OLYMPIAD 2008 :):)

[Ben Purton]

Richard you do realise a few things: I believe you could get 11 wins and not get a medal in old system

Secondly your medal point, Im just going on what I know. Two of the last 3 I can remember board 1 prizes was Robert Gwaze who use to play for me, aswell as a Pakistan guy. Both were in "weaker" sides.

I think the way its done now is alot fairer in respects to teams. Because if you beat a rival you can win.

Also did you know that to stop "weak" draws, they arent allowed to accept or offer a draw before 30 moves.....I havent seen(Hungary V Iran excluding- I doubt Hungary offered easy draw) a 4 draw game yet. Im sure they will occur when Russia, Ukraine,Armenia et al meet.

I would personally like to see the best team win the olympiad. Not the team who wins the most 4-0 games. Imagine if it was done in football, on Goal difference say? Manchester City would be alot higher in the table and my team Reading would be creaming the championship . I think the new system is better because its a proper test of teams in respect to matchplay.

Ben

[Richard Bates]

Richard you do realise a few things: I believe you could get 11 wins and not get a medal in old system

Secondly your medal point, Im just going on what I know. Two of the last 3 I can remember board 1 prizes was Robert Gwaze who use to play for me, aswell as a Pakistan guy. Both were in "weaker" sides.

I think the way its done now is alot fairer in respects to teams. Because if you beat a rival you can win.

Also did you know that to stop "weak" draws, they arent allowed to accept or offer a draw before 30 moves.....I havent seen(Hungary V Iran excluding- I doubt Hungary offered easy draw) a 4 draw game yet. Im sure they will occur when Russia, Ukraine,Armenia et al meet.

I would personally like to see the best team win the olympiad. Not the team who wins the most 4-0 games. Imagine if it was done in football, on Goal difference say? Manchester City would be alot higher in the table and my team Reading would be creaming the championship . I think the new system is better because its a proper test of teams in respect to matchplay.

Ben

I'm not saying there's a right or wrong system, just that i think the old one is better and fairer. There must be some value in it since it was in use for all of the last century!

In individual tournaments the problems and inadequacies in the Swiss pairing system are well known. A team swiss based on match points seems to unnecessarily import all these problems IMO, and more than compensate for your highly theoretical complaint about a team winning every game not winning Gold. We've already seen one of these problems with the pairings in round 3. Another is that the strength of the Swiss gambit is increased. I would say that the purpose of the Olympiad is to find the best team, not necessarily the best "matchplay" team. Only having 3 results - win,lose,draw - is quite a blunt way of determining the differences in strength and performance between two teams. Matchplay is better suited to all-play-alls because the "luck of the draw" is largely removed.

You've misunderstood my point about draws - I'm not talking about "quick" draws, I'm talking about the specific conflict that a player finds themselves in when their team is leading 2:1. If they have an advantage and can play for a win at some risk of defeat, but the option of forcing a draw, do they do the former or the latter?

My final argument presented is that it is highly likely that Game points will have to be used to decide at least one of the medal positions. So i think it is better that everyone is clear about the need to maximise their pts score from the start, without introducing the complication in the above paragraph. The game of chess is better served when the incentive to play for a win is maximised.

Still it's all about opinions.

ps. your comparison with Football may sound superficially good, but it is undermined by the fact that fixtures are pre-determined in advance. Scoring lots of goals in one match won't lead to a tougher game in the next, which is what we are discussing here.

[David Robertson]

Well-argued, Richard.

Advantage, Bates

A system that allows so many Rd 3 mismatches cannot be preferred, surely, over one that matches teams in a sporting and competitive manner. I mean: England v. Malta - what's all that about? Just because a team beats Madagascar & Palestine does not sensibly define it as a match for any other team on 4 match points. And in Rd 4, Poland will now be the happy beneficiary of 'free' match points.

OK, anomalies are possible with game points too. Malta could still have beaten Madagascar & Palestine to net 6 points, meeting England again after their wins, 3-1, over Armenia & Russia (I dream!)

So are seeded groups the answer? Isn't this how it used to be?

David
Atticus CC

[Tim Spanton]

Another point - and it is a minor aesthetic one - is awarding two points for a match win and one for a draw, rather than one for a win and a half for a draw

[Ben Purton]

Firstly you havent even addressed the fundermental problem that you can win 11 matches and not win the Gold. This should never happen in my view. Lets say

China win 7 matches 4-0 = 28 and Lose the other 4 1.5-2.5=6. This is 34

Russia with there current tactics would win 2.5-1.5 , lets say they did this for all there matches. Would be 11x2.5 which is 27.5 , They might not even get a medal, they could finish like 7-8th:?!?!?!

the purpose of the Olympiad is to find the best team, not necessarily the best "matchplay" team. Only having 3 results - win,lose,draw - is quite a blunt way of determining the differences in strength and performance between two teams

Isnt playing matches how you decide this?? You havent actually suggested a better example? A Knock out would be pathetic, One bad day and your done, you dont play anymore and would be very anti lower teams. The Old system as dicussed cant work.


I think your arguement has failed to see the Olympiad has also lowered the rounds from 13 to 11 and the significance this has, within the swiss pairing. Id prefer the current system more if there were more rounds as the cream always rises to the top if given enough variance for it to occur. The Malta "match" is more significant the less rounds there are.


Your point about draws??? Are you suggesting there is a choice team over induvidual medals? End of the day your playing a team competition. The team medals mean alot more than the induvidual ones. I think this point is relevent however dependent on how your team is performing. If your in a rubbish side and cant get a medal realistically then you can ask your team mates if you mind playing for yourself. Some countries put players on board 4 who are there number 1 so they clearly answer team or person question, with a person type reply. However in respect to the top 10 teams, always team first.


"My final argument presented is that it is highly likely that Game points will have to be used to decide at least one of the medal positions. So i think it is better that everyone is clear about the need to maximise their pts score from the start, without introducing the complication in the above paragraph. The game of chess is better served when the incentive to play for a win is maximised."

Surely in a match tournament winning the matches again is what is important, your either pro-game points, hence a team winning by just winning the most, or your pro match play. You have not suggested a way which supports your idea. If you have a better pairing system than the swiss one, that also allows teams to not win having lost 3-4 matches out of 11, then please suggested it to us and also to FIDE as im sure youll use it.

I think this forum is more pro game points, if your happy clapping a country who loses to 4 countries who might not win medals then fine. Personally Matchplay to me is the best judge of a countries reletative strength to one another.


If we had a system where say 16 team qualified for the tournament, it would be likely in my view England wouldnt qualify , because the qualifiers would no doubt clash with alot of tournaments and the English team to my view arent as nationlistic as say the Chinese. My grounds for this is our board two does live in Greece and also the clear record that fiscal restrictions have lead to weaker teams in the past. Hence if England werent playing we probaly would'nt even be discussing this.


Ben


PS: Dave , if you want to make the forum a "match" type thing, ****** off back to Atticus forum, I like to see Richards views and personally both of us have views which are different, but both have clear +'s and minus's. Forums should not be a "1-0,1-1" type enviroment. Maybe you should learn that.

[David Robertson]

Don't be silly, Ben. Making points and counter-points, that's what a decently contested debate should be about, especially where the right way forward is obscure (at least to me). By all means hold a private debate with Richard if you choose; machinery for that exists in here. But don't scold the audience for applause just because it hasn't gone your way for the moment.

David
Atticus CC

[Sean Hewitt]

Both match points and game points systems have their merits and pitfalls.

Personally, I prefer MP over GP as this should mean that the "big" teams meet as late as possible in the event, when everything is on the line. I remember Olympiads where the big fish smashed a few minnows and then met each other in the middle of the tournament. That can't be good.

The England v Malta mismatch is nothing to do with the GP / MP argument. That (it seems to me) is a result of a poor accelerated pairing system, implemented over too few rounds.

[Richard Bates]

Firstly you havent even addressed the fundermental problem that you can win 11 matches and not win the Gold. This should never happen in my view. Lets say

China win 7 matches 4-0 = 28 and Lose the other 4 1.5-2.5=6. This is 34

Russia with there current tactics would win 2.5-1.5 , lets say they did this for all there matches. Would be 11x2.5 which is 27.5 , They might not even get a medal, they could finish like 7-8th:?!?!?!

the purpose of the Olympiad is to find the best team, not necessarily the best "matchplay" team. Only having 3 results - win,lose,draw - is quite a blunt way of determining the differences in strength and performance between two teams

Isnt playing matches how you decide this?? You havent actually suggested a better example? A Knock out would be pathetic, One bad day and your done, you dont play anymore and would be very anti lower teams. The Old system as dicussed cant work.

I don't have a problem with this because i see the Olympiad as a team tournament, not a match tournament. And game pts as the best way of determining the best country over the course of that tournament. It is the best way, IMO, of removing the "luck of the draw" inherent within the Swiss system. Matchplay is fine if every team plays every other, but obviously that is not the case in an Olympiad. I prefer it if everyone has an incentive to play for a win. If a team manage to beat the 11 teams they happen to play 2.5:1.5 and don't win a medal then the chances are that they haven't had particularly strong opposition. And Russia's "current tactics", if they exist, I don't know, are specific to the rules of this tournament. They wouldn't be employing them under the old system.

A minor point but i think game pts also work better in a tournament with reserves - the effective penalties for giving your top boards a rest are less severe.

BTW my original post was i think wrong in stating Game pts as the method of tiebreak, although that does not change my views.

[JustinHorton]

Is the last move in the Jones-Rasmussen game correct, do people think?

I don't know if any body has an opinion on this (or if Ben might know, being Gawain's friend). On the face of it, 60...Ke5 loses...

[Ben Purton]

Believe it was e6 dude, which allows him in to the corner , its possible they agreed the draw the move before and he moved it as a "joke", that can happen on demo boards.

Ben

[JustinHorton]

Ta. I thought ....Ke5 rather unlikely but I can imagine myself playing it without too much difficulty. Which may explain why Mr Rasmussen is presently in Dresden and I am in a tiny village in Aragón.

[Roger de Coverly]

I don't know if any body has an opinion on this (or if Ben might know, being Gawain's friend). On the face of it, 60...Ke5 loses...

Isn't moving the kings to central squares, the means of telling a DGT board that the game is over? So Ke5 was moved after the game was over.

Why the DGT design doesn't include 3 little buttons - 1-0 1/2 and 0-1 escapes me. That has to be more reliable than random king placements.

[Richard Bates]

Believe it was e6 dude, which allows him in to the corner , its possible they agreed the draw the move before and he moved it as a "joke", that can happen on demo boards.

Ben

Probably they agreed a draw and they put the Kings on the correct squares in the centre of the board to signify that for the electronic board. But the electronic board didn't appreciate that the black K being put on e5 was for this purpose rather than an actual move.

Getting away from the merits of gamepts vs match pts does anyone know what the pairing system actually is ??? How have they ended up in Round 4 with the 2nd seed playing the 9th, the 11th playing the 12th, and the 15th playing the 19th etc? And Russia on board 4. One assumes that they are trying to include colour alternation, but even so these pairings seem unlikely under conventional pairing systems.

Perhaps it's a random draw?

[Matthew Turner]

Richard,
If you look at tournament placing after 3 rounds then the pairings for round 4 are

1 vs 9 (Arm UKR)
2 vs 8 (Ger Spa)
3 vs 7 (Eng Nor)
4 vs 6 (Ind Rus)

5 (Rom) downfloat

Justification - goodness know!

I do believe that match points is the best system for settling the Olympiad (or any other team competition). A simple philosophical rationale would be this, England are quite likely to beat Guernsey 4-0. They are unlikely to defeat Russia, but if they did it would most likely be by the narrowest of margins 2.5-1.5. Therefore, if you use game points you are effectively saying that a win against Guernsey is worth 60% more than a win against Russia. I cannot see how this can be right.

[JustinHorton]

On the other hand there's an argument for saying that a 4-0 win against Russia (or anybody) is more meritorious than a 2.5-1.5 win against the same opposition and should therefore be rewarded.