Squads for European Team Championships

[Chris Rice]

Round 4 table. In the Open 7th seeds Hungary lead, 14th seeds Croatia in second and 6th seeds Armenia in third. England in 18th, Scotland in 30th. England now playing Greece 2 in Round 5 and it will be a disgrace if we don't win that one and Scotland v Denmark.

In the Women's England did beat Greece 2 in Round 4 and play Slovakia next with every chance of another result. Russia lead on 4/4.

[Jonathan Rogers]

Also because we already knew (well, before the event even started, in many cases) that we are not medal contenders

You realise we were seeded 4 at the start of the tournament, right; just 1 point behind the average squad rating of the team seeded 3?

Yes, AND I maintain that no one with any sense, who has followed this same English team for about ten years, during which they more often than not have finished some way below their seeding, and only last year did as well as actually roughly matching their seeding, would actually have expected them to get a medal this year. Ten years older, as they all are....

I know that you don't tend to regard history as very important, Alex, and you have mercifully been spared following too much of it personally, in this case; but it IS relevant!!

[Jonathan Rogers]

In case anyone gets the wrong idea, I would like England to do well, say by making the top ten having played some of the best teams. But we should be realistic about what can be expected from them. We do them no favours by thinking from the outset that they are medal contenders. And it is more helpful to state the most realistic targets, so that they can be properly recognised as achievements if indeed they are achieved.

[JustinHorton]

. But then does anyone care - no-one appears to be watching.

Well I wasn't, because I missed this. So just so as I know....

David Howell decided to turn down a forced draw with 48 Ne7 which would have given England the match.

...he did this with England 2-1 ahead, is this right?

[Jonathan Rogers]

yes. Some blame is inevitable, but as to how much - that depends on how readily one can really imagine losing the position.

[JustinHorton]

Not really, no. I'm very much with John Moore on that. It's a team event and if you have a draw available to win the match you take it.

[NickFaulks]

that depends on how readily one can really imagine losing the position.

In the knight ending, each side has a distant and equally advanced passed pawn. Knights are tricky things, and I have no difficulty imagining myself losing ( or winning) it.

[Alex Holowczak]

Not really, no. I'm very much with John Moore on that. It's a team event and if you have a draw available to win the match you take it.

The tie-break is also an important consideration, given how congested these tournaments are. A number of medals have been won or lost based on tie-break, so it's worth trying to boost it when you can. The tie break is a function of how many gamepoints you score and how many matchpoints your opponent has, so trying to accumulate gamepoints is a reasonable strategy.

If England were to win a medal - which has to be the team's aim whether or not one thinks it's possible - then I think you have to take risks like that to boost your tie-break, because narrowly winning matches against lowly-ranked teams just might not be enough, particularly given England were on 3/6 going into that match (i.e. already some way behind). I'd rather England finish 20th trying to win a medal than finish 5th-10th by being conservative, because 5th place is just as good as 20th in terms of bringing home a prize.

I'm not sure if any of that was in David's mind at all, but even in a match points format, gamepoints remain an important consideration.

[JustinHorton]

In theory, you can do that, but in sporting practice, you don't imperil the result. It's one thing risking 2.5-1.5 instead of 3-1 by trying for 3.5-0.5, and it's another plausible thing to play for game points towards the end of a tournament when you know you're going to need them, but in the actual circumstances it was reckless.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

The current team (Howell is not playing this round) are not setting the world alight. Looking roughly level on all four boards, with Adams and Jones with slight edges (as White) and Short and McShane looked to have equalised with Black (play has reached around move 20 on most of the boards).

[David Robertson]

in the actual circumstances it was reckless

Nah, not reckless. A misjudgement. I was watching the game 'live' before leaving to play in my own match, What I did later, to lose, was reckless - which led to a subdued drive home with John Carleton. During which, I passed on what I'd seen in David Howell's game as, ahem, mitigation: "we all do it, Skipper"

[NickFaulks]

Short and McShane looked to have equalised with Black

McShane has equalised. Short has achieved an incomprehensible position which I imagine he intends to win.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Short and McShane looked to have equalised with Black

McShane has equalised. Short has achieved an incomprehensible position which I imagine he intends to win.

Push the b-pawn and avoid getting mated. Sounds like a plan!

Jones and Short to win. Adams and McShane to draw. Not great, but gets the business done against the Greece second team.

[Paul Cooksey]

I changed my mind a bit about David as a result of watching a livestream he did a few months ago. He was asked about his persistent lateness for games. I'd always assumed he was a bit unprofessional. But he talked about needing to be in the right frame of mind before getting to the board, he would rather lose time on the clock than not be in deep concentration mode for the game.

I suspect a player like him is a bit vulnerable to impracticality - getting into time trouble, forgetting the match score, etc. Probably just as hard to correct as a defect in play.

I guess this is a selection headache. Do you want a team of 2700s who will underperform slightly in team events, or a team of 2600s who will over-perform? I'd put Armenia's strong period down, in part, to their best players also being quite practical. But probably most teams need to make difficult choices. I guess the current selection criteria is to gamble a little on the highest rated players.

Maybe this links into Jonathan's point earlier about expectations. David, Luke and Gawain in different ways have a natural game that does not fit as neatly into team events as Michael and Nigel's do.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Maybe this links into Jonathan's point earlier about expectations. David, Luke and Gawain in different ways have a natural game that does not fit as neatly into team events as Michael and Nigel's do.

Could you expand on that a bit? How would you describe the 'natural' game of those players?

(Up on the top table, Hungary might be about to pull off another win!)