PDA

View Full Version : Olympiad Dresden 2008



Pages : [1] 2 3

Kerry Stead
05-11-2006, 05:59 AM
Why not start some speculating now ... possibles for the Olympiad in 2008.
I wouldn't be surprised to see a team which is very young - heck, I think it would be good for chess in Australia.

What about the following team:
1. Rogers
2. Smerdon
3. Zhao
4. Ly
5. Xie
6. Johansen

Is it feasible? Would Ly & Xie make the ACF criteria of the strongest on current playing strength (imagining 2 years in the future), or could the ACF be a little flexible with its selection proceedure? Does the current criteria necessarily produce the side that will give the best result?

Food for thought ...

MichaelBaron
05-11-2006, 06:55 AM
Why not start some speculating now ... possibles for the Olympiad in 2008.
I wouldn't be surprised to see a team which is very young - heck, I think it would be good for chess in Australia.

What about the following team:
1. Rogers
2. Smerdon
3. Zhao
4. Ly
5. Xie
6. Johansen

Is it feasible? Would Ly & Xie make the ACF criteria of the strongest on current playing strength (imagining 2 years in the future), or could the ACF be a little flexible with its selection proceedure? Does the current criteria necessarily produce the side that will give the best result?

Food for thought ...

I doubt Ly will become stronger than Johansen by 2008.

firegoat7
05-11-2006, 07:14 AM
I doubt Ly will become stronger than Johansen by 2008.

and I doubt even George Xie believes that he will be stronger then Johansen in 2008. In fact is it realistic to even suggest that Zhao is stronger then Johansen?

Anyway,
Heres my two cents worth

1.Smerdon
2. Rogers
3. Johansen
4. Zhao
5. Wohl
6. Ly
7. Lane

I think Solo and Goldenberg are also good outside chances. I actually get the feeling players like Daryl, Chapman and Speck might stop playing altogether.

cheers fg7

pax
05-11-2006, 09:44 AM
I doubt Ly will become stronger than Johansen by 2008.

I wouldn't rule it out. Moulthun has performed at around the 2500 mark recently, which is a massive improvement on 18 months ago. Who can predict where he might be in another 18 months time?

Desmond
05-11-2006, 09:57 AM
...
2. Smerdon
3. Zhao
4. Ly
...

It will be interesting to see which of these players need GM norms, and the juggling act to give them all a decent chance for it.

zigzag
05-11-2006, 02:44 PM
I wouldn't rule it out. Moulthun has performed at around the 2500 mark recently, which is a massive improvement on 18 months ago. Who can predict where he might be in another 18 months time?

Performing at 2500 rated and being 2500 rated are 2 very different things.

I80 FIDE rated points wouldnt be implausible for him to gain in 2 years,but he would have to continue to play a bit of chess outside Australia to do it.

Looks like that prize money from the World Open will be spent on airfares.:cool:

pax
05-11-2006, 03:23 PM
Performing at 2500 rated and being 2500 rated are 2 very different things.

Yes, of course. And actually being 2500 strength is a different thing again.

Hypothetically speaking, Moulthun could be regarded as 2500 strength by the selectors even if his rating was somewhat short of that mark.

Darryl's rating is currently 2458, after a steady decline over the past four years. Darryl's performances under Olympiad conditions are generally significantly higher than that, but nevertheless he probably has a bit of work to do to stay ahead of the likes of Zhao, Ly and Xie.

Oepty
05-11-2006, 04:06 PM
I think that outside those already mentioned John-Paul Wallace is a possibility although I don't know how much chess he is playing. As a long shot I wonder how stong Dusan Stojic might be in 12 months or so.
Scott

Garvinator
05-11-2006, 05:22 PM
I think discussions over the women's Olympiad team is more interesting considering the general complete inactivity of most of the contenders.

Kevin Bonham
05-11-2006, 08:52 PM
This seems like a good time to remind readers that an Olympiad activity criterion exists for 2008: 20 rated games must be played in the 12 months prior to the closing of applications for a player to be eligible for selection. (Rated can mean ACF rated, FIDE rated, or, following a recent minor by-law amendment, rating by other approved federations eg BCF, subject to certain conditions.)

- Kevin Bonham
ACF Selections Co-Ordinator (Senior Events)

MichaelBaron
05-11-2006, 11:23 PM
How about Zigen Lin...he is on 4.5/5 in Elwood Weekender so far...including two wins over seasoned IMs Rujevic and West :whistle:

D Dragicevic
06-11-2006, 12:12 AM
it is a bit early to speculate or is it... i think that 4 players are definetly in rogers, smerdon, wohl and zhao... the other 2 spots are up for grabs... i don't think darryl will play since he didn't go to turin, i think it is unlikely he will go again... the way moulthan is playing, i don't see the reason why he wouldn't be able to go... last spot is interesting, gary lane seems the most logical choice...

pax
06-11-2006, 08:26 AM
You certainly couldn't count out Wallace, judging by his performance in this year's 4NCL:

http://www.fide.com/ratings/tourarc.phtml?codt=20&field1=3200957

It's interesting to note that it would have been a GM norm (I think) had he beaten Ian Rogers in the final round!

Oepty
06-11-2006, 05:34 PM
You certainly couldn't count out Wallace, judging by his performance in this year's 4NCL:

http://www.fide.com/ratings/tourarc.phtml?codt=20&field1=3200957

It's interesting to note that it would have been a GM norm (I think) had he beaten Ian Rogers in the final round!

That is a very strong performance, if he plays like this in the lead up to the next olympiad then it would be hard to keep him out.

I do note he also played the Surrey Open, a 6 round weekender which was included in the October list and he performed just under his rating.
Scott

Bereaved
07-11-2006, 11:31 AM
This seems like a good time to remind readers that an Olympiad activity criterion exists for 2008: 20 rated games must be played in the 12 months prior to the closing of applications for a player to be eligible for selection. (Rated can mean ACF rated, FIDE rated, or, following a recent minor by-law amendment, rating by other approved federations eg BCF, subject to certain conditions.)

- Kevin Bonham
ACF Selections Co-Ordinator (Senior Events)

Hi Kevin,

What provisions have been made by the ACF of there being insufficient applicants to fulfil this requirement; by this I mean given that 2 women who apply are eligible, and two other women apply who are ineligible owing to insufficient games, and most importantly, two girls aged 9 and 11, who are consistently on the most active list throughout the year also apply.

The two junior girls are substantially lower in rating, than the two adult females who are ineligible owing to inactivity; I am interested how this would be resolved?

Take care and God Bless, Macavity

pax
07-11-2006, 12:38 PM
Hi Kevin,

What provisions have been made by the ACF of there being insufficient applicants to fulfil this requirement; by this I mean given that 2 women who apply are eligible, and two other women apply who are ineligible owing to insufficient games, and most importantly, two girls aged 9 and 11, who are consistently on the most active list throughout the year also apply.

The two junior girls are substantially lower in rating, than the two adult females who are ineligible owing to inactivity; I am interested how this would be resolved?

Take care and God Bless, Macavity

If that was the case without extenuating circumstances, there would probably be a strong case for not sending a team. As long as all the candidates know the rules, there shouldn't be a problem - those that need to will go out of their way to ensure they are qualified.

Basil
07-11-2006, 12:47 PM
those that need to will go out of their way to ensure they are qualified.
... and dare I say, those that aren't qualified will go out of their way to kick and scream and make it someone else's fault :doh:

I didn't say that. It just looks like it.

The_Wise_Man
07-11-2006, 03:25 PM
Comment made by Rogers himself in his column is that he expects to be passed as the Australian no 1... do we think that this will happen before 2008?

Wise

Desmond
07-11-2006, 03:31 PM
Comment made by Rogers himself in his column is that he expects to be passed as the Australian no 1... do we think that this will happen before 2008?

WiseI doubt it will happen by then.

Garvinator
07-11-2006, 03:36 PM
Relating to qualification criteria. If applicants havent met the qualification criteria, they dont get selected. That is simple enough, surely.

Garvinator
07-11-2006, 03:36 PM
Comment made by Rogers himself in his column is that he expects to be passed as the Australian no 1... do we think that this will happen before 2008?

Wise
I would think this will only happen if Ian starts dropping rating points. As long as he keeps his current rating, he will stay No 1.

MichaelBaron
08-11-2006, 04:03 PM
I would think this will only happen if Ian starts dropping rating points. As long as he keeps his current rating, he will stay No 1.

I guess Smerdon is the only person who can surpass Rogers in the near future (the next 3-4 years).

pax
08-11-2006, 04:26 PM
I guess Smerdon is the only person who can surpass Rogers in the near future (the next 3-4 years).

It's theoretically possible for someone like Moulthun, but highly unlikely for anyone based in Australia. There have been examples of almost limitless improvement over 3-4 year periods from juniors in the 12-18 years bracket.

Kevin Bonham
08-11-2006, 06:32 PM
Relating to qualification criteria. If applicants havent met the qualification criteria, they dont get selected. That is simple enough, surely.

Correct.

I will be placing notices about the activity criterion in the ACF Newsletter at various times through 2007 so that potential applicants are aware of their responsibility to play sufficient games.

Activity criteria existed up until 2002. I doubt that following their reinstatement there will be any unusual problem filling teams, or that we will suddenly receive applications from extremely weak players (although, of course, anyone who has played their 20 rated games is welcome to apply!)

pax
08-11-2006, 10:00 PM
I will be placing notices about the activity criterion in the ACF Newsletter at various times through 2007 so that potential applicants are aware of their responsibility to play sufficient games.

It might be worth reminding past Olympiad members of this requirement. We have seen in the past how notices in the newsletter can pass by unnoticed.

ER
12-11-2006, 12:57 AM
It's theoretically possible for someone like Moulthun, but highly unlikely for anyone based in Australia. There have been examples of almost limitless improvement over 3-4 year periods from juniors in the 12-18 years bracket.
Realistically speaking you' re correct about the situation in Australia. However, I believe that organising strong FIDE rated tournaments in this country with the participation of GMs from Asia and other parts of the world more often, is not an impossible dream!
I believe that we are able to finance at least three such tournaments in Australia every year! Currently, it seems that we are only working together during the Olympiad Team Appeal. By the way I also believe that D. Stojic as well as C. Wallis are possible future stars of our Olympic Team!
Cheers and good luck to all! :)

pax
12-11-2006, 05:45 AM
Realistically speaking you' re correct about the situation in Australia. However, I believe that organising strong FIDE rated tournaments in this country with the participation of GMs from Asia and other parts of the world more often, is not an impossible dream!

Yes, but European based players can play in top events on an almost weekly basis. That certainly is an impossible dream for Australia. We couldn't develop a Magnus Carlsen with three GM events a year.

MichaelBaron
12-11-2006, 01:25 PM
Yes, but European based players can play in top events on an almost weekly basis. That certainly is an impossible dream for Australia. We couldn't develop a Magnus Carlsen with three GM events a year.

Lets forget about developing a Magnus for the time being...however would be nice to double the number of players over 2400 Fide to start with

The_Wise_Man
12-11-2006, 05:39 PM
I was thinking of a very similar thing...

Something realistic but challenging like getting into the top40 rated nations... ie 50 ELO points per player in the top 10 or newbies replacing the existing top10 (+50 ELO) but nevertheless a similar goal to what you have said....

this is a different goal to finding a Magnus...

Wise

ER
15-11-2006, 09:40 PM
Yes, but European based players can play in top events on an almost weekly basis. That certainly is an impossible dream for Australia. We couldn't develop a Magnus Carlsen with three GM events a year.

Pax, starting with three is ok. Later on we can improve on that. None spoke about producing super gms from the word "go"! However, the international exposure will definitely help our juniors and other young players in general. Don't you think?
Cheers and good luck!

ER
15-11-2006, 10:11 PM
First and most important, however, is the paramount necessity towards creating a Chess culture in Australia.
If you go to Greece for example (a country of 10 million population and 10 grandmasters) and claim that "Chess should not be recognised as a sport", even non chess people would laugh at you!
In Australia you would be lucky if one in a thousand people shared this view about our game.
In a recent press conference by a well known Victorian Govt Minister, I asked him during general question time if there were any possibilities of elevating Chess to a recognised Sport status.
He didn't exactly laugh at me, but most of other people of his entourage and my fellow journalists (apart of course of the usual chess loving or at worst chess interested Russian, Croatian, Serbian, Macedonian, Bosnian, Bulgarian, Romanian, Turkish and Greek mob) did!
I don't know if that is a clear indication of luck of Chess culture in Australia, bui I strongly believe if our parliamentary, community and (why not?) religious leaders' offices were flooded with a dalily infux of letters of support for chess activities, something would have been achieved.
The truth is that we expect everything from our Chess authoriries, we wait for a slight mistake so we can crucify them. What we do as individuals to help the case of Chess? Almost next to nothing? Maybe that's where the definition of lack of Chess culture should be sought for.
By the way I still believe that Dusan, Christopher and now Zhigen (sorry about my Victorian parochialism but all Melburnians and members of the Box Hill Chess Club :clap:) will sooner rather than later make the Aussie Olympic Team.
Cheers and good luck to all! :)

pax
15-11-2006, 10:35 PM
I asked him during general question time if there were any possibilities of elevating Chess to a recognised Sport status.

I reckon you need a few lessons in framing questions for politicians "Sir Humphrey" style.

Instead of

"Do you think there is any possibility of chess being recognised as a sport?",

ask

"Chess is accepted as a sport by the IOC, and 157 countries. Chess promotes logical reasoning and mathematical ability. When will the government finally join the majority of OECD countries in recognising the world's premier competitive intellectual activity with sport status?"

Or something similar. You can use real facts if you like, but fake ones work just as well most of the time. :D

ER
15-11-2006, 10:48 PM
I reckon you need a few lessons in framing questions for politicians "Sir Humphrey" style.

Instead of

"Do you think there is any possibility of chess being recognised as a sport?",

ask

"Chess is accepted as a sport by the IOC, and 157 countries. Chess promotes logical reasoning and mathematical ability. When will the government finally join the majority of OECD countries in recognising the world's premier competitive intellectual activity with sport status?"

Or something similar. You can use real facts if you like, but fake ones work just as well most of the time. :D

and how do you know what lead to that particular question sunshine? by the way whenever I need someone for domestic duties (at most as a toilet cleaner, so don't hold any high expectations) maybe I will have you in mind! That's for suggesting long, uninspired, boring go to sleep questions like the one you just proposed. Try again though, you might be elevated for my shoe shining position.:lol:
Cheers and good luck! :)

Basil
15-11-2006, 11:21 PM
Hi Elliott! I'm not sure if we/ you/ us/ pax :eek: have a breakdown in communication.

First: Pax's post was straight jest (and good value too - certainly not at attack on you).
Second: I was unclear as to whether you read it like that.
Third: I have great respect for the pair of you.
Fourth: Should I leave now? :) :uhoh:

ER
16-11-2006, 09:12 AM
Hi Elliott! I'm not sure if we/ you/ us/ pax :eek: have a breakdown in communication.

First: Pax's post was straight jest (and good value too - certainly not at attack on you).
Second: I was unclear as to whether you read it like that.
Third: I have great respect for the pair of you.
Fourth: Should I leave now? :) :uhoh:

all of the above! apologies if i got it all wrong, although the "you need a few lessons" part was a bit hard to stomach (particularly at around midnight and after a huge verbal with a secutiry ape)! I even misspelled "lead" if that's an indication. And no you shouldn't leave cause you were away for such a long time and I 've bloody missed your postings.
By the way huge lots of kudos for your latest posting (#36) on Caq Agm)!
Cheers and good luck!

Denis_Jessop
16-11-2006, 12:12 PM
I reckon you need a few lessons in framing questions for politicians "Sir Humphrey" style.

Instead of

"Do you think there is any possibility of chess being recognised as a sport?",

ask

"Chess is accepted as a sport by the IOC, and 157 countries. Chess promotes logical reasoning and mathematical ability. When will the government finally join the majority of OECD countries in recognising the world's premier competitive intellectual activity with sport status?"

Or something similar. You can use real facts if you like, but fake ones work just as well most of the time. :D

The problem here is that these points have already been made many times. Furthermore, the governmental opinion is driven by the "Big" sports like athletics and swimming who wouldn't recognise chess as a sport even if threatened with the firing squad. A much better course in my view is to go along with the idea of a competitive recreation or being treated as a sport whilst not actually recognised as one if what you are aiming at is getting government funding.

In the 1980s the Federal Labor government recognised chess as a competititve recreation and gave the ACF funding. In the ACT the government treats chess as a sport and gives funding regardless of who the party in power is. The current labor opposition's relevant shadow minister is titled as "sport and recreation". She is ACT Senator Kate Lundy who told me recently at the Ergas closing ceremony that activities such as chess would be funded by a Labor government at the Federal level. Whether chess is a sport or is a recreation treated as a sport is irrelevant if we get funding.

DJ

Responsibility for all election comment in this posting is taken by Denis Jessop, 33 Cargelligo Street, Duffy, ACT, 2611. :cool:

pax
16-11-2006, 12:45 PM
all of the above! apologies if i got it all wrong, although the "you need a few lessons" part was a bit hard to stomach (particularly at around midnight and after a huge verbal with a secutiry ape)! I even misspelled "lead" if that's an indication. And no you shouldn't leave cause you were away for such a long time and I 've bloody missed your postings.
By the way huge lots of kudos for your latest posting (#32 on Caq Agm)!
Cheers and good luck!

Sorry mate, it was mainly meant in jest. I was intending to have a go at politicians, not you.

It just seems to me that you need to jargonize your questions for politicians to get anywhere in this kind of Q&A environment (where you only have one shot). You have to assume they don't have any facts about chess (chess? that's a board game right?), and therefore give them a bunch of facts to go on. The result is that you probably get an equivocal response rather than a flat rejection.

Face to face is a bit different, because you can actually have a conversation.

ER
16-11-2006, 01:15 PM
Sorry mate, it was mainly meant in jest. I was intending to have a go at politicians, not you.



Apologies from me mate! After all, my response to your original message was boorish, arrogant and rather uncharacteristic of my communicative style. Whenever you come to Melbourne give us a yell so we can discuss it further over a drink or two! :)
Cheers and good luck!

pax
16-11-2006, 03:15 PM
Apologies from me mate! After all, my response to your original message was boorish, arrogant and rather uncharacteristic of my communicative style. Whenever you come to Melbourne give us a yell so we can discuss it further over a drink or two! :)
Cheers and good luck!

No offence taken. Hope to be able to take you up on your offer sometime ;)

Basil
16-11-2006, 07:21 PM
HCDs all 'round ***shucks***

Basil
16-11-2006, 07:34 PM
And no you shouldn't leave cause you were away for such a long time and I 've bloody missed your postings....

By the way huge lots of kudos for your latest posting (#36) on Caq Agm)!

Thankyou. I appreciate your support. I meant to mention I thought your balanced assessment of your approach to Garry Wastell was excellent, too.

Garvinator
20-11-2007, 12:21 AM
Seemed to be about the most appropriate thread.

From www.susanpolgar.blogspot.com


Following are the decisions taken at the 78th FIDE Congress Executive Board meeting - Report by Mr. Bill Kelleher

Olympiad

The 2008 Olympiad will be held in Dresden Germany. FIDE signed a contract with the City of Dresden to hold the Olympiad next year from the November 12th to the 25th. There was some concern about the financing but the Dresden City Council finally approved the necessary funds. There are a number of significant rules changes for next year’s Olympiad:

Both the men’s and women’s teams will consist of 4 players plus one reserve. Currently the men’s team consists of 4 players plus 2 reserves and the women’s team consists of 3 players plus 1 reserve.

The number of rounds will be reduced from 14 to 11.

The scoring will be changed from the current game points to match points.

pax
20-11-2007, 11:03 AM
Both the men’s and women’s teams will consist of 4 players plus one reserve. Currently the men’s team consists of 4 players plus 2 reserves and the women’s team consists of 3 players plus 1 reserve.
Stupid.


The number of rounds will be reduced from 14 to 11.
Stupid.

The scoring will be changed from the current game points to match points.
Stupid!!

Capablanca-Fan
20-11-2007, 12:12 PM
Stupid.

Stupid.

Stupid!!
You better store this post for posterity, because I agree on all counts! :confused:

Capablanca-Fan
20-11-2007, 12:14 PM
Furthermore, the governmental opinion is driven by the "Big" sports like athletics and swimming who wouldn't recognise chess as a sport even if threatened with the firing squad.
This is a problem with government funding (coerced from taxpayers) in general. The people who decide it often have a vested interest in keeping it in their own groups and excluding competitors.

Denis_Jessop
20-11-2007, 01:19 PM
You better store this post for posterity, because I agree on all counts! :confused:

I am inclined to agree with Jono and Pax on these three matters.

The decision about team sizes was taken and announced quite some time ago - I think at the Congress at the 2006 Olympiad so I'm not sure why it needs to be taken again. It creates problems for Australia as it makes selection of the Open team a real headache because of the number of good possible selections (including GM Antic if his attempt to get permanent residence succeeds) and also for the women's team because of the paucity of good selections. It generally seems hard to justify a reduction in the number of players in the Open teams while the argument for bigger teams in the women's event seems to favour the stronger countries.

The number of rounds was reduced for the Turin Olympiad because of some local holiday and the ACF voted against it (unsuccessfully). As far as I know, the ACF was not, and therefore national federations generally were not, consulted in advance on this occasion. I don't know why the number has been reduced for Dresden though I do know from reading the FIDE website, that there has been some concern about Dresden as a venue - that also comes out of what is said in Garvin's post. But, if it now seems OK why should the number of rounds be reduced?

Likewise, I am not aware of the ACF having been consulted on the matter of the change of scoring including any reason why it should be made.

DJ

Brian_Jones
20-11-2007, 01:54 PM
I am inclined to agree with Jono and Pax on these three matters. DJ
Just as I would expect from a few grumpy old men who don't like change! :)


It generally seems hard to justify a reduction in the number of players in the Open teams while the argument for bigger teams in the women's event seems to favour the stronger countries. DJ
Why? It seems to me to equalise the opportunities? Why do other countries have stronger Women? Maybe because they encourage Women to play chess more than we do?


The number of rounds was reduced for the Turin Olympiad because of some local holiday and the ACF voted against it (unsuccessfully). As far as I know, the ACF was not, and therefore national federations generally were not, consulted in advance on this occasion. I don't know why the number has been reduced for Dresden though I do know from reading the FIDE website, that there has been some concern about Dresden as a venue - that also comes out of what is said in Garvin's post. But, if it now seems OK why should the number of rounds be reduced? Likewise, I am not aware of the ACF having been consulted on the matter of the change of scoring including any reason why it should be made. DJ
Did you really expect consultation. Are we close enough to the decision makers?

Basil
20-11-2007, 01:57 PM
Likewise, I am not aware of the ACF having been consulted on the matter of ...
Did you really expect consultation. Are we close enough to the decision makers?
Stand by all stations ... this is not a drill. This is not a dress rehearsal!

Ian Rout
20-11-2007, 02:01 PM
I presume the third change is motivated by the propensity of teams needing 4-0 in the final round to achieve it when playing geographically or culturally adjacent teams.

frog
20-11-2007, 02:11 PM
Hi All,

FIDE have changed the Olympiad length etc to make it more attractive for many more cities to bid for the Olympiad.

A few years ago I did a thorough analysis of Australia hosting the Olympiad , I flew to Slovenia to observe and talk to movers and shakers - I even got someone from Australian Major Events (Adelaide Office ) to come to Slovenia and we held talks with appropriate persons.

The cost to hold the Olympiad in Australia was approximately $10,000,000 at that time and the majority of the money was to cover accomodation costs etc for the 2,000 or so players and officials including 5 star everything for the FIDE President and his group.

Decreasing the number of rounds hence decreasing the number of paid accomodation days would save a considerable amount of money.

Another issue was that a number of European countries/officials see Australia as the extreme backwater of Chess and were hostile (?) to the idea of an Olympiad in Australia. The main reason being that many federations are used to either having their airfares paid for them or paying the $100 or so which they can afford. With an Olympiad in Australia even with free accomodation these federations and/or players would have to find $2,000 plus for each player / official which a number of federations could not afford.

I was told quite bluntly that if Australia bid ,Russia and a number of other influential eastern bloc countries would either vote against the proposal or veto the comp simply on the basis of cost.

Anyway unless Australia can get a white knight/govt to come up with running costs plus extra dollars to entice reticent countries to come , Australia will never host the Olympiad.

Regards to ALL

Capablanca-Fan
20-11-2007, 02:56 PM
I presume the third change is motivated by the propensity of teams needing 4–0 in the final round to achieve it when playing geographically or culturally adjacent teams.
It still sux. The first article of the FIDE Laws (http://www.fide.com/official/handbook.asp?level=EE101) states:


The game of chess is played between two opponents

Chess is not a team sport as such—the game is the fundamental unit. So when assessing the merits of a team, the only fair way is to add up game scores, not impose an artificial notion of "match scores per round".

Watto
20-11-2007, 03:05 PM
It still sux. The first article of the FIDE Laws (http://www.fide.com/official/handbook.asp?level=EE101) states:


The game of chess is played between two opponents

Chess is not a team sport as such—the game is the fundamental unit. So when assessing the merits of a team, the only fair way is to add up game scores, not impose an artificial notion of "match scores per round".
Excuse my ignorance... will the change to match scores mean that it doesn't matter by how much a team wins or loses: ie it's the same if they lose (or win) 1.5-2.5 or 0-4? Or something else?

Capablanca-Fan
20-11-2007, 03:16 PM
Excuse my ignorance... will the change to match scores mean that it doesn't matter by how much a team wins or loses: ie it's the same if they lose (or win) 1.5-2.5 or 0-4?
That's exactly it.

Watto
20-11-2007, 03:20 PM
That's exactly it.
Thanks. Can't say I agree with it either then.

Garvinator
20-11-2007, 04:58 PM
Thanks. Can't say I agree with it either then.
I can see a little bit of merit in the decision.

Last round of Turin had the top board match over in five minutes well all eight players agreed draws as both teams decided that first place was decided.

Having the criteria of match points may stop this as teams will be a lot closer for a lot longer.

Of course if organisers/fide wanted to stop the early handshakes, they just need to ban draw offers.

This decision also makes it more of a team v team contest, rather than a marathon of earned collective points.

Garvinator
20-11-2007, 05:05 PM
Both the men’s and women’s teams will consist of 4 players plus one reserve. Currently the men’s team consists of 4 players plus 2 reserves and the women’s team consists of 3 players plus 1 reserve.

I think it should be 6 players for both open and women's. Teams can choose to have only 5 if they wish.


The number of rounds will be reduced from 14 to 11.Should stay as 14.

Desmond
20-11-2007, 07:26 PM
This decision also makes it more of a team v team contest, rather than a marathon of earned collective points.
That is my thinking also.

Kevin Bonham
20-11-2007, 07:39 PM
Surely game points will be used as a tiebreak if teams are tied on match points, so that game points will then matter?

I've played in tournaments using a range of systems: match points with game points as tiebreak, game points without match points, game points with the match result counted as a game point (1 game point for won match, .5 for draw, 0 for loss) etc. I've found all about equally satisfactory. If it reduces the number of 2-2 draws towards the end that's good but I doubt that it will.

I don't see why it makes any less sense to think of the Olympiad as a series of matches rather than a stack of games. Actually in a way it makes more sense, because now so-and-so beats so-and-so 2.5-1.5 means a lot more than just gaining a single game point on the opposition.

I'm with pax, Jono and Denis on the other matters. Actually I don't think increasing the size of the female teams is too bad an idea, but decreasing the size of the open teams is a shocker.

Denis_Jessop
20-11-2007, 07:43 PM
Just as I would expect from a few grumpy old men who don't like change! :)


Why? It seems to me to equalise the opportunities? Why do other countries have stronger Women? Maybe because they encourage Women to play chess more than we do?


Did you really expect consultation. Are we close enough to the decision makers?

On these three points.

1) I am not against change; after all who was one of the strongest ACF supporters of the proposed ACF Commission? But there needs to be a reason and the explanation is what is missing at present. Just at the moment I'm not very grumpy though I was when Sangakkara was given out :rolleyes:

2) I don't quite follow the argument here.


3) Yes; I did expect consultation. We were consulted last time as were all national federations. I wouldn't expect the ACF as such to be specially consulted but the FIDE decision-making processes are generally such that major decisions are taken after consultation. But I'm not ACF President now so I'm not sure what happened.

PS I thought that consultation and collective decision-making was an English tradition - perhaps not after Maggie. :D

DJ

Capablanca-Fan
20-11-2007, 08:00 PM
This decision also makes it more of a team v team contest, rather than a marathon of earned collective points.
A "marathon of earned collective points" makes it equally a "team v team contest", but without artificialities that undermine the fundamentally individualistic nature of the game. The only types of chess that is analogous to a true team sport are consultation or transfer. But the type of intra-team team cooeperation in games like soccer or rugby is strictly forbidden while a match is happening.

Kevin Bonham
20-11-2007, 08:24 PM
A "marathon of earned collective points" makes it equally a "team v team contest", but without artificialities that undermine the fundamentally individualistic nature of the game.

So far as the latter goes, I think having an Olympiad at all, or indeed any form of team chess, has already sold the pass on that one.

Bereaved
20-11-2007, 09:52 PM
Hi Kevin,

What provisions have been made by the ACF of there being insufficient applicants to fulfil this requirement; by this I mean given that 2 women who apply are eligible, and two other women apply who are ineligible owing to insufficient games, and most importantly, two girls aged 9 and 11, who are consistently on the most active list throughout the year also apply.

The two junior girls are substantially lower in rating, than the two adult females who are ineligible owing to inactivity; I am interested how this would be resolved?

Take care and God Bless, Macavity

Hi everyone,

I posted the above about 2 years ago.

I have decided to conduct an experiment tonight, to determine who would be eligible using the top females list from Dec 06 through to Sep 07 to get a 12 month spread of game play.

Here is the list in ACF rating order first, the club column is number of games played


No Name Rtg Loc Title Club

1. Anastasia Sorokina 2194 2172 wim 5
2. Giang Nguyen 2106 2163 14
3. Arianne B Caoili 2144 2157 wfm 16
4. Irina Berezina - Feldman 2246 2154 im 9
5. Ngan Koshnitsky 2168 2114 wim 0
6. Ingela Eriksson 2106 2110 0
7. Biljana Dekic 2138 2075 wim 0
8. Laura A Moylan 2092 2017 wim 42
9. Angela Song 1975 1915 wfm 23
10. Aina Musaeva 2052 1902 20
11. Nancy L Lane 1965 1803 wim 9
12. Shannon Oliver 1940 1798 wfm 25
13. Natalie A Maris 1757 29
14. Alexandra Jule 1896 1748 123
15. Narelle S Szuveges 1854 1699 wim 83
16. Rebecca Harris 1819 1668 38
17. Irene Holmes 1992 1658 14
18. Emma Guo 1733 1594 108
19. Jessica Kinder 1728 1588 92
20. Sally Yu 1717 1588 90
21. Cathy L Rogers 1998 1561 wfm 7
22. Irina Troshenkova 1530 17



Here is the same list in FIDE rating order

No Name Rtg Loc Title Club

1. Irina Berezina - Feldman 2246 2154 im 9
2. Anastasia Sorokina 2194 2172 wim 5
3. Ngan Koshnitsky 2168 2114 wim 0
4. Arianne B Caoili 2144 2157 wfm 16
5. Biljana Dekic 2138 2075 wim 0
6. Giang Nguyen 2106 2163 14
7. Ingela Eriksson 2106 2110 0
8. Laura A Moylan 2092 2017 wim 42
9. Aina Musaeva 2052 1902 20
10. Cathy L Rogers 1998 1561 wfm 7
11. Irene Holmes 1992 1658 14
12. Angela Song 1975 1915 wfm 23
13. Nancy L Lane 1965 1803 wim 9
14. Shannon Oliver 1940 1798 wfm 25
15. Alexandra Jule 1896 1748 123
16. Narelle S Szuveges 1854 1699 wim 83
17. Rebecca Harris 1819 1668 38
18. Emma Guo 1733 1594 108
19. Jessica Kinder 1728 1588 92
20. Sally Yu 1717 1588 90
21. Natalie A Maris 1757 29
22. Irina Troshenkova 1530 17


And finally in games played order, which will serve to highlight who would not be eligible if the olympiad was tomorrow.players in red font would be ineligible


No Name Rtg Loc Title Club

1. Ngan Koshnitsky 2168 2114 wim 000
2. Biljana Dekic 2138 2075 wim 000
3. Ingela Eriksson 2106 2110 000
4. Anastasia Sorokina 2194 2172 wim 005
5. Cathy L Rogers 1998 1561 wfm 007
6. Irina Berezina - Feldman 2246 2154 im 009
7. Nancy L Lane 1965 1803 wim 009
8. Giang Nguyen 2106 2163 014
9. Irene Holmes 1992 1658 014
10. Arianne B Caoili 2144 2157 wfm 016
11. Irina Troshenkova 1530 017
12. Aina Musaeva 2052 1902 020
13. Angela Song 1975 1915 wfm 023
14. Shannon Oliver 1940 1798 wfm 025
15. Natalie A Maris 1757 029
16. Rebecca Harris 1819 1668 038
17. Laura A Moylan 2092 2017 wim 042
18. Narelle S Szuveges 1854 1699 wim 083
19. Sally Yu 1717 1588 090
20. Jessica Kinder 1728 1588 092
21. Emma Guo 1733 1594 108
22. Alexandra Jule 1896 1748 123


Perhaps this will aid in your discussion of the change in size of the Women's team at the next olympiad.

Take care and God Bless, Macavity

Disclaimer; did not count games from the fide list, or look for overseas games played

Garvinator
20-11-2007, 10:16 PM
Perhaps this will aid in your discussion of the change in size of the Women's team at the next olympiad.
I don't think it should as one is a general philosophy of team size.

In regards to the strength of our womens team, if we send a really weak team, then that is the fault of the stronger women players for not being active enough and meeting the regulations.

Capablanca-Fan
21-11-2007, 12:35 AM
So far as the latter goes, I think having an Olympiad at all, or indeed any form of team chess, has already sold the pass on that one.
Sure, but must we multiply the problem 14-fold (or now only 11-fold)? The current system should produce more fighting chess, because every game counts. Even if your team has won the match, there is still much to be gained trying to gain the best score in your own game.

Garvinator
21-11-2007, 12:54 AM
Sure, but must we multiply the problem 14-fold (or now only 11-fold)? The current system should produce more fighting chess, because every game counts. Even if your team has won the match, there is still much to be gained trying to gain the best score in your own game.
In the Olympiads, teams don't have to play in rating order, so they can play their number 1 on board 4 if they wish.

What effect do you think the change will have with this? Will more or less teams stack their board order?

Ian Rout
21-11-2007, 10:28 AM
In the Olympiads, teams don't have to play in rating order, so they can play their number 1 on board 4 if they wish.

What effect do you think the change will have with this? Will more or less teams stack their board order?
I would think the difference in the motivation to do this is marginal if any. There isn't a lot of benefit in general as far as scoring goes, the increased likelihood of winning board 4 is traded off against the decreased likelihood of winning the other three. I don't see that maximing the points scored as opposed to maximising the chance of getting 2 or 2.5 would change the equation much.

There may be a benefit in particular match-ups but as you have to stick with the order throughout this would be cancelled by those where it's a disadvantage.

The point of fiddling the board order is usually either to try to get board medals or possibly norms, which won't be affected.

(I'm taking "stack" to mean putting players out of strength order rather than out of rating order, there's nothing wrong with the latter.)

pax
21-11-2007, 10:47 AM
I have decided to conduct an experiment tonight, to determine who would be eligible using the top females list from Dec 06 through to Sep 07 to get a 12 month spread of game play.

As you are well aware, this experiment does not have much bearing on what the situation will be at selection time.

The players know the selection criteria, and therefore if they want to be considered for selection, they will play the requisite number of games to ensure they are eligible. Note also that Berezina has 9 games from the Zonal (and will play the FIDE World Cup), and Sorokina has 9 games from the Greek tournament.

The problem comes down to what happens if the top female players decide they don't want to (or are unable to) go to the Olympiad.

Desmond
21-11-2007, 06:44 PM
A "marathon of earned collective points" makes it equally a "team v team contest", but without artificialities that undermine the fundamentally individualistic nature of the game. The only types of chess that is analogous to a true team sport are consultation or transfer. But the type of intra-team team cooeperation in games like soccer or rugby is strictly forbidden while a match is happening.
If we were to extend this thinking, then why should the pairings be according to country? Would you suggest a monster-individual-swiss?

Capablanca-Fan
21-11-2007, 07:09 PM
If we were to extend this thinking, then why should the pairings be according to country? Would you suggest a monster-individual-swiss?
Olympiads are supposed to be about the different countries. But they have always aggregated game points until now. Why fix this system when it wasn't broken?

Kevin Bonham
21-11-2007, 07:46 PM
Sure, but must we multiply the problem 14-fold (or now only 11-fold)? The current system should produce more fighting chess, because every game counts.

Not when you're several game points ahead going into the final round.

Also if game points are a tiebreak then every game does count, given the extremely great likelihood of ties.

Kevin Bonham
21-11-2007, 07:49 PM
Hi everyone,

I posted the above about 2 years ago.

I have decided to conduct an experiment tonight, to determine who would be eligible using the top females list from Dec 06 through to Sep 07 to get a 12 month spread of game play.

I strongly suspect that those intending to apply and not currently qualifying will increase their activity in the leadup to the Olympiad - the cutoff date is expected to be 20 June 2008.

Garvinator
12-12-2007, 01:55 PM
From www.susanpolgar.blogspot.com.

Make of this what you will:

My main reason for posting this is that accelerated pairings will be used, which has not been previously mentioned on here.


To: All Chess Federations

Dear Chess Friends,

Re: New Rules for the Chess Olympiads

FIDE Executive Board approved, in its recent meeting in Antalya, Turkey, new rules for the Chess Olympiads, which will come into effect at the 2008 Dresden Olympiad. As there are many significant changes, FIDE draws the attention of national federations to ensure that they and their players are acquainted with the new rules before they attend the Olympiad.

After 50 years (until 1974) of playing the Chess Olympiads under the round-robin system (mostly with preliminaries and finals), FIDE adopted (from 1976) the Swiss System. So, let me introduce the main important changes:

The number of boards in each match in the Women's Olympiad was increased from 3 to 4; the number of reserve players in the Open Olympiad was reduced from 2 to 1. That means that all teams in both olympiads will be composed of four players and one reserve.
The number of rounds was reduced to 11 (instead of 13-14 rounds in previous Olympiads).

In the first round, two 'imaginary' match points shall be added, for pairing purposes only, to each of the teams in the top half of the initial list. That means that in an Olympiad with 120 teams, the pairings for the first round will be 1-31, 2-32, 3-33 … 29-59, 30-60 and then 61-91, 62-92, 63-93 etc. (instead of 1-61, 2-62, 3-63 etc. in previous Olympiads).

In the second round, the winning teams in the top half will play with one another (i.e. 1-16, 2-17 etc.), the losing teams in the bottom half will play with one another (i.e. 91-106, 92-107), while the losing teams in the top half will play against the winning teams in the bottom half! (i.e. 31-61, 32-62, 33-63 etc.). This way we 'save' one round which is very important towards the end of the Olympiad. The `imaginary` points shall be deducted before making the pairings for the third round.

The final standing shall be determined by match points (instead of game points). That means that the winning team in each match (by game result of 2.5:1.5, 3:1, 3.5:0.5 or 4:0) gets 2 match points while its opponent gets no match points. In case of a draw (game result of 2:2) each team gets one match point.

The position of teams that finish with the same number of match points shall be determined by the Sonnenborn-Berger system which is the sum of the match points of all opponents, excluding the opponent who scored the lowest number of match points, while each opponent's match score is multiplied by the team's game result against this opponent. The idea behind this new rule is to combine, in the first procedure of the tie breaking, both the strength of the opponents and the number of game points scored against each one of them. The more game points scored against stronger opponents, the better for the team. This way we also give the teams a substantial incentive to win as many game points as possible in each match and not to be satisfied with the minimal win of 2.5:1.5. The exclusion of the weakest opponent is made in order to neutralize the effect of non played matches on the final results.

If Sonnenborn-Berger does not break the tie, the next tie-breaking procedures are: (b = Buchholz) by the sum of the match scores of all the team's opponents, excluding the opponent who scored the lowest number of match points; and (c) by the sum of the game points scored.

The standing after each round, according to the procedure explained in points 5-7 above, is also the basis for the pairings of each next round.

Yours sincerely,
Almog Burstein, Chairman
Technical Administration Panel

Kevin Bonham
12-12-2007, 08:34 PM
It also states the tiebreak system, which I was not aware of, although it incorrectly calls it Sonneborn-Berger instead of its correct name Neustadtl. (S and B were actually critics of the system.)

I think it is pretty bizarre to have Neustadtl as a tiebreak before game points as a tiebreak.

On the other hand I welcome the decision to accelerate the first two rounds of pairings.

Davidflude
12-12-2007, 09:19 PM
making the same number of players in men's and women's teams seems fair. Cutting the reserves to one player will make the task of the selectors harder.

Accelerating the pairings is an interesting idea.

Denis_Jessop
13-12-2007, 02:55 PM
I wonder if the decision to accelerate the first two rounds was taken in conjunction with that to reduce the number of rounds from 13/14 to 11.

DJ

pax
13-12-2007, 05:34 PM
making the same number of players in men's and women's teams seems fair.

I'm not so sure. Given that women can play for the "men's" olympiad, but not vice versa, this means there will be more female players than male for the first time.

Given that men outnumber women at almost every level of the game by a factor of around 10:1 or more, this would make the Olympiad a rather curious anomaly. I suspect the increased size of the women's team will make it more difficult for many countries to field a team at all.

Brian_Jones
13-12-2007, 05:46 PM
Given that men outnumber women at almost every level of the game by a factor of around 10:1 or more, this would make the Olympiad a rather curious anomaly. I suspect the increased size of the women's team will make it more difficult for many countries to field a team at all.

Or it could start a boom in Women's chess around the world!

Even Humpy has reached FIDE 2600, following in the steps of Judith Polgar.
What about a young chinese girl reaching 2600 next?

pax
13-12-2007, 06:03 PM
Or it could start a boom in Women's chess around the world!

No. Reform of women's chess needs to begin at the grassroots - fiddling the numbers at the Olympiad won't make a blind bit of difference to the number of girls playing interschool.



Even Humpy has reached FIDE 2600, following in the steps of Judith Polgar.
What about a young chinese girl reaching 2600 next?

Yifan Hou will get there soon enough (13 years old and over 2500 already). Remember that the reduction in size of the open teams make it less likely that women will be able to play in the open olympiads - a far more valuable opportunity for the likes of Humpy and Hou than the women's olympiads.

Denis_Jessop
13-12-2007, 10:25 PM
I'm not so sure. Given that women can play for the "men's" olympiad, but not vice versa, this means there will be more female players than male for the first time.

Given that men outnumber women at almost every level of the game by a factor of around 10:1 or more, this would make the Olympiad a rather curious anomaly. I suspect the increased size of the women's team will make it more difficult for many countries to field a team at all.

The official FIDE terminology is Open Olympiad and Women's Olympiad. It doesn't follow that there will be more women than men playing in the Olympiad because not every country will necessarily field a team in the Women's Olympiad. It is not even clear beyond doubt that Australia will field a Women's team.

DJ

Metro
27-03-2008, 04:56 AM
An IM has given a personal selection of an Australian Open(Men) team:
1.Z.Y.Zhao
2.S.Solomon
3.D.Johansen
4.D.Smerdon
5.A.Wohl

Capablanca-Fan
27-03-2008, 09:04 AM
My personal selection is:

1. Zhao
2. Smerdon
3. Johansen
4. Solomon
5. Wohl

I would have agreed, but after the Doerbel, I would be more inclined towards the IM's selection, or maybe:

1. Zhao
2. Solomon
3. Smerdon
4. Johansen
5. Wohl

MichaelBaron
27-03-2008, 09:12 AM
An IM has given a personal selection of an Australian Open(Men) team:
1.Z.Y.Zhao
2.S.Solomon
3.D.Johansen
4.D.Smerdon
5.A.Wohl


My personal selection is:

1. Zhao
2. Smerdon
3. Johansen
4. Solomon
5. Wohl

Leonid Sandler
27-03-2008, 03:20 PM
Thank you for agreeing with me Jono.What do you think about my beloved Ladies team?

Capablanca-Fan
27-03-2008, 04:20 PM
Thank you for agreeing with me Jono.What do you think about my beloved Ladies team?
Who are your selections, Leonid?

MichaelBaron
27-03-2008, 06:10 PM
Solo ahead of Smurf? hmm:hmm:

Ian Murray
27-03-2008, 06:26 PM
Solo ahead of Smurf? hmm:hmm:
On current form - Solo has the runs on the board

Kaitlin
27-03-2008, 06:37 PM
Is it really in Dresden Germany?
.. if it is .. I wish I had know that before .. I might have read books and praticed and praticed hard :(

Leonid Sandler
27-03-2008, 07:18 PM
It is very hard to pick the team for a lot of reasons and one of them inactivity of players.I am not sure who will meet criteria of 20 games .
I hope that our top board candidates I.Berezina and A.Caioli will play their 20 required games. Anastasia Sorokina have played some FIDE rated games( unfortunately not 20) Time is running out...
I can see some young ladies making the cut.

Capablanca-Fan
27-03-2008, 11:31 PM
On current form — Solo has the runs on the board
Solo's rating is 2468, Smerdon's 2459; Solo finished a point ahead at Doerbel. Johanson is 2475, finished level with Smerdon.

BTW, how do Wohl and Xie compare these days?

pax
28-03-2008, 12:44 AM
BTW, how do Wohl and Xie compare these days?
Wohl is rated 2418 to Xie's 2413 (and Gary Lane's 2412). Wohl's recent form hasn't been his best, but as always he is incredibly active in significant international events.

I think Xie really needed to play Doeberl and here to really be considered for one of the top five slots. Wallace has been inactive, and won't qualify. Goldenberg also needed big results in Canberra and here.

pax
28-03-2008, 12:50 AM
On current form - Solo has the runs on the board
Smerdon has a lot of GMs in the last year. This could factor in when deciding who plays the top boards.

Vlad
28-03-2008, 10:13 AM
Wohl is rated 2418 to Xie's 2413 (and Gary Lane's 2412). Wohl's recent form hasn't been his best, but as always he is incredibly active in significant international events.

If one uses all available info he can make the following adjustment:
Wohl is rated 2412 to Xie's 2418 (Gary Lane's 2382).

a) One can notice that George's rating is steadily goes up pretty much all the time (even when he had a shocking start in the Australian Champs).

b) One can also notice that George only plays in Australia. It is much harder to keep such a high rating here. Just compare Xie' performance in the Australian champ with Johansen loosing 22 rating points, Lane losing 30 points, Canfell losing 29 points and Bjelobrk losing 27 points.

To me George performs much better than Alex recently. The 6 point difference is more like 60 because it is much easier to play outside. However, I have a feeling George does not want to play in Dresden. Otherwise I would expect him to play in Canberra and/or SIO.

pax
28-03-2008, 11:40 AM
b) One can also notice that George only plays in Australia. It is much harder to keep such a high rating here. Just compare Xie' performance in the Australian champ with Johansen loosing 22 rating points, Lane losing 30 points, Canfell losing 29 points and Bjelobrk losing 27 points.
I don't know how valid this argument is. The players you mentioned all performed well below their best at the Australian Championships. Johansen may have lost 22 at the Australian Open, but he gained 29 prior to that at Elwood and in NZ.


To me George performs much better than Alex recently. The 6 point difference is more like 60 because it is much easier to play outside.
How can you make this judgment? There is very little evidence that Australian players are under-rated in FIDE ratings. In fact, historically Australian FIDE ratings have been typically inflated due to the artificial rating floors (esp when they were 2000-2200) - there used to be many sub 1800 ACF players with over 2000 FIDE ratings. Now that the floor has dropped, this problem is going away but I haven't seen any evidence that it has moved in the other direction.

However, I have a feeling George does not want to play in Dresden. Otherwise I would expect him to play in Canberra and/or SIO.
Another factor is Alex's sensational performance at the last Olympiad. But I do agree that the selectors will face a tough choice.

Vlad
28-03-2008, 01:20 PM
I was not claiming that all the players in Australia are underrated. What I was saying was that it is much harder to have 2420 when you are top 8 in the country rather than to have 2420 when you are top 300. When I lived in Canberra a few years ago my rating was about 2100. Now I live in Sydney and it is about 2300. Do you seriously believe I improved by 200 points? Obviously not. It was a combination of things. One of them was the fact that I was the highest rated player in Canberra. Neither rating system performs very well at the top and for that matter at the bottom of a distribution.

Capablanca-Fan
28-03-2008, 01:39 PM
I don't know how valid this argument is.
The validity is not in question, but the truth of the premises.


Another factor is Alex's sensational performance at the last Olympiad. But I do agree that the selectors will face a tough choice.
Only on the last board. On the others, the dispute is not the composition of the team but the order of boards 2–4.

Denis_Jessop
28-03-2008, 05:06 PM
I was not claiming that all the players in Australia are underrated. What I was saying was that it is much harder to have 2420 when you are top 8 in the country rather than to have 2420 when you are top 300. When I lived in Canberra a few years ago my rating was about 2100. Now I live in Sydney and it is about 2300. Do you seriously believe I improved by 200 points? Obviously not. It was a combination of things. One of them was the fact that I was the highest rated player in Canberra. Neither rating system performs very well at the top and for that matter at the bottom of a distribution.

Isn't the point not so much the operation of the rating system as such but that a top player, as Drug was in Canberra and as George is in Australia, needs to have a pool of high rated players to play against otherwise the risk is of losing points unless you win virtually all the time.

Incidentally, George has played outside Australia. That was how he made at least one of his IM norms. But it is true that he doesn't often do so though I'm not sure that that is by choice.

DJ

Intuition
28-03-2008, 06:07 PM
My Pick would be

1. Johansen
2. Zhao
3. Smerdon
4. Solomon
5. Wohl

:)

I think Daryl is too underestimated..yet he is our only active GM (even tho zhao and smerdon are close)

pax
28-03-2008, 06:13 PM
I think Daryl is too underestimated..yet he is our only active GM (even tho zhao and smerdon are close)

You're a bit behind the times: Zhao's GM title has just been ratified, and he is set to be rated over 2540 on the next FIDE list.

Metro
28-03-2008, 06:34 PM
My Pick would be

1. Johansen
2. Zhao
3. Smerdon
4. Solomon
5. Wohl

:)

I think Daryl is too underestimated..yet he is our only active GM (even tho zhao and smerdon are close)

You can't seriously put DJ ahead of ZYZ on the basis of past 12 months results.

Basil
28-03-2008, 07:09 PM
Isn't the point not so much the operation of the rating system as such but that a top player, as Drug was in Canberra and as George is in Australia, needs to have a pool of high rated players to play against otherwise the risk is of losing points unless you win virtually all the time.
Nail. Head.

Intuition
28-03-2008, 09:01 PM
You're a bit behind the times: Zhao's GM title has just been ratified, and he is set to be rated over 2540 on the next FIDE list.

I do realise that but the reason i chose in that order was that he would have a better chance to win on board 2

Intuition
28-03-2008, 09:02 PM
You can't seriously put DJ ahead of ZYZ on the basis of past 12 months results.

ditto

Oepty
28-03-2008, 11:12 PM
It is very hard to pick the team for a lot of reasons and one of them inactivity of players.I am not sure who will meet criteria of 20 games .
I hope that our top board candidates I.Berezina and A.Caioli will play their 20 required games. Anastasia Sorokina have played some FIDE rated games( unfortunately not 20) Time is running out...
I can see some young ladies making the cut.

Sorokina played 5 games at the Lidums Checkmate Open in Adelaide last July, meaning she has at least 13 games. A weekender will get her to twenty.
Giang Nguyen has played 20 games and her performances have been quite good. Finished ahead of Caoilli at Doeberl although the half a point difference probably doesn't mean alot.
Scott

Leonid Sandler
29-03-2008, 09:40 AM
Yes Scott, you are right SA own Giang is a very good player(I remember last July Lidums Checkmate tournament well).
She should be considered very seriously.I hope Anastasia,Irina and Arianne will play required 20 games...

Oepty
29-03-2008, 04:50 PM
Yes Scott, you are right SA own Giang is a very good player(I remember last July Lidums Checkmate tournament well).
She should be considered very seriously.I hope Anastasia,Irina and Arianne will play required 20 games...

Add Laura Moylan to that and we have probably our best possible team. If a couple of them don't want to go then we might see someone like Alex Jule or Rebecca Harris as a real possibility assuming they would go.
Scott

Leonid Sandler
29-03-2008, 05:02 PM
Of course Scott,
Laura is terriific team player and always happy to play!And our young ladies are capable players too.

Capablanca-Fan
29-03-2008, 05:49 PM
You can't seriously put DJ ahead of ZYZ on the basis of past 12 months results.
I agree. But a strong performance in the SIO might justify a slot on Board 2 or 3. Anyway, we have ratings for a reason ...

Metro
29-03-2008, 06:52 PM
Who are your selections, Leonid?
See post no.1!

MichaelBaron
30-03-2008, 09:11 AM
I am a little bit worried about the 20 game rule.

With the male team, i believe all of the top applicants have been playing enough games but with the female team, some strong applicant may be deprivded a chance to make the team stronger.

My other worry is "will all of the top players apply for a place on the team"?

Ian Murray
30-03-2008, 09:46 AM
...some strong applicant may be deprivded a chance to make the team stronger...
They would actually be depriving themselves of the chance

pax
30-03-2008, 10:26 AM
I am a little bit worried about the 20 game rule.

With the male team, i believe all of the top applicants have been playing enough games but with the female team, some strong applicant may be deprivded a chance to make the team stronger.
They all know the rules. It's completely reasonable to ask potential team members to be actively playing in the year prior to the Olympiad. How many other sports would select players who had not been competing regularly in the prior year?


My other worry is "will all of the top players apply for a place on the team"?
This is always a concern, especially since there is usually a significant personal cost to each player. I think it is fantastic that despite this cost, most of the top players (even the professional players) make themselves available for the Olympiad each time.

Tony Dowden
30-03-2008, 11:00 AM
My selection for the Australian Mens' team is:

1. Zong-Yuan Zhao
2. Darryl Johansen
3. David Smerdon
4. Stephen Solomon
5. George Xie

Reserve: Alex Wohl

Some kind of finesse involving a different board order between Boards 2-4 would be reasonable (taking into acount Smerdon's need for Elo points, Johansen's vast experience and Solo's chances for a GM norm). In addition, I would rather give the reserve spot to Lane or Bjelobrk - as I reckon playing outside Australia helps Wohl maintain a rating advantage - but I can't justify it.

I don't know enough about the Aussie women (even if various of them have played enough games) but after being on the receiving end of her smooth play (not to mention tactical wizardry) at the Doeberl Cup, I'd love to see Giang Nguyen get into the team.

And while I'm at it, my selection for the Kiwi team is:

1. Murray Chandler
2. Puchen Wang
3. Russell Dive
4. Paul Garbett
5. Anthony Ker

1st Reserve: Bob Smith
2nd Reserve: Stephen Lukey

I've chosen two reserves as I'm not too sure about the availability of some of my selections. Its amazing that despite another distinctly average NZ Championship performance (he only drew with me with White - lol) Bob Smith forces his way into contention yet again. I think he first played in the 1976 Haifa Olympiad - yes, 32 years ago!! Stephen Lukey gets in as my second reserve by a nose. As he had another strong NZ championship, Michael Steadman could have forced his way into the reckoning with a blinder over Easter at the Doeberl Cup and SIO but this was not to be (his TPF in Parramatta is best quickly forgotten).

I don't know enough about the Kiwi women to select a team. However, I hope 2007 NZ Women's Champion Shirley Wu is available for selection. I was very impressed by her tenacious play against strong opposition at the 2007 SIO.

Igor_Goldenberg
30-03-2008, 01:01 PM
1. Zhao
2-4. Johansen, Smerdon, Solomon (in whatever order)
5. Xie

while Wohl is a good and strong player, Xie is playing consistently. His performance in almost every tournament he plays is above his rating.

Unfortunately I am missing out after mediocre results in the last 3 major tournaments (Aus champ, Doeberl and SIO).

Capablanca-Fan
30-03-2008, 01:44 PM
I am a little bit worried about the 20 game rule.
I agree — if the object is making the best score on a board, then we should have the strongest player, not just a frequent player.

Capablanca-Fan
30-03-2008, 01:52 PM
1. Zhao
2-4. Johansen, Smerdon, Solomon (in whatever order)
5. Xie

while Wohl is a good and strong player, Xie is playing consistently. His performance in almost every tournament he plays is above his rating.
That's about right. After tying for first in the SIO, Zhao has reinforced his claim to top board. Solo also thinks Zhao is the best player at present with good all-round skill. Hard to chose between 2–4, and it might be best to use their current ratings.

Capablanca-Fan
30-03-2008, 01:55 PM
And while I'm at it, my selection for the Kiwi team is:

1. Murray Chandler
2. Puchen Wang
3. Russell Dive
4. Paul Garbett
5. Anthony Ker
That's about what I would have selected. Basically the GM and current champ has to be board 1; there's no one to match him. So has Wang definitely surpassed the other IMs? It's certainly reasonable to have the active IMs on the team.

Garvinator
30-03-2008, 01:58 PM
That's about right. After tying for first in the SIO, Zhao has reinforced his claim to top board. Solo also thinks Zhao is the best player at present with good all-round skill. Hard to chose between 2–4, and it might be best to use their current ratings.
But it could also be more beneficial to Australian chess in general to have David Smerdon on board two to chase ratings for the 2500 barrier :hmm:

Capablanca-Fan
30-03-2008, 02:26 PM
But it could also be more beneficial to Australian chess in general to have David Smerdon on board two to chase ratings for the 2500 barrier :hmm:
Then the question is, "What are the stated objectives for team selectors?"

Tony Dowden
30-03-2008, 02:55 PM
So has Wang definitely surpassed the other IMs?
Yes, I'd say so.

Garvinator
30-03-2008, 02:57 PM
Then the question is, "What are the stated objectives for team selectors?"
From the Olympiad by-laws.


Olympiad By-law, incorporating amendments made on and before 22 February 2008.

1. Objectives

The ACF has two major objectives in sending teams to the Chess Olympiads, though there are a number of other advantages as well.

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.

I could not find whether the selectors only select the team and then final board order decided by the team captain at Dresden or not? I am sure someone can fill this part in.

pax
30-03-2008, 03:04 PM
I agree — if the object is making the best score on a board, then we should have the strongest player, not just a frequent player.
20 games in a year is hardly frequent.

pax
30-03-2008, 05:19 PM
Zhao gains 16 rating points from the SIO, moving to 2557 - ahead of Rogers' retirement rating.

So perhaps Australia has only lost a board two from the team due to Rogers' retirement ;)

Capablanca-Fan
30-03-2008, 05:23 PM
Olympiad By-law, incorporating amendments made on and before 22 February 2008.

1. Objectives

The ACF has two major objectives in sending teams to the Chess Olympiads, though there are a number of other advantages as well.

a. Major Objectives

i. To finish as high as possible in the Olympiad.
In that case, put ZYZ on 5 so he can clean up!


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.
So Solo and Smerdon should go on 1 and 2 (not sure which order).


ii. The promotion of the image of Australian chess within FIDE and amongst the chess players of other countries.
Then we would have to play our strongest in strength order, but that conflicts with the first stated objective.

Denis_Jessop
30-03-2008, 06:46 PM
From the Olympiad by-laws.



I could not find whether the selectors only select the team and then final board order decided by the team captain at Dresden or not? I am sure someone can fill this part in.

The selection criteria in the ACF Selection Procedures By-law provide


4. Selection Criteria
4.1 Subject to clause 4.2, the selection criterion for each event shall be to rank the players in order of
playing strength with the strongest player ranked no.1, the second strongest no.2, and so on.
4.2 The Council may agree to -
4.2.1 add one or more criteria, or;
4.2.2 adopt a different criterion or criteria.
4.3.1 In the case of the Olympiad teams, an applicant shall not be eligible for selection unless the
applicant has played at least 20 ACF or FIDE rated games in the period of 12 months immediately
preceding the date on which applications for selection close.
4.3.2 For the purposes of paragraph 4.3.1 –
4.3.2.1 a game that is rated by the ACF and by FIDE shall be counted once only; and
4.3.2.2 a rapid play game shall not be counted.
4.3.3 Paragraph 4.3.1 takes effect from and including the selection process for the Olympiad 2008.

DJ

pax
30-03-2008, 07:58 PM
In that case, put ZYZ on 5 so he can clean up!

While I think this is permitted in the FIDE laws (certainly many minor teams put their strongest player on a low board in the hopes of a board medal), I suspect it does not yield better overall results. The only exception might be if you have a solid player capable of making many draws against stronger players to put ahead of an objectively stronger player who wins more games.

Capablanca-Fan
30-03-2008, 08:24 PM
While I think this is permitted in the FIDE laws (certainly many minor teams put their strongest player on a low board in the hopes of a board medal),
I see from DJ's post that ACF's rules say we must play in strength order. It is more ethical anyway, in the sense that matches reflect the overall differences in strength better, as shown in the following example.


I suspect it does not yield better overall results.
It can against a much stronger team. Consider Team A with ratings of 2700, 2600, 2500, 2400 v Team B of 2450, 2350, 2250, 2150. If Team B plays in rated order, they are likely to lose 4-0, but if they play in reverse order, they have a slightly better than even chance on Board 4, and a sporting chance on Board 3, while they sacrifice their top 2.

If Australia were more likely to play stronger teams than weaker ones, then reversing the order would fulfill the first ostensible objective more.


The only exception might be if you have a solid player capable of making many draws against stronger players to put ahead of an objectively stronger player who wins more games.
Yes. There might be a selector who can assess the strength that a player plays relatively stronger against. Some are very good at what Simon Webb calls "bunny bashing", and others are good at "heffalump trapping".

Ian Murray
30-03-2008, 08:26 PM
Strengthening the lower boards by weakening the top boards is theoretically counterproductive.

The mathematicians among us should be able to demonstrate that the net loss/gain is zero

Basil
30-03-2008, 08:43 PM
Strengthening the lower boards by weakening the top boards is theoretically counterproductive.
And nor is it in the spirit of things? Certainly a man of my calibre wouldn't stoop to such tactics (unless we were playing The French (the people) and then all bets are off :lol:)

Bill Gletsos
30-03-2008, 08:43 PM
It can against a much stronger team. Consider Team A with ratings of 2700, 2600, 2500, 2400 v Team B of 2450, 2350, 2250, 2150. If Team B plays in rated order, they are likely to lose 4-0, but if they play in reverse order, they have a slightly better than even chance on Board 4, and a sporting chance on Board 3, while they sacrifice their top 2.Note that the Olympiad rules do not permit a team to change board order during the entire Olympiad. Hence Team B would have to play in reverse order in every match.

Aaron Guthrie
30-03-2008, 08:50 PM
(Oops I deleted my post because I saw I was looking up the wrong table, but both tables are the same anyway, so here we go again.)
Strengthening the lower boards by weakening the top boards is theoretically counterproductive.

The mathematicians among us should be able to demonstrate that the net loss/gain is zeroThis is false. Jono's example works as a counterexample. If B plays in normal order, each player has an expected score of .19, so total expected is .76. If B plays in reverse order, the highest rated on that team has an expected scores of .57, and the second highest .30, this already gets team B above .76 (to .87).

pax
30-03-2008, 09:17 PM
If Australia were more likely to play stronger teams than weaker ones, then reversing the order would fulfill the first ostensible objective more.
A middle ranking team such as Australia is likely to play a mix of much stronger and much weaker teams. So while your example is valid in isolation, I don't believe the strategy has any merit for Australia at the Olympiad.

Rincewind
30-03-2008, 09:25 PM
(Oops I deleted my post because I saw I was looking up the wrong table, but both tables are the same anyway, so here we go again.)This is false. Jono's example works as a counterexample. If B plays in normal order, each player has an expected score of .19, so total expected is .76. If B plays in reverse order, the highest rated on that team has an expected scores of .57, and the second highest .30, this already gets team B above .76 (to .87).

This is correct. Assuming standard distributions and a deviation of 200*sqrt(2) (around 282) then the worst case (for team B from Jono's example) is team B plays in rating order. This gives a team expectation of 0.753518, any other ordering whatsoever does better than this. The best ordering is reverse rating order for B, which give an expectation of 1.001977.

Even just playing the weakest player on board 1 and then playing in rating order on boards 2, 3 and 4 (2150, 2450, 2350, 2250) gives an expectation of 0.919739.

Rincewind
30-03-2008, 09:28 PM
Note that the Olympiad rules do not permit a team to change board order during the entire Olympiad. Hence Team B would have to play in reverse order in every match.

For a very weak team this is probably a good option from a results perspective. Australia is probably not weak enough to employ it profitably, but maybe someone like PNG would theoretically benefit from it.

Igor_Goldenberg
30-03-2008, 09:40 PM
So has Wang definitely surpassed the other IMs?
Definitely. He'll be over 2400 very soon and still improving.

Capablanca-Fan
30-03-2008, 10:36 PM
Strengthening the lower boards by weakening the top boards is theoretically counterproductive.
I've given you an example where it is theoretically productive, i.e. against a much stronger team.


The mathematicians among us should be able to demonstrate that the net loss/gain is zero
Only if against teams around the same strength. Against weaker teams, it really is counterproductive.

Capablanca-Fan
30-03-2008, 10:40 PM
And nor is it in the spirit of things? Certainly a man of my calibre wouldn't stoop to such tactics (unless we were playing The French (the people) and then all bets are off :lol:)
Me neither. I was just noting the official first objective of the selection process might be fulfilled better by what is sometimes called board stacking. A fair competition would rule it out by insisting on playing in rating order, to within say 50 points.

pax
30-03-2008, 11:34 PM
Me neither. I was just noting the official first objective of the selection process might be fulfilled better by what is sometimes called board stacking. A fair competition would rule it out by insisting on playing in rating order, to within say 50 points.
You were not referring to the selection process, but to the objectives of participation in the Olympiad. The selection process clearly states that players must be ranked by the selectors in order of strength.

Capablanca-Fan
30-03-2008, 11:45 PM
You were not referring to the selection process, but to the objectives of participation in the Olympiad. The selection process clearly states that players must be ranked by the selectors in order of strength.
Yes to both. The post stating the objectives came earlier than the one about the selection process. The former stated that the #1 objective was to score as highly as possible, and only in the latter did it clearly state that we play in strength order.

pax
26-05-2008, 05:33 PM
I see here (http://www.caq.org.au/olympiad/teams.html), that nearly all of Australia's top men have already applied to be in the team. The top five listed on that page would make an excellent representative team. Wohl, if he applies, is the only other player that I could see breaking into the team (or Antic, of course if he satisfied citizenship requirements).

On the other hand, there is a deathly silence on the women's side.

MichaelBaron
26-05-2008, 06:05 PM
Only one female applicant so far...and not the strongest one! This is a bit of a worry. Two possible worrying scenarios are a) Australia will have no women's team b) there will be a team but a ridiculously weak one ...as top players will not apply. Hopefully, none of the 2 is going to happen:hmm:

Garvinator
26-05-2008, 06:19 PM
Only one female applicant so far...and not the strongest one! This is a bit of a worry. Two possible worrying scenarios are a) Australia will have no women's team b) there will be a team but a ridiculously weak one ...as top players will not apply. Hopefully, none of the 2 is going to happen:hmm:
Looks like any female that has AUS next to their fed name and can meet the 20 game requirement will get a birth if they want it.

eclectic
26-05-2008, 06:59 PM
Looks like any female that has AUS next to their fed name and can meet the 20 game requirement will get a birth if they want it.

certainly not if ansell is a sponsor again!!! :P

george
27-05-2008, 12:22 AM
Hi All,

Many of my relatives were refugees in Dresden when the allied saturation bombing happened on an almost total civilian target. (Russian refugees)

Not really excused by saying the Germans did the same to UK.

Both sides were guilty of genocide.

But I have been told the city was beautiful.

Sorry about this post but saw the heading and stuff floated up.

Basil
27-05-2008, 12:28 AM
Sorry about this post but saw the heading and stuff floated up.
All good George. Carry on. May God rest their souls.

Ian Murray
13-06-2008, 09:36 AM
FIDE is touting some significant changes to the regulations for the Olympiad - see http://www.fide.com/component/content/article/1-fide-news/3005-fide-submitts-regulation-changes-for-chess-olympiad

Tony Dowden
13-06-2008, 10:46 PM
Only one female applicant so far...and not the strongest one! This is a bit of a worry. Two possible worrying scenarios are a) Australia will have no women's team b) there will be a team but a ridiculously weak one ...as top players will not apply. Hopefully, none of the 2 is going to happen:hmm:

As most of the top female players were scrambling to play the requisite 20 rated games at the Doeberl Cup and the SIO neither scenario seems likely.

But who knows?

Kevin Bonham
13-06-2008, 10:57 PM
We are now up to nine male and four female applicants with one week to go.

While I never try to assume anything about anyone's intention to apply or not apply until it is clear, I will point out that it is not unusual for several applicants to apply in the last few weeks. In 2004, for instance, most of the female applicants and about one-third of the male applicants applied in the last week. 2006 is not comparable because the application window that year was very short.

Tony Dowden
14-06-2008, 10:05 AM
My selection for the for the Kiwi team is:

1. Murray Chandler
2. Puchen Wang
3. Russell Dive
4. Paul Garbett
5. Anthony Ker

1st Reserve: Bob Smith
2nd Reserve: Stephen Lukey

I've chosen two reserves as I'm not too sure about the availability of some of my selections. Its amazing that despite another distinctly average NZ Championship performance (he only drew with me with White - lol) Bob Smith forces his way into contention yet again. I think he first played in the 1976 Haifa Olympiad - yes, 32 years ago!! Stephen Lukey gets in as my second reserve by a nose. As he had another strong NZ championship, Michael Steadman could have forced his way into the reckoning with a blinder over Easter at the Doeberl Cup and SIO but this was not to be (his TPF in Parramatta is best quickly forgotten).

I don't know enough about the Kiwi women to select a team. However, I hope 2007 NZ Women's Champion Shirley Wu is available for selection. I was very impressed by her tenacious play against strong opposition at the 2007 SIO.

The NZ teams have been selected. I'm surprised that Nokes was selected as he has been virtually inactive since the last OL. And I don't think Garbett was available for selection.

Both teams are possibly 'the strongest ever', so it will be interesting to see how NZ does.

Open (Men's) team: GM Murray Chandler, IM Puchen Wang, IM Russell Dive, FM Bob Smith, and FM Roger Nokes. 1st Reserve: FM Stephen Lukey, 2nd Reserve Michael Steadman.

Women's team: Helen Milligan, Sue Maroroa, Judy Gao, Vivian Smith, Natasha Fairley. 1st Reserve: Evgenia Charmova, 2nd Reserve: Cecily Liu.

Capablanca-Fan
14-06-2008, 11:45 AM
Open (Men's) team: GM Murray Chandler, IM Puchen Wang, IM Russell Dive, FM Bob Smith, and FM Roger Nokes. 1st Reserve: FM Stephen Lukey, 2nd Reserve Michael Steadman.
Looks very strong on the top. Was Ker unavailable?

Tony Dowden
14-06-2008, 02:35 PM
Yes, I gather Ker was unavailable.

Further to Nokes' lack of recent activity, he's not on the current FIDE 'active' list.

Capablanca-Fan
14-06-2008, 02:44 PM
Yes, I gather Ker was unavailable.
That's unusual for him.


Further to Nokes' lack of recent activity, he's not on the current FIDE 'active' list.
Isn't there some sort of rule for minimum activity before selection?

Oepty
14-06-2008, 04:10 PM
We are now up to nine male and four female applicants with one week to go.

While I never try to assume anything about anyone's intention to apply or not apply until it is clear, I will point out that it is not unusual for several applicants to apply in the last few weeks. In 2004, for instance, most of the female applicants and about one-third of the male applicants applied in the last week. 2006 is not comparable because the application window that year was very short.

Kevin. Although I doubt this will be needed, will a four player womens team be sent if the need arises and the four players are happy to play without a reserve?
Scott

Tony Dowden
14-06-2008, 05:21 PM
Isn't there some sort of rule for minimum activity before selection?

Apparently not but I think there should be. While I only had Lukey as a second reserve, I reckon he (and Steadman, come to think of it) have reasonable grounds to feel hard done by.

Kevin Bonham
14-06-2008, 05:50 PM
Kevin. Although I doubt this will be needed, will a four player womens team be sent if the need arises and the four players are happy to play without a reserve?

There is no official ACF position on this and I greatly doubt one will be needed.

If this situation ever did arise for either team, I would support sending the team in such a case.

Denis_Jessop
14-06-2008, 05:52 PM
The NZ teams have been selected. I'm surprised that Nokes was selected as he has been virtually inactive since the last OL. And I don't think Garbett was available for selection.

Both teams are possibly 'the strongest ever', so it will be interesting to see how NZ does.

Open (Men's) team: GM Murray Chandler, IM Puchen Wang, IM Russell Dive, FM Bob Smith, and FM Roger Nokes. 1st Reserve: FM Stephen Lukey, 2nd Reserve Michael Steadman.

Women's team: Helen Milligan, Sue Maroroa, Judy Gao, Vivian Smith, Natasha Fairley. 1st Reserve: Evgenia Charmova, 2nd Reserve: Cecily Liu.

Helen Milligan is a WFM.

DJ

Basil
14-06-2008, 06:29 PM
Helen Milligan is a WFM
There's no need for that sort of abuse, Denis.

eclectic
14-06-2008, 06:35 PM
please send a full strength women's team; none of us want to see antichrist petition the equal opportunity board to be considered for inclusion! :P

Tony Dowden
14-06-2008, 07:53 PM
Helen Milligan is a WFM.

DJ

You are right Denis.

Actually the other NZ women have assorted titles too. I'm not an unreconstructed misogynist, I just that don't know the details by heart (I think its WCM for Smith, and WFM for Mararoa & Fairley).

Tony Dowden
14-06-2008, 07:53 PM
There's no need for that sort of abuse, Denis.
:lol: I can cope ...

pax
14-06-2008, 09:02 PM
I wouldn't mind a few dollars on Chandler or Wang for a medal..

Intuition
14-06-2008, 10:51 PM
:D
I wouldn't mind a few dollars on Chandler or Wang for a medal..

It would be good if chess betting were offered somewhere... but I guess given that match fixing is so easy it would be a big problem

Ian Murray
14-06-2008, 11:38 PM
It would be good if chess betting were offered somewhere... but I guess given that match fixing is so easy it would be a big problem
The bookies accommodate chess punters - www.betsson.com is probably the biggest

Intuition
15-06-2008, 02:34 PM
The bookies accommodate chess punters - www.betsson.com is probably the biggest

interesting, but I couldnt find chess...maybe they just accomodate the big tourneys like the world championship?

Ian Murray
15-06-2008, 03:02 PM
interesting, but I couldnt find chess...maybe they just accomodate the big tourneys like the world championship?
They run a book on most of the European GM events. The Olympiad is a certainty

Capablanca-Fan
15-06-2008, 09:30 PM
I wouldn't mind a few dollars on Chandler or Wang for a medal..
Chandler for sure. A player much stronger than his team-mates is very likely to rack up points against the leaders of the weaker teams they play. The gap between Wang and Dive is not so great.

pax
16-06-2008, 12:21 PM
Chandler for sure. A player much stronger than his team-mates is very likely to rack up points against the leaders of the weaker teams they play. The gap between Wang and Dive is not so great.

Wang is quite capable of pulling out a 2500+ performance. I think the same probably cannot be said of Dive.

Capablanca-Fan
16-06-2008, 12:26 PM
Wang is quite capable of pulling out a 2500+ performance. I think the same probably cannot be said of Dive.
Do you have evidence of such a 2500+ performance? Dive did earn IM norms the normal way rather than in a zonal (albeit an excellent performance by Wang unlike the Weetbix FM titles awarded). The difference between Chander and Wang is currently much greater than the difference between Wang and Dive.

Brian_Jones
16-06-2008, 12:45 PM
Do you have evidence of such a 2500+ performance? Dive did earn IM norms the normal way rather than in a zonal (albeit an excellent performance by Wang unlike the Weetbix FM titles awarded). The difference between Chander and Wang is currently much greater than the difference between Wang and Dive.

A good young bloke will beat a good old bloke any day! :)
Sometimes they pass in the lift! :)

Igor_Goldenberg
16-06-2008, 03:10 PM
Do you have evidence of such a 2500+ performance? Euwe stimulus tournament (http://ratings.fide.com/tourarc.phtml?codt=25&field1=4300904)
Dive did earn IM norms the normal way rather than in a zonal (albeit an excellent performance by Wang unlike the Weetbix FM titles awarded).
Puchen had sufficient IM norms before the zonal.

The difference between Chander and Wang is currently much greater than the difference between Wang and Dive.
Hard to say. May be not that much.

pax
16-06-2008, 05:34 PM
Euwe stimulus tournament (http://ratings.fide.com/tourarc.phtml?codt=25&field1=4300904)
Cappelle Grand (http://ratings.fide.com/tourarc.phtml?codt=27&field1=4300904) was also close.

Capablanca-Fan
16-06-2008, 06:31 PM
Euwe stimulus tournament (http://ratings.fide.com/tourarc.phtml?codt=25&field1=4300904)
What do you mean? That page gives Rc = 2418.


Puchen had sufficient IM norms before the zonal.
Where from?


Hard to say. May be not that much.
Chandler was a strong GM in his day—his best was better than Rogers' best—and his recent NZ Championship victories show that he is still very powerful.


Cappelle Grand was also close.
2453. Dive would have needed three 2450+ performances to make his IM title.

pax
16-06-2008, 06:33 PM
What do you mean? That page gives Rc = 2418..
Rc=average opposition rating. Against which he scored 66%.

pax
16-06-2008, 06:36 PM
Dive would have needed three 2450+ performances to make his IM title.
When was the most recent one of those?

pax
16-06-2008, 06:43 PM
Puchen also scored an IM norm at the 2006 Olympiad.

Vlad
16-06-2008, 06:55 PM
It is hard to see what you all arguing about. I am happy to take a bet 1:1 that nobody from the New Zealand team will get any medals. Any takers? :)

Capablanca-Fan
16-06-2008, 06:55 PM
Rc=average opposition rating. Against which he scored 66%.
Thanx. But that 66% score was against Rc=2300. It was 42.3% against that 2453 field.

pax
16-06-2008, 07:20 PM
Thanx. But that 66% score was against Rc=2300.
Huh?


Simutowe, Amon 2421 ZAM 0
Rothuis, Vincent 2441 NED 1
Hendriks, Willy 2420 NED 1
Panno, Oscar 2457 ARG 0.5
Olafsson, Fridrik 2452 ISL 0.5
Muhren, Bianca 2334 NED 0
Ziska, Helgi Dam 2408 FAI 1
Barua, Dibyendu 2462 IND 1
Gaprindashvili, Nona 2364 GEO 1

6/9=66%, Rc=2418

pax
16-06-2008, 07:25 PM
It was 42.3% against that 2453 field.
That was the First Saturday Tournament, which nobody else has referred to here (a decent performence, but not his best)

Capablanca-Fan
16-06-2008, 09:18 PM
Huh?


Simutowe, Amon 2421 ZAM 0
Rothuis, Vincent 2441 NED 1
Hendriks, Willy 2420 NED 1
Panno, Oscar 2457 ARG 0.5
Olafsson, Fridrik 2452 ISL 0.5
Muhren, Bianca 2334 NED 0
Ziska, Helgi Dam 2408 FAI 1
Barua, Dibyendu 2462 IND 1
Gaprindashvili, Nona 2364 GEO 1

6/9=66%, Rc=2418
Oh, the Euwe stimulus tournament. Indeed that is 2533. And you're right, 24e open international de Cappelle was 2498.

Davidflude
16-06-2008, 10:22 PM
Yes, I gather Ker was unavailable.

Further to Nokes' lack of recent activity, he's not on the current FIDE 'active' list.

Great to see that Nokes is in the team. He was playing in the shaky isles before i came to Australia.

Garvinator
17-06-2008, 04:50 PM
* Non-playing Captain, Australian Women's Team

Could be a rather simple position if there are only four women going ;)

pax
17-06-2008, 06:27 PM
Could be a rather simple position if there are only four women going ;)
You could theoretically send a team of four..

pax
18-06-2008, 01:51 PM
Do you have evidence of such a 2500+ performance?

He may also be able to add the current First Saturday tournament, where Puchen is reportedly undefeated on 7.5/11 (two rounds to play) with RP substantially above 2500.

Tony Dowden
19-06-2008, 08:30 AM
Wang is quite capable of pulling out a 2500+ performance. I think the same probably cannot be said of Dive.

I agree. Dive isn't as strong as he usd to be. But Wang is stronger than he was, well, last month!

Basil
19-06-2008, 12:06 PM
I agree. Dive isn't as strong as he usd to be. But Wang is stronger than he was, well, last month!
Right boys, that's settled. To avoid taking a dive for the team, we need a strong wang.

bergil
19-06-2008, 02:41 PM
Right boys, that's settled. To avoid taking a dive for the team, we need a strong wang.
:wall:

pax
21-06-2008, 10:52 AM
You could theoretically send a team of four..
A late flood of applicants has added Caoili and Moylan. Only Sorokina is missing from the top applicants.

pax
24-06-2008, 02:34 PM
Will the player applications be available online this year?

Ian Murray
24-06-2008, 04:39 PM
Will the player applications be available online this year?
Last I heard from KB, they will be released for publication within a few days after a few minor issues are sorted

Kevin Bonham
24-06-2008, 07:04 PM
They will be most likely be released either tomorrow night or Thursday.

Ian Murray
26-06-2008, 05:08 PM
Will the player applications be available online this year?
First instalment now available on The Teams page at www.caq.org.au/olympiad/index.htm

Kevin Bonham
26-06-2008, 05:16 PM
ACF ratings files, FIDE result files and probably other goodies will be added soon.

Intuition
27-06-2008, 03:25 PM
It is interesting to generally compare the supporting comments between the men and woman. The men just drop a few one liners '1st here 2nd there i played there' and the ladies prepare a thesis :)

I think the main 4 will and should be

Zhao
Smerdon
Solomon
Johansen

with other others competing for the remaining places. I think Darryl should be given a highish board to play due to his drawish tendancy and I think one of his main weakness is drawing with lower rated players, but zhao clearly deseves and should play board 1 when he plays

I liked Moylans application I think she should get a jersey for the women, Berezina is automatically in and with caoili not playing as it seems, oliver has a decent chance to make the team, will be interesting to see how it plays out :)

Its a shame Ian Rogers will not play at the olympid, if he were playing it would probably be Australias strongest team ever and we would maybe be an outside change of breaking the top 15, but i still think the team will do well :D

Good Luck Players :clap:

Capablanca-Fan
27-06-2008, 07:18 PM
I think the main 4 will and should be

Zhao
Smerdon
Solomon
Johansen
That was the order I picked.


Its a shame Ian Rogers will not play at the olympid, if he were playing it would probably be Australias strongest team ever and we would maybe be an outside change of breaking the top 15, but i still think the team will do well :D
That would be a great team.


Good Luck Players :clap:
Indeed.

Tony Dowden
29-06-2008, 12:05 AM
I liked Moylans application I think she should get a jersey for the women, Berezina is automatically in and with caoili not playing as it seems, oliver has a decent chance to make the team, will be interesting to see how it plays out

I'm surprised you don't mention former Vietnamese rep, Giang Nguyen (FIDE 2127). With respect she is quite a bit stronger than Oliver (note Nguyen's recent impressive record against various 2100+ players - including a draw against GM Johansen and a win against IM Sandler in the past year).

Assuming Caoili will be unavailable, I would pick Nguyen on Board 3 - ahead of Moylan (Board 4) but behind Berezina (Board 1) and - somewhat on trust - Dekic (Board 2).

By the way, if Caoili does pull out, then Oliver and Jule will have an interesting tussle for the fifth and last spot. Personally I like Alex Jule's playing style (I was impressed with the way she handled herself against me in the Doeberl Cup despite a position that went bad) but maybe Oliver has the edge.

Intuition
29-06-2008, 12:22 AM
I'm surprised you don't mention former Vietnamese rep, Giang Nguyen (FIDE 2127). With respect she is quite a bit stronger than Oliver (note Nguyen's recent impressive record against various 2100+ players - including a draw against GM Johansen and a win against IM Sandler in the past year).

I think she is a clear in, the no comment was not to suggest that she is not worthy :D

Capablanca-Fan
29-06-2008, 12:39 AM
Assuming Caoili will be unavailable, I would pick Nguyen on Board 3 - ahead of Moylan (Board 4) but behind Berezina (Board 1) and - somewhat on trust - Dekic (Board 2).

I picked:


IM Irina Berezina
WIM Arianne Caoili
Giang Nguyen
WIM Laura Moylan
WIM Biljana Dekic

Tony Dowden
29-06-2008, 09:20 AM
Jono, what is your rationale for putting Dekic on Board 5? (I don't know much about her but it looks like her FIDE rating is pretty good).

And, assuming Caoili will be unavailable, who would you replace her with?

Capablanca-Fan
29-06-2008, 11:06 AM
Jono, what is your rationale for putting Dekic on Board 5? (I don't know much about her but it looks like her FIDE rating is pretty good).
Tony, her FIDE rating was only marginally better than those of Nguyen and Moylan, but her ACF rating is quite a bit lower, which is likely to be a better indication of current form.


And, assuming Caoili will be unavailable, who would you replace her with?
Probably Shannon Oliver, since both FIDE and ACF ratings are a bit higher than Alex Jule's. Like you, I know only Jule, and she is a solid player. Why would Caoili be unavailable, just because she didn't write a thesis on it (neither did Solomon)?

Tony Dowden
29-06-2008, 12:58 PM
Tony, her FIDE rating was only marginally better than those of Nguyen and Moylan, but her ACF rating is quite a bit lower, which is likely to be a better indication of current form.
I see, that makes sense. (By the way, note that Dekic's July 2008 FIDE rating will be lower than Nguyen's).


Why would Caoili be unavailable?
I gathered that KB had indicated she was unlikely.

Garvinator
29-06-2008, 02:00 PM
Tony, her FIDE rating was only marginally better than those of Nguyen and Moylan, but her ACF rating is quite a bit lower, which is likely to be a better indication of current form. And Giang's acf is a !! compared to a ! for Dekic. If this means anything to you :confused:



Probably Shannon Oliver, since both FIDE and ACF ratings are a bit higher than Alex Jule's. Like you, I know only Jule, and she is a solid player. Why would Caoili be unavailable, just because she didn't write a thesis on it (neither did Solomon)?But Jule is a WIM, compared to WFM for Oliver ;)

Vlad
29-06-2008, 03:45 PM
I think the rating itself (especially when a person does not play often) is not the only information that should be used when deciding the team. In case of B. Dekic, her previous rating was 2075. So after just 11 games she lost 113 rating points. To make a judgement about her strength I would rather look at her performance rating, especially given that she had not played in Australia for a few years before the North Sydney Club Championship.

Denis_Jessop
29-06-2008, 05:54 PM
I think the rating itself (especially when a person does not play often) is not the only information that should be used when deciding the team. In case of B. Dekic, her previous rating was 2075. So after just 11 games she lost 113 rating points. To make a judgement about her strength I would rather look at her performance rating, especially given that she had not played in Australia for a few years before the North Sydney Club Championship.

The selection criterion in the ACF Selection Procedures By-law is "playing strength" so the selectors are not restricted to considering ratings only.

[For completeness I mention that the By-laws allow the ACF Council to add criteria or to adopt a different criterion but that has not been done.]

DJ

Kevin Bonham
30-06-2008, 01:40 AM
At this stage I have no reason to believe any applicant to be unlikely to play if selected. But I'm generally not in the know about the intentions of applicants in that regard until the stage where I ask those selected to confirm their places.

Tony Dowden
30-06-2008, 08:01 AM
At this stage I have no reason to believe any applicant to be unlikely to play if selected. But I'm generally not in the know about the intentions of applicants in that regard until the stage where I ask those selected to confirm their places.


Sorry all, I had no intention of starting a false rumour. I read KB's piece below - culled from Olympiad applicants' supporting statements - but either misread it or misremembered it.

I sound like a politician, I know, but that's what happened - somehow I got it into my head that Caoili was unlikely to be available for selection (despite having thrown her hat in the ring).

My sincere apologies to WIM Arianne Caoili and anyone who might have been misled.

[Candidate provisionally supplied a supporting statement but my current understanding of her intentions is that she does not wish it to be submitted. – KB]

Desmond
01-07-2008, 01:10 PM
Does anyone know whether or not Antic has applied to represent his home country?

george
01-07-2008, 01:24 PM
Hi Boris,

A very good question - I will ask him on the weekend when he is playing the Freytag. It may not be strategically a good idea for him to play for Serbia when he is vigorously trying to get permanent residency here but hey he is a GM so good on strategy:)

Kindest Regards

Denis_Jessop
01-07-2008, 01:44 PM
Does anyone know whether or not Antic has applied to represent his home country?

I would think it highly unlikely as he is ranked 33 in Serbia's FIDE list with 24 GMs above him. It just shows the difference between countries like Serbia and Australia as far as chess strength goes. :(

DJ

Capablanca-Fan
16-07-2008, 11:17 AM
Selections are up (http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=202601&postcount=11)

My own submission (to the competition) matched this pretty closely, although I picked only the top five:

Open


GM Zong-Yuan Zhao
IM David Smerdon
IM Stephen Solomon
GM Darryl Johansen
IM Alex Wohl

Only differed on board 5, and the selectors' choice is also most reasonable.

Women's


IM Irina Berezina
WIM Arianne Caoili
Giang Nguyen
WIM Laura Moylan
WIM Biljana Dekic

100% agreement

Vlad
16-07-2008, 12:07 PM
I think they did a very good job with the open team. In fact if I were to make the selection I would end up with the same ordering.

They did ok job with the woman's selection. I agree with everything, except for one player.

Overall, well done!

Watto
16-07-2008, 01:56 PM
For ease of reference, here are the selections according to the official notice. (See link for the full notice by Kevin Bonham: http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=202601&postcount=11:)

"The provisional selections for the upcoming Olympiad are:

OPEN TEAM
Board 1 GM Zong-Yuan Zhao
Board 2 IM David Smerdon
Board 3 IM Stephen Solomon
Board 4 GM Darryl Johansen
Board 5 IM George Xie
First Reserve IM Alex Wohl
Second Reserve FM Igor Goldenberg
Third Reserve FM Igor Bjelobrk
Fourth Reserve IM Gary Lane

WOMENS TEAM
Board 1 IM Irina Berezina
Board 2 WIM Arianne Caoili
Board 3 Giang Nguyen
Board 4 WIM Laura Moylan
Board 5 WIM Biljana Dekic
First Reserve WFM Shannon Oliver
Second Reserve WIM Alex Jule
Third Reserve WIM Narelle Szuveges"

Ivanchuk_Fan
24-07-2008, 09:09 PM
For a discussion of the board order of the Australian team, go to the comments' section of Amiel's blog at closetgrandmaster.blogspot.com (http://closetgrandmaster.blogspot.com). I refer you to the news story on GM Rogers's Monday column in the paper.

eclectic
24-07-2008, 09:19 PM
order schmorder!!!

let's simply wish all those selected (and now confirmed as such) the very best

:hand:

Metro
24-07-2008, 09:32 PM
order schmorder!!!

let's simply wish all those selected (and now confirmed as such) the very best

:hand:

Hear!Hear! Best Wishes:clap: :clap:

The Open squad is a fine looking team.On a personal note,I would like to see Darryl a little higher in the order.

Bill Gletsos
24-07-2008, 09:43 PM
For a discussion of the board order of the Australian team, go to the comments' section of Amiel's blog at closetgrandmaster.blogspot.com (http://closetgrandmaster.blogspot.com). I refer you to the news story on GM Rogers's Monday column in the paper.I think you mean Sunday.

Bill Gletsos
24-07-2008, 09:46 PM
Hear!Hear! Best Wishes:clap: :clap:

The Open squad is a fine looking team.On a personal note,I would like to see Darryl a little higher in the order.Zhao, Smerdon and Solomon outrate Darryl on both the current FIDE and ACF lists.

pax
24-07-2008, 09:48 PM
My own submission (to the competition) matched this pretty closely, although I picked only the top five:

IIRC my selection matched yours 100%. On chess, at least, we can agree :)

Metro
24-07-2008, 09:57 PM
Zhao, Smerdon and Solomon outrate Darryl on both the current FIDE and ACF lists.

"On a personal note....

Bill Gletsos
24-07-2008, 09:58 PM
"On a personal note....I had noted that. ;)

Intuition
25-07-2008, 08:36 AM
i'd personally like to see Darryl a bit higher too :) ... not to be though..but hey..making it in the top 4 is an effort in self

pax
25-07-2008, 01:16 PM
When I spoke to Darryl recently, he was not even assuming he would be selected. Perhaps that was modesty talking, but I doubt he would have expected to be selected higher than 4th. Now it will be interesting to see what kind of damage he can do on board 4!

MichaelBaron
25-07-2008, 04:02 PM
I would select Darryl ahead of Solo without too many doubts :)

pax
25-07-2008, 06:52 PM
It's interesting to note that both teams are precisely in order of the average of their ACF and FIDE ratings. From that point of view it is a bit surprising that nobody managed to guess the teams correctly!

Capablanca-Fan
26-07-2008, 06:08 PM
IIRC my selection matched yours 100%. On chess, at least, we can agree :)
Heh :) So it seems.


It's interesting to note that both teams are precisely in order of the average of their ACF and FIDE ratings. From that point of view it is a bit surprising that nobody managed to guess the teams correctly!
Also not surprising that there was no appeal. Ratings are supposed to indicate playing strength after all.

pax
27-07-2008, 11:27 PM
Also not surprising that there was no appeal. Ratings are supposed to indicate playing strength after all.

I noticed that Aleks Wohl (certainly the unluckiest applicant) was very magnanimous about the selections on Amiel's blog.

Metro
28-07-2008, 12:28 AM
I noticed that Aleks Wohl (certainly the unluckiest applicant) was very magnanimous about the selections on Amiel's blog.

George Xie at 23 years? is the second youngest selection in Open team.IMO one reason for his selection is youth.The experience with GMs abroad is probably just what his chess development requires now.

Basil
28-07-2008, 12:32 AM
George Xie at 23 years? is the second youngest selection in Open team.IMO one reason for his selection is youth.The experience with GMs abroad is probably just what his chess development requires now.
I can't argue with any of that, but George also has runts on the port and formaline. Both of these thinks are imported.

Metro
28-07-2008, 12:37 AM
but George also has runts on the port and formaline. Both of these thinks are imported.
runs on the board and form?

Kevin Bonham
28-07-2008, 12:48 AM
Never seen that expression before but I'm pretty sure he means "runs on the board and form"

Desmond
28-07-2008, 08:40 AM
I would select Darryl ahead of Solo without too many doubts :)
Perhaps in general terms I would too, or looking upon their careers as a whole, but on current form Solo is surely playing better.

pax
28-07-2008, 01:18 PM
George Xie at 23 years? is the second youngest selection in Open team.IMO one reason for his selection is youth.The experience with GMs abroad is probably just what his chess development requires now.

Youth is not a criterion for selection. Had George been selected on the basis of his age, Aleks would be quite within his rights to feel somewhat miffed!

In my view there is no need for an age criterion, as there is ample evidence that young players can get onto the team on their own merit (see Zhao, Smerdon and Tao for examples).

Capablanca-Fan
28-07-2008, 01:34 PM
Youth is not a criterion for selection.
Indeed, the rules are clear: the strongest team is to be selected, defined as the likelihood of scoring the most points (how this relates to the crass "match points" scoring is unclear).



Had George been selected on the basis of his age, Aleks would be quite within his rights to feel somewhat miffed!
Yes. I actually selected Aleks above Xie because of ratings and greater experience against GMs, with a number of good wins. But the selection of Xie is plausible given his recent activity and strong play.


In my view there is no need for an age criterion, as there is ample evidence that young players can get onto the team on their own merit (see Zhao, Smerdon and Tao for examples).
I agree.

Capablanca-Fan
28-07-2008, 01:36 PM
Perhaps in general terms I would too, or looking upon their careers as a whole, but on current form Solo is surely playing better.
Yes to all the above. The selectors are duty-bound to select on the likelihood of point-scoring, and as they say on managed fund brochures in fine print, "past performance is no guide to future performance". For me, it was hard to choose between Smurf and Solo given Smurf's GM norms last year v Solo's good form this year. If chess understanding were an issue, then Johanson would be my choice for #2.

Capablanca-Fan
28-07-2008, 01:49 PM
I noticed that Aleks Wohl (certainly the unluckiest applicant) was very magnanimous about the selections on Amiel's blog.
Most impressive. He is right: the selection was transparent. But I think it would also have been reasonable to select him.

With all due respect to Rogers, I think he over-rates past Olympiad performance. I doubt that ratings officers would consider this as valid. The Women's Teams selection seemed fair and transparent, given that I came up with the same order as the selectors, and Pax as well.

The "team harmony" criterion would be so lacking in transparency as to be useless, therefore the cause of much resentment, as opposed to the current selection (Aleks as above). As KB says, the ACF code of ethics should be enough to discourage anti-team spirit.

pax
28-07-2008, 03:47 PM
With all due respect to Rogers, I think he over-rates past Olympiad performance. I doubt that ratings officers would consider this as valid. The Women's Teams selection seemed fair and transparent, given that I came up with the same order as the selectors, and Pax as well.

There are some players who do better in one day per round events (as well as longer time control events), as compared to FIDE rated weekenders for example. It is reasonable to take this into account when making selections, but I don't imagine it would ever result in selections which depart very significantly from ratings.

Brian_Jones
28-07-2008, 04:10 PM
There are some players who do better in one day per round events (as well as longer time control events), as compared to FIDE rated weekenders for example. It is reasonable to take this into account when making selections, but I don't imagine it would ever result in selections which depart very significantly from ratings.

I find that if you play zero rounds per day your losses disappear and your rating no longer goes down. :)

Also, if you play correspondence chess this has a similar effect on maintaining your OTB rating. :)

Capablanca-Fan
28-07-2008, 04:32 PM
There are some players who do better in one day per round events (as well as longer time control events), as compared to FIDE rated weekenders for example. It is reasonable to take this into account when making selections, but I don't imagine it would ever result in selections which depart very significantly from ratings.
A problem with taking a previous Olympiad is that it's a fairly old result (almost 2 years before selections close). But the weighting of one particular tournament type seems even less valid than the old "match player" v "tournament player" dichotomy. Elo showed that ratings were a pretty good indicator of scores in both tournament and match, so the distinction is a bit artificial.

Metro
01-08-2008, 02:20 AM
Youth is not a criterion for selection. Had George been selected on the basis of his age, Aleks would be quite within his rights to feel somewhat miffed!
I didn't for a minute say he should be selected on this basis only.It is only one factor.Consider,why are players age data provided by ACF in Tournament summary?
Also,consider Australian Test team selection .Basically it is,select strongest team with one eye to the future ie. blood players too.Not many would argue that it is unsuccessful as the results speak for themselves.

In my view there is no need for an age criterion, as there is ample evidence that young players can get onto the team on their own merit (see Zhao, Smerdon and Tao for examples).
It does not need to be formalised.Selectors can make their own judgements of what is relevant and what is not.

pax
01-08-2008, 04:00 PM
It does not need to be formalised.Selectors can make their own judgements of what is relevant and what is not.

No they can't. The selectors must select according to strength, or at least must be able to justify their decisions on the basis of strength. If they cannot justify their decision on the basis of strength alone, then it is likely that an appeal against the decision would be upheld.

Kevin Bonham
01-08-2008, 08:03 PM
Consider,why are players age data provided by ACF in Tournament summary?

Selectors are allowed to take players' age into account to the extent that they reasonably believe it assists them in assessing players' current playing strengths (when that is the criterion being used, as it has been for the last several Olympiads.)

To give a hypothetical example of this, a selector might be more inclined to weight more recent performances more heavily in assessing the playing strength of a younger player than an older one. That could work in favour of a younger player if their recent performances are good, but might also work in favour of an older player if their results were just a little bit iffy in the last six months or so but with no evidence of longterm decline. That said, that's just a hypothetical example of how a selector might reason, and some selectors can or will have different approaches to whether age is relevant at all, and if so how to take it into account.

What is categorically not allowed (on that criterion) is to rank players outside the selectors' view of their current playing strength. So if a selector thinks A is clearly stronger than B, even by only the equivalent of a few ratings points, then they must rank A ahead of B, even if A is nine and B is ninety (or vice-versa).

The above comments do not relate to the merits or otherwise of any candidates, nor (to my knowledge) to anything to do with this specific Olympiad selection.

Ian Rout
16-09-2008, 11:58 AM
It appears that the deadline for submitting Olympiad teams has been extended (link (http://www.fide.com/component/content/article/1-fide-news/3287-submission-of-team-composition-for-dresden-olympiad-2008)) to 1 October.

Presumably this means that some countries didn't get their teams in. The official reason, that the ratings list doesn't come out in time, seems implausible given that there has been no change to the ratings schedule since the date was first chosen.

Garvinator
16-09-2008, 03:48 PM
http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/2008/09/chess-olympiad-update.html


Sunday, September 14, 2008
Chess Olympiad Update

Common declaration by FIDE and Dresden Organizers
Friday, 12 September 2008 09:30

Official Olympiad Website: http://www.dresden2008.com/

A delegation from FIDE, composed of FIDE Honorary Vice-President Israel Gelfer and Executive Director David Jarrett, visited Dresden today to discuss several issues regarding the preparation of the Chess Olympiad 2008 in Dresden, amongst them the issue of the late registration from several Federations.

After a close examination of the whole process and all documents FIDE is announcing that it stands behind the way the Dresden Organizing Committee handled the matter.

All steps taken by the Organizers were taken in accordance with FIDE regulations and the contract between FIDE and the Organizing Committee of the Dresden Chess Olympiad and according to the further agreements between the parties.

As there were misunderstandings on the side of some Federations, the President of the Organizing Committee Mayor Winfried Lehmann invited the FIDE delegation to help to find a solution showing his great will to contribute to the success of the Olympiad by maximising the universality of the event.

After a serious discussion, and also taking into account that the extra expenses resulting from the missing registrations from Federations have to be covered, a solution was found enabling all Federations concerned to participate in the Chess Olympiad.

It was agreed that those Federations which had not yet contacted the Organisers in any way won't not be accepted as late registered. The Federations concerned will be informed by FIDE and the Organizing Committee about the actions to be taken to register participation.

The very final deadline for these Federations is next Friday, 19 September 2008, 11 pm. This must be done by online registration on the website www.dresden2008.org.

It was agreed that those Federations which had not yet contacted the Organizers in any way will not be accepted.

David Jarrett
Executive Director

Jörn Verleger
Managing Director

Kevin Bonham
18-09-2008, 12:56 AM
This has just come out too:


Dresden will not only be an Olympiad of reforms it will also be an Olympiad of records. After the official deadline of registration 148 teams in common and 114 teams in woman competition have registered so far. In spite of the increase of the woman teams up to four starters and one substitute there are already more teams than in Turin in 2006. The most impressive number is the total amount of participants: 1.984 people are going to take part in the Chess Olympiad 2008. This number includes the 309 companions and trainers, 80 referees and 35 FIDE-officials. The World Chess Federation FIDE and the Organizing Committee of the Chess Olympiad Dresden agreed on giving ten other federations the possibility to participate if they register until September 19th, 2008. This exceptional rule is made for federations which already had contact to Dresden. Federations which didn´t contact Dresden yet are not allowed to register late. Final numbers and more details of the participating nations will be published next week.

Ian Rout
08-10-2008, 12:45 PM
There doesn't seem to have been a further deadline announced so presumably teams are now final. The official site has this page (http://dresden2008.de/english/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=96) but as far as I can see it only allows countries to be examined one at a time, not a complete table in one hit. Can anybody see where I am missing something?

There is a list at Chessdom (http://tournaments.chessdom.com/chess-olympiad-2008-teams) with many of the teams though not as a table and without ratings in most cases.

Solo
11-11-2008, 12:10 AM
Hi all. Just arrived at Singapore airport; flight to Frankfurt in about an hour. Long flights give me time to watch movies, albeit on tiny screens! I watched "Mamma Mia" and thoroughly enjoyed it. I reckon the last movie I watched was "A beautiful Mind" on the flight back from my last Olympiad in Spain in '04!:rolleyes: I'll probably sleep most of the rest of the way. I am feeling very confident. Sincere thanks again to all for the donations to the Olympiad appeal.:)

ER
11-11-2008, 12:34 AM
Hi all. Just arrived at Singapore airport; flight to Frankfurt in about an hour. Long flights give me time to watch movies, albeit on tiny screens! I watched "Mamma Mia" and thoroughly enjoyed it. I reckon the last movie I watched was "A beautiful Mind" on the flight back from my last Olympiad in Spain in '04!:rolleyes: I'll probably sleep most of the rest of the way. I am feeling very confident. Sincere thanks again to all for the donations to the Olympiad appeal.:)

Thanks for the wonderful post Solo, I wish you and the rest of the team all the very best! You are representing all Australians now, so just get there fight hard the Aussie way and keep the flag high by doing your best regardless strength of opponents!
All Australians are right behind you!
Go Aussie!!!:clap: :clap: :clap:

Basil
11-11-2008, 01:15 AM
Thanks for taking the time to check in (unintentional pun), Stephen. Best of everything to you and the team.
Howard

Kevin Bonham
13-11-2008, 09:18 AM
Round 1 is 3-9 pm tonight German time. Deutschland is 10 hours behind Australien so that sounds like 1-7 am our time tomorrow.

Ian Rout
13-11-2008, 09:34 AM
Here is a site with some odds:

http://www.paddypower.com/bet?action=go_sports_level1&category=SPORTS&ev_class_id=182

They aren't offering odds on Australia but by interpolating between Poland and Ireland it should be possible to estimate what might be offered.

I also found a site with team lists from which I thought Australia might play India in the first round in the Open section but now I can't find the site again.

Miranda
13-11-2008, 09:40 AM
The games start at 1am Melbourne time tonight