2016 Olympiad - Baku

[Ian Thompson]

I actually quite like the Olympiad tie-break.

I agree, it has a major advantage: it's so unpredictable

I'd never considered that as an advantage. If that's what you want, I'm sure I could devise something even more contorted.

One unpredictable method I've seen used occasionally is to randomly decide what the tie-break method is going to be after the event has finished. You say the tie-break methods are going to be A, B and C in advance and then randomly decide after the event the order in which you apply them.

[Jonathan Rogers]

I feel quite sure that a tie break that leaves everyone unsure who will win during and even after the final round itself is unfit for purpose.

This leaves us with three main choices: result between the teams (fine, but often it will have been a draw), progressive scores or gamepoints. Progressive scores looks best to me, because there is something to be said for having to deal with the pressure of defending the lead throughout the event, and such a team is more likely to have met the strongest opponents. Gamepoints, alas, may favour the team which had a bad start and played some second rate opposition.

[IanCalvert]

Progressive scores looks best to me,

I agree. Does anyone disagree ? If that is the consensus here, maybe in the spirit of the ECF Forum and the UK punching above its weight in the world, the ECF should formally propose it to the relevant FIDE committee??

[Chris Rice]

Perhaps its the Swiss format that's the real problem. Perhaps it should be groups of 12 teams so Division 1 would be USA, Russia, China, Ukraine etc with promotion and relegation involved for the future events. I've seen similar formats in football, tennis and other sports. That way the top 12 could have an all-play-all and the disadvantages of the Swiss would be eliminated as the mismatches would disappear.

[IM Jack Rudd]

Promotion and relegation works great for inter-club events where strong players can easily find their way to the appropriate level. It's not so great for international events, because a team that suddenly becomes much better or worse can have a horrible time-lag getting to the appropriate level.

[Michael Farthing]

Personally I'd abolish tie breaks altogether and have joint winners. A single winner is only needed for sordid commercial purposes!

[Mick Norris]

I feel quite sure that a tie break that leaves everyone unsure who will win during and even after the final round itself is unfit for purpose.

This leaves us with three main choices: result between the teams (fine, but often it will have been a draw), progressive scores or gamepoints

Have the tiebreaks in that order i.e. results between the teams in the tie, then if that's level (which it wouldn't have been this time, as the US beat Ukraine) progressive scores, then gamepoints if nothing else

[Alex Holowczak]

I have no time for Buchholz either. What is wrong with total game points as the first tiebreak? I'm not suggesting it's clearly the best way of sorting out ties - in fact, I think it's a mistake to believe that such a thing exists - but it has the merits of being simple and obvious, like goal difference in football.

In football, the teams at the top tend to have a better goal difference than the teams half way up the table.

However, in the Olympiad, Bangladesh (76th) had as many gamepoints as England. So I think gamepoints is a bit too random, in a way.

[JustinHorton]

In football the teams will have played the same opponents.

[Alex Holowczak]

In football the teams will have played the same opponents.

Right. I'm not sure if you think that's an argument in favour of, or against, gamepoints. I think it's an argument against.

[Mick Norris]

Against which is presumably why an alternative was chosen

It might be a choice between something simple and unfair and something complicated but fairer

[Alex Holowczak]

It might be a choice between something simple and unfair and something complicated but fairer

I think that's an accurate summary.

I originally thought the Olympiad tie-break was bizarre, but when I actually bothered to work it out in 2014, I changed my mind. I've used it in events like the Junior 4NCL and BUCA since then; where it is essential to split the ties because I'm not keen on cutting trophies in half.

[MartinCarpenter]

I don't like tie breaks much, but that's a good reason to apply one

[Matt Mackenzie]

Nice piece by Fiona Steli-Antoni touching on some of the controversies experienced in Baku

I agree generally with everything she says. The food in my hotel was excellent, as in my team's and evidently in hers, but we did hear different stories from outlying areas.

The absurd tiebreak system is a well known horror story. Some years ago the eminent Chairmen of every technically informed Commission joined forces to try to get it changed, but Makropoulos used his personal power of diktat ( derived from where? ) to prevent it from being discussed.

Her team was fortunate not to be paired against one of the many African teams who had never left home. There is still a story to be told about that.

Any chance of telling it, then?

[NickFaulks]

Any chance of telling it, then?

Sorry, I have no confirmed facts. I just believe strongly that something happened which should not have happened, and a lot of African chess players have a right to be very cross. That number of teams being confidently expected and not showing up is more than bad luck.