England Olympiad pairings

[LawrenceCooper]

Round 3 pairings:

Bo. 11 England Rtg - 15 Cuba Rtg 0 : 0
5.1 GM Adams, Michael 2722 - GM Dominguez Perez, Leinier 2725
5.2 GM Jones, Gawain 2653 - GM Bruzon Batista, Lazaro 2711
5.3 GM Short, Nigel 2698 - GM Quesada Perez, Yuniesky 2626
5.4 GM Howell, David 2635 - GM Ortiz Suarez, Isan Reynaldo 2569

Bo. 44 England Rtg - 85 Kyrgyzstan Rtg 0 : 0
41.1 WGM Corke, Anya 2254 - Samaganova, Aleksandra 2057
41.2 WFM Yurenok, Maria 2058 - Omurbekova, Diana 1697
41.3 WFM Hegarty, Sarah 2120 - Tilenbaeva, Baktygul 1940
41.4 WFM Bhatia, Kanwal 2103 - Alymbay Kyzy, Aizhan 1810

[Martin Benjamin]

Bo. 44 England Rtg - 85 Kyrgyzstan Rtg 0 : 0
41.1 WGM Corke, Anya 2254 - Samaganova, Aleksandra 2057
41.2 WFM Yurenok, Maria 2058 - Omurbekova, Diana 1697
41.3 WFM Hegarty, Sarah 2120 - Tilenbaeva, Baktygul 1940
41.4 WFM Bhatia, Kanwal 2103 - Alymbay Kyzy, Aizhan 1810

Is there a rule in the Olympiad defining the maximum difference there can be for a higher rated player to play below a lower rated one? The differences between the Kyrgyzstan board two and the two lower boards are substantial.

[Alex Holowczak]

Is there a rule in the Olympiad defining the maximum difference there can be for a higher rated player to play below a lower rated one? The differences between the Kyrgyzstan board two and the two lower boards are substantial.

It has been quite common for some time for weaker nations to put their best players on boards 4 or 5. The idea being that on those boards, they'll play weaker opposition, and therefore have a far greater chance of attaining either the (W)CM or (W)FM titles.

I'm not saying that this is what Kyrgysztan are doing, but if they are, it's won't be the first or last time it happens.

[Jonathan Rogers]

Looking at team sheets yesterday, I seemed to detect an increasing trend to playing out of order in both the open and the women's section - though certainly this example is at the extreme end.

It seems somewhat unsatisfactory to me and I think that some equivalent of the 80 point rule that you see in the 4NCL (and doubtless most other competitions both here and abroad) should apply. Doubtless the reasons for the status quo are largely political.

[Alex Holowczak]

It seems somewhat unsatisfactory to me

Why?

The obsession with playing in descending order of strength, however that's defined, is always something that's argued a lot over in chess. Is there anything wrong with them playing in a random order, so long as you determine it secretly in advance?

For example, take the Singles in the Ryder Cup. You can play in any order you like. Indeed, the order is seen as part of a captain's chance to shine. I remember 2002 at The Belfry, when Sam Torrance went against conventional wisdom by putting out his strong players last, and put them all at the start, in the hope that Europe would start well, and the later players would be inspired by seeing Europe doing so well. It worked!

[Roger de Coverly]

Is there anything wrong with them playing in a random order, so long as you determine it secretly in advance?

Unlike most other leagues, the 4NCL rules permit this, provided all the players are within 80 points of one another. Outside of the 4NCL, a team that had no more than 10 ECF points from top to bottom would be highly rare.

For example, take the Singles in the Ryder Cup. You can play in any order you like.

If you had some form of Elo system for Golf players, what sort of differences would you get between top players?

[Alex Holowczak]

If you had some form of Elo system for Golf players, what sort of differences would you get between top players?

You don't need an Elo system. You could just say that you must play in ranking order, with a tolerance of (say) 5 ranking spots. That'd be the same kind of rule you get in the 4NCL.

5 might sound quite tight, but it's necessary. Ryder Cups have 12 players in the team, and the 12th ranked American is currently ranked 20 in the world. (The 12th ranked European is ranked 34th.)

The problem with golf, I suppose, is that ranking deviates wildly over quite short periods of time, due to the nature of the game - you often get people you've never heard of winning tournaments.

[Jonathan Rogers]

At the very beginning, random orders were permitted in the 4NCL, and they could change from round to round (unlike the present Olympiad). But the Midland Monarchs v Slough title decide in the 4NCL in 1995/6 was generally regarded as showing the 4NCL in bad light, since MM's strategy seemed not to be fight it out on merit but to try to play a game of battleships where they put two of their best players on boards seven and eight.

Battleships, Alex, that's my answer!

[Alistair Campbell]

If you had some form of Elo system for Golf players, what sort of differences would you get between top players?

We had a related discussion almost exactly a year ago http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php ... 9&start=60

At that time, I hypothesised that 1 shot in handicap equated to about 50 Elo points. I think we concluded that was a reasonable rule of thumb.

Looking at the USPGA scoring averages I note

1 Tiger 69.02
2 Rory 69.11
...
24 Webb Simpson 69.99
...
T46 Rickie Fowler 70.32

(I've used USPGA as I believe their courses to be more homogeneous than their European equivalent in terms of difficulty and par. If anything Tiger will tend to play the bigger (and harder) events, so his average may suffer).

I included Rickie as he was 12th on the US Ryder Cup standings, and hence was indicative of the spread of ability within each team - about 1.3 shots per round. Assuming the 50 pps rule translates to scoring averages, then that gives a spread of 65 Elo from best to worst. Does that seem reasonable?

Obviously there are lots of difficulties with this sort of argument - different inherent variance between the 2 games, the difference between stroke-play and match-play. I think the conclusion is, the teams will be well-matched, and it will be no big deal if Tiger loses.

Edit - apologies for being a little off-topic. Going back to chess, I assume it is the case that changing the order can change your expected score, according to the Elo system?

[IM Jack Rudd]

Edit - apologies for being a little off-topic. Going back to chess, I assume it is the case that changing the order can change your expected score, according to the Elo system?

Yes. Here's an extreme example:

Team A has a 2700 and a 2300; team B has a 2300 and a 1900.

2700 plays 2300 and 2300 plays 1900: team A has an expected score of 0.92 on each board, for an overall expected score of 1.84 out of 2.

2700 plays 1900 and 2300 plays 2300: team A has an expected score of 1 on one board and 0.5 on the other, for an overall expected score of 1.5 out of 2.

[Jonathan Rogers]

Edit - apologies for being a little off-topic. Going back to chess, I assume it is the case that changing the order can change your expected score, according to the Elo system?

Yes. Here's an extreme example:

Team A has a 2700 and a 2300; team B has a 2300 and a 1900.

2700 plays 2300 and 2300 plays 1900: team A has an expected score of 0.92 on each board, for an overall expected score of 1.84 out of 2.

2700 plays 1900 and 2300 plays 2300: team A has an expected score of 1 on one board and 0.5 on the other, for an overall expected score of 1.5 out of 2.

A pedant writes: fractionally under 1.5 presumably

[IM Jack Rudd]

Edit - apologies for being a little off-topic. Going back to chess, I assume it is the case that changing the order can change your expected score, according to the Elo system?

Yes. Here's an extreme example:

Team A has a 2700 and a 2300; team B has a 2300 and a 1900.

2700 plays 2300 and 2300 plays 1900: team A has an expected score of 0.92 on each board, for an overall expected score of 1.84 out of 2.

2700 plays 1900 and 2300 plays 2300: team A has an expected score of 1 on one board and 0.5 on the other, for an overall expected score of 1.5 out of 2.

A pedant writes: fractionally under 1.5 presumably

Presumably. Somewhere between 1.49 and 1.5, anyway: the rating difference that gives an expected score of 0.99 is 677.

[LawrenceCooper]

At the very beginning, random orders were permitted in the 4NCL, and they could change from round to round (unlike the present Olympiad). But the Midland Monarchs v Slough title decide in the 4NCL in 1995/6 was generally regarded as showing the 4NCL in bad light, since MM's strategy seemed not to be fight it out on merit but to try to play a game of battleships where they put two of their best players on boards seven and eight.

Battleships, Alex, that's my answer!

How unsporting of a much lower rated team to target the boards with the best chance of getting a result to try and win the league. In those days it was 160 point rule based on the previous September ratings. The only regret about that board order was that I didn't play Jonathan Parker higher. From memory James Howell was our highest rated player and was on board two.

[LawrenceCooper]

Round 3 results:

Bo. 11 England Rtg - 15 Cuba Rtg 3 : 1
5.1 GM Adams, Michael 2722 - GM Dominguez Perez, Leinier 2725 1 - 0
5.2 GM Jones, Gawain 2653 - GM Bruzon Batista, Lazaro 2711 ½ - ½
5.3 GM Short, Nigel 2698 - GM Quesada Perez, Yuniesky 2626 1 - 0
5.4 GM Howell, David 2635 - GM Ortiz Suarez, Isan Reynaldo 2569 ½ - ½

Bo. 44 England Rtg - 85 Kyrgyzstan Rtg 2 : 2
41.1 WGM Corke, Anya 2254 - Samaganova, Aleksandra 2057 ½ - ½
41.2 WFM Yurenok, Maria 2058 - Omurbekova, Diana 1697 ½ - ½
41.3 WFM Hegarty, Sarah 2120 - Tilenbaeva, Baktygul 1940 1 - 0
41.4 WFM Bhatia, Kanwal 2103 - Alymbay Kyzy, Aizhan 1810 0 - 1

Round 4 pairings: France-England & Indonesia-England

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Round 4 pairings: France-England & Indonesia-England

What happened last time England men played France?