European Championship - Team ENGLAND

[Mark Howitt]

Found link for teams http://chess-results.com/tnr114411.aspx

If this is true we should finish better than I thought! Instinctively thought we had strong team, and now it seems a lot of the big hitters aren't there.

[Andrew Bak]

Found link for teams http://chess-results.com/tnr114411.aspx

If this is true we should finish better than I thought! Instinctively thought we had strong team, and now it seems a lot of the big hitters aren't there.

I think the ChessResults calculator isn't quite working properly. England doesn't have a board 1 and the rest of the squad (2753, 2697, 2684, 2644, 2638) cannot average to 2695.

[LawrenceCooper]

Found link for teams http://chess-results.com/tnr114411.aspx

If this is true we should finish better than I thought! Instinctively thought we had strong team, and now it seems a lot of the big hitters aren't there.

I think the ChessResults calculator isn't quite working properly. England doesn't have a board 1 and the rest of the squad (2753, 2697, 2684, 2644, 2638) cannot average to 2695.

The top four average 2694.5 which is rounded up to 2695, I agree that there looks to be a typo on the board numbers which should be 1-5. I'm aware that David has had to contact them to have the women's team (and captain) details corrected.

[Mark Howitt]

I thought they might use the top 4 average actually... which makes us less well ranked than that list at first glance seems. And Adams and Short will lose a few points after recent performances. Still, a lot of the teams have lost big hitters, more than I'd expect. We should be aiming for a top 10 finish at least.

[Mark Howitt]

I'm looking at the teams again... and it's interesting. Interesting to see how our rivals are practically (probably actually when new rating list comes out) as strong as us even with some of their top players missing. Just shows how much strength in depth they have. Past our top five, (unless you count Sadler, who is to an extent unproven as he hasn't played a full tournament in years) we haven't got that much strength in depth- aka no players 2600 (or even close to it), or over.

Still looking forward to the champs though!

[Jonathan Rogers]

I have started a separate thread on the chess itself, due to start tomorrow. Perhaps we can go there for the chess and keep any politics in this thread? I don't think that the decision to reduce expenditure on the womens' team to the bare minimum should be forgotten, but don't want it to interfere with a "pure chess" thread.

[J T Melsom]

Given the previous debate I find it odd that the new thread makes no reference to the women's team and their chances.

[Jonathan Rogers]

Given the previous debate I find it odd that the new thread makes no reference to the women's team and their chances.

It was because I wanted to separate the politics from the chess; and I find it impossible to separate the two when assessing the prospects of the womens' team. They seem to be quite left to themselves in Warsaw: quite literally, in the sense that they flew separately from the men (by Ryanair) to a different airport from which no transfer to the venue was in operation, and they are still waiting to see whether the promised coaching via Skype can actually be delivered at the hotel (because everyone tries to use Facebook/Skype at the same time). It is hard to be too optimistic in such circumstances, and my concern is that if they underperform (according to ratings) it will be used by some to defend the apparent lack of interest in womens' chess.

[Angus French]

Given the previous debate I find it odd that the new thread makes no reference to the women's team and their chances.

It was because I wanted to separate the politics from the chess; and I find it impossible to separate the two when assessing the prospects of the womens' team. They seem to be quite left to themselves in Warsaw: quite literally, in the sense that they flew separately from the men (by Ryanair) to a different airport from which no transfer to the venue was in operation, and they are still waiting to see whether the promised coaching via Skype can actually be delivered at the hotel (because everyone tries to use Facebook/Skype at the same time). It is hard to be too optimistic in such circumstances, and my concern is that if they underperform (according to ratings) it will be used by some to defend the apparent lack of interest in womens' chess.

I guess they were going to have to travel separately given the late arrangements. Perhaps the non-playing Open team player could help with preparation/coaching (and maybe this could also end up being good for his own preparation)?

[Mark Howitt]

Best of luck to England. We have the strongest team ready for years. Will be watching.

[Mark Howitt]

Don't get the decision not to play Adams in this game- in a post before I stated that I hoped we'd play our strongest team but then edited it because team already published. Games looking drawish now and it'd be nice to win this match.

[Roger de Coverly]

Don't get the decision not to play Adams in this game-

It's the first round and England are one of the top seeds. If they perform to seeding, facing the 4*2500 of the Poland third team is going to be the lowest rated opposition they face. So if you are not intending to ask your top board to play every match, resting him for the first round is a standard tactic. The competition is determined by match points rather than board points, so running up 4-0 scores isn't necessary.

[Mark Howitt]

Ideally if I was the captain I would play Adams every game if he felt like it. There are rest days and I don't get this theory about players being 'tired'. Important to get the team off to a win... if the team doesn't win this game it will be a bad decision because with him playing we would have been more likely to win.

[Mark Howitt]

Some closely fought games today! France only drew and looks like other high seeds may not win.

[Alex Holowczak]

France only drew and looks like other high seeds may not win.

France won 2.5-1.5 according to the latest results on the website?