England teams for 2011 European Team Championship

[Roger de Coverly]

Personally, I`d like to see this reformated as a 6 or 7 board event..and I`d also like to see the present UK teams replaced by a combined UK team, on the basis that each of our `home` countries is allocated at least one board. ie, at present that might mean England taking say 4 boards, & Scotland, Wales, and N Ireland taking 1 each..if seven board teams. (Maybe Scotland might claim 2 boards).

It's hardly likely that the rest of Europe would agree to such a suggestion and even if they did, such a team would be permanently handicapped by certainly the Welsh and Irish players and probably the Scots player as well.

[Alex Holowczak]

I agree with much of Richard's analysis - these events are particuarly difficult for captains.

There seem to be very different ways of captaining these events.

Armenia always pick their top 4; only using their reserve for "easy" games to rest other players.

Azerbaijan have picked their top 3 in every game, and rotated their bottom two players who are of a similar standard.

Scotland seem to be playing on a rotation basis, but of course they have very different aims; i.e. they're "amateurs" who aren't playing for a win, but are looking to give everyone a game.

[Richard Bates]

I agree with much of Richard's analysis - these events are particuarly difficult for captains.

There seem to be very different ways of captaining these events.

Armenia always pick their top 4; only using their reserve for "easy" games to rest other players.

Azerbaijan have picked their top 3 in every game, and rotated their bottom two players who are of a similar standard.

Scotland seem to be playing on a rotation basis, but of course they have very different aims; i.e. they're "amateurs" who aren't playing for a win, but are looking to give everyone a game.

There is a big difference between 9 round and 13 round events. (What is the Olympiad these days - 11?). The other thing is that with the current format there is very rarely such a thing as an "easy game" for a team of England's strength.

My argument about 4 boards was that (illness notwithstanding) it could actually be better for the team to only have 4 players in a shorter event. There's no time for players to worry about whether they are playing badly or not, they just have to get on with it! Of course this is effectively the Armenian approach cited above, so you can have 5 boards as long as their is no expectation from the 5th player of playing more than a handful of games.

Anyway who was involved in the touch/move controversy yesterday?

[LozCooper]

Anyway who was involved in the touch/move controversy yesterday?

I will comment on that after the tournament apart from to say that we were sinned against rather than sinners. What the arbiter doesn't see the player gets away with

[Richard Bates]

Anyway who was involved in the touch/move controversy yesterday?

I will comment on that after the tournament apart from to say that we were sinned against rather than sinners. What the arbiter doesn't see the player gets away with

J'adoube.

[Ola Winfridsson]

Mark: If we look at the starting rank table, http://www.chess-results.com/tnr57856.a ... ES&flag=30
we can see that England are ranked 8th, Poland ranked 14th is a mere 21 Elo points on average lower than the England team, and Hungary, seeded 5th, are 23 Elo points higher than England on average (i.e. a difference in strength as insignificant as to make hardly any difference). Georgia seeded 20th have a E2600 average, so clearly no mugs.

As Jonathan Rogers points out (and has pointed previously), in the 1980s England had only one Soviet Union to contend with, apart from a couple of other strong Eastern European teams, primarily Hungary and Yugoslavia, in a European perspective. Today, the top four teams are all former Soviet republics, and several other Eastern European teams have improved greatly since the fall of the Berlin wall. Poland, which beat England 3-1 the other day, is an excellent case in point. 20-25 years ago, they would have been considered fairly easy pickings for England (in actual fact they probably wouldn't have been able to field a team with all four boards above E2500 and no one above E2600), today they're all above E2600, including the reserve.

The long and short of it is that, whereas in the past you always had a few reasonably easy rabbits, today England are basically playing the likes of 1980s Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and Hungary teams more or less every single round. That's tough and if one or two players aren't firing on all cylinders, then a team is likely to struggle. Ukraine (4 out of 5 above E2700) seems to have an entire squad off their form at the moment!

[Jonathan Rogers]

... oh, and we're not necessarily the best West European country either! France may have that role now, and Spain too are starting to reap the rewards of their years of investment, and heavens, even Italy are making results now. And we shouldn't underestimate the Greeks ... nor would 2-2 draws with Denmark or Sweden be disgraceful results ....

[Alex Holowczak]

There is a big difference between 9 round and 13 round events. (What is the Olympiad these days - 11?). The other thing is that with the current format there is very rarely such a thing as an "easy game" for a team of England's strength.

The Olympiad is 11; but it has two rest days. It seems easier to me to play 11 rounds in 13 days than 9 rounds in 9 days.

My argument about 4 boards was that (illness notwithstanding) it could actually be better for the team to only have 4 players in a shorter event. There's no time for players to worry about whether they are playing badly or not, they just have to get on with it! Of course this is effectively the Armenian approach cited above, so you can have 5 boards as long as their is no expectation from the 5th player of playing more than a handful of games.

In that case, we can save some money while we're at it (assuming it isn't funded externally, of course). Only take 4 players, and make Loz our board 5 and captain.

[Sean Hewitt]

In that case, we can save some money while we're at it (assuming it isn't funded externally, of course). Only take 4 players, and make Loz our board 5 and captain.

I reckon at least one person would object to this suggestion

[Ola Winfridsson]

... oh, and we're not necessarily the best West European country either! France may have that role now, and Spain too are starting to reap the rewards of their years of investment, and heavens, even Italy are making results now. And we shouldn't underestimate the Greeks ... nor would 2-2 draws with Denmark or Sweden be disgraceful results ....

All very true. England's "demise" (if we really can talk in those terms) could potentially be seen as the disadvantage of being first. The English chess explosion of the 70s and 80s probably proved to others in Western Europe that it was possible to contend with the top teams, and now England are one among many more or less equals.

[Richard Bates]

... oh, and we're not necessarily the best West European country either! France may have that role now, and Spain too are starting to reap the rewards of their years of investment, and heavens, even Italy are making results now. And we shouldn't underestimate the Greeks ... nor would 2-2 draws with Denmark or Sweden be disgraceful results ....

All very true. England's "demise" (if we really can talk in those terms) could potentially be seen as the disadvantage of being first. The English chess explosion of the 70s and 80s probably proved to others in Western Europe that it was possible to contend with the top teams, and now England are one among many more or less equals.

Maybe. I suspect the improvement in many Western countries has a lot to do with a combination of firstly ex-Soviet emigres, and latterly significant state (local and/or central govt) investment. With the isolated exception of a few local councils, English chess has i would guess rarely been sustained by public money (and often not by any private money either). The effect of the financial crisis will be interesting.

[Matthew Turner]

"The effect of the financial crisis will be interesting"

Whenever, I look up European chess tournaments (in school holidays) I see lots in Switzerland and Italy, but not many elsewhere.

[Richard Bates]

"The effect of the financial crisis will be interesting"

Whenever, I look up European chess tournaments (in school holidays) I see lots in Switzerland and Italy, but not many elsewhere.

I read somewhere that a lot of the European Leagues are struggling as well.

[Paul Dargan]

I know that on the Full English Breakfast interviews from the British this year Adams and (I think) Gwain said that they don't follow any online coverage actually during the event - I think this is good. But I'm not sure how helpful it is for Loz to have to log on everyday and field the opinions of us armchair captains.

We'd all like the men's team to be doing better - but you can guarantee that the people who would most like to see an improvement in our form and fortunes are in the hotel each night preparing and trying to put previous results behind them - I'm not sure the aded pressure of forumites commening on their performance, who should sit-out for a match, etc... will do much for the team's morale - and thick-skinned though he is I doubt Loz looks forward to coming on here each night - and in fact if I was him I dont think I would until the event is over.

Once the event is over - absolutely the team should discuss what could have gone better and how collectively and individually they might want to change things up - but this should occur after every event whether we win the gold medals, perforrm to rating or have a disappointing result.

Keep up the good work Loz (if you come on here and read this)


Paul

[Ola Winfridsson]

"The effect of the financial crisis will be interesting"

Whenever, I look up European chess tournaments (in school holidays) I see lots in Switzerland and Italy, but not many elsewhere.

Spain seems to be organizing tournaments every other week or something. Very frequent.

"Maybe. I suspect the improvement in many Western countries has a lot to do with a combination of firstly ex-Soviet emigres, and latterly significant state (local and/or central govt) investment. With the isolated exception of a few local councils, English chess has i would guess rarely been sustained by public money (and often not by any private money either). The effect of the financial crisis will be interesting.

Well, yes, partly, but if you look at France and Germany, in particular (but also Spain), they do have quite a lot of home-grown talent as well, old enough not to be direct products of the fall of the Berlin wall or recent investment. And in all those countries they've had a thriving tournament circuit for a long time.