PDA

View Full Version : Men's Olympiad - your selection



Alan Shore
05-05-2004, 05:52 PM
This poll gives you the chance to select your team for the Olympiad - board order is not required, just the 6 players you want for the team.

Garvinator
05-05-2004, 06:34 PM
This poll gives you the chance to select your team for the Olympiad - board order is not required, just the 6 players you want for the team.
is jose in your team bruce :eek: :lol: ;)

Rincewind
05-05-2004, 06:47 PM
Pity you wasted a spot on Jose when you did include Speck or Tao on the list of serious possibles.

Another idea would be to assume the GMs make the team and get people to vote on the last 4 spots from a list of 10 serious contenders.

Feldgrau
05-05-2004, 06:55 PM
I think form in Australia over the last two years is very important. I believe the best performed players should go, this is slightly different to selecting the team that you think will get the most points :)

As some players have bad Olympiad records and some semi regular players might not have had the best team spirit in the past, hypothetically speaking.

The Australian team selection should be a reward for the amateur/semi- professional Australian player who has put in the hard yards playing tournaments over the last years, not that many of the current contendors (JP Wallace possibly excepted) have any problems with the activity criteria.

My 2 cents worth (2.20 GST included), in order.

Rogers
Johansen
Zhao
Solomon
Lane
Smerdon

Team captain: Greg Canfell. (He writes such good reports!)

Haven't been following Wohl's form to closely, but his results seem to be sporadic as usual. Can't think of anyone who has improved in a quantam leap this time, not even sure what that means anyhow.

Notes:

John Paul Wallace would easily qualify at board 3 imho if he was active which I don't think he is.

Like I said track record over the last two years is important, if the Olympiad was played online then Jose Escribano's form can't be discounted, even though one result does not make a summer.

Cheers,
Feld grau

JGB
05-05-2004, 06:57 PM
I like this poll, and I await more responses eagerly. :)

Kevin Bonham
05-05-2004, 07:17 PM
I like this poll, and I await more responses eagerly. :)

I notice that Matthew is in the building! Wonder if he noticed it was a public poll.

Naturally I won't be voting.

JGB
05-05-2004, 07:26 PM
Naturally I won't be voting.

... that would be a blast... you vote and dont include the two GM's just for laughs. :lol:

Alan Shore
05-05-2004, 09:56 PM
Pity you wasted a spot on Jose when you did include Speck or Tao on the list of serious possibles.

Another idea would be to assume the GMs make the team and get people to vote on the last 4 spots from a list of 10 serious contenders.

Barry, I had considered doing what you suggested (on both counts) but hey, sometimes things aren't automatic and players can't be guaranteed. Also, I believe no one outside these players can be seriously considered - Speck has not proven his recent form and I doubt Tao would be available to play (if I had 11 slots, the next one would indeed be Tao though).

My votes were:

Rogers
Johansen
Lane
Wohl
Solomon
Chapman

Alan Shore
05-05-2004, 09:58 PM
I notice that Matthew is in the building! Wonder if he noticed it was a public poll.

Naturally I won't be voting.

That's OK Kevin, I didn't think you would, for obvious reasons.

Alan Shore
06-05-2004, 09:51 AM
Like I said track record over the last two years is important, if the Olympiad was played online then Jose Escribano's form can't be discounted, even though one result does not make a summer.

Hehehe, indeed!

Btw Feldgrau, how come you didn't use the poll at the top of the page to vote?

arosar
06-05-2004, 05:42 PM
Did any of youse blokes see the games of Morozevich from the recent Russian Teams at Sochi? Man, that guy's the devil reincarnate.

AR

JGB
06-05-2004, 05:58 PM
Did any of youse blokes see the games of Morozevich from the recent Russian Teams at Sochi? Man, that guy's the devil reincarnate.

AR


post it so we can all see it mate. :)

Kevin Bonham
06-05-2004, 06:20 PM
Did any of youse blokes see the games of Morozevich from the recent Russian Teams at Sochi? Man, that guy's the devil reincarnate.

Are you trying to tell me the devil is dead?

*sobs*

chesslover
06-05-2004, 07:43 PM
I notice that Matthew is in the building! Wonder if he noticed it was a public poll.



poor matt. I think he is sick of sitting by impotently watching, and now wants to particpate in the action.

if we all ask him niceley he will join us . So matt can you please come and partipate and play with us, instead of watching us from the shadows :eek:

and we should not ridicule Matt. His heart is in the right place, and he may be vigerous and vociferious in his passion but he means well. Instead of going off to start his own rival Bulletin Board, he still wants to hang around with us. he wants to contribute and has so many ideas, that it is our loss if he is not here.

And dont be upset by what Matt says. he means well and just cannot help himself when he overeacts. Come back matt. Let us forgive and forget

A scorpion was drowning. A turtle saw that from the shore, but did not go to help the scorpion. Why dont you want to help said the drowning Scorpion. Because you will sting me if I help you and I will die said the turtle. But if I did that I will die too said the scorpion. The turtle saw the logic and went to help the scorpion. the scorpion climbed on top of the turtle and the turtle swam with the scoripon to teh shore. then the scorpion stung the turtle with it's poision. Why did you do that said the dying turtle, now you will drown and die with me.

I just cannot help myself, that is just my nature said the scorpion sadly as it died. :cry: :cry:

Bill Gletsos
06-05-2004, 07:52 PM
Looking at the results what I find interesting is that some people dont consider Johansen to be in the top six players. :hmm:

chesslover
06-05-2004, 08:53 PM
Looking at the results what I find interesting is that some people dont consider Johansen to be in the top six players. :hmm:

Johansen is still equal fourth in the eyes of many voters here

Only Rogers and lane have been automatic picks of everyone

Bill Gletsos
06-05-2004, 09:36 PM
Johansen is still equal fourth in the eyes of many voters here

Only Rogers and lane have been automatic picks of everyone
The problem is the voting does not show how the voters actually order the players.
Johansen may be equal 4th but he may have more number 2 or 3 votes than Lane, Solomon or Zhao

Lucena
07-05-2004, 11:56 AM
Johansen is still equal fourth in the eyes of many voters here

Only Rogers and lane have been automatic picks of everyone
This is ridiculous. How can Daryl, our 2nd GM, not be a favourite to go? Ok he's had a bit of a hard time at Aus champs and Doeberl, but he's such a giant of Australian chess! And wouldn't his previous olympiads work in his favour?

Lucena
07-05-2004, 11:57 AM
The problem is the voting does not show how the voters actually order the players.
Johansen may be equal 4th but he may have more number 2 or 3 votes than Lane, Solomon or Zhao
yes this is a good point

JGB
07-05-2004, 04:10 PM
The poll is a good idea, although there is already a bias in the poll.
The candidates are not ordered by name (alphabetically) but by the preferance of the author of this page (perhaps). This automatically affects results.

Alan Shore
07-05-2004, 05:21 PM
The poll is a good idea, although there is already a bias in the poll.
The candidates are not ordered by name (alphabetically) but by the preferance of the author of this page (perhaps). This automatically affects results.

No, this is not ordered by preference, it was ordered randomly specifically to eliminate bias. Sheesh.

The poll options are limited, this is the best I could come up with, so if you don't like it, TS.

Alan Shore
07-05-2004, 05:21 PM
This is ridiculous. How can Daryl, our 2nd GM, not be a favourite to go? Ok he's had a bit of a hard time at Aus champs and Doeberl, but he's such a giant of Australian chess! And wouldn't his previous olympiads work in his favour?

Apprently not, according to those who voted.

PHAT
07-05-2004, 10:08 PM
This is ridiculous. How can Daryl, our 2nd GM, not be a favourite to go? Ok he's had a bit of a hard time at Aus champs and Doeberl, but he's such a giant of Australian chess! And wouldn't his previous olympiads work in his favour?

When someone is having a run of outs, it is best to give them a spell in the room of mirrors.

samspade
07-05-2004, 10:17 PM
When someone is having a run of outs, it is best to give them a spell in the room of mirrors.you mean like in luna park? Where they have all those mirrors and you have to find your way out and it drives you crazy seeing all those reflections of yourself

PHAT
07-05-2004, 10:21 PM
you mean like in luna park?

On, like in HG and Roy's room of mirrors, where people who need to have a good hard look at themselves can get an eye full from every angle.

Oepty
08-05-2004, 12:12 PM
I haven't voted for this poll and don't intend to because my selections would be made public.
I also believe as far as the overall performance of the team after Rogers, Johansen and perhaps Lane it really matters who we send. I think they are all very close in strength. Some may have a bit more talent available to them but I don't think they are using it. You can go for perhaps the more talented but inconsistent players like Smerdon and Wohl if you like to take a bit of a risk. This is a perfectly good selection method, but also is selecting a more consistent player who might not reach the heights of these players at there best, but you are more likely to know what you can get. I think Solomon fits into the second catergory, although it might be that he has just as much talent as Smerdon or Wohl.
Scott

PHAT
09-05-2004, 10:57 AM
I haven't voted for this poll and don't intend to because my selections would be made public.


Weak as piss.

Alan Shore
09-05-2004, 06:20 PM
Weak as piss.

Well said.. how can you be scared to voice your opinions Scott?

eclectic
09-05-2004, 09:23 PM
I've decided to be a maverick here and select the bottom six and have Ian Rogers as the non playing captain with Darryl Johansen and Gary Lane as his assistants.

Escribano would be their Messenger Boy !! :owned: **

Those I have selected are all IM's and I would wish that one or more of them would have a spectacular performance and become our third / fourth ? grandmaster.

eclectic

**
Based on temperment I reckon I'd give Escribano a real run for his money if ever there was a playoff between us for a berth in the team.

:whistle: :whistle: :whistle:

Oepty
10-05-2004, 02:36 PM
Weak as piss.
Get lost Matthew.

Oepty
10-05-2004, 02:38 PM
Well said.. how can you be scared to voice your opinions Scott?

Bruce. I stated in the other thread that I would make my opinion known when the apllicants are known. I am just sticking by that.
Scott

eclectic
10-05-2004, 03:08 PM
Bruce. I stated in the other thread that I would make my opinion known when the apllicants are known. I am just sticking by that.
Scott
So this means that you won't be posting any more opinions about God (or equivalent) until the existence of the aforementioned is well and truly proven?

I wonder if you'd stick by that?

[No doubt you'd come back with some pedantic philosophical theological counter argument.However if you have time to open your mouth to respond to me you can find the time to vote and give your opinion on the actual topic.]

:whistle:

eclectic

Oepty
10-05-2004, 03:39 PM
So this means that you won't be posting any more opinions about God (or equivalent) until the existence of the aforementioned is well and truly proven?

I wonder if you'd stick by that?

[No doubt you'd come back with some pedantic philosophical theological counter argument.However if you have time to open your mouth to respond to me you can find the time to vote and give your opinion on the actual topic.]

:whistle:

eclectic
I am slightly stunned that you would make the comparison you have, I see no simlarity at all.
I don't think my membership of the BB makes it a requirement I vote. I just don't want my view of whether a couple of people should be in the team made public before the applications are closed.
Scott

PHAT
10-05-2004, 04:06 PM
I just don't want my view of whether a couple of people should be in the team made public before the applications are closed.
Scott

Name names. (Copyright)

JGB
10-05-2004, 04:10 PM
According to our BB, its very clear on who the 6 places go to. ;)

Rincewind
10-05-2004, 05:04 PM
According to our BB, its very clear on who the 6 places go to. ;)

Yes, of the 9 serious options provided. Unfortunately there are a couple of quality players who didn't make Dion's shortlist. Most of these seem to be players from states which don't start with a Q. ;)

Oepty
11-05-2004, 11:22 AM
Okay, I have changed my mind I will post my top 12 players in the order I would select them. There is one catch, I cannot seperate Tao and Chapman so as you see I have made the =6th. I might have been a little unfair on West as I believe he has played some tournaments at the MCC that haven't got much publicity. He probably fits somewhere in the list, but I haven't put in him.
1. Ian Rogers
2. Darryl Johansen
3. Gary Lane
4. John-Paul Wallace
5. Stephen Solomon
=6 Mark Chapman, Trevor Tao
8. Zong-Yuan Zhao
9. David Smerdon
10. Peter Froehlich
11. Aleksander Wohl
12. Nick Speck.

Scott

Alan Shore
11-05-2004, 11:51 AM
Yes, of the 9 serious options provided. Unfortunately there are a couple of quality players who didn't make Dion's shortlist. Most of these seem to be players from states which don't start with a Q. ;)

Wise ass, you're just miffed I put Escribano there instead of 'Cox'. :p

If I had one more spot I would indeed include Trevor Tao. I don't believe any other players are in serious contention for an Olympiad spot.

Rincewind
11-05-2004, 12:41 PM
If I had one more spot I would indeed include Trevor Tao. I don't believe any other players are in serious contention for an Olympiad spot.

What about Speck? There are probably at least half a dozen others who should be seriously considered who don't fall under the Dickinson definition of "serious" contention.

After all how can you find out what (other) people think if you don't ask the question?

Garvinator
11-05-2004, 01:12 PM
What about Speck? There are probably at least half a dozen others who should be seriously considered who don't fall under the Dickinson definition of "serious" contention.

After all how can you find out what (other) people think if you don't ask the question?
i would summise that bruce would have put up twenty names if he was given the option to post 20 names in the poll.

Alan Shore
11-05-2004, 01:13 PM
What about Speck? There are probably at least half a dozen others who should be seriously considered who don't fall under the Dickinson definition of "serious" contention.

After all how can you find out what (other) people think if you don't ask the question?

Start your own damn poll then Barry - the BB only allows 10 options, I'm sick of your whining.

Oepty
11-05-2004, 01:14 PM
After the 12 I listed and West I think only Sandler and Gluzman could be considered to have the slimest chance of selection unless something very strange happens and most of those don't apply.
Scott

Bill Gletsos
11-05-2004, 01:46 PM
Start your own damn poll then Barry - the BB only allows 10 options, I'm sick of your whining.
Of course it could be argued that a more intelligent approach would have been to not waste one of the ten spots on Escribano and instead have had an "Other" option. :whistle:

Rincewind
11-05-2004, 02:00 PM
After the 12 I listed and West I think only Sandler and Gluzman could be considered to have the slimest chance of selection unless something very strange happens and most of those don't apply.
Scott

Depends on how slim you're talking about. I think it would be best to have a few more than a few less. Shouldn't Bjelobrk and Depasquale, for example, also be in the list of an really inclusive poll?

Mind originally I thought Darryl would be in everyone's top 6, but apparently a few people think otherwise so perhaps it is good Bruce went this way. Still wasting a valuable spot on Escribano was meritless.

I think the problem is 10 is simply not enough options to pick a team of 6.

Alan Shore
11-05-2004, 02:32 PM
Of course it could be argued that a more intelligent approach would have been to not waste one of the ten spots on Escribano and instead have had an "Other" option. :whistle:

Boo-hoo Bill. :hand:

I thought including Escribano would be amusing.. if you go by his performance in the internet champs with his 2600 performance rating. :rolleyes:

Even if I had of included others, I doubt they would have gotten any more votes than those included in my list - it'd be as pointless as all those johnnies who opposed the Governator in the Californian election, Speck and Sandler would be reduced to 'Larry Flynt and Gary Coleman' figures. And you can't select 'Other' to represent us at the Olympiad..

As I said to Barry, if you don't like it, go make your own.

Oepty
11-05-2004, 02:37 PM
Depends on how slim you're talking about. I think it would be best to have a few more than a few less. Shouldn't Bjelobrk and Depasquale, for example, also be in the list of an really inclusive poll?

Mind originally I thought Darryl would be in everyone's top 6, but apparently a few people think otherwise so perhaps it is good Bruce went this way. Still wasting a valuable spot on Escribano was meritless.

I think the problem is 10 is simply not enough options to pick a team of 6.

Bjelobrk is a New Zealander isn't he. If he wants to play for us then he would be in my first 10 I think. I hope he plays board 1 for them. As to Depasquale, well I personally would put Canfell ahead of him at the moment. We are talking about Australia's 15th or 17th player.
Scott

Rincewind
11-05-2004, 04:53 PM
Bjelobrk is a New Zealander isn't he. If he wants to play for us then he would be in my first 10 I think. I hope he plays board 1 for them.

You are probably right. I think he's listed as a member of the Vic Assoc but that doesn't mean he is eligible (or wants) to play for Aus.

Garvinator
11-05-2004, 05:04 PM
You are probably right. I think he's listed as a member of the Vic Assoc but that doesn't mean he is eligible (or wants) to play for Aus.
Bjelobrk is listed as new zealand according to www.fide.com

Rincewind
11-05-2004, 05:21 PM
Bjelobrk is listed as new zealand according to www.fide.com

OK, forget Bjelobrk for goodness sake. As far as this poll goes it doesn't matter.

The point is there are more than 9 players with reasonable claims to a team spot and a few more which should be included in the mix. I know the technology does allow for more options. So what does this poll achieve? The realtive popularity of the nine players Bruce Dickinson thinks should be in the team.

Lucena
11-05-2004, 09:42 PM
Get lost Matthew.

now now scott language :naughty: :D

Duff McKagan
12-05-2004, 05:41 AM
I've selected my guys based on attributes such as skill, form, potential, availability and attitude, with the emphasis on form. In no way have I been biased by friendships. I could name a completely different list if I chose a team with emphasis on friendship. The top 5 players on my list that were automatic were:

Rogers (no comment needed here, Ian has it all)
Lane (good form and experience)
Zhao (perhaps the most in-form player in the country at the moment and good attitude towards his chess at the moment)
Smerdon (potential that is waiting to be unleashed)
Chapman (potential also, but also great attitude)

Solo makes my selection also, but I think if Tao was available it would be hard to choose between the two. Who would you choose, Tao who is in form and has unknown potential with his unorthodox style? Or Solomon with his strong determination and valuable experience at Olympiads?

Oepty
12-05-2004, 01:33 PM
now now scott language :naughty: :D
He swore, not me
Scott

Rhubarb
12-05-2004, 01:39 PM
Frankly, I'm amazed by the number of people who don't think Johansen should be board 2 and even more amazed that some people are leaving him off their team altogether. Surely you're joking!

Wasn't it less than a year ago that he won the Oz Champ playoff and won the Vic Champ with a 2600-type performance? Sure he a had a shocking result in Adelaide and an indifferent result in Doeberl, but he's still No.2 by a country mile in my opinion.

Alan Shore
12-05-2004, 01:48 PM
He swore, not me
Scott

duh, that's why it was funny :rolleyes:

Oepty
12-05-2004, 02:06 PM
Frankly, I'm amazed by the number of people who don't think Johansen should be board 2 and even more amazed that some people are leaving him off their team altogether. Surely you're joking!

Wasn't it less than a year ago that he won the Oz Champ playoff and won the Vic Champ with a 2600-type performance? Sure he a had a shocking result in Adelaide and an indifferent result in Doeberl, but he's still No.2 by a country mile in my opinion.

If that wasn't bad enough it appears one person has left Rogers off their team.
Scott

Garvinator
12-05-2004, 02:17 PM
If that wasn't bad enough it appears one person has left Rogers off their team.
Scott
that was eclectic who said that he deliberately left all the top six or so off his list as joke. so just ignore that vote :hand:

eclectic
12-05-2004, 04:21 PM
that was eclectic who said that he deliberately left all the top six or so off his list as joke. so just ignore that vote :hand:
hey!!!
ggrayggray!!!

i voted as a maverick not as a joker

... and some might remember "maverick" ... with james garner as the card sharp hero who knew there were times when the deck did have to be stacked ...

:owned: ;) :whistle:

eclectic

Lucena
14-05-2004, 12:23 PM
He swore, not me
Scott

Not for him it isn't swearing. "Weak as piss", for Matthew, is pretty pissweak as far as swearing goes... :D

Lucena
14-05-2004, 12:26 PM
hey!!!
ggrayggray!!!

i voted as a maverick not as a joker

... and some might remember "maverick" ... with james garner as the card sharp hero who knew there were times when the deck did have to be stacked ...

:owned: ;) :whistle:

eclectic

okaaaay..."maverick"...nice euphemism... :D. so please remind me why our olympiad team has to be "stacked"? :hmm:

Lucena
14-05-2004, 12:31 PM
duh, that's why it was funny :rolleyes:
well I'm glad someone thought it was funny :)

Lucena
14-05-2004, 12:34 PM
Frankly, I'm amazed by the number of people who don't think Johansen should be board 2 and even more amazed that some people are leaving him off their team altogether. Surely you're joking!

Wasn't it less than a year ago that he won the Oz Champ playoff and won the Vic Champ with a 2600-type performance? Sure he a had a shocking result in Adelaide and an indifferent result in Doeberl, but he's still No.2 by a country mile in my opinion.

Absolutely :clap: and the selectors are going to agree with you.

Lucena
14-05-2004, 12:45 PM
Ummm, this poll just let me vote for all 10 candidates-I would've thought there would be some way to prevent people doing that? Also the percentages and bars are misleading but I think someone's already pointed that out.

Alan Shore
14-05-2004, 02:19 PM
Ummm, this poll just let me vote for all 10 candidates-I would've thought there would be some way to prevent people doing that? Also the percentages and bars are misleading but I think someone's already pointed that out.

This is one of the primary reasons I made the vote public, so you could see if any patzers didn't vote for the correct amount of players - the poll option does not allow to dictate how many options must be chosen.

Rincewind
14-05-2004, 06:38 PM
This is one of the primary reasons I made the vote public, so you could see if any patzers didn't vote for the correct amount of players - the poll option does not allow to dictate how many options must be chosen.

Speaking of Patzers the following users have been disenfranchised and their votes removed from the Poll:

Balaklava
Kavetski
Korchnoi

Any problems, let me know via PM from your usual user account. ;)

Lucena
14-05-2004, 09:16 PM
Speaking of Patzers the following users have been disenfranchised and their votes removed from the Poll:

Balaklava
Kavetski
Korchnoi


why? can I have my "vote" removed as it was only to test the system? ...Oh, I guess it's because they didn't vote for the correct number of players as Barry said :uhoh:

Alan Shore
14-05-2004, 09:17 PM
Speaking of Patzers the following users have been disenfranchised and their votes removed from the Poll:

Balaklava
Kavetski
Korchnoi

Any problems, let me know via PM from your usual user account. ;)

Um, wtf? Just because they voted for Jose? Another example of moderator fascism, Reichchancellor Cox?

Rincewind
14-05-2004, 10:02 PM
Um, wtf? Just because they voted for Jose? Another example of moderator fascism, Reichchancellor Cox?

No. If that were the reason I would have another 4 people to ban. ;) (Perhaps 5 by association, but my enquiries are continuing.)

Rincewind
14-05-2004, 10:03 PM
Hey, who made "pissweak" red on my post #58? Barry, I'm looking at you! :)

Sorry Gareth, I haven't the foggiest what you're talking about.

Alan Shore
14-05-2004, 10:05 PM
No. If that were the reason I would have another 4 people to ban. ;) (Perhaps 5 by association, but my enquiries are continuing.)

What was the reason then?

Lucena
14-05-2004, 10:08 PM
Sorry Gareth, I haven't the foggiest what you're talking about.

Neither do I anymore! I thought I saw it in red before...guess I must be "seeing things"...

Alan Shore
14-05-2004, 10:10 PM
Neither do I anymore! I thought I saw it in red before...guess I must be "seeing things"...

Or maybe it was changed back.. by aliens! Paging Agent Mulder...

Rincewind
14-05-2004, 10:10 PM
What was the reason then?

Them all voting for Jose was just what brought them to my attention. The reason there was strong evidence they were heads of a hydra, registering solely to stack the poll.

Lucena
14-05-2004, 10:11 PM
Or maybe it was changed back.. by aliens! Paging Agent Mulder...
:D

Lucena
14-05-2004, 10:12 PM
Them all voting for Jose was just what brought them to my attention. The reason there was strong evidence they were heads of a hydra, registering solely to stack the poll.
it was probably chesslover :D

Rincewind
14-05-2004, 10:12 PM
Or maybe it was changed back.. by aliens! Paging Agent Mulder...

I know of only one alien who could do that, and I'm sure he has better things to do. Perhaps it was his dog - Sirius. :lol:

Alan Shore
14-05-2004, 10:18 PM
I know of only one alien who could do that, and I'm sure he has better things to do. Perhaps it was his dog - Sirius. :lol:

Oooh, I can't wait for the third HP movie.. Prisoner of Azkaban was my favourite one.

Lucena
16-05-2004, 11:17 PM
Hey! My post 58 has got red in it again! :rolleyes: :wall: :evil: :mad:

Garvinator
17-05-2004, 02:48 AM
Hey! My post 58 has got red in it again! :rolleyes: :wall: :evil: :mad:
i dont see any red in it :confused:

Rincewind
17-05-2004, 10:46 AM
i dont see any red in it :confused:

:hand:
I'm messing with gc's mind.
:wink: :lol:

Lucena
17-05-2004, 11:38 AM
:hand:
I'm messing with gc's mind.
:wink: :lol:

:evil: :evil: :mad:

JGB
15-06-2004, 07:24 PM
Just wondering if there has been any news about selections as of late, this thread has been very quiet lately, maybe your all just waiting for the selection I guess.

Kevin Bonham
15-06-2004, 08:13 PM
Application deadline is this Friday, selections proper start about a week later, outcomes will be known in mid July. Next week you will be able to know who all the applicants are and I expect this will start a fresh round of speculation about who should (or shouldn't) be picked, all of which the selectors and I will, of course, ignore.

Garvinator
16-06-2004, 01:34 AM
all of which the selectors and I will, of course, ignore.
good, then we can post any old crap without having to be worried that we might be influencing the actual selections :lol: :whistle:

Oepty
16-06-2004, 10:56 AM
I wonder who is going to start the next pole about who should be selected. I will be very interested to see if Solomon applies after his letter of a couple of weeks ago and if Wallace and Koshnitsky apply even though they haven't been playing any chess lately.
Scott

Alan Shore
14-07-2004, 02:21 PM
Looks like this poll was quite a success - accurately predicting all 6 Men's Olympiad spots. Well done to the selctors for making good decisions as well as listening to public opinion and congratulations to the successful applicants!

Garvinator
14-07-2004, 02:30 PM
Looks like this poll was quite a success - accurately predicting all 6 Men's Olympiad spots. Well done to the selctors for making good decisions as well as listening to public opinion and congratulations to the successful applicants!
i dont think our opinions on here had anything to do with the selections :whistle:

Alan Shore
14-07-2004, 02:34 PM
i dont think our opinions on here had anything to do with the selections :whistle:

Possible, but I'd like to pretend it did :cool: