Olympiad team speculation

[Kevin Bonham]

Originally Posted by Vlad

Normally the referees are people who have already published in the journal.

Hmmm, I'm not "in academia" professionally but I've still been involved in publishing and refereeing the odd paper, and if I get a referee request it's often from a journal I've never published in and in some cases never heard of! Many referees do it not out of self-interest but out of an altruistic belief in maintaining the standards of their science.

The good selectors in my view are people who already played for the team in the past.

I don't think this analogy works too well. If they won't play for the same team in the future then they don't have the self-interest that you claimed. They only have sympathy and experience.

The others, according to Kevin, have been used in the past. But I guess the main question is what the balance was in the past.

It has been pretty similar, in terms of numbers of ex-Olympians, for a long time. Actually I've frequently used Olympiad selection groups that contained only a single ex-Olympian and I may have even used some that contained none. But really, there are just not that many ex-Olympiad players who are not also current applicants or otherwise conflicted on the broader selector panel anyway.

By the way, the suggested change to the selection mechanism would not help in this case.

I don't think you can know that, because you do not know the rankings. There are a lot of candidates who were probably seen as very close together and a range of different ways the rankings could have arisen even despite the information that has been (unfortunately but to a degree understandably given the silliness of some of the personal attacks on them) released by some selectors.

If three people put player X at the last spot, it does not matter what others say, he will end up in the last spot (if I correctly understand Kevin’s mechanism).

That's correct, but what is wrong with that? If the majority of the panel think someone should be last, why shouldn't they? If anyone can find a system that doesn't necessarily entail that but at the same time eliminates the problem of strategic voting, I'd be very interested to see it.

[Adamski]

Originally Posted by Vlad

I agree with Peter...

I agree with Peter and Vlad in finding it hard to understand the low ranking of Lane and non-selection Dekic. I understand that WIM Biljana Dekic has (quite rightly) appealed against her non-selection.

[Laserlite]

Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham

Every candidate who was accepted for consideration met the 20 games requirement - some only just, others with plenty to spare.

Could i assume then , that Lane had only just met this requirement ?

Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham

In terms of a job application you might think of having played at least 20 games as being the necessary criterion while having played considerably more than 20 games may be considered desirable by the selectors, depending on their view of the matter and the gaps between applicants in playing strength.

That's fine , provided of course the applicants are aware of this .

Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham

(I don't have any knowledge of the selectors' subjective reasoning concerning various candidates, beyond what they've said here or elsewhere.)

I thank you for your response.

So , at least as far as this forum is concerned , the reasoning behind the apparent anomaly of Lane's selection remains a mystery .

[Kevin Bonham]

Originally Posted by Laserlite

Could i assume then , that Lane had only just met this requirement ?

I don't have his full details but it looks to me that he had about 30 games countable in the period for assessing the formal requirement.

That's fine , provided of course the applicants are aware of this .

See #55.

[Garrett]

Righty-O

In future we will pick the obvious applicants who the selectors agree unanimously on (henceforth known as 'X').

For the rest of the places, we will take the next (5-X) * 2 applicants in the order ranked (non-unanimously) and let them nuke it out in glorious chessic combat for the remaining places.

It is clear that the selectors don't have 100% support, nor does the rating system.

LOL - my 2 cents worth.....

cheers Garrett.

[WhiteElephant]

Is it wrong to have a slight junior bias, or to aim for a team composed of strong juniors + adults?

What is the aim of Australia's participation in the Olympiad? Is it solely to achieve the best result possible? Or is it to provide experience and exposure to international competition, develop strong players etc?

By the way this thread has been illuminating and thanks to some of the selectors for taking time to write about the criteria they used, very interesting!

[Kevin Bonham]

Originally Posted by WhiteElephant

What is the aim of Australia's participation in the Olympiad? Is it solely to achieve the best result possible? Or is it to provide experience and exposure to international competition, develop strong players etc?

Formally, according to the Olympiad by-law, our goals are currently supposed to be:

a. Major Objectives

i. To finish as high as possible in the Olympiad.
ii. To provide a goal as an incentive for all categories of chess players recognized by FIDE.

b. Other Advantages

i. More experience for our strongest players, the possibility of them gaining
international recognition in the form of titles or ELO ratings, and ultimately the
raising of the general standard of Australian chess.
ii. The promotion of the image of Australian chess within FIDE and amongst the chess players of other countries.
iii. The arousal of the interest of the media and that of the general public as well.

[Kevin Bonham]

Interesting how these supposedly NSW-biased selectors in fact selected three Queenslanders, three (in some cases loosely) ACT-based players, two Victorians, one South Australian and only one New South Wales player to the two teams.

[Adamski]

Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham

Interesting how these supposedly NSW-biased selectors in fact selected three Queenslanders, three (in some cases loosely) ACT-based players, two Victorians, one South Australian and only one New South Wales player to the two teams.

I don't think they are state-biased at all. I just think they have not given enough weight to relevant experience, in both the case of Lane and Dekic.

Interesting to see in Australasian Chess that IM Gary Lane leads the men's Yugilbar Oceania Grand Prix. I would have had him in the team, having played for both England and Australia in Olympiads and in better form than anyone else in Australia in the 2 most recent major FIDE Australian tournaments.

[Kevin Bonham]

Originally Posted by Adamski

I don't think they are state-biased at all.

I realise that not all the critical comments have had anything to do with state bias or state balance, but some of the earlier ones did. The odd thing there was that two of the three rankings that some on this thread have claimed to be too low both involved players from NSW.

At least those claiming that the selectors have gone for youth vs experience in a number of close-call choices actually have some facts on their side of that actually happening; those alleging geographic bias have not even that.

My impression of the Open team when I had a think about it early in the process was that Zhao (now withdrawn), Smerdon and Johansen were certainties, Ly clearly had an edge over the rest even if only a modest one, and then you could pretty much throw a blanket over #s 5-10. All had claims and whoever was selected last could be considered unlucky. As it is two very experienced players in Wohl and Solomon have got the nod over the three potential debutants.

[Jono]

Originally Posted by Adamski

I don't think they are state-biased at all.

Definitely not. Last time IIRC Pax and I, although in states on opposite sides of the country, and usually unable to agree on the colour of an orange, came up with identical selections to each other and to the selectors, mostly of different states. This time, we disagreed only about Solo v Wohl, and Wohl has a very strong case. It's moot anyway with the withdrawal of Zhao, when the selectors' pick is identical to what mine would have been.

The selections are also in line with this poll. While selectors should not take polls into account at all, the agreement with them seems like a good argument that the selection committees have picked objectively and transparently.

[bundys_bro]

I don't see why most of you think the open teams selection is such an outrage. It looks to me and the majority of poll voters the best team has been selected (ex. Zhao). Now the Lane issue while confussing does it really matter he came 9th despite his solid recent form and 4th placed rating. 9th is afterall no better than 6th in this race (assuming the top 5 go). If you did want him in the team who does he replace, Wohl?, Solo or Ly?

Not knowing Wohl's overseas form I can't really judge him but on rating he deserves to be there. Ly, a promising junior who with a strong bunch of others deserves to be there. Solo, form fluctuating, loses to people he shouldn't, draw's the lost, wins the lost, is more unpredictable at 49 than the juniors are. Also had as good as if not better Doeberl's and SIO's than Lane given he played stronger fields in my eyes anyway, and had a fantastic Aus champs.

I can't see where Lane fits in he should be 6th but 6th is really only as good as 9th in reality.

My question is given george Xie's form of late where would he have been selected if avaliable?

[Gattaca]

I don't know, I'm not too sure about this type 1 and type 2 theory on selectors, and I'm saying that as a type 1!

Is there any evidence that former Australian Champions or former Olympiad players make better selectors?

I would have thought that objectivity and an ability to put aside personality issues might be more important. I know in my case that if I'd split ties by opting for the person I liked better I would have made different selections. I don't think that's a fair way to do it.

It's not like the three 'type 2' selectors for the Open Team are not pretty capable players, either.

An argument for why someone like Reilly (for example) could be seen as a well qualified selector is obvious. He's a barrister, used to putting aside personal prejudice and being able to argue either side of a case.

It's not clear that winning an Australian Championship or playing in Olympiads necessarily makes you a fair, unbiased, or reasonable person. You need selectors who don't get 'bees in their bonnet' about the next big thing, who are neither ageist nor oblivious to new talent, and who put the (voluminous) data ahead of any emotional agenda of their own. I think a 'type 2' selector will often fit the bill, and there are more of them available.

I definitely think one of the contributing factors to any controversial selections is likely to be people using different sets of criteria. You can already see from the posts on this thread that everyone is not on the same page on this. The 'correct' criteria, as set out by the ACF and posted by Kevin earlier, should be fresh in the selectors minds. It wasn't in mine because I thought I remembered it, but I feel like I pretty much followed it anyway. I had thought that strength was the overriding criterion, but Kevin's post shows that is not quite the wording used, or the whole clause, either.

You can make cogent arguments for any of the final positions, but only if you use varying crieria. For example it would be hard to argue that Lane should be in last spot on strength or likely performance alone. But clearly there was some rationale at play and it would be useful to know what it was and whether it can be explained by any wording in the ACF bylaw. Maybe it can?

The most unfortunate thing about rehashing selections, and especially in having formal appeals, (necessary though they are for legal reasons), is that it can really sour what should be a happy and proud time for players who either narrowly got in, or made the team for the first time. I'd like to sincerely congratulate all the players chosen; every one of them is obviously worthy and deserving of their place and none of them should let the biennial selection controversy dampen their mood.

[Brian_Jones]

Originally Posted by bundys_bro

I don't see why most of you think the open teams selection is such an outrage. It looks to me and the majority of poll voters the best team has been selected (ex. Zhao). Now the Lane issue while confussing does it really matter he came 9th despite his solid recent form and 4th placed rating. 9th is afterall no better than 6th in this race (assuming the top 5 go). If you did want him in the team who does he replace, Wohl?, Solo or Ly?

Not knowing Wohl's overseas form I can't really judge him but on rating he deserves to be there. Ly, a promising junior who with a strong bunch of others deserves to be there. Solo, form fluctuating, loses to people he shouldn't, draw's the lost, wins the lost, is more unpredictable at 49 than the juniors are. Also had as good as if not better Doeberl's and SIO's than Lane given he played stronger fields in my eyes anyway, and had a fantastic Aus champs.

I can't see where Lane fits in he should be 6th but 6th is really only as good as 9th in reality.

So if one of the top five drops out (for whatever reason) then who will be automatically invited into the team?

Yes,it will be 6th not 9th!

[peter_parr]

I suggest the current Olympiad selection procedures be abolished for the Tromso 2014 Chess Olympiad and be replaced by a FIDE Rated Based Selection procedure.

Pre-amble.
I have taken a keen interest in the Olympiad Selections for 44 years 1968-2012 many times as Captain and/or selector. The current procedure has largely remained the same for this period. The year 2012 has brought new problems to the procedure due to a substantial increase in the number of quality applicants in both the open and women’s Olympiad teams.

Applicants can supply lengthy submissions to the five selectors together with multiple results. We have two applicants of very similar standard and results. Applicant A makes a detailed submission outlining their great enthusiasm, hard work they are doing at chess, and explain how they are improving and continue to improve etc, etc. Applicant B makes no submission.

One regular Olympiad player never puts in a submission as he does not see why he should make such statements. It is very clear that each applicant is very keen to go to the Olympiad and each is trying to improve etc. The selectors by human nature would be much more inclined to select A if they were convinced the results were equal as they have to place the applicants in order. Problem – applicant A is selected above applicant B although the standard of play is equal.

It has been suggested that the selection results would be better if the selectors were the top Australian players who had competed against a number of applicants making them better selectors as they are better able to make judgment.

We have two applicants A and B of very similar rating, results, activity etc. Selectors top IM’s X,Y,Z agree results are very similar but select A as they have formed the opinion that A is stronger as they have often beaten B quite easily but all 3 find A much more difficult. Selectors top IM’s J and K selects B as they often beat A but not B. The problem for the applicants is that although each top IM has made a fair and honest assessment it is “pot-luck” for the applicant which of these top IM’s are in fact selectors.

It can be argued that good selectors are strong but not so active players (like Richie Benaud in cricket) who have a lesser personal knowledge of the applicants. A selector examines results of the applicants to determine their playing strength but we are not examining the selector’s current strength. Bobby Fischer would not have been a good selector (personality issues).

We have another two applicants CCC and DDD of similar strength. Applicant CCC is well dressed, polite, always early for games, attends regular chess classes, studies his chess homework, has a classical positional style of play and never gets into time-trouble. Applicant DDD neither wants or receives lessons, has a poor knowledge of openings, plays very aggressively often making very dubious or unsound sacrifices and is in constant time-trouble. DDD then spends most of the nights in the disco and turns up for his games often in a dishevelled condition.

The five expert selectors know the two applicants well and consider their overall results to be equal. The 5 member selection panel would select applicant CCC as they must place the applicants in order. The problem is DDD probably has more natural ability but is rejected for non-chess reasons.

Activity : The current regulations are a problem. The ACF requires the activity of applicants to be at least 20 games but selectors can penalise applicants if the selector is of the opinion that the activity of the applicant above 20 is not high enough. This has had a serious effect on the composition of the actual 2012 team. If the ACF requires an applicant to have played 20 games to be regarded as active yet the applicant can at the same time be penalised for inactivity I find that very strange.

Surely the rule should simply be a higher level of activity in the rules with no penalty if enough games are played. It does appear (not certain yet – I will find out in time) that one of the penalised applicants is not in one of the teams although the majority of selectors selected the applicant in the team (further info needed).

In the 2012 selections we had one applicant who competed in the two most important recent events demonstrating excellent form – the Doeberl Cup and SIO and performed well above all his rivals in each event with very high performance ratings placing him no 4 out of 9 from available applicants on the updated FIDE rating list. He was however selected last of the nine applicants.

BTW another very surprised selector discussing this on Facebook is curious to know the logic of fellow selectors – thanks to my customer for the printout from Facebook. The secrecy of the selection process is not healthy – I was always happy to discuss my selections with applicants after the selection process – the players appreciate openness and honesty.

The current selection procedure is extremely time consuming and the level of fairness and accuracy of the selections is of concern. Suppose if we keep the current system of selection for the 2014 Tromso Olympiad. There may be more applicants, more young players being taught by a number of leading players and selecting neutral selectors will become even more difficult. All the above problems in the selection process will remain and get worse.

The most basic problem is that border-line applicants have to rely to a certain extent on the luck of who is a selector. A player who does very well in the 2014 Doeberl Cup and SIO and finishes well above his closest rivals and has a higher FIDE rating than 5 other applicants has no way of knowing whether he will be selected above last place. I suggest we abolish the entire inadequate and time-consuming process which can and does sometimes give very strange results.

Proposed Solution.
If we look at most of the leading countries in the World their Olympiad Teams consist simply of the top available FIDE rated players. The work of the selectors is largely worked out by computer ratings. FIDE ratings now go down to 1000 and new updated FIDE ratings produced every two months (soon monthly I think). Australia is processing many more events in the FIDE rating system. The advantages are clear. Every single game played every day can be seen on Chess Results so that every player can see their current rating daily if required.

Such a system prevents disputes and sets a firm target for applicants. A player who performs well above his rivals and is rated above his rivals is put in FIDE rating order in the team.

All applicants to play xxxx no of games between 2012 and 2014 including a minimum xxx games in the last 6 months. Players regardless of age with such regular updates lead to increased accuracy,
Bobby Fischer “just got good” so one exemption could be – Special consideration be given to a junior with exceptional talent who has less than xxx FIDE rated games.

If I was an active player trying to get in the Olympiad team I should be able to compete in major events in the knowledge that if I performed better and was rated higher than my rivals that selection was automatic. How can you tell a player – you did great mate – the best – but sorry mate you came last in our selection process – no particular reason mate – just bad luck I suppose – try again next time and hope for the best. It sends a terrible message to all players.

FIDE ratings determine many qualification places in the World Cup as well as Countries Teams for Olympiads. FIDE reviews its rating system as required. I am aware that FIDE are considering some changes to the FIDE rating system. We are only concerned with the relative ratings of the applicants. The FIDE rating list has of course no bias and treats all applicants equally on the system it uses not affecting relative ratings.

Summary
I recommend a FIDE based rating system be used to determine the Olympiad Teams.
Numerous suggestions to improve the selection have been made (all different to each other and each adding to a long winded bad process).

We firstly need general agreement on how Olympiad teams should be selected for future Olympiads.
Teenage applicants views are very important – adults views are a problem.
Do our top teenagers have the foggiest understanding of the ACF by-laws ?
Would our teenagers prefer simply to be a top five FIDE rated player to get in the 5 player team - sounds simple – is simple.

The future of chess is in our teenagers – the ACF needs your help and advice.