Tentative conclusions at the end of the Olympiad

[Lewis Martin]

One thing that you notice going through these, that while Board 2 is a problem for some reason, Jones and Short rack up wins while on lower boards.

So it kind of re-iterates mine and Jonathan's earlier point (before the Olympiad started!) with regards to Sadler being on board 2. Where Howell comes into it with regards to being board 3/4/5 I don't know. I think he actually does slightly better against higher rated opposition than Short (in recent years) and Jones. Anyway, all this is immaterial until the next Olympiad or European Championships.

In the case that we are missing some players and there is a board 5 spot available for those below 2600, would Hawkins be considered? Or is it going to be between the likes of Pert and Hebden? Going for 'youth' would make Yang-Fan Zhou (or even James Adair!) an interesting choice. However on the face of the British, Hawkins deserves an opportunity.

[Jonathan Rogers]

Chris suggests that people are having a go at Gawain. I don't think that is the case; for my part at least I blamed the selectors for putting him on board two in the first place.

I do stick with the idea that Sadler should have been on board two. It would have been a tough ask for a part-timer, but if we think that he would have done the best (on that particular board) then that is really all there is to it. Again, we should start from the point that we are just one of 25 good teams now, and not a medal contender, and that our priority is to avoid any player having a disaster (since that is so much more costly than having anyone in good form is helpful). Once you conclude that Sadler, on account of his respectable White repertoire and previous Olmpiad performamnce, was the least likely to have a disaster on board two, then you should put him there, and not on board five in the hope that he might rack up points on bottom board.

[NickFaulks]

then you should put him there, and not on board five in the hope that he might rack up points on bottom board.

...although after he had won his first four games it wasn't looking such a bad idea.

[Chris Rice]

Whoever we put on Board 2, McShane/Short/Jones/Sadler/Howell would have come with a down side. Luke couldn't make it anyway but he's not full time and would have been likely to struggle. Nigel had other distractions but says its more than that and he's badly off form over the last year or so, Gawain is probably playing a board too high at 2, Matthew is only just coming back into chess and David in the lead up to the tournament didn't look in-form and with his chronic time trouble there was a risk he could have ended up with an appalling score.
I can see the argument for putting Matthew on Board 2 but if it didn't work it could have crushed his confidence when he's not fully played in yet. Even as Board 5 he was flagging towards the end which does imply he's not back to his best yet. Gawain was at least willing to give it a go and for me was the best bad option.
The real crux of the issue is that we don't have many to pick from and there's no-one coming through to 2650+

[Lewis Martin]

The real crux of the issue is that we don't have many to pick from and there's no-one coming through to 2650+

Indeed, and it is very hard to foresee ten years since it is a very long time in chess. I'm just going to throw it out there anyway:

http://ratings.fide.com/topfed.phtml?ina=1&country=ENG

Picking out the 2600+ players:

Short: 1965
Adams: 1971
Sadler: 1974
Jones: 1987
Howell: 1990
McShane: 1984

3 of those players will be 50-60. Without meaning to show disrespect to those players, but it is not a good sign with regards to the pool of strong English players if they remain the obvious choices for squad selections. I can see Adams remaining a top class player however he won't be as the same I think.

Looking at the Under 30's:
Gordon: 2497
Ghasi: 2475
Zhou: 2475
Trent: 2473
Adair: 2420
Roberson: 2403
Eggleston: 2398
Rendle: 2392
Kilpatrick: 2350
Buckley (Simon): 2345

These players are in the top 50 as it stands. Adding in Jones, Howell and McShane for 30 and under, there are only 13 players in the top 50 in England.

Granted, there may be a few talented youngsters coming through, but it is not a guarantee to make it to being titled players. I'm sure there are a few more coming through such as James Jackson, Alan Merry, Isaac Sanders and Matthew Wadsworth (wonder where he will end up in ten years!).

I am sure it has been highlighted again and again, but we may have to wait until the new crop of players for the pool of Olympiad standard players to increase.

[Roger de Coverly]

I can see Adams remaining a top class player however he won't be as the same I think.

Portisch, born in 1937, was still playing in the Hungary team as late as 2000. He was accompanied by then young world class players in Leko, Almasi and Polgar.

[Matt Mackenzie]

I can see Adams remaining a top class player however he won't be as the same I think.

Portisch, born in 1937, was still playing in the Hungary team as late as 2000. He was accompanied by then young world class players in Leko, Almasi and Polgar.

He used to hold the record for the most Olympiad appearances - until Eugenio Torre caught up, and then surpassed him this year.

[Alistair Campbell]

(And if Jonathan wants to do more analysis, what about Scotland...)

I haven’t done any analysis but here are some thoughts – apologies for the length of this post.

I don’t know what goals were set, and to what extent such goals were consistent with any short- medium- or long- term strategy of Chess Scotland.

With the benefit of 5 minutes’ thought I would have set something along the following:

Team

• Win a medal (hah!)
• Finish above nth place
• Beat a good team
• Give a good team a fright
• Play a good team (always generates a bit of interest for the folks back home)
• Beat the English
• Finish above the Welsh and Irish
• Finish above seeding

Individual

• Win a board prize
• Win a title
• Get a norm
• Be within a shout of getting a norm
• Beat a good player
• Give a good player a fright
• Get to play a good player
• Outperform

Clearly some of these need to be made more specific,

In practice (dependent on seeding) we probably expect an easy round 1 win, then a brief shot at glory against a top seed followed by a lot of bumbling around the middle of the pack. Although it is a team game, and theoretically one might expect individual goals to be sacrificed for the good of the team, in practice I can’t get that that worked up about whether we finish 40th or 140th and whether that is above seeding or not. It’s always going to be a bit mid-table. Similarly, if a player scores +0.5 compared with expected rather than -0.5 doesn’t make me want to take to the streets in celebration or protest, so I would be happy to see singular achievements prioritised if necessary.

Although I enjoyed the coverage and some of the individual games, there were few particular highlights – probably restricted to Colin drawing with Mamedyarov and Andrew and Elaine being in the running for a norm for a bit.

However, It would probably be unfair to measure performance against goals that may not have been set (and in the lack of knowledge of conditions and events out there.)

I’m intrigued by the concept of a development squad – from a remote spectator’s point of view, it might be more interesting seeing a subset of Tate, Sreeves, MacQueen, Green, Redpath, Bamber or McClement getting a go (apologies to candidates I have omitted), although how that would fit in with a long-term strategy I’m not sure. At the moment it seems the target is to take part and send our strongest available team as measured by current rating.