England teams for the Chess Olympiad

[MJMcCready]

Our players seem to be getting worse. We don't even have anyone over 2700 anymore.

[LawrenceCooper]

Our players seem to be getting worse. We don't even have anyone over 2700 anymore.

You haven't been following Gawain Jones in the past three months then

[MJMcCready]

Oh, so there's him over the 2700 barrier. That's good for him because he's been stuck around 2650-2670 for a good while. I'm assuming he is alone in such an achievement?

Just checked via FIDE, they have him at 2640!

[LawrenceCooper]

Oh, so there's him over the 2700 barrier. That's good for him because he's been stuck around 2650-2670 for a good while. I'm assuming he is alone in such an achievement?

Just checked via FIDE, they have him at 2640!

If you can't see the positives in what he has achieved given his personal circumstances then you are one very sick individual.

[MJMcCready]

You are missing the point.

[LawrenceCooper]

You are missing the point.

There is a difference between missing the point and having a different view to yours. I gave one example of a player who is not getting worse.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I think MJM thought you meant Gawain had gone over 2700 (I initially thought you meant that as well). I don't see any indication that MJM was denigrating Gawain's rise in rating.

Any thoughts on board order for the Olympiad, or is that too obvious?

[IM Jack Rudd]

They span 61 points, which is close enough that pretty much any board order would look legitimate. I would look at their respective skills as heffalump-trappers and rabbit-catchers, and sort based on that.

[MJMcCready]

You've been reading Chess for tigers. So why is everyone under 2700 now then?

[MJMcCready]

You are missing the point.

There is a difference between missing the point and having a different view to yours. I gave one example of a player who is not getting worse.

I never said he was getting worse and that wasn't the point. I was referring to those who were over 2700, and for some time, and why they have all dropped under it around the same time. Jones never got that high hence my point.

[Ian Thompson]

I never said he was getting worse and that wasn't the point. I was referring to those who were over 2700, and for some time, and why they have all dropped under it around the same time. Jones never got that high hence my point.

Yes, he did. He was 2702 in May 2019 and 2709 in June 2019.

[MJMcCready]

Oops, apologies then. Didn't know that.

[Mick Norris]

They span 61 points, which is close enough that pretty much any board order would look legitimate. I would look at their respective skills as heffalump-trappers and rabbit-catchers, and sort based on that.

Presumably some players are happier on a higher or lower board

Last Euros was Vitiugov, Howell, Adams, McShane

Last Olympiad was Adams, McShane, Howell, Jones

Not sure if there's any conclusions to be drawn from those

Are potential colours an issue i.e. you don't want 2 solid players getting the 2 whites maybe, and that mitigates against certain combinations? I realise you're only choosing 4 from 5, so that might not be a major issue

[Ian Thompson]

They span 61 points, which is close enough that pretty much any board order would look legitimate. I would look at their respective skills as heffalump-trappers and rabbit-catchers, and sort based on that.

That would be tricky to do with any success because you've no way of knowing other teams' board orders.

As there isn't much to choose between all the players there might be an argument for putting the player you expect to play least often on Board 1 to disrupt opposing teams' preparation.

[Matt Mackenzie]

You've been reading Chess for tigers. So why is everyone under 2700 now then?

Adams is getting older, and nobody else is quite as consistently good as him?