England Olympiad Teams

[Nick Burrows]

A shame as I think of the latter 4 - Sadler would perform best on board 2.

[Jonathan Rogers]

A shame as I think of the latter 4 - Sadler would perform best on board 2.

There are arguments both ways, I think, between Jones and Sadler for board two. But I would have thought that putting Sadler on 5, below Howell, is probably a mistake. To be sure, I see the reasoning - if anyone is going to rack up a monster score, winning so often that the pressure is off the rest of the team, then that person would most probably be Sadler playing on board 4. And nominating him on board 5 is the way to ensure that he will always play on board four when he plays, eg when Short is playing politics. But I think it is the age old problem - because we still think in terms of somehow landing a medal in this event, we do whatever seems to give us an outside chance of it, and don't look very closely at "what is likely to go wrong" scenario. If Howell is off form, and sometimes he is when playing for England, this would offset any gains made on 4. And if Sadler is going to revive his England form of the 1990s, he would still be able to do so effectively on board three. Besides which, playing someone on 4 as the "nominated point scorer" does put pressure on that person. Possible Sadler will discharge it very well, but it is still a risk to put such pressure on someone who hasn't played an Olympiad this century.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Is it possible that some Black-White colour considerations come into play as well? Adams on one has to take whatever colour the draw gives him, but the others can to some extent be deployed to take advantage of Whites.

[Stewart Reuben]

5 players and just 11 rounds has caused problems before. The average is 8.8 games each. When we had 6 players, albeit 14 rounds, it was even worse, 9.3.
When norms were the prime objective, then giving the norm candidate extra whites was not unusual.
I am sure one reason for putting Matthew on 5 was his lack of recent experience at high level chess. What sort of message would it have sent out to the others if he had been placed on an unnaturally high board?
It is a pity Luke doesn't have the time. He won his blitz games yesterday handily enough, despite the garish nature of the chess boards and sets at the Art Gallery occasion.

Certainly when I was in charge, the rule was that the 5 person teams were selected to secure the best possible place in the event from the players available. David Openshaw has done well to raise adequate funds for our two teams.

[Jonathan Rogers]

I am sure one reason for putting Matthew on 5 was his lack of recent experience at high level chess. What sort of message would it have sent out to the others if he had been placed on an unnaturally high board? ....

"That some of us remember the last occasions when England did really well (1996 and 1997), and why?"

[Jonathan Rogers]

.... unnaturally high board?

??
Look at the Elo list, at his games over the last couple of years, consider how often he plays above Gawain for Guildford?

[Mick Norris]

Some interesting board orders:
https://chess24.com/en/olympiad2014/teams/?language=en

Grischuk, Kramnik, Karjakin
Aronian on board 2
Azeri board order
Nisipeanu playing board 2 for Germany
Socko top board for Poland

[Roger de Coverly]

Some interesting board orders:
https://chess24.com/en/olympiad2014/teams/?language=en

Unless the England team have changed the board order from that announced by the ECF, the chess24.com site misrepresents the ENG order, so its reliability on other teams can be doubted.

[Jonathan Rogers]

Some interesting board orders:
https://chess24.com/en/olympiad2014/teams/?language=en

Unless the England team have changed the board order from that announced by the ECF, the chess24.com site misrepresents the ENG order, so its reliability on other teams can be doubted.

Makes sense, Aronian on board 2 for Armenia would surely be a big surprise.

[benedgell]

Just looking through the teams I noticed:

2. GM Nisipeanu Liviu-Dieter - 2696

as registered for the German team. I always thought he was Romanian? Has he transferred?

[benedgell]

On a different note, good to see female players in the Open team for Singapore, Luxembourg and Puerto Rico.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Just looking through the teams I noticed:

2. GM Nisipeanu Liviu-Dieter - 2696

as registered for the German team. I always thought he was Romanian? Has he transferred?

http://www.chessblog.com/2014/05/fide-c ... -anna.html

"Liviu-Dieter Nisipeanu who represented Romania will now play for Germany."

That blog is May 2014.

From the link provided there (FIDE federation transfers in 2014):

http://ratings.fide.com/fedchange.phtml?year=2014

It looks like someone has coughed up EUR 5000 for that transfer.

From that page I also see Heather Richards (previously ENG) has transferred to Australia.

[Lewis Martin]

Is it possible that some Black-White colour considerations come into play as well? Adams on one has to take whatever colour the draw gives him, but the others can to some extent be deployed to take advantage of Whites.

What, like yourself in Opatija? Though it was a method that worked well for us, it'd leave England a bit more predictable in the Olympiad.

Can anyone see Short just bashing out the French every game, sacrificing himself for another player to try and earn White wins, like David Howell for example?

[Lewis Martin]

One point I'd like to ask: there are some teams that are rated highly due to having a higher rating 'average' despite not all of their players being rated.

For example, Pakistan appear to only have selected one rated player, IM Mahmood Lodhi rated 2335, and their supposed average is indeed 2335. This puts them above South Africa a couple of places below them at an average of 2327, where they have all rated players, with the lowest being 2241.

Surely this is an incorrect way of going about it?

Of course, this also applies to ICCD just below South Africa too, surely these two teams are far stronger than Pakistan?

[Roger de Coverly]

One point I'd like to ask: there are some teams that are rated highly due to having a higher rating 'average' despite not all of their players being rated.

I think the site quoting the ratings isn't official. It appears to have the England board order incorrect for one thing.