Questions on ECF Team Selection

[George Bland]

Hi all,
Thank you everyone who voted for me in the recent gold members representative elections, unfortunately I was not successful but I have faith in our elective representatives to do a good job.

With the soon upcoming Olympiad, for which I wish the England team all the best in, it has brought the question of team selection to many people's minds. For me personally I was disappointed to see how opaque the selection was, with it being purely a committee selection. No matter how unbiased people might be, I think that people should never be deciding who gets through to things like this, in the modern day team decisions like this should be made based on fair and transparent criteria such as rating and recent national tournament performances such as the British Championship.

Of course this extends to other England team selections than the Olympiad, and I would appreciate it if others could share their experiences and thoughts on the matter.

[Roger de Coverly]

in the modern day team decisions like this should be made based on fair and transparent criteria such as rating and recent national tournament performances such as the British Championship.

Why? Surely the selection should be of the team most likely to score the most points and have the best chance of winning the event. Isn't that the case for all sporting teams representing England at the highest levels, rather than a formula?

[John Reyes]

I reckon Nigel Povah is probably the best person to ask.

I put 'top 10 chess players over 50 in England' into AI and this was the list it came up with. Mind you, some people use AI on their photos these days, so they don't always look their age!" (have a look at the board and officers on the ecf page)

Top English Over-50 Players (2026)

GM Michael Adams (54)

Rating: ~2595
Former world title candidate and still England's strongest over-50 player.

GM Nigel Short (61)

Rating: ~2594
Former World Championship challenger and one of England's greatest ever players.

GM John Nunn (71)

Rating: ~2512
Legendary grandmaster, mathematician, and one of the strongest senior players in the world.

GM Stuart Conquest (59)

Rating: ~2506
Regular member of England's senior teams and one of the country's strongest veteran competitors.

GM Jonathan Parker (50)

Rating: ~2498
Just qualifies for the over-50 category and remains a very strong grandmaster.

GM Jon Speelman (69)

Rating: ~2495
Former world top-10 player and a celebrated chess writer and commentator.

GM William Watson (64)

Rating: ~2468
Long-time English grandmaster.

GM John Emms (59)

Rating: ~2427
Grandmaster, author, and key member of England's senior squads.

GM Daniel Gormally (50)

Rating: ~2393
Still an active and dangerous tournament player.

GM Keith Arkell (65)

Rating: ~2390
Famous for his endgame skill and longevity at the top level.

[Alex Holowczak]

For me personally I was disappointed to see how opaque the selection was, with it being purely a committee selection.

How do you think England's cricket team is selected? Or our football team? Or our rugby team?

I am not saying that selection-by-committee is the only way of doing it, but whenever I read something like "fair and transparent criteria", all that tends to happen when you establish them is that the argument changes from "you should establish some fair and transparent criteria!" to "those are the wrong fair and transparent criteria!" So if the idea is to stop (potential) arguments, it doesn't achieve that. It just changes what the arguments are about.

[Thomas Rendle]

Hi all,
Thank you everyone who voted for me in the recent gold members representative elections, unfortunately I was not successful but I have faith in our elective representatives to do a good job.

With the soon upcoming Olympiad, for which I wish the England team all the best in, it has brought the question of team selection to many people's minds. For me personally I was disappointed to see how opaque the selection was, with it being purely a committee selection. No matter how unbiased people might be, I think that people should never be deciding who gets through to things like this, in the modern day team decisions like this should be made based on fair and transparent criteria such as rating and recent national tournament performances such as the British Championship.

Of course this extends to other England team selections than the Olympiad, and I would appreciate it if others could share their experiences and thoughts on the matter.

A fair question, but it seems like a very complicated issue to me.

Rating can be seen as the easiest to understand, so there can be a temptation to pick pretty much on that alone - after all it's a clear number.

It's all very well having the British as some kind of selection event, but it's often past the date of the selection. Do you then go with the previous year's event?

Is there any reason the British or English Championship should be given more weight than say the London Classic (Elite or Open)? Or any other strong International Open?

Does general form enter into it? Suppose player 'A' was 2550 and is has a poor run and is now 2530, player 'B' was 2500 and is now 2520 - who is the stronger player?

Number of games played in a season? Should there be a minimum level, or simply the more the better?

Should age be a factor? It could be pretty tempting to select and young and 'improving' player over someone older. How much weight can this be given? 10 rating points? 25? 50? None at all?

What about getting on with the rest of the team and other less tangible factors? They might be considered unimportant, but it's almost always a consideration in any sport (see Jordan Henderson selected for England World Cup squad for example).

There are probably more factors if you want to get into it (ability to beat lower rated players, preferences for White/Black, experience playing elite or 2600+ opposition etc.)

How much weight should be given to all these factors? I guess this is what a committee is there to decide. I can't imagine it would be realistically possible to write out guidelines on all of the above that everyone will agree on. I don't mean to knock the suggestion, merely to point out that it's not an easy issue.

[Kevin Thurlow]

Whatever method you use will be influenced by personal likes and dislikes on occasions. I suspect it happens more in junior chess. I gave the bye to a junior in a tournament, as they were the lowest-scoring player, and then was confronted by an obnoxious parent ranting that their child was practising to play in a World Junior Championship. I politely explained (whilst thinking, "they can't be the best junior in their age group") and the parent stormed off, dragging the silent junior behind them. About six months later, said junior was named as the ENG player for the World Junior event. That seemed a bit of a delay, so I searched and found to my amazement (ok, not really), that the parent was on the selection committee... I recall with school sports that certain junior organizers (of chess, cricket, hockey, rugby etc) would only select players they were coaching, or those from certain schools.

There have always been cases of players not being selected as "their face doesn't fit".

[Roger de Coverly]

Whatever method you use will be influenced by personal likes and dislikes on occasions. I suspect it happens more in junior chess.

Junior selection has long been an area where ECF policy has varied over the years and where periodic rows break out. At one extreme you may have a policy of only selecting players thought likely to be in contention and not entering if there isn't anyone thought good enough. At the other extreme you send anyone whose family or other sources can finance the trip.

Team events can be slightly different as unless, as in the Seniors, you are allowed multiple teams, they impose both a minimum and maximum head count.

[JustinHorton]

Surely the selection should be of the team most likely to score the most points

Possibly, but not "surely"

and have the best chance of winning the event

In the case of the Olympiad this is "nil" so I do not see relevance

[Rob Coles]

In fairness to the current ECF team, there is a written policy on junior selection that anyone can read: https://www.englishchess.org.uk/Juniors ... on-policy/

There was an hour-long interview with Tim Wall on the subject here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8a8_8pApuw

I'm not sufficiently interested or invested in junior chess to have watched the whole thing, but I do distinctly recall that in the opening remarks Tim explains why these policies have now been put in place and what they're designed to achieve/avoid. We can take that as some acknowledgement of the issues mentioned above but this all looks like very significant progress to me.

[NickFaulks]

Surely the selection should be of the team most likely to score the most points

Possibly, but not "surely"

I agree. With England's second-greatest generation becoming slowly but remorselessly older, less active and weaker, consideration should be given to priority for players who have ambition to make their living through playing chess. If that reduces our expected outcome from 15th to 22nd, then so be it.

When Nikita Vitiugov ( of whom I have no criticism ) was brought in, I did suggest that the first observable result would be that Shreyas' entry to the national team would be delayed.

[Matt Mackenzie]

When Nikita Vitiugov ( of whom I have no criticism ) was brought in, I did suggest that the first observable result would be that Shreyas' entry to the national team would be delayed.

Yes, but surely not for very long.

[NickFaulks]

Yes, but surely not for very long.

Three years and counting...

[LawrenceCooper]

Yes, but surely not for very long.

Three years and counting...

Shreyas did play in the 2025 European Team though.

[Barbara Farrar]

Thank you George, and I think you raise a very fair point.

For me, the main issue is not necessarily whether the selectors have chosen the strongest possible team, but whether Gold members and the wider chess community can clearly understand how those decisions have been reached.

I would certainly welcome more transparency around the selection criteria, whether that includes rating, recent form, performances in major events such as the British Championship, international experience, or a combination of those things.

I also think it would be useful to hear from players who have previously been involved in England team selection, particularly those who may have been close to selection themselves, so we can understand how the present system works in practice.

Whatever our individual views on the final team, I think having clear and published criteria would give players greater confidence in the process and perhaps also give younger and improving players something definite to aim towards.

And of course, I wish the England team every success at the Olympiad.

[Roger de Coverly]

I would certainly welcome more transparency around the selection criteria, whether that includes rating, recent form, performances in major events such as the British Championship, international experience, or a combination of those things.

As a Gold representative, I think you would have the power to compel a discussion on the subject at the ECF AGM.

But as pointed out by one of the directors, outsiders are not given a say in the selection of the England football, cricket, rugby teams etc.

As far as the 2026 open Olympiad team is concerned, I would regard four of the five as automatic selections when available with the fifth a plausible judgement call.