39th Olympiad Khanty-Mansiysk 2010 (the chess)

[Ben Purton]

I do not like the amount of negative crap said towards the mens team. End of the day we are nothing on them as chess players. I mean there its interesting to see that the stronger players in this forum do not criticise the chess as much as the idiots with the computers.

Take Howells game today, fairplay for trying to improve on the grunfeld stuff thats well documented these days. It did not work but its a learning curve , the end, tomorrow another day. One day hell find a stunning improvement and that will win England V Russia in 4 years or something then all the forumites can eat humble pie.

OK so some are performing a bit below par. If they were always above par, it would not be the par?

long way to go, much more important to finish strong than start strong in these events. No reason they cant win most of there remaining matches and come top 10....

Peace

Ben

[Ben Purton]

We might have to wait until after the event to know why McShane wasn't played in this game- he should have been.

you ever played a 100 move game of chess , its very draining.

I Played a 115 Move draw in France with IM and Id say I felt more drained than when I fight 3x3 minutes rounds after a 2 hour prep warm up.

So really, should he have been? or you just past posting now we did not win?

[Roger de Coverly]

However all three have played well below themselves (maybe a bit harsh on Adams even ignoring the Carlsen game).

You can follow the rating performances and (Actual - Expected) at the chess-results server
http://www.chess-results.com/tnr36795.a ... -1&wi=1000
The women's results are at
http://www.chess-results.com/tnr36796.a ... -1&wi=1000

I don't know how you define "well below" but whilst the men's top four have scored about 3 games points less than their expectation, it translates to less than 10 points each as a rating loss. Today's result has not improved the statistics of course but it isn't anything a 3-1 win over Germany would fail to correct.

[Mark Howitt]

Yep, I've played a hundred moves or more in a chess game. When I was younger I had to take a long coach trip down south to play for Yorkshire in the Under 16s county championship- three long tough games then too. Most people on this forum will have played in weekend congresses where they often have to play five tough games of chess after a tough week at work.

I've felt more drained playing chess than doing 4 mile cross country runs over hills and in mud- and certainly a few years ago I was in good physical condition- I've never taken drugs, been drunk or smoked for instance.

What I would never claim to be though is the best in England at anything. I know where my level is in the things that I do- in some areas quite high but not the best in England. If I was at the level where I could play chess for England, I would personally make the Olympiad a priority, prepare well for it, and want to play in every game. And I believe that's what the best chessplayers do now.

Although Luke did play over 100 moves, the position was drawn for quite a large period of them. I know obviously that took a lot of energy out of him, but part of representing England in any area means that you should want to play as much as you can and to the best of your ability.

[Nick Thomas]

Although Luke did play over 100 moves, the position was drawn for quite a large period of them. I know obviously that took a lot of energy out of him, but part of representing England in any area means that you should want to play as much as you can and to the best of your ability.

Possibly. Or perhaps one should try to ensure that the team has the best chance of winning taking into account how each player is feeling, energy levels, opponents style, confidence, avoidance of burnout, colour sequence, keeping other team members happy, in practice and motivated etc etc etc.....

[LozCooper]

Yep, I've played a hundred moves or more in a chess game. When I was younger I had to take a long coach trip down south to play for Yorkshire in the Under 16s county championship- three long tough games then too. Most people on this forum will have played in weekend congresses where they often have to play five tough games of chess after a tough week at work.

I've felt more drained playing chess than doing 4 mile cross country runs over hills and in mud- and certainly a few years ago I was in good physical condition- I've never taken drugs, been drunk or smoked for instance.

What I would never claim to be though is the best in England at anything. I know where my level is in the things that I do- in some areas quite high but not the best in England. If I was at the level where I could play chess for England, I would personally make the Olympiad a priority, prepare well for it, and want to play in every game. And I believe that's what the best chessplayers do now.

Although Luke did play over 100 moves, the position was drawn for quite a large period of them. I know obviously that took a lot of energy out of him, but part of representing England in any area means that you should want to play as much as you can and to the best of your ability.

The players do want to play as much as they can and to the best of their ability. For you to suggest otherwise shows a complete lack of respect. Playing 127 moves over 6 hours with only a 30 second increment per move for a large part of the game is far more tiring than you appear to realise especially when the match depends on you. Having said all that Luke was happy to play today but it was purely my decision to rest him and all the team selections for the open/mens team have been my choice. Therefore if you want to criticise someone I would rather you blamed me then questioning the player's commitment.

I would also add that when you look at the other teams and see coaches of the calibre of Bareev, Khalifman & Nielsen and yet see England with me as captain because there isn't sufficient money to pay for a coach it gives you an idea of the difficulties we face. The players' commitment is beyond doubt, we've just not achieved the results that were expected in a couple of crucial matches.

Hopefully we'll bounce back tomorrow/today and have a strong finish.

[Ola Winfridsson]

What I would never claim to be though is the best in England at anything. I know where my level is in the things that I do- in some areas quite high but not the best in England. If I was at the level where I could play chess for England, I would personally make the Olympiad a priority, prepare well for it, and want to play in every game. And I believe that's what the best chessplayers do now.

Although Luke did play over 100 moves, the position was drawn for quite a large period of them. I know obviously that took a lot of energy out of him, but part of representing England in any area means that you should want to play as much as you can and to the best of your ability.

The fact that the position was drawn for a long time doesn't necessarily mean that you can take your foot off the pedal, as it were. Furthermore, playing with increments is extremely draining mentally once you reach the perpetual time scramble. At that stage it's very easy to blunder, and stronger players than Luke McShane have committed terrible howlers in situations like that. I remember looking at the game Sergey Rublevsky-Zdenko Kozul at Bled in 2002 (the first Olympiad with 90min + 30sec) when Rublevsky, down to his last 3 or 4 minutes, dropped an exchange straight out.

Furthermore, and a point you may have overlooked, these games start with 2-3 hours of focused preparation in the morning, so in all likelihood Luke had a very long day yesterday. If you have a reserve, there's no reason not to rest Luke after such a game. And you also have to remember that the level of concentration is slightly different at GM level compared to us amateurs.

And who says the England players have not made the Olympiad a priority? And don't you think the Belorussians also have made the Olympiad a priority? Making five players hit top form simultaneously is not like switching a button on and off.

I can only agree wholeheartedly with Loz Cooper when he says that you're actually disrespectful.

[Mark Howitt]

*Sighs* I wasn't meaning to criticise Luke actually, I type out my replies quite quickly. I do think he should have played today though. I think that depiste any tiredness, experience and quality is crucial in key matches- and before anyone else gangs up on me to say that "I'm implying that some members of the team don't have experience or quality" I'm saying that I think Luke has more experience and quality.

[Mark Howitt]

I've reread my post though, and it's clear that I wasn't *directly disrespecting Luke* there. Just to make it clear though, I think it was the wrong selection policy that he wasn't played.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I was following the match today and I thought with a bit of luck (Howell could easily have won in such an unbalanced position, and that would have left Jones to try and win the match with his extra exchange) England could have won. It was a bit of a shock to see Short lose so quickly, but that was a vicious tactic he fell for (what was the rook doing on h3 anyway?). Does anyone know whether Howell had genuine winning chances and whether Jones could have won or not - was his opponent's knight too well-secured?)? Hopefully the way is clear to finish strongly now, with the incentive of seeing Ireland and Australia on higher tables in the next round!

[Michael Jones]

Sorry 'Mark H' will still have his opinion.

I don't think there's any reason why we can't play our top four for the remaining games at all. The selection experiment failed today. Blunt but true.

Erm... you what? You could say 'the selection experiment failed' if Jones had been the only one to lose, which wasn't the case. Short would have been on board 2 whether McShane played or not, and I seriously doubt that having McShane on 3 and Howell on 4 would have produced the two points which would then have been necessary to win the match. Instead of criticising the two players who lost, how about actually giving some credit to their opponents, who clearly played very well? You can't win every game (unless, apparently, your name is Vasily Ivanchuk) and I agree that it's frankly insulting to suggest that any of the five players is giving anything less than his best. Possibly Adams could have played on a bit longer, but as has also been said, you can't conjure up a win with black against a 2600+ on demand, and I'd suggest anyone thinking of criticising him for taking the draw waits until they've beaten Carlsen to be in a position to do so.

[James O'Fee]

Report the fifth, by C.J. de Mooi
Ed: C.J. De Mooi, President of the English Chess Federation, writes from the Chess Olympiad in Siberia;

"I played like crap" was Nigel Short's succinct and not necessarily inaccurate description of his own game. However, the momentous events of tomorrow when he'll inevitably be rested may have been somewhat distracting. Defeat for David and 2 draws led to a 3-1 scoreline to Belarus, not a team we would have expected to trouble England.

However, the women continued their inexorable march towards glory with another convincing win over Guatemala. Sarah Hegarty was unable to chalk up another win, a failure influenced only slightly by the fact she wasn't playing.

Karpov and Kasparov held a press conference after play had started and the playing hall entrance was blocked for 45 minutes by the world's assorted press. In the evening both Karpov and Kirsan held receptions with the former in a small room attracting 80 guests and the latter, in a large hall, attracting a somewhat lower number.

It will be a fascinating day tomorrow especially for those leaving with a bottle of Karpov vodka. Wish us luck!

http://www.impalapublications.com/blog/

[Michael Jones]

We need to learn from other Countries if we want to do well as the ECF as far as I can see is an amateur organisation and what we really need is funding to run a Professional organisation. We also need direction on bringing chess in at grass roots level in every school not just ones where some of the teachers are interested in it. Then we would have the players coming through and not just by keeping our fingers crossed that a miracle will happen. I'm not an expert by any means but i do believe that the likes of Turkey have the right idea ( maybe someone can confirm this). Really some of this should come by way of FIDE but until they sort their house out then this is not going to happen.

I happen to be working at a school in Turkey at the moment, so probably I'm in more of a position to comment on this than most... or will be. Although I know that chess is very popular in schools in Turkey as a whole, I've yet to see any evidence of it in the particular one where I'm teaching - but that doesn't necessarily indicate that there isn't any, just that, despite my attempts to enquire, they haven't bothered telling me yet. Considering I've been here a week and they still haven't finalised my timetable, I would guess that chess is not their top priority!

[LozCooper]

Round 8 board pairings:

Bo. 12 England (ENG) Rtg - 42 Germany (GER) Rtg 0 : 0
15.1 GM Adams Michael 2728 - GM Buhmann Rainer 2563
15.2 GM McShane Luke J 2657 - GM Bogner Sebastian 2549
15.3 GM Howell David W L 2616 - GM Bindrich Falko 2507
15.4 GM Jones Gawain C B 2576 - IM Huschenbeth Niclas 2461

Bo. 61 Brazil (BRA) Rtg - 39 England (ENG) Rtg 0 : 0
24.1 WFM Terao Juliana Sayumi 2138 - IM Houska Jovanka 2426
24.2 WFM Pereira Amanda Marques 1980 - WFM Grigoryan Meri 2099
24.3 Correa Jaqueline Pamplona 1963 - Bhatia Kanwal K 2072
24.4 De Oliveira Ana Paula 1839 - WFM Hegarty Sarah N 2084

[Ola Winfridsson]

Mark H: We're not saying that you're disrespectful to any one particular player, but rather that you are disrespectful in general.

To be perfectly honest, it seems to me that you're making the same mistake that is so often made by football pundits:
1) You look at the peak performance results (England-Germany 5-1 in 2001, England-Argentina 1-0 in WC 2002 for instance) and take this as the norm for the performance to be expected every single time the players sit down at the board (if you pardon me mixing the sports here). 2) In the process, poor or middling results are completely disregarded (such as 0-0 v Andorra at HT, the team booed off the pitch a few years ago, 1-1 v Algeria in WC 2010) while at the same time 3) failing to take into account the strength of the opposition (such as Germany in this year's World Cup - not only did they slaughter England, incorrectly disallowed Lampard goal notwithstanding, they clobbered Argentina right and proper as well).

Do you always play chess at your peak performance standard? I know for sure I don't. We all have good days and bad, as well strengths and weaknesses, and that includes players at the very top of the game (e.g. Gary Kasparov lost his match against Vlad Kramnik in 2000 because he was clearly inferior, relatively speaking, to VK in undynamic, slightly dull positions which required more careful manouevering - positions unsuited to his normal, incredibly dynamic style).

Sitting at home with Rybka quietly purring away in the background it's very easy to criticize the play even of World Champions. It's a totally different thing sitting in the playing hall knowing that you have to salvage a draw with very limited time on the clock or attempt a desperate gamble in a dodgy position to win in order to save a crucial match point or two for the team.