OLYMPIAD 2008 :):)

[Mick Norris]

Pretty much spot on, Tim.

Seems to me people are making a meal of this. It's becoming more elaborate than a conclave of Cardinals for the election of a Pope. For heaven's sake, any three men and a dog could have selected the current Olympiad team - actually, hold the three men.

Actually, our dog would have picked Arkell, but that's because Keith is the only GM he has met (in fact, he's looking forward to seeing him tomorrow)

[Peter Sowray]

I’ve just noticed this thread, and in particular some of the comments about the International Selectors. Whilst I should point out that I had no involvement in the selection of the Dresden teams, I can give you some background on the composition of the current selection panel.

The seven selectors were appointed by me in late 2006, shortly after I became International Director. The backdrop was that the selection for the men’s team for the Turin Olympiad had caused considerable controversy, as some of you will recall. Irrespective of whether the Turin decision was right or wrong, after speaking to all involved it was clear to me that the process itself was flawed.

At the time I felt it was important to find a group of selectors who would been seen as credible to our elite players. I wanted the panel to have a blend of experience and viewpoints, to include strong players with knowledge of both the men’s and women’s scene, and to be beyond any allegations of regional or other bias. It was also possible to imagine circumstances where one or more of the selectors would themselves be candidates for selection and would therefore want to withdraw from discussions.

I can say that, without exception, the selectors took their responsibilities extremely seriously and offered me invaluable help and advice while I was ID, for which I remain grateful. We worked together on the selection for the 2007 European Team Championships and the 2008 Quadrangular team competition in Oslo and shared ideas on how the ECF could better support our elite players.

I hope this helps.

Peter

[Jonathan Rogers]

I'm a bit surprised that David, who riles against so much ECF inefficiency, would be happy for us to install a dog to select our Olympiad team. I don't think all of the choices are obvious. We have argued on the reserve (and I think it did matter if only a bit - we could see that Gawain was tiring towards the end, but even those who supported Conquest's selection as a reserve didn't seem to want him to play at that stage) and the captaincy is not necessarily self-selective. Moreover, I think it is a matter of respect, not least for some of the players who are trying to make a living out of the game (these being the people most keenly fighting for that reserve spot, it seems to me) for properly qualified people to decide the matter.

Why insist on a degree (OR professional qualification, which I added in acknowledgement of the fact that it is only recently that it has become "normal" for a young person to go to University)? One might just as well ask the opposite, of course, but my answer is this - the position is one of responsibility and may require selectors to follow certain criteria, ignore factors which are not strictly relevant and ideally to articulate reasons for their decisions. Graduates are more likely to be trained to do that. Is that really just my experience?

Personally, I would think that the selectors should pick the team and the reserve, then the captain (applying different criteria to this role, because indeed it should not be a consolation prize for some one who just missed selection). But perhaps the selectors should not decide board order before selecting the captain - I can see why the captain would want some input at that stage.

[JustinHorton]

the position is one of responsibility and may require selectors to follow certain criteria, ignore factors which are not strictly relevant and ideally to articulate reasons for their decisions. Graduates are more likely to be trained to do that. Is that really just my experience?

At the very least, I wouldn't have thought that those qualities were so rare among non-graduates as to make it a useful criterion.

[Richard Bates]

Surely the only real key criteria for a selection panel is that those with a claim to selection have confidence in the selection team, in the sense that they can trust that their case will be heard fairly, and that the selection will be based solid grounds and free from personal bias (conscious or subconscious)?

The process should also be transparent so that the criteria/basis for selection is laid down clearly with the aim of ensuring that those not selected have no justified grievance with the outcome. And after every tournament there should be a review of the criteria against team performance, with a view to altering the criteria should they be found to be deficient.

[David Robertson]

I'm a bit surprised that David, who riles against so much ECF inefficiency, would be happy for us to install a dog to select our Olympiad team

And, boy, do I rile

But to be clear, making no mistake in what I mean: I'd be happy to see a dog installed as President of ECF, so much improvement is needed. No need elsewhere on the Board: we already are awash with poodles.

On a sober note, Richard makes the right point: any selection process must command the respect of those available for selection - and, it might be added, retain credibiity among the informed and committed 'unwashed'

David
Atticus CC

[Peter Sowray]

Surely the only real key criteria for a selection panel is that those with a claim to selection have confidence in the selection team, in the sense that they can trust that their case will be heard fairly, and that the selection will be based solid grounds and free from personal bias (conscious or subconscious)?

The process should also be transparent so that the criteria/basis for selection is laid down clearly with the aim of ensuring that those not selected have no justified grievance with the outcome. And after every tournament there should be a review of the criteria against team performance, with a view to altering the criteria should they be found to be deficient.

Richard,

I pretty much agree. Back in 2007, I wrote some selection criteria ... here:-

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/organisa ... _jan07.htm

There was some deliberate vagueness to allow the selectors some wriggle room.

I don't know whether they are still in force.

Peter

[David Robertson]

Those criteria seem unusually sane for ECF, including the 'Gormally clause'.

Are they still in force? Who knows. Did Holloid offer a plastic version?

David
Atticus CC

[Richard Bates]

Surely the only real key criteria for a selection panel is that those with a claim to selection have confidence in the selection team, in the sense that they can trust that their case will be heard fairly, and that the selection will be based solid grounds and free from personal bias (conscious or subconscious)?

The process should also be transparent so that the criteria/basis for selection is laid down clearly with the aim of ensuring that those not selected have no justified grievance with the outcome. And after every tournament there should be a review of the criteria against team performance, with a view to altering the criteria should they be found to be deficient.

Richard,

I pretty much agree. Back in 2007, I wrote some selection criteria ... here:-

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/organisa ... _jan07.htm

There was some deliberate vagueness to allow the selectors some wriggle room.

I don't know whether they are still in force.

Peter

Peter,

Seem reasonable as a starting point. Of course the question then arises about whether these criteria are too simplistic in the light of the experience of eg. this Olympiad - hence the need for regular review. It is fair to say that the criteria given make no allowance for playing styles, or the "youth" factor - both of which have been raised in debate on this thread. It may be decided that, especially in the case of the former, that such matters are too subjective to be included. There may also be a case for taking past performance into account (how long do we go on picking Alex Bogdanovic? ). Ultimately one could end up with some sort of weighted criteria to take all relevant factors into account (there obviously may be others). The problem i guess is that when the evidence of rating is clear the team picks itself, and when it isn't (eg. board 5 in Dresden) the instinct will be too go for the "obvious" choice to avoid dispute. When you introduce more criteria you introduce more potential for subjectivity to creep in (and consequently loss of confidence in the process).

The youth factor cited of course is slightly different - that comes down to what the purpose of selection is. Is it to pick the strongest team regardless, or is it to balance the desire for the strongest team possible with the need to give valuable experience to younger players with an eye on being competitive in the future? (of course such "bias" towards youth, if incorporated into selection policy, should only be made to distinguish between players with fairly evenly matched claims on other criteria).

One final, perhaps unconventional, option (especially in the latter scenario) is to leave the final decision to the player(s) selected. It may be completely stupid in thinking that a selected player might voluntarily step aside for a another player, but the case could be put on a "no pressure" basis. ie. the chosen team is selected on quite rigid criteria, but the process allows for altruism among those selected to result in a stronger team to emerge. But this is just the idealist amateur in me talking

[Matthew Turner]

Richard,
I think the point as regards youth is quite subtle. There is an argument that we select a young team to build for the future. This was an argument put forward (quite rightly in my opinion) for the selection of the quadrangular team. However, it is quite difficult to predict who will be the strongest players in four or even two year's time and new people are always emerging and I am not sure this would be the right approach for selecting the Olympiad Team.

However, the last few Olympiads have shown that young teams tend to outperform their older counterparts. Therefore, there is an argument for saying that because of the pressure, nature of preparation, time controls or whatever, the objective strength of younger players increases relative to older ones. We could consider this simply by subtracting a player's age from their rating when making selections. Would this be the right approach - well, I'm not sure!

[Richard Bates]

Richard,
I think the point as regards youth is quite subtle. There is an argument that we select a young team to build for the future. This was an argument put forward (quite rightly in my opinion) for the selection of the quadrangular team. However, it is quite difficult to predict who will be the strongest players in four or even two year's time and new people are always emerging and I am not sure this would be the right approach for selecting the Olympiad Team.

However, the last few Olympiads have shown that young teams tend to outperform their older counterparts. Therefore, there is an argument for saying that because of the pressure, nature of preparation, time controls or whatever, the objective strength of younger players increases relative to older ones. We could consider this simply by subtracting a player's age from their rating when making selections. Would this be the right approach - well, I'm not sure!

Yeah, you'll notice i did argue that the presumption for youth should only be made in the case where two players are otherwise fairly well matched. I don't think Youth can be used to overcome a difference of 30-40 rating points.

[Kevin Thurlow]

It was not that long ago that being a graduate of Oxford or Cambridge was a requirement for selection!
I would have thought for the "Olympiad", which is the most important competition, you must pick what you think to be the best team from players qualified to represent England. You can't predict who will have a nightmare or play 200 points above their rating..... You can experiment in other events.
I would also have thought there is a case for saying the reigning British (English?) champion automatically gets a spot - it might encourage entries? In golf, the Ryder Cup selections are a hybrid of "Order of Merit" and captain's picks..... You could always have a get-out clause relating to "disciplinary" matters, so you could fiddle it to have who you liked. Like if a player punches someone at a tournament, you have the option to not select them, but you might anyway if it didn't "hit" the front pages!

On an entirely different matter, I was delighted to see 1.e4 e5, 2.Nf3 f6 being played at the Olympiad.

[Tim Spanton]

Someone said you choose the top 5 on the rating list? I think this is a bit well. I think if you had an IM who went from 2400 to 2520 and you have a 2525 bog standard player, you choose the IM on grounds of potential even after selection and also long term.

Another way of looking at it is that you choose the "bog standard" 2525 player because the player's rating is higher and was likely achieved against players of roughly the same strength, while the IM who went from 2400 to 2520 probably did it against weaker opposition than the 2525 faced.

[Roger de Coverly]

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.

For amateur players in employment ( which includes many of the female players and a couple of GMs), I could believe that they could afford two weeks off work for either the British or the Olympiad but not both.

As a guess Stuart C's British Championship victory was a possible tie break amongst a number of plausible candidates for the bottom board slot.

[Ben Purton]

Lets take a situation here

England have Adams Short and 2x2700's

They have a choice between Matt Sadler(ignoring inactive), lets assume hes a "bog standard" as Tim put 2625. And you have Howell. From what most people on the forum have said you guys would choose Sadler at 2625 standard... Or any 2625 for that fact.

You cannot say David doesnt have youth on his side. Tims point about getting to 2600 like David did by playing lower rated players is true. But you would have to take in who these players are? All juniors themselves and underrated.

I think everyone knows minimum 5 players underrated by 50 ELO/10 ECF. Therefore 30-40 points can be taken in to account especially in a circumstance like the hypothetical one above.


I think you would have to choose Howell. There are evidence which is too strong to suggest this not the correct board 5 strategy. In one word , Israel. Israel had many many options for board 5, they choose Max, a 2600 "junior" Over 2651 former European champion aswell as alot of other 2580+'s(more experienced players). Guess what they won silver, guess what Maxim coming in for a out of form 2600 won them the medal.

Also David beat Maxim in the worlds. I do therefore think there are situations where juniors or younger players should be selected and that 30-40 points is perfectly normal amount to be swayed by age. Other countries have adopted this in the olympiad. Germany being another.

As for the British championship. I think this is totally invalid as a selection tool. You cant give a place in a side on one performance. I think thats really poor. Everyone has a big tourn once in a while but you cant consider that your base standard. Gawain was in that tournament. Gawain is a better player than Conquest. Gawain played to his rating and didnt have the greatest of tourns. I think Ste Gordon should go to the next olympiad if he is 2530 GM. Unless someone comes from out the clouds as Matt has already pointed out.


Ben