao and Igor Bjoelbrk to give them experience and reward them for good form.

The NZCF might object to Aus poaching one of their players from the last Olympiad :)

But to stay on topic:
Ian Rogers, Darryl Johansen, Gary Lane, John-Paul Wallace, Aleks Wohl, Stephen Solomon. Mark Chapman 1st reserve, David Smerdon 2nd Reserve.
Disclaimer: Dependent on all players listed applying, and accepting selection. And of course things may change between now and then.

Garvinator
25-03-2004, 02:42 PM
ill wait till after doebrel etc

firegoat7
26-03-2004, 05:13 PM
KB wrote:
would not automatically equate "being a top 20 player" with "being best able to determine what really constitutes playing strength", although being a top 20 player does involve the advantage of close competition against the likely candidates. (Also, wouldn't they have a vested interest in the nature of their feedback? Well this point needs further clarification. Firstly I will begin by suggesting that any potential selector’s job would ultimately be easier if there was some agreed consensus about what it is that constitutes chess players playing strength. Taking one viewpoint like Bill Gletsos' (sorry Bill I am presuming here) for example, the suggestion maybe that only rating measures strength. I'm not saying this is right or wrong I am merely pointing out that in all likelihood if Bill was a selector this might be his overriding framework for deciding chess strength.

Somebody else like possibly Jammo might suggest well actually age and youth might be the overriding factor. Alternatively somebody like myself might suggest well I think activity is actually quite decisive.

Personally I find any criteria fairly subjective. This is after all the nature of the beast when dealing with a selection process. People say they are objective but often are just unable to realise that their own conceptual frameworks in dealing with people have pre-ordained prejudices. As Bill Jordan once remarked along the lines of "who would you place higher on the list an attacker or a defender?"

Nevertheless KB actually hit the nail on the head. The top 20 actually are involved with the physical reality of being a top player. They are in a sense ploughing the gardens of Australian chess. There opinions are important. What is important however is not who they think deserves a spot but why would somebody deserve a spot.

In other words IMO we need a Rawlsian idea, along the lines of the 'veil of ignorance' when dealing with Olympic selection. Get the top 20 together by email and create a forum where they can discuss what they think are the most important points for selection. Tinker with all this discussion until there is some agreed consensus about universal truth, then turn that universal truth into an actual policy that directs selection.

I am fairly certain that ultimately you would find that most of the top 20 could construct a fair and reasonable model in which they would be able to judge their peers. Hopefully then these insights would make the job of being a selector both easier and less daunting.

Cheers FG7
P.S This is a job where the ACF needs to lead on the front foot not the back foot.

Bill Gletsos
26-03-2004, 05:42 PM
KB wrote: Well this point needs further clarification. Firstly I will begin by suggesting that any potential selectors job would ultimately be easier if there was some agreed consensus about what it is that constitutes chess players playing strength. Taking one viewpoint like Bill Gletsos' (sorry Bill I am presuming here) for example, the suggestion maybe that only rating measures strength. I'm not saying this is right or wrong I am merely pointing out that in all likelihood if Bill was a selector this might be his overriding framework for deciding chess strength.
I might even be so bold as to suggest that a selector actually look at the players results on a game by game, tournament by tournament, player by player basis. After all a player might actually play better at the Olympiad time control than at a longer or shorter time control.

Kevin Bonham
26-03-2004, 07:13 PM
KB wrote: Well this point needs further clarification. Firstly I will begin by suggesting that any potential selectors job would ultimately be easier if there was some agreed consensus about what it is that constitutes chess players playing strength.

The fact that there isn't such a consensus and the overwhelming likelihood that there never will be is one of the reasons we have selectors. If everyone agreed on a measure we could just have a formula for it, plug in the numbers, and away you go, save everyone a lot of bother.


Personally I find any criteria fairly subjective. This is after all the nature of the beast when dealing with a selection process. People say they are objective but often are just unable to realise that their own conceptual frameworks in dealing with people have pre-ordained prejudices. As Bill Jordan once remarked along the lines of "who would you place higher on the list an attacker or a defender?"

Yes. This is one of the reasons we have five selectors rather than a smaller number. If one selector has a particular predeliction it will get some voice, but is also likely to be watered down by the voices of the others.


There opinions are important. What is important however is not who they think deserves a spot but why would somebody deserve a spot.

And you'd probably get some of the consistent players saying consistency matters, the inconsistent players saying a good record against strong opponents matters, the older players saying demonstrated performance over a long time matters, the younger players saying improvement and recent success matters ... that's what I meant about vested interest.


In other words IMO we need a Rawlsian idea, along the lines of the 'veil of ignorance' when dealing with Olympic selection.

Unlikely to work. If such a process had a known outcome (eg a concept of player strength) then the players would know they were angling for a system that would apply to them with their existing strengths in the future. It's exactly that kind of thing (I've been bombared with Rawls so I know what I'm talking about here) that the veil of ignorance concept exists to avoid. So I'd be surprised if such a process reached consensus about anything we didn't already know.

(If anyone wants a lengthy discussion about Rawls we can do it on the off-topic section.)

I reckon if the top players, between themselves, developed a unanimous view about what is player strength, and felt strongly that selections didn't reflect this, they'd be the first to let us know.

PS For those wondering, I'll be announcing some dates in next week's Bulletin.

firegoat7
26-03-2004, 07:56 PM
KB wrote:
Unlikely to work. If such a process had a known outcome (eg a concept of player strength) then the players would know they were angling for a system that would apply to them with their existing strengths in the future. So Why would players knowing be bad?? We are not interested in psychological factors tainting the experiment, we are interested in empirical evidence.

Furthermore, you wrote:
It's exactly that kind of thing (I've been bombared with Rawls so I know what I'm talking about here) that the veil of ignorance concept exists to avoid. The concept is obviously Justice related, hence the reason why I introduced Rawls. I do not see how you equate the idea of avoidance with Rawls. Granted somebody who is 20th may have a different conception based on self-interest, but realistically, by justifying what is the olympic chessplayer we ought to be able to get a better framework for selecting.

Cheers FG7

Alan Shore
26-03-2004, 07:59 PM
The NZCF might object to Aus poaching one of their players from the last Olympiad :)

Oh of course, I was aware Igor had come across from NZ but wasn't sure about the eligibility. I'm sure you enjoyed pointing that out, arch-nemesis shaun ;) [Igor has been #1 in the world at bughouse before too, point of interest, hehe].

I noticed also that Trevor was #4 on the FIDE list for Australia, congratulations to him! I have a lot of respect for Trevor as he seems to be so good with hardly any tournament experience in the past few years, as well as being a great musician and prodigy at his work, so I am told.

As for justification, I chose Chappy ahead of JP based upon his great AUS Champs result, and Solo's masters result. I believe thesr tournaments should carry much more weight than weekenders such as Doeberl, myself.

chesslover
27-03-2004, 11:25 PM
Ian Thorpe has been disqualified from the selection trials and will not represent Australia in the Olympics for swimming

I have reread the thread and there has been objection by people about having one event determine the chess Olympiad team. Why is that?

CHoosing a team like it is currently done favours the elite and the status quo. Unless you are a GM or a IM or have a high rating and have performed consistently you have little choice of being chosen in the Men's.

Yet the Olympiad is just one event. Think about that. It is just one event

If we have a qualifying tournament then anyone can play and in theory a player who is not in the 2000s can play for Australia.

Firegoat said in another thread said that a series of qualifying events where anyone can enter with teh winner getting a place in the Olympiad Selection Tournament (Australian Champs). I think that is good for it does not entrench the place of the elite and the establishment and forces them to compete in the one tournament. One tournament like the Olympic Selection Tournament. And from that they will get chosen to represent Australia in the Olympiad which is ONE Tournament

But there is vested higherups and players who will not allow this to happen. Why? Slef interest? Like Ian Thorpe these candidates have to prove themself in teh One Tournamnet and they may fail.

But this denies up and coming players from having a fair short at representing Australia. If it is good enough for ian thorpe and hackett then it is good enough for chess

Bill Gletsos
27-03-2004, 11:34 PM
Ian Thorpe has been disqualified from the selection trials and will not represent Australia in the Olympics for swimming

I have reread the thread and there has been objection by people about having one event determine the chess Olympiad team. Why is that?

CHoosing a team like it is currently done favours the elite and the status quo. Unless you are a GM or a IM or have a high rating and have performed consistently you have little choice of being chosen in the Men's.

Yet the Olympiad is just one event. Think about that. It is just one event

If we have a qualifying tournament then anyone can play and in theory a player who is not in the 2000s can play for Australia.

Firegoat said in another thread said that a series of qualifying events where anyone can enter with teh winner getting a place in the Olympiad Selection Tournament (Australian Champs). I think that is good for it does not entrench the place of the elite and the establishment and forces them to compete in the one tournament. One tournament like the Olympic Selection Tournament. And from that they will get chosen to represent Australia in the Olympiad which is ONE Tournament

But there is vested higherups and players who will not allow this to happen. Why? Slef interest? Like Ian Thorpe these candidates have to prove themself in teh One Tournamnet and they may fail.

But this denies up and coming players from having a fair short at representing Australia. If it is good enough for ian thorpe and hackett then it is good enough for chess
Those swimmers competing at the swimming trials are already elite swimmers you supreme goose.
Dog paddlers like you dont get an opportunity to swim. :whistle:

Garvinator
27-03-2004, 11:37 PM
isnt the olympiad and the olympics supposed to be for the elite :owned:

Kevin Bonham
27-03-2004, 11:58 PM
KB wrote: So Why would players knowing be bad?? We are not interested in psychological factors tainting the experiment, we are interested in empirical evidence.

What I mean is that if you ask elite players what they think would be a good system, their answer may reflect the sort of player they are. Even if you say "Pretend you're just a random elite player, what sort of system would you like", if they knew the results would influence the actual selection system, then their answer is still likely to reflect the sort of player they are.

For those with no knowledge of Rawls trying to follow this, I should explain. John Rawls is one of the most-discussed political thinkers of the 20th century, mainly for proposing an ideal concept for working out what a just society is. Rawls' device is: imagine what would happen if you were asked to design a society, in which you would become a random member of the society without any memory of your previous self. For instance, would you make that society sexist or egalitarian if you knew you had a 51% chance of being female in that society? (My example, not his.) This device (where a person would be making choices for themselves without knowing a thing about who they'd be) is called the "veil of ignorance".

Rawls' other much-debated contribution here is that he said a person in that situation would choose a certain way. They would choose the most prosperous society that is compatible with those who are the worst off not suffering anymore. So, for instance, a society that is very inegalitarian is better than one that is more egalitarian but where the most marginal people do worse than in the inegalitarian one. Have I lost everyone yet?

(My own view of this is that the device is ingeneous but fatally and multiply flawed, yet the society Rawls claims it produces is actually not too bad.)


Furthermore, you wrote: The concept is obviously Justice related, hence the reason why I introduced Rawls. I do not see how you equate the idea of avoidance with Rawls. Granted somebody who is 20th may have a different conception based on self-interest, but realistically, by justifying what is the olympic chessplayer we ought to be able to get a better framework for selecting.

The above should make it clear enough I hope. Nice try, but your device is not a true veil of ignorance.

Indeed if you wanted a real veil of ignorance it would be better to do the same thing but to pick some ordinary chess players and see what kind of selection system they would want to exist if they were top players.

Kevin Bonham
28-03-2004, 12:05 AM
CHoosing a team like it is currently done favours the elite and the status quo. Unless you are a GM or a IM or have a high rating and have performed consistently you have little choice of being chosen in the Men's.

And your problem is?


If we have a qualifying tournament then anyone can play and in theory a player who is not in the 2000s can play for Australia.

And the advantage of that would be?

ursogr8
28-03-2004, 09:36 AM
Just for the record
Thanks to fg7 for post #381.
and Kevin for posts #383 and #389.

Good debate that I learnt from.


starter

Ian Rout
28-03-2004, 10:54 AM
While the stuff about Rawls may be interesting I don't see that it's relevant. The process is not about doing something for individuals, or giving a benefit or reward to anyone. It's about doing something for Australian chess, namely sending a good team to the Olympiad.

Possibly individuals who are selected may see it as an honour or as being good for their career or reputation or whatever, but that is incidental and not the purpose of the exercise.

jase
28-03-2004, 01:19 PM
Ian Thorpe has been disqualified from the selection trials and will not represent Australia in the Olympics for swimming

I have reread the thread and there has been objection by people about having one event determine the chess Olympiad team. Why is that?


I can't recall a better of example of someone taking an incident that highlights the idiocy of a policy [single selection event] and using it as a justification.

Ian Thorpe has failed to qualify for an event in which he is the World and Olympic record holder; failed to qualify for an event which only a mishap would see him defeated. He has failed to qualify despite being the standout candidate, because Swimming Australia only uses one selection event.

One of his great rivals, Dutch swimmer Van den Hoogenband, said "It says a lot for the arrogance of the Australians that they give their swimmers only one chance to qualify for the Games. I am pleased we do it differently."

A number of other swimmers have also criticised the one selection event criteria [eg Shane Gould, John Konrads].

Expect a review of selection policy following the Thorpe debacle.

Bill Gletsos
28-03-2004, 01:41 PM
I can't recall a better of example of someone taking an incident that highlights the idiocy of a policy [single selection event] and using it as a justification.
Of course jase you could hardly be surprised given who posted it.

shaun
28-03-2004, 03:30 PM
isnt the olympiad and the olympics supposed to be for the elite :owned:

Not the Olympiad
:D

firegoat7
28-03-2004, 05:13 PM
kb wrote:
What I mean is that if you ask elite players what they think would be a good system, their answer may reflect the sort of player they are. Even if you say "Pretend you're just a random elite player, what sort of system would you like", if they knew the results would influence the actual selection system, then their answer is still likely to reflect the sort of player they are. Now this statement is true. Maths and science may be relatively objective but sytems of analysis dealing with humans will always be slightly tainted by the observing effect. However, It is possible to develop models that are more accurate then others. A player in the top 20 has more existential knowledge of what is required to be a top player, this I think is an objective fact. If asked then in an ethnographic survey to distinguish what constitutes chess strength, they ought to have more ability then the average layperson in identifying these strengths.

But how does this relate to Olympic selection? Well I'm not sure it does really but I am fairly certain that if the top players can tell the strength of a player more accurately then the common layperson then they also ought to be able to judge what it is Olympic selection ought to mean to a top player.

This is an important point. Olympic selection only affects the top players. If the ACF collects these opinions over a number of years then eventually there will be some sort of accepted universal qualification system. Initially it may be difficult not to have a biased view. But over time these flaws ought to be ironed out.

so when KB wrote
Indeed if you wanted a real veil of ignorance it would be better to do the same thing but to pick some ordinary chess players and see what kind of selection system they would want to exist if they were top players I have to disagree. This is because we are talking about establishing what is in the interest of the elite players longterm. An objective empirical group of only about 20 players,competing for a few spots. The veil of ignorance ought to be utilised but not for the whole chess community. I know this arguement sounds elitist but I do not really think it is. The point is to establish the criteria according to their peers, since it only affects them.

Now let us say in an imaginary hypothetical world, the top 20 agree that rating is the most important attribute to be considered and weighs in at about 60% of selection criteria for the Olympic squad. Then somebody like Bill Gletsos should be approached to demonstrate how this is judged with all his technical expertise. On no account should somebody who knows next to nothing about mathematics be consulted as an authority.

But let us say 20% of competitors think that an improving young player ought to go to the Olympiad. Well in that case it would appear logical to me that we would find a way of measuring the best junior in the country and reserve at least 1 spot for that best junior.

Now Ian Rout wrote:
The process is not about doing something for individuals, or giving a benefit or reward to anyone. It's about doing something for Australian chess, namely sending a good team to the Olympiad. a point I agree with. But why should looking after the elite individuals and Australian chess be mutually exclusive. Surely if we keep the top players happy and ensure that they are empowered to produce policy in a manner that involves them then everybody wins.

Of course one criteria that needs to be considered when surveying strong players ought to be a) What evidence ought be considered in selecting the current Australain team? and b) What evidence ought to be considered in selecting future Australian teams? By seperating the idealistic from the real world a sensible future policy ought to be established by the ACF.

Cheers FG7

Ian Rout
28-03-2004, 05:31 PM
But why should looking after the elite individuals and Australian chess be mutually exclusive. Surely if we keep the top players happy and ensure that they are empowered to produce policy in a manner that involves them then everybody wins.

In general they are not mutually exclusive and indeed they normally pull in the same direction. However by bearing in mind what is the point of the exercise we avoid going down blind alleys.

Kevin Bonham
29-03-2004, 12:26 AM
PS For those wondering, I'll be announcing some dates in next week's Bulletin.

Correction with apologies - I'm going to first put a motion to Council to extend the usual selection guideline (which would otherwise be 16 June) to allow more events to be available to the selectors. The events of the weekend 12-14 June are definitely in the frame, and I am hoping Council will approve an extension to enable events up to and including at least the Adelaide Open (11 July) to be considered by the selectors. Once this issue has been determined by Council a full announcement will be made in the Bulletin immediately following. Council will deal with it no later than the meeting of April 8th.

I notice that an extension must have occurred last time as selections were finalised about three weeks after the normal selection deadline (By-Laws specify 120 days before the Olympiad starts).

Kevin Bonham
29-03-2004, 12:44 AM
A player in the top 20 has more existential knowledge of what is required to be a top player, this I think is an objective fact. If asked then in an ethnographic survey to distinguish what constitutes chess strength, they ought to have more ability then the average layperson in identifying these strengths.

I would agree with that, all other things being equal - but you were talking about justice, which in this case works at cross purposes. Also, while a strong player has that advantage, it only makes them more likely to understand the concept, and perhaps not very much more likely. It does not guarantee they will understand it better than anyone else.


This is an important point. Olympic selection only affects the top players. If the ACF collects these opinions over a number of years then eventually there will be some sort of accepted universal qualification system.

I doubt it greatly. I suspect there will always be differences. Even though the top players have your "existential knowledge" (that's "experience" for the non-sociologists among us :p ) of being a top player, they are not all the same kind of top player.

Even the greatest players in history cannot come to agreement on who the greatest player in history (themselves excluded) was. So why should the top 20 in any random nation have a unified view on how to decide who should go to the Olympiad?


The veil of ignorance ought to be utilised but not for the whole chess community.

As I have made clear there is no "veil of ignorance" in your process because there is no "ignorance"; I am certain Mr Rawls would agree. The whole point of the "veil of ignorance" is that you do not know who you are helping to design a system for, you do not know who you will be in the post-veil society. In your example there is no random reassignment, which defeats the whole purpose of the "veil" - which is to provide a concept of justice from which the influences of personal interest and current position are (supposedly) removed.

arosar
29-03-2004, 09:43 AM
But why should looking after the elite individuals and Australian chess be mutually exclusive. Surely if we keep the top players happy and ensure that they are empowered to produce policy in a manner that involves them then everybody wins.

I agree with your 'elitism'. Bravo to you! (Seems a bit funny since you're a commie, ain't ya?)

But maaate....all this talk of Rawls and 'veils of ingnorance'. How's about lifting the 'veil of sociological hocus-pocus' on a discussion on chess? I sweare mate you sound like a frustrated undersgrad sometimes you know that.

AR

arosar
29-03-2004, 12:35 PM
An interesting article by Bobby Ang today in his column. http://www.bworld.com.ph/current/A&L/ang.html

RP chess politics is way sooo much more fun! Hey CL, and other religious types, maybe Mauro Yasay can be your hero eh? I hope you people understand a bit of pinoy humour.

And here's a game for youse.

[Event "Madonna di Campiglio"]
[Site "Madonna di Campiglio"]
[Date "1973.??.??"]
[Round "0"]
[White "Torre,Eugenio"]
[Black "Matanovic,Aleksandar"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Eco "C84"]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.d4 exd4 7.e5 Ne4 8.b4 Nc3 9.Nxc3 dxc3 10.a3 0-0 11.Qd3 b5 12.Bb3 a5 13.bxa5 Ba6 14.Rd1 b4 15.Qf5 Be2 16.Ng5 Bxg5 17.Bxg5 Qe8 18.Re1 Rxa5 19.Rxe2 Nd4 20.Qd3 Nxe2+ 21.Qxe2 bxa3 22.Bf4 d6 23.Qd3 dxe5 24.Qxc3 Qb5 25.Bd2 Rfa8 26.Qf3 R5a7 27.Qxf7+ Kh8 28.Bh6 1-0

AR

chesslover
29-03-2004, 07:28 PM
Daily Tele said that officials are trying hard to make sure that Thorpe qualifies

However that is not fair on Craig Stevens who won on secodn place. Under the rules Stevens made it and Thorpe did not. That should be the end but even John Howard said that it was a shame that Thorpe cannot make it

This shows that the pro elite bias in chess is not limited to chess but is common in swimming and other sports

They should let anyone play for the Olympiad by having a qualifying event that anyone can enter. The top players can then go to another qulaifying tournament and the winners can then meet the GMs and IMs with the top 6 being chosen for the Olympiad

That way a non titled player can also play for the Olympiad and we will have greater ownership and involvement in the Australian team that goes to the Olympiad.

The fact that people here will rubbish this idea shows the elite bias and self interest that prevents people like me who are not 2000 rated from even having a chance to play for Australia.

All I am saying is give everyone a chance. Play the state qualifying event then have another qualifying event for the winners of the qulaifying event and then like swimming have a tournament where the top 6 make the squad.

Let democracy and fairness prevail in Australian Olympiad selection. Let the common man have a chance to play for Australia if he is good enough to beat the GMs and IMs.

chesslover
29-03-2004, 07:30 PM
An interesting article by Bobby Ang today in his column. http://www.bworld.com.ph/current/A&L/ang.html

RP chess politics is way sooo much more fun! Hey CL, and other religious types, maybe Mauro Yasay can be your hero eh? I hope you people understand a bit of pinoy humour.

And here's a game for youse.

[Event "Madonna di Campiglio"]
[Site "Madonna di Campiglio"]
[Date "1973.??.??"]
[Round "0"]
[White "Torre,Eugenio"]
[Black "Matanovic,Aleksandar"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Eco "C84"]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.d4 exd4 7.e5 Ne4 8.b4 Nc3 9.Nxc3 dxc3 10.a3 0-0 11.Qd3 b5 12.Bb3 a5 13.bxa5 Ba6 14.Rd1 b4 15.Qf5 Be2 16.Ng5 Bxg5 17.Bxg5 Qe8 18.Re1 Rxa5 19.Rxe2 Nd4 20.Qd3 Nxe2+ 21.Qxe2 bxa3 22.Bf4 d6 23.Qd3 dxe5 24.Qxc3 Qb5 25.Bd2 Rfa8 26.Qf3 R5a7 27.Qxf7+ Kh8 28.Bh6 1-0

AR

salamat dear amiel salamat

you are a wonderful treasure and your posts brings so much joy and information. Never let others change you and be yourself and stand up for your beliefs and passion.

Garvinator
29-03-2004, 07:32 PM
unless i am mistaken, if a player under 2000 was to run riot and win their state championship, come 1st or second in doebrel, win the grand prix and place 1st or 2nd in other large tournaments, they would be up for serious consideration for an olympiad berth regardless of the rating. I dont see any need to change the current structure so a person who has zero chance of qualifying can attempt to qualify.

Rhubarb
29-03-2004, 07:46 PM
They should let anyone play for the Olympiad by having a qualifying event that anyone can enter.

Yes, Jose/chesslover, and they should run this qualifying event on the Internet. We'll just have to take your word for it that you aren't using an engine to help you play. :owned:

Garvinator
29-03-2004, 07:48 PM
Yes, Jose/chesslover, and they should run this qualifying event on the Internet. We'll just have to take your word for it that you aren't using an engine to help you play. :owned:
or have one of us watch him play from his/her club or watch him/her from home ;)

Bill Gletsos
29-03-2004, 08:01 PM
Daily Tele said that officials are trying hard to make sure that Thorpe qualifies

However that is not fair on Craig Stevens who won on secodn place. Under the rules Stevens made it and Thorpe did not. That should be the end but even John Howard said that it was a shame that Thorpe cannot make it

This shows that the pro elite bias in chess is not limited to chess but is common in swimming and other sports
You complete moron.
It is obvious that Thorpe and Stevens are both elite swimmers.

If the aim of the Olympics is to send the best people then clearly Thorpe is a vastly superior 400 metre swimmer to Stevens.
In fact Thorpe and Hacket hold the 10 fastest 400 metre times in history. It should be noted however that Thorpe holds the first 9.


They should let anyone play for the Olympiad by having a qualifying event that anyone can enter. The top players can then go to another qulaifying tournament and the winners can then meet the GMs and IMs with the top 6 being chosen for the Olympiad

That way a non titled player can also play for the Olympiad and we will have greater ownership and involvement in the Australian team that goes to the Olympiad.

The fact that people here will rubbish this idea shows the elite bias and self interest that prevents people like me who are not 2000 rated from even having a chance to play for Australia.
What a total goose you are.
Try this for a plan dufus.
1) Win your state reserves tournament.
2) This will gain you automatic entry in the following years Champioship division.
3) Then win the State Championship.
4) That will gain you entry into the Australian Championship where you can demonstrate your talent against thye "elite" players.


All I am saying is give everyone a chance. Play the state qualifying event then have another qualifying event for the winners of the qulaifying event and then like swimming have a tournament where the top 6 make the squad.
You dipstick.
Swimming dont let dog paddlers like you compete for olympic trials. Neither should chess.


Till the powers that be see reason I urge people not to contribute to the Olympics funding till it becomes a geniuine democracy for all Australian players
Australian Chess players should treat this comment with the contempt it deserves.


Let democracy and fairness prevail in Australian Olympiad selection. Let the common man have a chance to play for Australia if he is good enough to beat the GMs and IMs.
I guess we can be thankful your not a selector.

chesslover
29-03-2004, 09:58 PM
Yes, Jose/chesslover, and they should run this qualifying event on the Internet. We'll just have to take your word for it that you aren't using an engine to help you play. :owned:

you just have no clue about what really happened with the world champ KOs.

There are always two sides to a story. Next week talk to Jose and you can be educated about what really happened.

chesslover
29-03-2004, 10:05 PM
You complete moron.
If the aim of the Olympics is to send the best people then clearly Thorpe is a vastly superior 400 metre swimmer to Stevens.
In fact Thorpe and Hacket hold the 10 fastest 400 metre times in history. It should be noted however that Thorpe holds the first 9.

What a total goose you are.
Try this for a plan dufus.
1) Win your state reserves tournament.
2) This will gain you automatic entry in the following years Champioship division.
3) Then win the State Championship.
4) That will gain you entry into the Australian Championship where you can demonstrate your talent against thye "elite" players.



Look let me explain this to you so that even you can understand

If Stevens beat Thorpe then that is it. Thorpe failed in the race that counted and that is it. Yet in AUstralian chess do you seriously think Stevens would ever have been chosen over Thorpe even if Stevens beat Thorpe in the Aust Champs. NO NO NO

And your example of me winning the reserve and going to the state champs and the Aust champs is still stupid. Even if I won the reserves, won the NSW state champs and then won the Aust Champs I am not guarenteed selection am I? why because it is in the hands of the selectors not on performance

So let us say it was between GM Rogers (the equivalent to Thorpe in chess) and a person who is playing well and who had won the Aust champs, the state champs and the state reserves but is not 2000. Who would the selectors choose? me or Rogers???? GM Rogers

SImilarly under our selection based system Thorpe would never be ommited in favour of Stevens. Thsi shows the inbuilt conservative establishment bias towards our elite players

Garvinator
29-03-2004, 10:08 PM
i have had a gutful of you chesslover, if you feel this strongly about how the officialdom treat you, then either go to another country or leave the sport. I dont think many ppl will be mourning your leaving.

chesslover
29-03-2004, 10:26 PM
dont takle my word for it read what the Daily Telegraph says about the swimming selectioin today. The Daily tele for all you non NSW people is the number 1 paper in NSW and outsells all other papers in the country

Under the heading "Sudden death result ensures drama: the Daily Tele says that "Swimming has the toughest qualifying system of any Olympic sport in Australia". Think about that. It is the TOUGHEST qualifying system of ANY Olypic sport

The Daily tele says that "it can be cruel - everything hinges on how an athlete performs on the night - just as it does in the Olympics"

AHA AHA AHA. That is the checkmate move. I will repeat that in bold so that people can digest that concept. EVEYTHING HINGES ON HOW AN ATHLETE PERFORMS ON THE NIGHT - JUST AS IT DOES IN THE OLYMPICS. Checkmate

The Olympaid is just one tournament and having selection based on the one tournament is thus valid. because EVEYTHING HINGES ON HOW A chess player PERFORMS ON that one tournament - JUST AS IT DOES IN THE olympiad

The daily tele then says 'Anything they may have achieved in the leadup - world records included - count for nothing on the night of the trials". Another checkmate by itself. Let me repeat that. Think about that. It does not matter what your performance is or any titles as you have to perform on that night. Does not matter if you GM Rogers or an IM or a FM or non titled. You have to perform on the night. The past is that - it is the past. The moment is now. The future is yours to grasp. Compare that to our selection system where past performance is counted.

Now teh Daily Tele quotes the Australian Olympic Commitee. This is teh KILLER blow. The person says 'WE HOLD SWIMMING UP AS A ROLE MODEL FOR OTHER OLYMPIC SPORTS - IT IS CRUEL BUT CLEAN".

So ignore the stupid statement by Jason. The AOC holds the swimming qualification model as a ROLE MODEL for other sports.

The daily tele then says that the 'system used by swimming is regarded so highly in Australia for a number of reasons". Notice again what it said. It is regarded SO HIGHLY in Australia

The daily tele then goes on to list the reasons why it is regarded so highly

It says "it produces tournament ready elite performers, it reduces the propsect of litigation from selection and it is big business"

Think about all that before you continue on

If we had such a cutthroat system only the elite who could perform on the day will represent Australia. It will reduce legal challenges and also make it more attractive to sponsors.

The daily Tele then says that AOC says that 'THE SPORT IS BOOMING BECAUSE OF THIS STRUCTURE". Why is chess not booming and having litigation and not havcing elite performers who can win on the night

because of the establishment and the elite bias that is why

Even in the USA that is how all track and field selection is made - all on the one qualifying trials

And track and field in the US and Swimming here are all booming while chess is not because we cannot open our eyes and see that having one tournament to decide the selection is the cleanest and purest way to select the Olympiad performers

Kevin Bonham
29-03-2004, 10:38 PM
So let us say it was between GM Rogers (the equivalent to Thorpe in chess) and a person who is playing well and who had won the Aust champs, the state champs and the state reserves but is not 2000. Who would the selectors choose? me or Rogers???? GM Rogers

You seem to live in some kind of delusion where Australia only sends one person to the team.


Till the powers that be see reason I urge people not to contribute to the Olympics funding till it becomes a geniuine democracy for all Australian players

Until you see that this is a completely unacceptable way to make your point and apologise for it, I urge all posters who are not moderators to whack the ignore button on you for a few weeks and leave you to fester to yourself.

I, alas, do not have that privelege.

At one point your contributions here - the NECG appeal fiasco excepted - were mostly of a positive nature but lately I can only assume the impending discovery of your identity has caused you to behave destructively rather than constructively. Whether this is through trolling or cluelessness I too have had a gutful of it.

Bill Gletsos
29-03-2004, 10:41 PM
Look let me explain this to you so that even you can understand
I doubt it.
After all your the supreme goose.

If Stevens beat Thorpe then that is it. Thorpe failed in the race that counted and that is it.[/quote]
You cretin.
Stevens never beat Thorpe.
Thorpe never got to swim because he fell in the pool.
He did not attempt to start illegally. He fell in.


Yet in AUstralian chess do you seriously think Stevens would ever have been chosen over Thorpe even if Stevens beat Thorpe in the Aust Champs. NO NO NO
Stevens has never beaten Thorpe so you example is stupid.


And your example of me winning the reserve and going to the state champs and the Aust champs is still stupid. Even if I won the reserves, won the NSW state champs and then won the Aust Champs I am not guarenteed selection am I? why because it is in the hands of the selectors not on performance
No because selection based on a single event is stupid.



So let us say it was between GM Rogers (the equivalent to Thorpe in chess) and a person who is playing well and who had won the Aust champs, the state champs and the state reserves but is not 2000. Who would the selectors choose? me or Rogers???? GM Rogers
You got right dipstick.


SImilarly under our selection based system Thorpe would never be ommited in favour of Stevens. Thsi shows the inbuilt conservative establishment bias towards our elite players
Rubbish.
Both Thorpe and Stevens are elite athletes.
Thorpe however is the superior swimmer at 400 metres.

chesslover
29-03-2004, 10:44 PM
You seem to live in some kind of delusion where Australia only sends one person to the team.



Until you see that this is a completely unacceptable way to make your point and apologise for it, I urge all posters who are not moderators to whack the ignore button on you for a few weeks and leave you to fester to yourself.

I, alas, do not have that privelege.

At one point your contributions here - the NECG appeal fiasco excepted - were mostly of a positive nature but lately I can only assume the impending discovery of your identity has caused you to behave destructively rather than constructively. Whether this is through trolling or cluelessness I too have had a gutful of it.

what you say makes sensse and I have deleted what I wrote

I do get emotional sometimes and get carried away

sorry

Kevin Bonham
29-03-2004, 10:51 PM
Look let me explain this to you so that even you can understand

What a joke. CL if you can convince me that there are five things that you are capable of understanding that Bill Gletsos is not, I will play 1.P-QR3 in my next rated game irrespective of colour.


If Stevens beat Thorpe then that is it. Thorpe failed in the race that counted and that is it. Yet in AUstralian chess do you seriously think Stevens would ever have been chosen over Thorpe even if Stevens beat Thorpe in the Aust Champs. NO NO NO

No, and why should he? Stevens is at best an outside chance to medal. Thorpe would be a near certainty provided he did not false-start. Thorpe has apparently never false-started in any trial or Olympics before so the probability of him false-starting is very low. Even if Thorpe false-started one in every two times he climbed in the pool he would still be a better selection than Stevens, because the other half the time he would win and Australia would probably get two medals.

From the point of view of picking the best team the system has clearly failed in this instance. Whether its successes overall cancel out its failures this time I do not know. In general such a system would be more likely to work in swimming than in chess, since in swimming the best swimmer in the team for an event would often beat the next best 80-90% of the time. In chess the risk of the weaker players getting through and the strongest players missing out is far greater. Therefore any analogy between the systems is invalid no matter how much silly and pathetic crowing you wish to throw in with it.


So let us say it was between GM Rogers (the equivalent to Thorpe in chess) and a person who is playing well and who had won the Aust champs, the state champs and the state reserves but is not 2000.

I believe it would be mathematically more or less impossible to do this without your rating rising above 2000 in the process. :owned:

Kevin Bonham
29-03-2004, 10:52 PM
what you say makes sensse and I have deleted what I wrote

I do get emotional sometimes and get carried away

sorry

OK, thanks.

chesslover
30-03-2004, 12:40 AM
The Daily Tele of 29 march has shown why one event where everyone starts off equal held to select swimmers for the Olympiad is the best way to choose swimmers.

Chesslover has posted this information on another post a couple of post before this post.

The main reason why this method of selection is better is that it reduces litigation scope and produces tournament ready elite athletes and also encourages more media and spectator interest.

The Daily Tele also says that teh Australian Olympic Commision thinks that this method of selection is being held up as the role model for all other Olympic sports.

Even the major objection to this method of selection (too much emphasis on one event) is made into a virtue by the AOC. It says that "it is clean" and that everything hinges on oen night - just like in the Olympics.

Rincewind
30-03-2004, 12:46 AM
I believe it would be mathematically more or less impossible to do this without your rating rising above 2000 in the process. :owned:

Not impossible. But certainly the bipolar results in other events would be eyed suspiciously. ;)

Kevin Bonham
30-03-2004, 03:40 AM
Not impossible. But certainly the bipolar results in other events would be eyed suspiciously. ;)

Very fine inuendo. Impeccably played. :clap:

Ian Rout
30-03-2004, 09:00 AM
The Daily Tele of 29 march has shown why one event where everyone starts off equal held to select swimmers for the Olympiad is the best way to choose swimmers.

Chesslover has posted this information on another post a couple of post before this post.


Won't you need an exceptionally long pool to get twenty million people in the same race? And does chesslover's reference to himself in the third person result from listening to too many Bob Dole speeches?

Leaving that aside, I think some people are missing the point that CL is a character, not a person. He (CL is I think a he, though the person playing him has not been proven to be) is similar to the bad guy in wrestling. In the real world somebody who went round hitting people over the head with chairs etc would be not only suspended from their sport but prosecuted and probably certified.

But the actor playing the bad guy is, normally, not psychotic. In the same way it is doubtful if the CL actor genuinely imagines that he/she is, or is likely to be in the short to medium term, a candidate for the Australian team, or that the actor fails to recognise the opportunities provided by Ballarat, Doeberl, State Championships and a host of other events to demonstrate at least some evidence of their potential.

At the very least a rational person would rack up a few decent results before frothing about the unfairness of the system. Even if CL (the character) is right in asserting that the system unfairly excludes him than at best he is showing that the right conclusion is reached by the wrong method, which won't get him a lot of sympathy. CL's success however is not judged by anyone accepting his "argument" but by old ladies banging their umbrellas on the edge of the ring, so he needs to be as outrageous as possible.

Of course it's possible that CL, the actor, may genuinely harbour a certain amount of resentment and jealousy at players much more proficient than themselves and is using the CL character to vent that in a way that they wouldn't dare do under their real name.

Oepty
30-03-2004, 12:10 PM
Chesslover, Do you believe that Darryl Johansen should not be in the Olympiad team based on his very poor performance at the Australian Championships?
I also wonder when was the last time an Australian Champion missed out on an Olympiad team they applied for.

Scott

chesslover
30-03-2004, 11:07 PM
Chesslover, Do you believe that Darryl Johansen should not be in the Olympiad team based on his very poor performance at the Australian Championships?
I also wonder when was the last time an Australian Champion missed out on an Olympiad team they applied for.

Scott

Thorpe was the greatest swimmer in the world and had so many world records in teh 400m.

In the swimming trials he did not make it.

If the Aust Champs was used as the only basis for selection then Darryl will be not in the top 6. So he would not be in the team if chess used the swimming model. The same model that the Daily Tele praised and which the AOC said should be a role model for the rest of the sports

Chess does not do that and selects people in a diffferent way. Under that darryl will make it. Is it right???? Is it wrong????

There will always be arguements and legal threats.

Under the swimming model which the AOCsaid should be a role model for other sports it is more purer and you have to perform on the tournament to be selected

chesslover
30-03-2004, 11:14 PM
Won't you need an exceptionally long pool to get twenty million people in the same race? And does chesslover's reference to himself in the third person result from listening to too many Bob Dole speeches?

Of course it's possible that CL, the actor, may genuinely harbour a certain amount of resentment and jealousy at players much more proficient than themselves and is using the CL character to vent that in a way that they wouldn't dare do under their real name.

Yup. You got me. Are you an amateur or professional psychologist??? I am so consumed with envy that I cannot make the Olympiad because it is not a pure selection but based on what selectors decide that I harbour great envy, anger and resentment at those who are better at me ;)

My shortcoming aside, did you see what the daily tele said about the swimming selection yesterday??? It is more pure, has less scope for litigation and produces people who can perform when the pressure is on.

How many times have Australia taken players who have performed below their rating???? People who choke will be exposed by having just one tournament determine the selection. That is what they do in Swimming

Even the Australian Olympic Commission said that this selection should be a role model for all sports.

Kevin Bonham
31-03-2004, 03:32 AM
My shortcoming aside, did you see what the daily tele said about the swimming selection yesterday??? It is more pure, has less scope for litigation and produces people who can perform when the pressure is on.

So this guy who qualified in Thorpe's place is going to produce a world record in Athens, right?

(The jury is out on this one IMHO. Obviously this is a bad selection seen in isolation, one that has deprived Australia of one near-certain silver medal. Whether the benefits of the system in terms of encouraging candidates to build their skills for the trials and to always remain in peak fitness are worth it is what those defending the system must prove. Note that the onus is clearly on them after what has happened - we have a known negative, now show me the positive.)


How many times have Australia taken players who have performed below their rating????

I think if you look at a large enough sample I think you'll see this happening around about half the time, or hopefully a little bit less.


People who choke will be exposed by having just one tournament determine the selection. That is what they do in Swimming [/i]

But here we have a person who virtually never chokes eliminated because he chanced to throw a very rare choke at this point.

Indeed, imagine two athletes. One is motivated by performing at the highest level but doesn't take weak opposition too seriously and chokes in events he would otherwise win easily, but wins when the going gets tough. The other is happy when it isn't too difficult, but has an inferiority complex and chokes against truly world-class performers. In this selection system it is the first who could miss the Olympics while the second would go and fail.

[quote] Even the Australian Olympic Commission said that this selection should be a role model for all sports.

They are in damage control mode and cannot be expected to issue a rational statement. What was their evidence? And let's not have this sad old chestnut about it driving the team's success, otherwise I will ask why Australia is so good at cricket.

Garvinator
31-03-2004, 08:17 AM
with the perform or you are out criteria for olympic selection in swimming, i would wonder what they would do if they faced a michael diamond type situation.

Lucena
31-03-2004, 10:07 AM
Even the Australian Olympic Commission said that this selection should be a role model for all sports.

but is chess a sport? :hmm:

Garvinator
31-03-2004, 10:24 AM
but is chess a sport? :hmm:
dont start gareth :p i think chess is a sport.

Ian Rout
31-03-2004, 12:11 PM
My shortcoming aside, did you see what the daily tele said about the swimming selection yesterday??? It is more pure, has less scope for litigation and produces people who can perform when the pressure is on.

I saw what Daily Tele employee Mike Gibson said on "The Back Page" and it was not to that effect.

Among other things he made the point, applicable here, that the sponsors (he had taxpayers in particular in mind) are not going to be impressed at putting money into a team which is obviously not the best.

Kevin Bonham
31-03-2004, 01:06 PM
with the perform or you are out criteria for olympic selection in swimming, i would wonder what they would do if they faced a michael diamond type situation.

How is that going anyway? Last I heard they'd had two shootoffs and were tied, has anything happened since?

Garvinator
31-03-2004, 04:06 PM
How is that going anyway? Last I heard they'd had two shootoffs and were tied, has anything happened since?
i havent heard anything since, but yes from what i remembered they were tied after two events.

firegoat7
31-03-2004, 06:15 PM
KB wrote:
but you were talking about justice, which in this case works at cross purposes. Also, while a strong player has that advantage, it only makes them more likely to understand the concept, and perhaps not very much more likely. It does not guarantee they will understand it better than anyone else. What are you actually saying here Bonham? because I have no idea what you are trying to convey. If you are suggesting that strong players are incapable of judging the strength of their peers then I will simply say that you are wrong. Furthermore, somebody who is not a strong player would have little understanding of how to judge a chessplayers strength. I mean let us look at your analysis, in most fields those at the top of their profession are usually able to judge the abilities of most people within their field of study, where as somebody who is at the bottom of a particular field of study is normally fairly naive about needed knowledge. IE first year physics students don't generally work for NASA, normally a doctorate is a pre-requisite. What makes you so confident that chess is any different to physics in regards to knowledge?




KB then wrote:
I doubt it greatly. I suspect there will always be differences. Even though the top players have your "existential knowledge" (that's "experience" for the non-sociologists among us ) of being a top player, they are not all the same kind of top player.
Whoever was denying there is difference, I certainly wasn't. I don't even understand how this is relevent to the conversation.

KB then missed the boat again with:
Even the greatest players in history cannot come to agreement on who the greatest player in history (themselves excluded) was. So why should the top 20 in any random nation have a unified view on how to decide who should go to the Olympiad? :hmm: UMMMM are we having the same conversation here? I never ever said the top players should choose the Olympic squad. I merely suggested that the top players ought to be consulted on how the Olympic selectors should weigh their evidence. It is not about "who" ought to go. Its about "how" are these decisions made empirically.


then KB kibitzed:
As I have made clear there is no "veil of ignorance" in your process because there is no "ignorance"; I am certain Mr Rawls would agree. The whole point of the "veil of ignorance" is that you do not know who you are helping to design a system for, you do not know who you will be in the post-veil society. In your example there is no random reassignment, which defeats the whole purpose of the "veil" - which is to provide a concept of justice from which the influences of personal interest and current position are In fact you have made nothing clear. All you have really done is attack my position. Why you deem this necessary is your personal issue, but one thing is apparent. You have misinterpreted what I have said. In an emotional state you appear to be defending the status quo. Unfortunately you appear to be completely blinded to the fact of "How" instead of "Who". Like how do the selectors weigh up what is important? Who tells them what to consider?

Cheers FG7

firegoat7
31-03-2004, 06:23 PM
AR wrote:
I agree with your 'elitism'. Bravo to you! (Seems a bit funny since you're a commie, ain't ya?) Your the one using labels not me. There is nothing elite about what I said, maybe you should re-read the posts if you don't understand the position.

Cheers FG7

P.S Rawls was a philosopher, not a sociologist.

chesslover
01-04-2004, 07:29 PM
firegoat it is good to see someone who does not tow the establishment and elite line

keep fighting for the common man mate

do not let them intimidate you dude

chesslover
01-04-2004, 11:17 PM
These are the top 10 countries by the average ratings of their top 10 players

1 Russia 2721
2 Ukraine 2625
3 England 2614
4 Hungary 2614
5 France 2609
6 United States of America 2606
7 Germany 2603
8 Israel 2603
9 China 2595
10 Armenia 2593

Australia was ranked number 50 out of 140 countries with an average rating of 2431

The number 140 country in the world is Chile with an average rating of 1991
Phillipines was number 40 with 2478 rating

This tells us that if Australia comez in the top 50 in the Olympiad we have done well.

Kevin Bonham
02-04-2004, 12:57 AM
KB wrote: What are you actually saying here Bonham? because I have no idea what you are trying to convey. If you are suggesting that strong players are incapable of judging the strength of their peers then I will simply say that you are wrong.

Read what I wrote more carefully, it was easily clear enough for you to understand it if you try. It was certainly not the above.


Furthermore, somebody who is not a strong player would have little understanding of how to judge a chessplayers strength. I mean let us look at your analysis, in most fields those at the top of their profession are usually able to judge the abilities of most people within their field of study, where as somebody who is at the bottom of a particular field of study is normally fairly naive about needed knowledge. IE first year physics students don't generally work for NASA, normally a doctorate is a pre-requisite. What makes you so confident that chess is any different to physics in regards to knowledge?

Chess has results - a game is either won, lost or drawn. Statistics drawn from these results, accompanied by a rating system (when used properly), can give useful insights into player performance that do not depend on being a chess expert. Particle physics is not comparable because there is no obvious "contest" with clearly defined winners and losers that enables a layman to see that one physicist has clearly "outperformed" another. There is no way a person lacking any real knowledge of physics can really know anything about who the greatest physicists (a very subjective concept anyway) are, except through the reputation given to them by the history books or their peers. Yet a suitably expert statistician with enough results data could, for starters, satisfy themselves that Kasparov was one of the strongest chess players of the modern era, even if that statistician had never even learnt to play the game and knew nothing of its history. And indeed, that statistician could do much, much more.

Indeed, suppose you were going to ask two people to design an objective selection process for a chess team (so that once you have the process, you just feed in the data and spit out a result). Person A is a grandmaster with no mathematical experience. Person B is a statistics professor who is a dummy at chess. I would unhesitatingly ask Person B. (Note that this is not the same thing as saying that B would make a better selector - now see if you can tell me why not ;) ).


Whoever was denying there is difference, I certainly wasn't. I don't even understand how this is relevent to the conversation.

By "differences" I meant "differences of opinion". You were saying that an accepted universal selection system could be formed by collecting the opinions of top players. I was disputing that the consensus necessary for universal acceptance would ever be reached - furthermore if it ever is reached, I'm sure they'll tell us anyway. Look at other sports, the same kind of arguments go on in so many of them. Every time a selection is publicly controversial you will see people from the sport take different sides on what the system should be.


I never ever said the top players should choose the Olympic squad. I merely suggested that the top players ought to be consulted on how the Olympic selectors should weigh their evidence. It is not about "who" ought to go. Its about "how" are these decisions made empirically.

But the main reason that the top players in history cannot ever agree on how the top players in history should be ranked is precisely that they cannot and probably never will reach agreement on how you do it. If you have the "how", the "who" follows easily.


In fact you have made nothing clear.

If that is so, it reflects poorly on your capacity to follow some very basic points. You, however, have made very many things clear:

(i) You are throwing around philosophical jargon without understanding its proper application.

(ii) Despite pretending to comprehend this jargon you cannot follow the most basic debating points about it, and therefore cannot see that you are wrong.

(iii) Instead of simply facing this or even addressing my arguments on why you have misused the "veil of ignorance", you resort, handwaving-style, to calling me "emotional" - utterly without evidence - and suggesting that I am attacking your position for the sake of it rather than because your argument is fatally flawed. This is not a good look.

(iv) You are trolling as usual...

(v) ...but not very well.

Actually you are right that I feel emotion as I read your words. But only mildly, and the emotions in question are just pity and bemusement. :hand:


Unfortunately you appear to be completely blinded to the fact of "How" instead of "Who". Like how do the selectors weigh up what is important? Who tells them what to consider?

Answered above. There has been blurring of the distinction at many points by both of us in this discussion, but it matters little because if the "How" is clearly enough established, the "Who" is bound to follow.


P.S Rawls was a philosopher, not a sociologist.

And one whose work you need to understand much better before you throw his name around again. Every single member of the second-year class where I first encountered his output would have immediately spotted the errors in your use of his ideas.

Oepty
02-04-2004, 02:05 PM
These are the top 10 countries by the average ratings of their top 10 players

1 Russia 2721
2 Ukraine 2625
3 England 2614
4 Hungary 2614
5 France 2609
6 United States of America 2606
7 Germany 2603
8 Israel 2603
9 China 2595
10 Armenia 2593

Australia was ranked number 50 out of 140 countries with an average rating of 2431

The number 140 country in the world is Chile with an average rating of 1991
Phillipines was number 40 with 2478 rating

This tells us that if Australia comez in the top 50 in the Olympiad we have done well.

Chesslover, Where did you get these figures?
I think Australia is actually the 53rd country in the world on this basis. I think you will that most of the ratings for Chile, as well as Macedonia and Bulgaria have been withheld by FIDE because they have not paid the correct fees.

Scott

Edit: Don't worry, I found the figures are on the FIDE website

arosar
02-04-2004, 05:04 PM
Hello you fellas. Don't forget to read Ang's part 2: http://www.bworld.com.ph/current/A&L/ang.html

Question: What was Australia's highest ever placing in the Olympiad and in what year?

What about this notion that "One of the important functions of a national team is to discover new talent"? Agree or disagree? Please restrict comments to Australian context only.

Ang goes on to say, "To my mind the best composition of our chess team should be to seed our highest-rated player, then also given an automatic slot to our Junior (Under-20) chess champion". Is the latter suggestion (re under 20 champ seeding), especially, practicable for Australia?

AR

Kevin Bonham
02-04-2004, 09:35 PM
Question: What was Australia's highest ever placing in the Olympiad and in what year?

Not sure offhand, but I would bet that it was before the Soviet Union disintegrated.


What about this notion that "One of the important functions of a national team is to discover new talent"? Agree or disagree? Please restrict comments to Australian context only.

Disagree. New talent should discover itself and then apply for the team. Picking people who might be new talent (who knows?) is too risky. The current stated objectives for Olympiad selection are to order the applicants in order of playing strength, unless Council decides otherwise. Whether we should go for a more long-term approach is sometimes discussed. The pitfall of it is that the leverage for subjectivity is increased even further.


Ang goes on to say, "To my mind the best composition of our chess team should be to seed our highest-rated player, then also given an automatic slot to our Junior (Under-20) chess champion". Is the latter suggestion (re under 20 champ seeding), especially, practicable for Australia?


It's "practicable" but I don't think it's a good idea, why restrict the system in this way? There is no guarantee in any given year that a single U20 player will be strong enough to justify selection even as a future prospect, and as all here know, I'm not a fan of single-event selection.

Ian Rout
02-04-2004, 09:57 PM
Hello you fellas. Don't forget to read Ang's part 2: http://www.bworld.com.ph/current/A&L/ang.html

Question: What was Australia's highest ever placing in the Olympiad and in what year?

AR
Don't know what the place was, but I'll take a stab at 1970 in Germany.

jase
02-04-2004, 10:41 PM
I believe the Australian Women's team placed 7th one year. And yes, let us keep firmly in mind that previous high placings had a lot to do with the Soveit Union being one team instead of 10, and many fewer nations competing.

I think picking our strongest team is the way to go - there are many representative opportunities for younger players. Often we have players aged 20 and under force their way in under current policy. Examples over the last decade I can recall include Laura Moylan, Zong-Yuan Zong, Trevor Tao, John-Paul Wallace, and Greg Canfell [pretty sure JP made a team when he was a teenager, mid-1990s, and Greg I think went to Manila in about 1992 when he would have been around 20?]

Rhubarb
03-04-2004, 08:29 PM
I think picking our strongest team is the way to go - there are many representative opportunities for younger players. Often we have players aged 20 and under force their way in under current policy. Examples over the last decade I can recall include Laura Moylan, Zong-Yuan Zong, Trevor Tao, John-Paul Wallace, and Greg Canfell [pretty sure JP made a team when he was a teenager, mid-1990s, and Greg I think went to Manila in about 1992 when he would have been around 20?]
Jase, I played in Novi Sad 1990 when I was 19. I recall that I was selected eighth out of ten applicants and got into the team after two withdrawals. I don't remember what the selection procedure was, so I can't say whether my age had anything to do with it, but in any case I considered myself to be a stronger player than numbers nine and ten, and the selectors agreed. That I bombed out probably had more to do with my erratic style than my age, and I never quite recovered from blowing a winning position against a Bulgarian GM in Round 1, although I did get an IM norm in Hungary straight after the Olympiad.

jase
04-04-2004, 10:53 PM
I wish you'd both bugger off to a non-chess thread; this one has some interesting points about things like who might make the team, and what constitutes the best selection method.

I haven't paid much attention to the moderation rules, but is it not possible to have the entire slanging match moved or deleted?

[This has now been done - flamewar deleted and moved to offtopic section - KB]

Meanwhile I look forward to reading the timetable for the Olympiad selection process.

Kevin Bonham
04-04-2004, 11:10 PM
[EDIT: remove superceded comments as sub-thread has now been moved.]


Meanwhile I look forward to reading the timetable for the Olympiad selection process.

Just waiting for Council's decision on extending the selection deadline to allow more events to be included. Last time it was extended by a few weeks. This time I'm recommending extension from what would have been a deadline of June 16th to July 16th. That recommendation's just as a starting point for debate - it's up to Council to decide, and if anyone's got suggestions I suggest pass them on to your state rep.

Kevin Bonham
04-04-2004, 11:13 PM
Except of course you have been observed doing this sort of thing before, it is a practice that enables you to cover your arguemental mistakes, you know the ones you make when you talk your usual emotional rubbish.

See response in off-topic section.

[EDIT]PS I'd like to apologise for keeping the off-topic slagging going on this thread. The solution I've adopted should keep it off the main section in future so thanks jase for the nudge in the right direction.

Garvinator
05-04-2004, 12:41 AM
Just waiting for Council's decision on extending the selection deadline to allow more events to be included. Last time it was extended by a few weeks. This time I'm recommending extension from what would have been a deadline of June 16th to July 16th. That recommendation's just as a starting point for debate - it's up to Council to decide, and if anyone's got suggestions I suggest pass them on to your state rep.
how is it going regarding getting selectors? if you have say four and need a fifth and cant get one, i will consider saying that i will do it, but that is a definite last resort ;)

Garvinator
05-04-2004, 12:43 AM
See response in off-topic section.

[EDIT]PS I'd like to apologise for keeping the off-topic slagging going on this thread. The solution I've adopted should keep it off the main section in future so thanks jase for the nudge in the right direction.
how about copy/pasting your and fg7's posts that didnt pertain to olympic selections to the non chess thread and then delete those posts from here?

Kevin Bonham
05-04-2004, 02:23 PM
how is it going regarding getting selectors? if you have say four and need a fifth and cant get one, i will consider saying that i will do it, but that is a definite last resort ;)

In my report to this Council meeting I've asked the rest of Council to assist with suggesting names to help fill the selection panel. I'll see how it goes after that, it's proving more difficult than normal as most of the previous panel need to be replaced.

Selectors are required to preferably be "strong players", whatever that means. In practice a lot of selectors have been titled and I can't remember anyone rated below about 1700 ever serving as one.

Kevin Bonham
05-04-2004, 02:27 PM
how about copy/pasting your and fg7's posts that didnt pertain to olympic selections to the non chess thread and then delete those posts from here?

This has now been done. Just don't expect me to do it next time a 100-post dissertation about geese breaks out on the chess section. It's a lot of effort, and I only did it this time because it was my fault most of it was here not there.

Garvinator
05-04-2004, 02:50 PM
In my report to this Council meeting I've asked the rest of Council to assist with suggesting names to help fill the selection panel. I'll see how it goes after that, it's proving more difficult than normal as most of the previous panel need to be replaced.

Selectors are required to preferably be "strong players", whatever that means. In practice a lot of selectors have been titled and I can't remember anyone rated below about 1700 ever serving as one.

as i said last resort if no one else can be found :(

jase
05-04-2004, 05:15 PM
I do have some concerns, based on both previous Olympiad experiences and anecdotal recollections, that there will only be a small time margin for generating funding for our teams.

I doubt that we have sent our best teams to an Olympiad in many a year: players always either drop out or do not apply because they cannot afford to go. In 2002 we got a little lucky and obtained sponsorship from the NSW Government and Ansell, in addition to the always generous chess community, which allowed us to be fully funded for the first time.

As those who have sought sponsorship before are aware, you're playing to small percentages and need as much time as possible. Two months, as appears to be the case this year, is an absolute minimum.

Counter-balancing this is the point that a later selection produces a better team. Fair enough. But if that better team loses two players, are we better off? A successful Olympiad Appeal would obviously be part of a solution to these concerns...

Kevin Bonham
05-04-2004, 06:31 PM
as i said last resort if no one else can be found :(

I should have said thanks very much for your offer too. :doh:

jase
05-04-2004, 06:44 PM
In my report to this Council meeting I've asked the rest of Council to assist with suggesting names to help fill the selection panel. I'll see how it goes after that, it's proving more difficult than normal as most of the previous panel need to be replaced.


Is it really proving difficult to come up with a good panel? Any why must most of the previous panel be replaced - is that of their choosing or an ACF directive? I'll PM you with a list of people who I think would be excellent selectors Kevin.

Kevin Bonham
05-04-2004, 07:00 PM
As those who have sought sponsorship before are aware, you're playing to small percentages and need as much time as possible. Two months, as appears to be the case this year, is an absolute minimum.

If Council approves my suggestion it will be three months not two. Maybe slightly less than three months if there's an appeal.


Counter-balancing this is the point that a later selection produces a better team. Fair enough. But if that better team loses two players, are we better off? A successful Olympiad Appeal would obviously be part of a solution to these concerns...

Indeed.

On the time frame, it's a difficult balancing act. If you (or anyone else) has any thoughts on exactly where the bar should be set, let me know, or suggest to someone on Council that they give it a nudge one way or the other. I'm easy with going along with what people feel is the best solution here. Council meeting is on Thursday.

Some other major events after my selected deadline are the ANU Open (24-5 July) and the Masters (mid-August). My feeling is that including these may be pushing the bar too far, unfortunately. As you point out, there must be a point where the benefits of extra and fresher selection evidence are very rapidly outweighed by the risks of losing players.

Kevin Bonham
05-04-2004, 07:07 PM
Is it really proving difficult to come up with a good panel? Any why must most of the previous panel be replaced - is that of their choosing or an ACF directive?

No, completely innocent - stuff like being likely candidates for selection, leaving the country, being selections co-ordinator (is this a promotion or a demotion from selector), etc.

I should clarify there are two concepts here:

selection panel is strictly a list of people willing to serve as selectors.

selection team is strictly a list of selectors for a specific event.

It's the latter that may need the overhaul. And normally you just pick from the former to fill the latter, except I haven't (yet) been able to find out who is on the former list.


I'll PM you with a list of people who I think would be excellent selectors Kevin.

Got that, very helpful, thanks.

I'm being slow and careful in sorting this out because I want to get it right.

Opinion seems to be that there's no need to get the full panel sorted just yet; the by-laws don't require it and some selectors are often picked from those top players who don't apply.

Some of the challenges of starting a task like this with a fresh slate bear out some of the comments Jammo used to make about the risks of the ACF losing continuity of experience.

Garvinator
05-04-2004, 07:29 PM
i think the selection team is a rather easy one, bill gletsos, greg canfell, jose, amiel, fg7 and jammo :eek: :lol: :lol: :owned: ;) ;)

jase
05-04-2004, 07:44 PM
i think the selection team is a rather easy one, bill gletsos, greg canfell, jose, amiel, fg7 and jammo

Curiously at least one of these were in my list I PM'd to Kevin!

Garvinator
05-04-2004, 08:02 PM
Curiously at least one of these were in my list I PM'd to Kevin!
sent you a pm jase.

Rhubarb
05-04-2004, 08:11 PM
i think the selection team is a rather easy one, bill gletsos, greg canfell, jose, amiel, fg7 and jammo :eek: :lol: :lol: :owned: ;) ;)

gg, despite Kevin's objections, I'm going to humbly offer my place to you. :eek:

Garvinator
05-04-2004, 08:14 PM
gg, despite Kevin's objections, I'm going to humbly offer my place to you. :eek:
is that cause you didnt like the selection team i offered :lol: ;)

eclectic
05-04-2004, 08:19 PM
i think the selection team is a rather easy one, bill gletsos, greg canfell, jose, amiel, fg7 and jammo :eek: :lol: :lol: :owned: ;) ;)
gg,

you mean to say that starter doesn't get a guernsey?

surely he would be able to apply the appropriate "metric" to ascertain how well the candidates under consideration should perform

;)

eclectic

Garvinator
05-04-2004, 08:23 PM
gg,

you mean to say that starter doesn't get a guernsey?

surely he would be able to apply the appropriate "metric" to ascertain how well the candidates under consideration should perform

;)

eclectic
i knew someone would get offended by my team ;) sounds like the real thing :doh:

i considered starter, but thought he might bring some common sense to my selections, now we wouldnt want that would we :whistle: ;) :hand:

eclectic
05-04-2004, 08:33 PM
i knew someone would get offended by my team ;) sounds like the real thing :doh:

i considered starter, but thought he might bring some common sense to my selections, now we wouldnt want that would we :whistle: ;) :hand:
starter suggestion tongue in cheek in keeping with the present tone of the thread

:lol:

eclectic

ursogr8
05-04-2004, 08:34 PM
gg,

you mean to say that starter doesn't get a guernsey?

surely he would be able to apply the appropriate "metric" to ascertain how well the candidates under consideration should perform

;)

eclectic

hi eclectic

First, I thought the whole point of the Olympiad thread was proof that the decision-making cannot be reduced to a metric. Now that must be a cultural shock to all practioners in the IT industry who like everything to be formulaic. But the outcome of the thread is that judgement of the panel needs to be exercised, not a formula or metrics.

Second, when it comes to judgement I am the guy who has backed (on this BB)
Fischer-Random
Permanently accelerated SWISSes
Competitive chess with no JUNK rounds
AFL v the hegemony of Rugby
CG’s right to be on CV
CL’s votes = 3
gg’s post count could be overtaken by stealth.

Now eclectic could you trust the judgement of some-one who has championed all those lost causes?
And besides, I cannot recall a single post of mine on the OLYMPIAD thread.

Let me ask you eclectic, are you on my side or on my case?

starter

Garvinator
05-04-2004, 08:53 PM
Permanently accelerated SWISSes
i have said that i agree with this


Competitive chess with no JUNK rounds

as above


AFL v the hegemony of Rugby

have not posted much on this cause i like both games


CGs right to be on CV

cant really answer as i dont know enough of the inner details



CLs votes = 3

enough said :hand:


ggs post count could be overtaken by stealth

now to this quote, why so much pre occupation with my post count :hmm:

Alan Shore
05-04-2004, 09:05 PM
Second, when it comes to judgement I am the guy who has backed (on this BB)



Fischer-Random

That's pretty cool, I am all for chess variants.. It's great to see bughouse tournaments are being held too, maybe one day we can get some suicide/losers tournaments happening too!


Permanently accelerated SWISSes
Competitive chess with no JUNK rounds

I won't flog a dead goose by repeating myself but I will say again I resent the label of 'junk' and hope accelerated swiss is never implemented :p


CLs votes = 3

I'm betting this is one thing that won't be on the agenda for next year considering the furore it caused!


ggs post count could be overtaken by stealth.

If it's so important to you, bribe Gandalf or Jeo to edit your number of posts :D


AFL v the hegemony of Rugby

This is your saving grace starter - you're a champ for recognising what Australia's best sport really is ;)

eclectic
05-04-2004, 09:25 PM
First, I thought the whole point of the Olympiad thread was proof that the decision-making cannot be reduced to a metric. Now that must be a cultural shock to all practioners in the IT industry who like everything to be formulaic. But the outcome of the thread is that judgement of the panel needs to be exercised, not a formula or metrics.
My thinking here is that you come across as someone who looks at the cold hard facts. Besides, Olympiad selection could be classed as a "fuzzy metric" where cold hard facts get used but allowed to be overridden by intuition or a gut feeling.

Even gg pays you the compliment by saying


i considered starter, but thought he might bring some common sense to my selections

Second, when it comes to judgement I am the guy who has backed (on this BB)
Fischer-Random
Permanently accelerated SWISSes
Competitive chess with no JUNK rounds
AFL v the hegemony of Rugby
CGs right to be on CV
CLs votes = 3
ggs post count could be overtaken by stealth.

Now eclectic could you trust the judgement of some-one who has championed all those lost causes?

To quote Mr. Bob

"And in the final end he won the war,
After losing every battle."
- Bob Dylan: Idiot Wind (Blood on the Tracks)




And besides, I cannot recall a single post of mine on the OLYMPIAD thread.

Here I thought of when juries are empanelled and they don't want to select people with possible present or past involvement with the matter being tried. Thus, given you have not (until now) posted on this thread, it would seem to make you an untainted selector.




Let me ask you eclectic, are you on my side or on my case?
starter
I could ask the same with regards to you (with your accrued data points) wondering who I am.

I believe, however, that Chesslover (despite his/their? shortcomings) has far more of a right to feel aggrieved in that regard than I ever could.

Regards,

eclectic

ursogr8
06-04-2004, 08:41 AM
My thinking here is that you come across as someone who looks at the cold hard facts.

On the contary eclectic, look at my post #10 at http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=302&page=1&pp=15
This one is in my portfolio for nominations when CL and I cross-nominate in December this year for the best-post. A mood piece, not metrical at all. :cool:



Besides, Olympiad selection could be classed as a "fuzzy metric" where cold hard facts get used but allowed to be overridden by intuition or a gut feeling.

And my gut feeling is rarely mainstream as I quoted in the list of examples. Overnight I thought of two other lost causes :doh: I championed.
> Shane Warne’s performance enhancement was impossible through slimming tablets
> Murali (and all others) should be allowed to chuck so long as they don’t bowl faster than 95mph.
> Ian Thorpe should get a balanced life.

The panel needs people who are close to the accepted wisdom, not reactionarys like me.




To quote Mr. Bob

"And in the final end he won the war,
After losing every battle."
- Bob Dylan: Idiot Wind (Blood on the Tracks)
-
There is no end-battle, only the journey.




Here I thought of when juries are empanelled and they don't want to select people with possible present or past involvement with the matter being tried. Thus, given you have not (until now) posted on this thread, it would seem to make you an untainted selector.

Granted.




I could ask the same with regards to you (with your accrued data points) wondering who I am.


I can’t recall ever dropping a legitimate hint as to your identity. :eek:





I believe, however, that Chesslover (despite his/their? shortcomings) has far more of a right to feel aggrieved in that regard than I ever could.

Regards,

eclectic


Yes, Reformation Matt and Vanished CL, the board is not richer for either change. :(


starter

Lucena
06-04-2004, 02:14 PM
Ian Thorpe should get a balanced life.

hehehe :lol: :lol:

Oepty
08-04-2004, 07:20 PM
Question: What was Australia's highest ever placing in the Olympiad and in what year?

AR

Australia finished 15th, third in Group B finals in 1970 with Walter Browne playing board one. The other team members were Shaw, Hamilton, Fuller, Flatow. Garry Koshnitsky was captain.
In 1976 Australia finished 17th in the first Swiss System run Olympiad. Australia won Group C finals in 1972 and 1974, finishing 32 and 33 respectively.
I got this out of book in my local library printed in 1977 so I don't know if Australia has better these results, perhaps in 1978. I am also trying to get together the teams Australia has previously sent to Olympiads. Does anyone know where there is a list.

Scott

chesslover
12-04-2004, 11:18 PM
Australia finished 15th, third in Group B finals in 1970 with Walter Browne playing board one. The other team members were Shaw, Hamilton, Fuller, Flatow. Garry Koshnitsky was captain.
In 1976 Australia finished 17th in the first Swiss System run Olympiad. Australia won Group C finals in 1972 and 1974, finishing 32 and 33 respectively.
I got this out of book in my local library printed in 1977 so I don't know if Australia has better these results, perhaps in 1978. I am also trying to get together the teams Australia has previously sent to Olympiads. Does anyone know where there is a list.

Scott

i can tell you that Australia's best ever placing was 11th in the haifa Olympiad. But many countries boycotted that

chesslover
12-04-2004, 11:31 PM
what about the result of Zhao in winning the Doberl????

This has brought him into contention in a big way. He beat the strongest field that had played. A field that had both the Australian GM's and at least 6 IMs including contenders such as Frolich, Lane, Smerdon and Solomon

Zhao now has the edge for the final spots over the other contenders

As for the Women, laura performed very well and got 4 points. 4 points in what was the stronmgest tournament in Australia. WOW!!!! This made her the highest scoring female in the Doberl. She got the same results as Ingela Erikson, Giang and more than Nancy lane's 3 points

so biggest winners in the Olympiad race were Zhao and Laura Moylan

Rogers, Johansen and lane are certanities so there placings did not really matter

Frolich in equal second and Smerdon with equal second also imprssed whilst Solomon's equal 6th placing was solid but not that great. However these 3 did their selection chances no harm.

3 of the 6 people from the present Olypiad did not go to the Doeberl and compete against the best. Wohl, Speck and Gluzman might rue this as this may well cost them the selection. This is especially so given Zhao's impressive performance and the partial redemption of Smerdon and the solid performances of Frolich and Solomon

For the women, Laura cemented her place as on the certainties with a very impressive 4 points. Giang and Ingela also did well and had good tournaments

chesslover
13-04-2004, 12:02 AM
My picks for the Open Olympiad after the Doeberl

1. Ian Rogers ($1.000000001 if you want a bet)
2. Daryl Johansen ($1.000000001)
3. Garl Lane ($1.000000001)

These 3 are certain

The next 2 are also fairly certain

4. John paul Wallace ($1.10)
5. Stephen Solomon ($1.15)

The battle will be for the 6th and final position. It is an open market and it keeps changing after each major tournament. Chapman and tao came into prominance after the Aust champs but now Zhao is the one who is a slight favourite

I would say that after the Doeberl the battle for 6th position is in this order

Zhao
Wohl
Gluzman
Smerdon
Frolich

Speck I would rule out as he has not been active in Australia since the last Olympiad and the playoff

If forced to pcik I would pick Zhao over Wohl for teh 6th spot. That is quite fine as the Australian Cricket Board just dumped the older bevan and Bischel for younger players. Zhao is the future and after his performance today he has shown that he is the present as well

This is my Open Olympiad squad then

1. Rogers
2. Johansen
3. Lane
4. Wallace
5. Solomon
6. Zhao

jase
13-04-2004, 12:24 AM
Jose I will give you even money if you want to bet on JP and Solo. Not that I don't think they'll make it, I just think your odds are a fair way out.

Not being a rich man, you can only bet a max of 50 bucks okay? PM me. ;)

chesslover
13-04-2004, 09:53 AM
Jose I will give you even money if you want to bet on JP and Solo. Not that I don't think they'll make it, I just think your odds are a fair way out.

Not being a rich man, you can only bet a max of 50 bucks okay? PM me. ;)

nice try to trick me. But I am not Jose.

who do you thinbk will make the last 3 spots????

To me Wallace and Solo are certainities with the biggest debate being on the last spot.

There are so many who can make the 6th spot between now and when applications close. I think it comes down to Zhao and Wohl with the others a fair way back. If I had to frame a market I would say

Zhao $2
Wohl $2
Smerdon $3
Gluzman $3
Frolich $5
Speck $10
West, Sandler, Reily, Feldman and other IMs $20
all others $50 and beyond

chesslover
13-04-2004, 10:02 AM
the women's team is fairly obvious. At least for 3 of teh 4 spots

These 2 pick themselves. They are Australia's top 2 females, and Anastasia in particular came second in Ballarat

1. Irena Feldman ($1.0000001 if you want a bet)
2. Anastasia Sorokina ($1.0000001)

Board 3 is the hardest, but Board 4 is easy to pick. Laura had won an Olympic medal, plays chess regularly, and in the Doeberl was the highest ranking female

4. Laura Moylan ($1.50)

for board 3 there are 4 candidates

teh two previous Olympiad reps

Phan Koshtinsky
Beljina Dekic
Giang Nguyen
Ingela Eriksson

Phas is no longer on the active list and the other 3 have played more regularly. Biljana's effortts so far have not been standouts. Giang had played solidly like Ingela in the Doeberl, so I think board 3 is between these two. If forced to pick I would pick Ingela but a market would be like this

Ingela Wallace - $2
Giang Nguye - $2
Biljana Dekis - $3
Phan Koshtinsky - $3.50
Nancy lane, Lip - $10
all others $100 or beyond

My four at the moment is
1. Irena Feldman
2. Anastasia Sorokina
3. Ingela Wallace
4. Laura Moylan

Board 3 to me is the open board with who getting selected depending on standout performances between now and when selections close

jase
13-04-2004, 01:52 PM
Jose, I take it you don't want to take the juicy odds I have offered you?
I think that many of your deliberations involve players who are either ineligible or non-applicants.

Open team: After Ian and Darryl, I agree that Gary gets the 3 spot based on his Australian Championships triumph. Of the others you list:

Froehlich - I doubt that he is eligible
Gluzman - won't apply
Speck - probably won't apply
Wallace - doubtful; not aware of him playing since he left Australia

Cuts down those last 3 berths to Wohl, Zhao, Solo, Smerdon, Chapman [who you haven't mentioned, would be in the frame, but probably won't apply], and Tao [also didn't get a mention from you, but a far better chance than the other IMs you listed].

Wohl's form in Europe is solid, and has maintained a 2400-ish rating
Solo has had a very good last year and is a strong contender. I spoke to an IM who thinks Solo is a certainty; I thought his Doerberl results were a tad disappointing
Zhao might have booked himself a spot with his Doeberl performance
Smerdon is in the mix but might need another good result to press claims
Tao is a bit of a roughie but a strong chance for a reserve spot.


Women: Amazing that you have two players vying for Board 3, but the loser of that battle is not in contention for Board 4!

Agreed that the top two are certainties [if Sorokina is eligible]
Giang is ineligible
Koshnitsky is almost a certianty if she plays some chess. She's just moved to Sydney so expect her to be active in coming months. She's got a class edge on the others you mention. Just look at either FIDE or ACF ratings.

Moylan has really put herself in the frame with an excellent Doeberl performance. I see that you're happy to take the most superficial of glances at the scoreboard, accept the word of Mr. Buccholtz, and declare her a certainty because she was "the highest ranking female". Same points, but Erikkson's field was a bit stronger. Dekic is still in the mix, did well at the 2002 Olympiad, but needs a good performance very soon.

I think Erikkson would still be ahead in considerations, but not much separating them now. Mid-year tournaments might have a large bearing on the final make-up of the team, as will the eligibility of some of the top females. I also suspect that Erikkson's form is on the rise.

jase
13-04-2004, 01:54 PM
Phan Koshtinsky - $3.50


Can I have $10 on this? Can hand over when I see you next, or can pass the money to Nick or Amiel.

Garvinator
13-04-2004, 02:10 PM
Can I have $10 on this? Can hand over when I see you next, or can pass the money to Nick or Amiel.
i would want an iron clad receipt in return thanks ;) :eek:

jase
13-04-2004, 02:12 PM
i would want an iron clad receipt in return thanks ;) :eek:

Hehe, nah Jose is a lunatic on here, but quite reasonable when you talk with him. His word would be fine with me.

Oepty
13-04-2004, 02:46 PM
The selections are going to be very hard for both teams, although I suspect the men might be a bit easier because some won't apply. Interesting to hear Koshnitsky has moved to NSW, a pity to lose a strong player from SA even if she hasn't been playing much. If Wallace is not playing overseas then his position has to be in doubt even if he applies. Zhao certainly has done no harm with his performance, but remember Smerdon won Doeberl 2 years ago and didn't make the team. He had a similar performance to Zhao in this years Australian championships. New selectors though might put a higher rating on Doeberl. Johansen will get board 2 but he appears to still be playing a little below his best. As to the women I think Zivanovic's performance at Doeberl stacks up very well against that of Eriksson and Moylan.
Scott

jase
13-04-2004, 04:28 PM
As to the women I think Zivanovic's performance at Doeberl stacks up very well against that of Eriksson and Moylan.


Well spotted Scott! Same score, against a field slightly weaker than Eriksson's, and slightly stronger than Moylan's. Does she have other results that back up this form? Could be a smokey!

Lucena
13-04-2004, 04:37 PM
My picks for the Open Olympiad after the Doeberl

1. Ian Rogers ($1.000000001 if you want a bet)
2. Daryl Johansen ($1.000000001)
3. Garl Lane ($1.000000001)

These 3 are certain

The next 2 are also fairly certain

4. John paul Wallace ($1.10)
5. Stephen Solomon ($1.15)

The battle will be for the 6th and final position. It is an open market and it keeps changing after each major tournament. Chapman and tao came into prominance after the Aust champs but now Zhao is the one who is a slight favourite

I would say that after the Doeberl the battle for 6th position is in this order

Zhao
Wohl
Gluzman
Smerdon
Frolich

Speck I would rule out as he has not been active in Australia since the last Olympiad and the playoff

If forced to pcik I would pick Zhao over Wohl for teh 6th spot. That is quite fine as the Australian Cricket Board just dumped the older bevan and Bischel for younger players. Zhao is the future and after his performance today he has shown that he is the present as well

This is my Open Olympiad squad then

1. Rogers
2. Johansen
3. Lane
4. Wallace
5. Solomon
6. Zhao

I 'm a great fan of JP's but doesn't the fact he doesn't seem to have played in a fair while count against him? That said I'm sure he would do well at the olympiad

Lucena
13-04-2004, 04:39 PM
I 'm a great fan of JP's but doesn't the fact he doesn't seem to have played in a fair while count against him? That said I'm sure he would do well at the olympiadcome to think of it, maybe he has been playing overseas and the games haven't got onto chessbase

arosar
13-04-2004, 07:45 PM
http://www.36chessolympiad.com/

Fancy site!

AR

Lucena
14-04-2004, 12:33 AM
My team is Rogers, Johansen, Solomon, Zhao, Smerdon, Lane, in approximate order of ranking. I'd pick JP but I don't know how much his apparent inactivity counts against him. Am I overlooking any big ones? Froehlich?

Garvinator
14-04-2004, 12:39 AM
My team is Rogers, Johansen, Solomon, Zhao, Smerdon, Lane, in approximate order of ranking. I'd pick JP but I don't know how much his apparent inactivity counts against him. Am I overlooking any big ones? Froehlich?
froehlich is listed on www.fide.com as being registered for germany, so he would be ineligible for australia

chesslover
14-04-2004, 12:58 AM
one thing that might count against Laura, Zhao, John Paul and Ingela is the fact that they are from NSW.

Ian, Lane, Wallace are all NSW and Johansen and Solo are vic and qld. If Zhao gets in that will be 4 NSW from 6.

In the Women's Irena,Ingele and laura are also all NSW. If they all get in that is 3 from 4 from NSW - making it 7 out of all 10 reps from our state

This might actually advantage the non NSW people vying for selection, like Tao, Chapman, Phan-Khostinksy as they might beenfit from the decision of slectors to even up the state representation and avoid the pervception of bias

Garvinator
14-04-2004, 01:00 AM
Phan-Khostinksy as they might beenfit from the decision of slectors to even up the state representation and avoid the pervception of bias
do you bother to read other ppls posts at all, it has been said before on here that khostinksy has moved to sydney

jase
14-04-2004, 01:01 AM
My team is Rogers, Johansen, Solomon, Zhao, Smerdon, Lane, in approximate order of ranking. I'd pick JP but I don't know how much his apparent inactivity counts against him. Am I overlooking any big ones? Froehlich?

Some big calls Gareth. You, and anyone else, willing to make some predictions, should avoid being redundant by becoming aware of selection guidelines. JP's inactivity counts against him only sofar as the selectors determine. There is no longer an activity clause [personally I do not comprehend why the ACF removed the clause that stipulated a minimum 20 games over 2 years to be eligible], so JP can make it.

It's a real shame that he's not playing, because Board 3 is a genuine sore spot for us. Many have tried, all have failed in recent times. The Australian Championships triumph ensures Gary Lane will hold down this position once more, and hopefully redemes a poor virgin Olympiad

Omitting Wohl is curious. Is this because:
a) You forgot about him
b) You don't rate his European form
c) He sucks at Olympiads [I mean that in the nicest possible way Aleks, and with all the entendres you wish to presume ;) ]
d) You forgot about him?

Trent Parker
14-04-2004, 01:05 AM
one thing that might count against Laura, Zhao, John Paul and Ingela is the fact that they are from NSW.

Ian, Lane, Wallace are all NSW and Johansen and Solo are vic and qld. If Zhao gets in that will be 4 NSW from 6.

In the Women's Irena,Ingele and laura are also all NSW. If they all get in that is 3 from 4 from NSW - making it 7 out of all 10 reps from our state

This might actually advantage the non NSW people vying for selection, like Tao, Chapman, Phan-Khostinksy as they might beenfit from the decision of slectors to even up the state representation and avoid the pervception of bias

If the best players are supposed to go the best players should go. No matter where they are from. They are representing their country not their state. There is to be a selection criteria that the selectors have to abide to is there not? BTW where are the selectors from?

chesslover
14-04-2004, 01:12 AM
do you bother to read other ppls posts at all, it has been said before on here that khostinksy has moved to sydney

i have read the posts that say this. All I am saying is that because she was in SA for so long and only moved recently, she may still have SA support as one of theirs

But she has been inactive and even though I know that that is no barrier, it will still count against her when they compare her to soemeone like Ingela or Laura who both have played regulalrly with solid performances

chesslover
14-04-2004, 01:13 AM
If the best players are supposed to go the best players should go. No matter where they are from. They are representing their country not their state. There is to be a selection criteria that the selectors have to abide to is there not? BTW where are the selectors from?

I know I know

they are supposed to choose the best

but subconsicouly they will try to even it up as they will not want to be charged with bias. Remember the controversy because the juniors chosen all seemed to come from one state???

Garvinator
14-04-2004, 01:17 AM
I know I know

they are supposed to choose the best

but subconsicouly they will try to even it up as they will not want to be charged with bias. Remember the controversy because the juniors chosen all seemed to come from one state???
do you have any facts to back this up, even though the selectors havent even been chosen yet?

chesslover
14-04-2004, 01:19 AM
Well spotted Scott! Same score, against a field slightly weaker than Eriksson's, and slightly stronger than Moylan's. Does she have other results that back up this form? Could be a smokey!

you cant be serious

Zivkonovic making the women's team?????

there are just 2 spots open, as Irena and Anastasia pick themselves

For her to make it she has to be better than Ingela, Laura (who has proven herself in the Olypiad by winning a medal), Biljena (who has represented Australia last time) Phan-Khostinksy (again played for Australia). Very hard, and am prepared to offer you odds of $50 on her next time I see you

I am sticking to my pick of Irena, Anastasia, Ingela and Laura

Trent Parker
14-04-2004, 01:19 AM
How many selectors are there normally?

chesslover
14-04-2004, 01:21 AM
do you have any facts to back this up, even though the selectors havent even been chosen yet?
watch and see...watch and see

it is just human psychology and subconsious behaviour

let us see who i s right. I think we will never get 7 in the Open/Women's team, and will probably end up with 5 or 6, because the other states will complain if we get 7

chesslover
14-04-2004, 01:22 AM
How many selectors are there normally?

5 i think

Kevin Bonham
14-04-2004, 03:11 AM
5 i think

Five is correct and there will be five this time.

Oepty
14-04-2004, 10:53 AM
I was not suggesting Zivanovic would get in the Olympiad team, she won't unless she does something sepectacular in the next couple of months. Her Doeberl performance is probably one of her best, but as she is 19 it could be sign that she is improving. As to Moylan's performance, it was about what I would expect from her, Nothing spectacular, but a good solid performance. Angela Song's performance was very good as well, although see only finished on 3, it was good performance for her. As for Koshnitsky, I would be tempted to put her in the team even if she doesn't play before hand. The womens team is going to be hard to pick because the team did well last time, but a couple of strong players are almost certainly going to apply. What do people think of Sarai's chances. She after all is the Australian womens champion. The mens team is going to be difficult because some of the men haven't played alot, Tao, Wallace, and even Speck and others are inconsistent, Wohl, Smerdon. If Moylan has got to get a boost out of her previous performances at Olympiads, then Wohl has to suffer for his poor performances. I would like to think Wallace could fill board 3, but if he is not playing then how do we judge him.
Overseas results seem to be a problematic, after all if a player is playing in smaller tournaments overseas that don't get any coverage, then what is to stop a player hiding poor performances and making a big point of their better performances. I am not saying any are doing that, but surely it is possible, if the tournaments are not FIDE rated.
Scott

Lucena
17-04-2004, 12:09 AM
one thing that might count against Laura, Zhao, John Paul and Ingela is the fact that they are from NSW.

Ian, Lane, Wallace are all NSW and Johansen and Solo are vic and qld. If Zhao gets in that will be 4 NSW from 6.

In the Women's Irena,Ingele and laura are also all NSW. If they all get in that is 3 from 4 from NSW - making it 7 out of all 10 reps from our state

This might actually advantage the non NSW people vying for selection, like Tao, Chapman, Phan-Khostinksy as they might beenfit from the decision of slectors to even up the state representation and avoid the pervception of bias

you are a nong aren't you. Selectors will try to pick the team they see as the STRONGEST, not out of some desire to spread around state representation, to "give everyone a go". What state they are in doesn't really come into it. If the best team were 100% NSW, then that is the team that should go. If the best team were 100% VIC, that team should go. If the best team were 100% ACT, that team should go. Who cares if the others kicked up a stink-that would be the best team

But you're probably just trolling again anyway...

Lucena
17-04-2004, 12:18 AM
Omitting Wohl is curious. Is this because:
a) You forgot about him
b) You don't rate his European form
c) He sucks at Olympiads [I mean that in the nicest possible way Aleks, and with all the entendres you wish to presume ;) ]
d) You forgot about him?

It's a) and d). sorry Aleks :oops: He'd slipped my mind when I was thinking about this. Also Leonid has played some nice games at the Olympiad, I seem to remember. Anyway, now that you've gone and made things more complicated for me, Jason, I think I'll admit that I can't be bothered going back and rethinking my choices anyway:uhoh: I'm not going to comment on the women because so many of them seem to be pretty inactive-someone please correct me if I'm being unfair

Lucena
17-04-2004, 12:28 AM
Some big calls Gareth. You, and anyone else, willing to make some predictions, should avoid being redundant by becoming aware of selection guidelines. JP's inactivity counts against him only sofar as the selectors determine. There is no longer an activity clause [personally I do not comprehend why the ACF removed the clause that stipulated a minimum 20 games over 2 years to be eligible], so JP can make it.


I didn't mean to suggest he might be automatically ineligible due to inactivity

Lucena
17-04-2004, 12:35 AM
you are a nong aren't you. Selectors will try to pick the team they see as the STRONGEST, not out of some desire to spread around state representation, to "give everyone a go". What state they are in doesn't really come into it. If the best team were 100% NSW, then that is the team that should go. If the best team were 100% VIC, that team should go. If the best team were 100% ACT, that team should go. Who cares if the others kicked up a stink-that would be the best team

But you're probably just trolling again anyway...

whoops I just realised Trent was saying pretty much the same thing as me already. Chesslover - give it up, mate.

Garvinator
17-04-2004, 12:50 AM
whoops I just realised Trent was saying pretty much the same thing as me already. Chesslover - give it up, mate.
its alright gareth, the more ppl on cl's case of being a repeat goose the better :clap: . Especially when it involves ppl other than Bill, Kevin or myself :lol: :owned: ;)