Discuss revised England teams for 2010 Olympiad

[Jonathan Rogers]

As said above, England are number twelve seeds; I would only be concerned about Gawain's form, and the last time when Adams reluctantly played an Olympiad (Elista 1998) and effectively stopped playing half-way through. A number of positives though, most of all Howell's excellent form in the last Olympiad, and if they do have someone like CJ who can take them outside of their environment to nice restaurants etc, that will help. So a top ten finish is quite on the cards. Top five finish would probably require some fortune as well as good form, though.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

As said above, England are number twelve seeds; I would only be concerned about Gawain's form, and the last time when Adams reluctantly played an Olympiad (Elista 1998) and effectively stopped playing half-way through. A number of positives though, most of all Howell's excellent form in the last Olympiad, and if they do have someone like CJ who can take them outside of their environment to nice restaurants etc, that will help. So a top ten finish is quite on the cards. Top five finish would probably require some fortune as well as good form, though.

Is it possible to predict the round 1 pairings?

[Jonathan Rogers]

I would guess, not yet; there is probably no way of knowing which teams will actually be present by this time tomorrow evening. But unless they have change the system, we should play someone whom we ought to beat by 3.5-0.5 or 4-0 in the first round.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Random question, about a Scottish player, so maybe slightly relevant here. Is the Scottish IM Stephen R. Burns-Mannion the same as the Scottish IM Stephen R. Mannion? Both forms of the name are used on the Chess Scotland website, which doesn't help:

http://www.chessscotland.com/internatio ... n_news.htm

And does anyone know the year when this name change took place?

[Andy Burnett]

Yes it's the same player, and last year (at a guess) for the name change? I'll try to check it out for you.

[Richard Bates]

As said above, England are number twelve seeds; I would only be concerned about Gawain's form, and the last time when Adams reluctantly played an Olympiad (Elista 1998) and effectively stopped playing half-way through. A number of positives though, most of all Howell's excellent form in the last Olympiad, and if they do have someone like CJ who can take them outside of their environment to nice restaurants etc, that will help. So a top ten finish is quite on the cards. Top five finish would probably require some fortune as well as good form, though.

It is my main issue with the use of match pts rather than game pts - that it becomes very difficult for captains to drop/rest higher boards, such is the difference in team strength that would result. Whereas with game pts any short term weakening and consequential worse result could always be made up very easily in subsequent rounds.

[Alex Holowczak]

As said above, England are number twelve seeds; I would only be concerned about Gawain's form, and the last time when Adams reluctantly played an Olympiad (Elista 1998) and effectively stopped playing half-way through. A number of positives though, most of all Howell's excellent form in the last Olympiad, and if they do have someone like CJ who can take them outside of their environment to nice restaurants etc, that will help. So a top ten finish is quite on the cards. Top five finish would probably require some fortune as well as good form, though.

It is my main issue with the use of match pts rather than game pts - that it becomes very difficult for captains to drop/rest higher boards, such is the difference in team strength that would result. Whereas with game pts any short term weakening and consequential worse result could always be made up very easily in subsequent rounds.

Actually, I really like the use of matchpoints.

I think that in a team competition, there has to be an element of playing for a team result. E.g. settling for a draw if you're 2-1 up. With gamepoints, you can't do that, you have to play to win regardless. In that sense, the concept of a match against another nation becomes a moot point, since the aim isn't to beat the other nation. So you might as well have a behemoth Jamboree.

[Richard Bates]

As said above, England are number twelve seeds; I would only be concerned about Gawain's form, and the last time when Adams reluctantly played an Olympiad (Elista 1998) and effectively stopped playing half-way through. A number of positives though, most of all Howell's excellent form in the last Olympiad, and if they do have someone like CJ who can take them outside of their environment to nice restaurants etc, that will help. So a top ten finish is quite on the cards. Top five finish would probably require some fortune as well as good form, though.

It is my main issue with the use of match pts rather than game pts - that it becomes very difficult for captains to drop/rest higher boards, such is the difference in team strength that would result. Whereas with game pts any short term weakening and consequential worse result could always be made up very easily in subsequent rounds.

Actually, I really like the use of matchpoints.

I think that in a team competition, there has to be an element of playing for a team result. E.g. settling for a draw if you're 2-1 up. With gamepoints, you can't do that, you have to play to win regardless. In that sense, the concept of a match against another nation becomes a moot point, since the aim isn't to beat the other nation. So you might as well have a behemoth Jamboree.

That is one argument. Another is that many of the problems of Swiss Pairing systems, in particular "luck of the draw" giving some teams much easier rides than others, are largely eliminated by a game pts system. Also one could consider that an important (and certainly valuable) part of the Olympiad is the individual board medals, and a match pts system creates obvious difficulties with that.

[Alex Holowczak]

That is one argument. Another is that many of the problems of Swiss Pairing systems, in particular "luck of the draw" giving some teams much easier rides than others, are largely eliminated by a game pts system. Also one could consider that an important (and certainly valuable) part of the Olympiad is the individual board medals, and a match pts system creates obvious difficulties with that.

Well, first and foremost, it's a team event. Individual medals should be sacrificed for the good of the team. I'm sure a player would much rather have his country win the Olympiad than a medal on his board. The individual honour is of secondary importance. I remember Armenia won the last two Olympiads. I have no idea who won the board prizes at the last Olympiad, and frankly whoever wins the board prizes doesn't interest me at all.

[Richard Bates]

That is one argument. Another is that many of the problems of Swiss Pairing systems, in particular "luck of the draw" giving some teams much easier rides than others, are largely eliminated by a game pts system. Also one could consider that an important (and certainly valuable) part of the Olympiad is the individual board medals, and a match pts system creates obvious difficulties with that.

Well, first and foremost, it's a team event. Individual medals should be sacrificed for the good of the team. I'm sure a player would much rather have his country win the Olympiad than a medal on his board. The individual honour is of secondary importance. I remember Armenia won the last two Olympiads. I have no idea who won the board prizes at the last Olympiad, and frankly whoever wins the board prizes doesn't interest me at all.

Very few teams have a realistic chance of winning the Olympiad. A very large number of teams have a realistic chance of producing an individual medal winner. You may have no interest in it - it doesn't follow that that is a universal view. And whilst it is nice to think that players would always put the team above themselves, that is a bit naive considering the value of these things, especially in some countries. Better, IMO, to reduce the chances of an individual vs team conflict arising in the first place.

http://www.chess.co.uk/twic/chessnews/p ... mpiad-2010

Game pts also produce final positions that are a more accurate reflection of performance all the way down the field, IMO.

[Alex Holowczak]

That is one argument. Another is that many of the problems of Swiss Pairing systems, in particular "luck of the draw" giving some teams much easier rides than others, are largely eliminated by a game pts system. Also one could consider that an important (and certainly valuable) part of the Olympiad is the individual board medals, and a match pts system creates obvious difficulties with that.

Well, first and foremost, it's a team event. Individual medals should be sacrificed for the good of the team. I'm sure a player would much rather have his country win the Olympiad than a medal on his board. The individual honour is of secondary importance. I remember Armenia won the last two Olympiads. I have no idea who won the board prizes at the last Olympiad, and frankly whoever wins the board prizes doesn't interest me at all.

Very few teams have a realistic chance of winning the Olympiad. A very large number of teams have a realistic chance of producing an individual medal winner. You may have no interest in it - it doesn't follow that that is a universal view. And whilst it is nice to think that players would always put the team above themselves, that is a bit naive considering the value of these things, especially in some countries. Better, IMO, to reduce the chances of an individual vs team conflict arising in the first place.

http://www.chess.co.uk/twic/chessnews/p ... mpiad-2010

Game pts also produce final positions that are a more accurate reflection of performance all the way down the field, IMO.

Of course, it is not the universal view. I just think that a team event shouldn't worry about individual board prizes.

Carlsen is my favourite to win gold on board 1. Norway will not win that many matches against the very top nations; they'll be quite a long way down the field. So Carlsen will get relatively easy games on board 1, moreso than say Topalov. His average opposition will be weaker on average than Topalov's. He's helped by being part of a weaker team. So it's not really fair whether you use gamepoints or matchpoints. I'm not sure which would be fairer than the other.

[Maxim Devereaux]

really? Well, I won't argue. I guess it is largely a matter of familiarity with female-sounding names.

anyway, there isn't a well known female captain in charge of any team. Not a big deal, but indicative to me of a certain lack of imagination when it comes to womens' teams.

Actually, I had a look through myself, and in addition to the ones quoted earlier, the numbers 2 and 4 seeds, China and Georgia are captained by women from their own countries.

The Georgian captain, Nino Gurieli, is an IM/WGM, inactive but still rated 2329, while the Chinese captain, Xu Yuhua, definitely disproves your assertion - she's the Chinese number 6, a GM/WGM, and rated 2475, with a peak rating of 2517 and a former Women's World Champion (2006-8)!

[Mark Howitt]

Personally I only really care about the women's comp about as much as an English team with a rating average of around 2100. Maybe that's partly because there's at least one member of the team who isn't English.

Anyway... the teams should be there soon! Waiting for updates and pairings .

[Alex Holowczak]

Personally I only really care about the women's comp about as much as an English team with a rating average of around 2100. Maybe that's partly because there's at least one member of the team who isn't English.

Anyway... the teams should be there soon! Waiting for updates and pairings .

Which one of them do you have in mind as not being English?

[Jonathan Rogers]

I stand very much corrected by Max. Clearly I should have investigated these names further. I'll admit that I've always been weak on Chinese names ... but anyway, returning to my theme, I'll be interested to see how the Chinese fare under their experienced female captain. And Georgia!