39th Olympiad Khanty-Mansiysk 2010 (the chess)

[LozCooper]

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!

Yes David did miss at least a couple of wins but in such a wild position and with time trouble this is very understandable albeit frustrating for him

I think Gawain had some practical chances albeit the events on boards 2 & 3 probably left him a bit shellshocked

[Mark Howitt]

Right, since for making comments about the English chess team I'm "disrespectful in general" I'd better make a few points.

Did a quick search about you, turns out you're Swedish. So perhaps it's a bit ironic you're having a go at me for expressing my opinion about the English chess team on an English chess forum. People are allowed to be patriotic you see, (although sometimes this is not regarded as 'politically correct' in society, which seeks sometimes to control people by 'social norms' and sometimes the influence of 'peer pressure'). I'm giving out my views, sometimes critical, because I want to see England perform at its best.

If you actually read my posts properly, you'd notice that I'm not actually rubbishing the play of the players- but sometimes I feel the stronger players have not been selected, when I believe they should have been.

Another mistake you've made; I don't have Rybka "purring in the background"- I looked at one line from in via the website. I spent eighteen months writing a "chess novel" and have been part of the 'chess community' now for over twenty years, so I do know about the pressures of over the board play.

[Maxim Devereaux]

But I just get bored with the general - oh we outgrade them by 50 points a board so we should win rubbish

I quite agree with this!

Agreed. People seem to forget that in a 4 board match, just one bad game completely alters the match situation.

In the 4NCL (for example), it's by no means unheard of to overturn 100+ rating points a board deficit, and that's with twice as many games. This ridiculous idea that because you've got a slightly bigger number by your name you should automatically win with either colour, which some people seem to ascribe to, shows a startling lack of understanding.

...its interesting to see that the stronger players in this forum do not criticise the chess as much as the idiots with the computers.

Neither the chess (because we know how hard these moves are to find over the board), nor the decisions of the captain as to who should be playing (because we have a slightly better understanding of the pressures involved).

[Roger de Coverly]

but sometimes I feel the stronger players have not been selected

The team selection is 4 from 5, so whenever you say this, you are just saying that Gawain Jones shouldn't be in the team.

If you look at the leader board for board prizes at http://www.ugra-chess.com/boardprizes.php, you will see that Gawain is the only open English player present. He's in 15th place with a performance rating so far of 2573. His Belarus opponent was in second with a performance rating of 2671, so the draw may have been costly. Alternatively it's a good result against an in form player.

If board prizes are regarded as important, there's a case for giving Gawain a run in the team until the end of the event.

There's a further complicating factor - that according to David Smerdon (AUS), there's a lot of flu around.
http://www.davidsmerdon.com/

[James O'Fee]

Wednesday, September 29. 2010
Decision day in Siberia, by C.J. de Mooi

Ed: Today sees the election for President of FIDE at the Chess Olympiad in Khanty-Mansiysk, in western Siberia. The incumbent, and seeking re-election, is Kirsan Ilyumzhinov who, until recently, was President as well of the autonomous Republic of Kalmykia within the Russian Federation. Many western national chess organisations support his opponent, the former World Chess Champion, Anatoly Karpov. An angry C.J. De Mooi, President of the English Chess Federation, writes from the Chess Olympiad in Siberia;

They are spectacularly corrupt! It's unbelievable being here with their blatant breaking of their own laws.

Already 2 decisions have been passed in clear contravention of FIDE statutes. All 6 disputed proxies are to be reassigned by the Executive Board (no doubt fairly and without prejudice).

After an hour and a quarter of the FIDE General Assembly, we've only just completed the roll call. The announcements concerning proxy votes was made but no discussion was allowed despite numerous objections and the illegal procedure. Already Ilyumzhinov appears to be trying every dirty trick to retain his crown. A number of anonymous people have already complained over threats and intimidation and even your humble scribe has not been immune from such approaches.

Ladies and Gentlemen. Unless you're here, you wouldn't believe the blatant breaking of rules and written statutes that goes on at the FIDE General Assembly. It is the old days of Soviet 'democracy' where people are just shouted down, ignored or thrown out. Lawyers are not allowed to speak, points of order have been disregarded and objections not even noted. 4 times there have been legal points raised from the floor and Ilyumzhinov simply had their microphones turned off and continued speaking himself. It's amazing in the fact there's not even a pretence of fairness or free speech and staggering in how biased the ruling board are in order to stay in power. Gens una Sumus? Hardly...

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

[David Brock]

These posts seem to be taking the direction of us and them attitude where it is interpreted that some people are having a go at the players and others are then defending the players. Reading all of the posts and adding my own comments I can honestly say I believe that everybody on here wants the same thing for England to be successful. Most of the so called adverse comments are due to frustration on wishing that our guys do well only to be brought back down to earth by some indifferent results against lesser rated teams that on paper we should beat in 9 out of 10 games.

Personally I do not think there is anything wrong with passion and belief in your team. Unfortunately at times when you get passionate about something this (when results go against you) can lead to frustration and at times criticism of the players concerned. Whether this criticism is merited is a different point but everyone (no matter what sport you are watching) becomes an armchair supporter and an instant expert on the game while they are watching.

At times you love your team and at times you pull your hair out in frustration. The difference here is that the players and manager are accessible to us the viewing public. This is unique as in most sports the players are locked away with no communication with the outside world. I personally like this honour and the honest opinions expressed by our Manager. However we have to be aware that we should not over step the mark and abuse this facility or the manager could quite easily withdraw his co-operation in communicating with us.

Anyone having played for a team in any sport will know that sometimes things do not go for you no matter what you do. You may be the best player in the World (take Magnus for example) but on certain days it just does not work out the way you planned it. Against England the loss Norway suffered was down to his loss against Micky and yesterday the win Norway had was down to his win. I am sure he did not try any less in either match but the results were completely different. Unfortunately that is Life.

So I just want to wrap up and say I am personally 100% behind our players and wish them all well and hope for 4 wins today. After all they are the best we have and we have to get behind the players. As I know nobody will be more disappointed with yesterdays result than the players themselves. Unfortunately we as fans have to realise that Chess in this Country is not our number one sport and is unlikely to ever be so we can not expect miracles from our players. We are ranked number 12 in the Olympiad and if we end up anywhere near our rank then we have done well.

So guys have a good game and Loz please pass on everyones good wishes to the players as I am sure that everyone is 100% behind the team. Although some of us are more outspoken than others and some of us are more passionate than others but thats whats great about life everyone has and is entitled to an opinion whether it is right or wrong.

So thank you guys for giving us a chance to share your joys and frustrations.

[Roger de Coverly]

We are ranked number 12 in the Olympiad and if we end up anywhere near our rank then we have done well.

Times and expectations have changed. 10th place in Manila in 1992 and 10th place in Elista in 1998 were regarded as big disappointments and under-performance.

[David Brock]

Early days but Adams seems to have the upper hand already in his game

[Maxim Devereaux]

Early days but Adams seems to have the upper hand already in his game

...d5 is a fairly common line, and has been played by Carlsen, Aronian, Bacrot, Jakovenko among others. ed is unusual, and probably doesn't give White anything much. I expect this may not be something Mickey has prepared for this game specifically - he might just be avoiding any of his opponent's prep.

Qxd5 Bc4 as played, was seen in Deep Junior 11 - Illescas, match 2008, with a fairly quick draw.

[James O'Fee]

CJ de Mooi adds from Siberia -

Leong nominated 3 scrutineers, no discussion was allowed and the board walked off ignoring the 20 or so people protesting or wanting to speak

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

[Maxim Devereaux]

...Qd8 by Buhmann is a novelty. Illescas continued Qd6 (which looks more logical to me - I'm not worried about Na3-b5 too much, I think White wants to play b4, a4 etc maybe)

EDIT: and b4 is played. *Now* I think Mickey might show some advantage

EDIT: on second thoughts, it's still nothing too special

[John Saunders]

I've just blogged something about Jon-Ludvig Hammer, 'Maggie' Carlsen and the 'ghost of 1981'...

http://johnchess.blogspot.com/2010/09/c ... rlsen.html

[Ola Winfridsson]

Right, since for making comments about the English chess team I'm "disrespectful in general" I'd better make a few points.

Did a quick search about you, turns out you're Swedish. So perhaps it's a bit ironic you're having a go at me for expressing my opinion about the English chess team on an English chess forum. People are allowed to be patriotic you see, (although sometimes this is not regarded as 'politically correct' in society, which seeks sometimes to control people by 'social norms' and sometimes the influence of 'peer pressure'). I'm giving out my views, sometimes critical, because I want to see England perform at its best.

If you actually read my posts properly, you'd notice that I'm not actually rubbishing the play of the players- but sometimes I feel the stronger players have not been selected, when I believe they should have been.

Another mistake you've made; I don't have Rybka "purring in the background"- I looked at one line from in via the website. I spent eighteen months writing a "chess novel" and have been part of the 'chess community' now for over twenty years, so I do know about the pressures of over the board play.

Yes, I'm Swedish and I've lived in the UK for the last 11 years, so in chess terms I root just as much for England as I do for Sweden. And I know a number of the people on this forum personally. However, I don't get down if England or Sweden loses - I just enjoy the fantastic spectacle that a Chess Olympiad is.

And no, there's absolutely nothing wrong with being patriotic, but can I suggest that it's not particularly patriotic to cast doubt on the players or the captain (which you actually do, if not directly, then at least by inference) for decisions to rest players. And there are selection aspects that Loz and others have brought up that you just brush aside with the comment/attitude: the top four should always play and perform at their best, because they are the best. As far as I can see, this completely fails to take into account a number of factors of a psychological and physiological nature. Yes, on average they're probably better than the reserve, but on certain days and against certain opponents (and sometimes even against certain openings) they might not be - or there might be other factors to consider. (Cf resting footballers against certain teams because of the other play, or the selection of bowlers for the forthcoming Ashes series.)

Re the Rybka, please accept my apologies for jumping to conclusions. However, I was also speaking in general terms: just like Ben Purton, I'm sick and tired of kibbitzers who are slagging players off for missing 'easy' moves (found by their engine) which they themselves wouldn't have found in a million years.

[Jonathan Rogers]

We are ranked number 12 in the Olympiad and if we end up anywhere near our rank then we have done well.

Times and expectations have changed. 10th place in Manila in 1992 and 10th place in Elista in 1998 were regarded as big disappointments and under-performance.

Manila was a genuine under performance. We had a full team, and Short was in the form of his life. The new ex-Soviet Republics contributed to this, but we did bounce back again in 1994 and 1996. (Admittedly this account can be debated. Adams was not yet a full strength in 1992 and having him and Sadler was invaluable in 1996 - if Sadler had not been in such good form in Yerevan, the team might have been doing much the same as it is now).

1998 also seemed poor - Speelman had not yet declined after all, but the difficulties in playing in Elista were pertinent. I think it reasonable to say that we will never get our maximal result in Russia.

Max made the point earlier that just one bad game turns a match on its head. Quite right - and by the same token, having just one player in demon form can transform a team from "ordinary" to "far exceeding expectations" (provided only that none of the other players is actually playing badly and cancelling out the contributions of the in-form player). That is why England competed for the top positions in Dresden - Short and Howell played very well (Conquest not but he was usually dropped). But here, no one is much exceeding expectations (Gawain is gaining some points and perhaps deserves more, but, well, it hardly compares with Sadler in 1996).

I would still say that we are doing better than did our football team in S Africa! It was 0-0 v Algeria and for **** sake we didn't even create a shot on goal ......

[David Brock]

I am not sure what david is doing as he seems to be getting himself in trouble already as behind in development and blacks knight is eying up f4 and f5 possibly coming up.