OLYMPIAD 2008 :):)

[Jonathan Rogers]

Alasdair, I meant no such implications by the word "offence". I find (for example) insults against Asian people to be offensive, though I myself am not Asian. I still think you were quick to take offence!

By all means, let this matter drop, though I did offer to compromise in my previous post, that degrees or qualifications should be desirable rather than essential. Justin and you now hint at other problems with my suggested criteria but I am not sure what they are. If you think that inactive players might nonetheless be selectors, though, I think that needs to be justified.

I would just say one thing - in earlier posts it was said that the main thing is that the selectors must be "credible" to players and the chess community more broadly. Of course, we agree with that, but only if we do not probe the meaning of the word. When we do, problems quickly arise. Some people use the word "credible" to mean the very top players, whether active or inactive; some use it to mean people who broadly know the top players and whose impartiality and experience is beyond doubt; some people mean people with previous experience with Olympiads, etc. So it is that we have seen several different lists in this thread where the only common name in all of them is Stewart. I was trying to offer a more elaborate definition of what should make the team of selectors as a whole to be seen as "credible".

Let's try again on another subject. What should be the criteria for the England captaincy? I will wait for others before suggesting my own (though I think that Matthew had a go at it earlier). This subject is perhaps more interesting, now that we have been reminded that Allan Beardsworth, not exactly the best known of figures in the chess world, has twice captained England in the past five years.

[Kevin Thurlow]

Quote:
I would also have thought there is a case for saying the reigning British (English?) champion automatically gets a spot - it might encourage entries?


"I thought we established some while back that out of the top 20 ENG male players, they all were either playing in the 2008 British, elsewhere at the same time or in gainful employment."

Yes - I know, but that doesn't apply every year....., and it's only a vague idea, I don't feel strongly about it!

[Sophia Rohde]

Am I the only one to question why there seems to be so much bias against Keith Arkell?The chess press dwells on his losses,he has no serious support on here,and even the selectors appear to be prejudiced against him.For example in ''Chesspublishing.com''selector Flear wrote''Keith caused quite a surprise when he came joint first in this year's British''.Presumably then Glenn you were equally surprised by his long string of 1sts and 2nds in the preceding 14 months,including his 2620 performance at Barbados in the run in,and his top class performance on board one in the Euro club Cup?
Keith has no interest in posting on foums like this,he hates chess politics,he doesn't have ''friends in high places'',and the only way he knows ho to sell himself is to let his chess do his talking.I have however managed to prise some interesting information out of him:He felt he should have been selected in 2002 after a series of excellent results.At least the general chess public recognised this by voting him 3rd and 2nd in ''BCF player of the year for 2001 and 2002.
Selectors,put extra weight on the Briish if you must,but what relevance has Conquest's rapid play-off win?Stuart and Keith are officially joint ENGLISH champions,and selection is for an ENGLIH team not a British team.As much as I like Stuart,surely his poor showing in the Irish Champonship just prior to the British doesn't compare well with Keith's consistency throughout the year,and the 5 ELO points difference between the 2 is less relevant than the momentum shown by Keith's ELO graph over the last year. When required Keith can play very solidly and is hard to beat.
This was Keith's 1st British since he chickened out with a last round draw to come 2nd= in 2001.This year I can vouch that he was determined to win and planned to fight hard in EVERY game.Perhaps he overdid it in round 4 v Stuart tho!He even kept going on about how he would refuse to make a winners speech!
A final thought:For decades Keith had to watch mostly indifferent results from English players at Hastings Premier.Finally in 2002 aged 41 he got his chance and went unbeaten through a field of class players to record a 2632 performance. I suggest replacing these 8 selectors with someone discerning(eg Hodgson?) and one year give Keith the chance to repeat the above scenario for England. Sophia Rohde,International Arbiter,Manhattan,New York.

[John Saunders]

Am I the only one to question why there seems to be so much bias against Keith Arkell?The chess press dwells on his losses

Sophia - just to say that British Chess Magazine cannot be accused of dwelling on Keith's losses (so I guess you had in mind other publications or newspaper columns?). Last June Keith wrote his own article in BCM on his Barbados victory and later in the year we gave his excellent win against Gawain Jones from the last round in the British Championship. I've always been a big Arkell fan - he's an interesting, down-to-earth bloke to talk to and a really good player.

I too think Keith might have been given a punt in the England team at some point in the last few years. I had the chance to watch a big team competition at close quarters in 1997 (the European Team Championship, which is way stronger than an Olympiad - technically, I was playing in it but any connection between was I was doing at the board and the real players was purely coincidental!). It struck me how different the style of play of the GMs was compared with what they do when trying to win money in a big swiss. Team chess seems to be more about playing within yourself and trying to grind out results, often when other games are finished and the required result has become clear. In such circumstances a player with Keith's playing style and consistency could be very handy indeed. The late Karen Asrian played that sort of part for Armenia when they took gold in 2006 (and he had the same initials as Keith as well!).

I guess a reason Keith may sometimes get a raw deal from the press is that quite a lot of his wins are not what is considered "publishable". There is an inherent bias in favour of the 'tactical smash' - it's always been like that. In fact, players who wish to improve their chess would probably learn more from a close study of Keith's technique - or maybe that of Mark Hebden - than they would ever get from studying, say, Morozevich or Tal. But I suspect readers of newspaper columns and mags want entertainment more than they do educational material, so endgames of 60+ moves rarely fit the bill. Or maybe they have just been conditioned to expect that sort of material? It's an interesting debating point.

[Matthew Turner]

Keith may have been disadvantaged because his chess is widely regarded as boring. However, it is wrong to say that he is not a tactical player, whilst it true that he tends to win in a 'positional' way this merely means that he uses his considerable tactical abilities to neutralise his opponents' ideas, Ulf Andersson is very similar. This is why both Keith and Ulf are very good at 5 minute chess. However, I think if you read Richard Palliser's comments you will see that he has done a huge amount of work in his role as a selector and I wouldn't expect the rather superficial view of Keith's chess as boring to cloud his judgment. I hope this can be said of the rest on the selectors.

I think there have been times in the past (probably before 2002) when Keith should have been selected ahead of the likes of Stewart Conquest and Peter Wells. Perhaps, one reason he wasn't was because Keith didn't 'fit in' with the likes of Adams, Short, Miles and Speelman. I have the impression that these top players have had too much influence on the selections which has hindered England's chances and I think we would be better off if the automatic choices, currently Adams, Short, Howell (and MacShane) stayed out of the selection process.

Having said all that, I think Stewart was a better choice than Keith this time around. It seems to me that selecting Keith ahead of Stewart would involve the sort of argument, Stewart has had a go and not done particularly well, let's give Keith a chance. I find this argument weak and I think you have to select a team based on merit.

[Mark Howitt]

I find it interesting to see this phrase 'does not fit in' being applied to Keith again and again.

When I was playing in my first proper 'adult' tournament, ten years ago in Hull, I think I stayed in the same bed and breakfast as Keith- and I believe the next room actually. He seemed like a cheery soul- he bounded in for breakfast, grasping the knife and fork near the cooked breakfast and grinned. Sadly the other chessplayers told him the meal was for another person and he retired to another table. He was still willing to talk to the other chessplayers though.

You might even remember the tournament Matthew- I reckon you shared first with 4/5, and I won the junior prize in the Minor.

One older player was giving me a lift to the venue. I asked whether Keith would make the England team- exact quote "I don't think his face fits".

Selection for the team should be based on chess ability, and anyway if anything I'd suggest that Keith's personality is actually an advantage.

[Matthew Turner]

Mark,
I agree with everything that you have said, with one slight caveat. I don't think Keith (or anyone else) should be selected because of their personality, so I wouldn't say it is an advantage. What I would say, is that if Keith were selected on merit, then a lot of weekend/club players would take a much greater interest in England's fortunes than if a player were selected who didn't participate as much in English chess.

[Sophia Rohde]

Thanks Guys for your sympathetic responses to my posting.Everything you have said makes a lot of sense.

I am not sure how psychologically comfortable Keith would be playing alongside eg Short,but it's really just a principle we are talking about here.
I know that he has great admiration for David's play these says,and Gawain's too.Gawain particularly is a good friend of Keith's and Keith will be the first to admit that getting the better of him over the Summer tournaments was most likely just a little pause before Gawain gallops away over the horizon to greatness.Keith and Stuart are also friends,and of course he wouldn't want or expect any of this debate to cloud this.
Matthew,I know that you and Keith have known each other well and been friends for many years,and so your judgements have to be respected.I guess it was surely a very close call between Stuart and Keith.By the way,one detail regarding the average rating of the opponents of the respective players has significance,and that is that Keith played Hawkins.Rated only about 2230,this player played as well as many of the GMs and gained well over 100 rating points at this tournament alone!

John,I can't emphasize strongly enough how much Keith appreciates the support and fair treatment he has received from BCM over the years,and only last week he mentioned the good friendly relations he has with you. Really it's the Newspaper columns which grate.For example did any of the papers publish his beautiful game against Gawain,or were they all too occupied with publishing his games against Stuart over and over again.(In the States I only get to see the on-line versions).

Sophia

[James Coleman]

Nothing really to do with Olympiad selection but when I was beginning playing as a junior 20 years or so ago I remember starting to go to tournaments every weekend, and the top sections were always dominated by Keith and Mark Hebden. It was fascinating to watch them take apart really strong players game in, game out, in seemingly effortless fashion. The chance to watch how those guys operated was definitely one reason I kept on going to more tourneys. Keith in particular would win some ludicrously drawn looking positions. I decided at a young age I was going to figure out just how he did that and do the same type of stuff one day ! I never quite did of course ! But I did learn that as well as being a great player Keith is also a very nice guy and a good laugh !

[Stewart Reuben]

In response to earlier comments. As ECF Director of International Chess, I am Chairman of the Selectors. The current selectors were appointed by the ECF Board on my recommendation. There was no change from last year, the group that chose the Olympiad teams. There were no other nominations. The debate over the selections for Dresden was very well-informed and objective.
In earlier days each of Adams and Short had been valuable Selectors, although I can only write from my personal experience in the latter case. Both were consulted by me for their opinions this time. They often have very valuable opinions on all sorts of matters.
Of course both are professionally qualified. Since they are certain to be selected, there is no conflict of interest.
Harriet Hunt is a selector and she would have been selected for the English team had she been available.
Glenn Flear is a selector. Of course he left the meeting at the point where it was discussed who should be captain of the English women's team.

Sarah Hegarty was selected, but proved not to be available.

The FIDE Regulations simply require a player to be registered for FIDE in order to represent that federation. To get to be registered for England, you need to be one of: a citizen, a long term permanent resident. This now means one year. We have no rule that covers players who are residents but then become residents elsewhere and are not citizens.

The British Championships have even laxer rules, which I inherited. A player can take part, even if s/he is not registered for a British Isles Federation. Thus a Croatian and a German player took part this year. They have residency.

Should these two rules be reconsidered? There is not necessarily any harm in that.

Please note, some posts have referred to Stewart, where the concept was eventually clear to me Stuart was meant.

Stewart Reuben

[Sophia Rohde]

Hello Stewart,

I guess we'll have to agree to differ on Short,at least regarding his attitude towards Keith in any case.

For reasons best known only to himself this ex selector has always used his media outlets to write unfairly and spitefully about Keith and his chess.
I find it hard to believe that his selection opinions would be anything other than more of the same.

I shall bid farewell to you all,for the timebeing,on here,and many thanks again for such a positive response about my close friend Keith.

Sophia Rohde,International Arbiter, Manhattan