English Chess Forum

Jonathan Rogers wrote:
In retrospect one would have had Plaskett in the team instead of Keith but that really is using the benefit of hindsight. Keith might still do better next time around.

I wish I didn't have to read crap like this after playing a few bad games. Did this poster congratulate me on winning the European Individual title, or tying 1st( chess-wise)in the World Senior, or for my results at Hastings or The Mind Sport finals, or the IOM, or at Cannes? He certainly did not.

I got my place on merit, having, quite frankly, played well pretty much none-stop for 11 months. In this same event last year both myself and Jim played in the team, on boards one and two:

http://www.chess-results.com/tnr140160. ... =821&snr=2

My job, in round 4, was to try to win on board 4 against Slovakia, because the only other player with White, John Nunn, had been ill, and so we were lucky he could play at all. I failed. End of story. After that one game it turns out that gold was out of our reach however we had performed. That is the problem when there are 2 or 3 teams much stronger than the rest. It comes down to just one or two key games, just as had been the case in Vilnius last year.

Keith, I did congratulate you on the world senior performance and the European triumph last year - I even bought you a drink shortly after the latter.

I said that IN RETROSPECT Plaskett would have been the better choice - ergo - that it was actually normal and correct to prefer you before this event started. Wasn't that obvious? As if it weren't, I went on to say that you might do better (than Jim) next time, so that you ought perhaps to be in the team next year too.

Goodness, the whole point of my post was that there might NOT be any deep lessons to be learnt.

On another point altogether, when you have an event like this, with a few teams far above the rest, it may also be better if gamepoints were to take priority over matchpoints. Then every game in every match matters, whereas the current system effectively stakes everything on a couple of matches - which certainly does put extra pressure on the players in those matches. Playing six matches with relatively little tension and two or three with excessive tension is not ideal.

I meant on the forum, Jonathan.

I can't see any possible point in making the statement ''In retrospect one would have had Plaskett in the team instead of Keith'' at a time when I'm obviously already pretty annoyed with myself, and whatever you followed it up by saying. It just makes no sense. Why would you select someone 65 ELO points lower than me, and playing at a lower level? Would you have made a similar comment if one of my team-mates had lost that game? ''In retrospect one would have had Plaskett in the team instead of Nigel''. Of course you wouldn't. Sorry, but I can't help feeling that there is some kind of dig in your post. The truth is that Nigel, Jonn, Jonathan and myself were head and shoulders above other candidates for the team, so it's nonsense to speak retrospectively about replacing one of us.

yes I agree completely with you about that, and if not game points then certainly use them as 1st tie-break, rather than this convoluted, hard to work out, bucholtz minus worst result.

Keith Arkell wrote:I meant on the forum, Jonathan.

I can't see any possible point in making the statement ''In retrospect one would have had Plaskett in the team instead of Keith'' at a time when I'm obviously already pretty annoyed with myself, and whatever you followed it up by saying. It just makes no sense. Why would you select someone 65 ELO points lower than me, and playing at a lower level? Would you have made a similar comment if one of my team-mates had lost that game? ''In retrospect one would have had Plaskett in the team instead of Nigel''. Of course you wouldn't. Sorry, but I can't help feeling that there is some kind of dig in your post. The truth is that Nigel, Jonn, Jonathan and myself were head and shoulders above other candidates for the team, so it's nonsense to speak retrospectively about replacing one of us.

Surely I did on the forum too?

But Keith; Plaskett has 6/7 on board two in this event! Doesn't that explain my comments "in retrospect"? I agree that this couldn't easily be predicted. And again, I am actually saying there might not be any lessons to be learnt for the future.

But it was probably bad timing to make the remark, I accept that.

You didn't, but it doesn't matter. I'm obviously a bit prickly at the moment.

It's a strange subject, predicting what might have been. Butterfly flaps it's wings in Australia, and all that. I mean, forget putting Plaskett in our team. Instead, equally hypothetically, Just re-run this event and 9 times out of 10 I'll perform at my true playing strength rather than like a brain dead idiot.

You're right about bad timing, but anyway, shake hands

yes, agreed - play the whole event again (with the same players) and it would go better - think I said that too.

shake hands (no icon for that, but isn't one needed on this forum? ) and hopefully we'll chat again over a drink at next 4NCL.

Certainly is a good idea and so is the pint, but not while looking at my missed ...Ng3 against you, with it's +17

I know its fairly unlikely, but hopefully Scotland can win tomorrow and Slovakia lose.

After each event, it would seem sensible to look at team selection, and I would have thought board order in particular in team events, to see if there are lessons to be learnt

During the event, it simply falls to us to say c'mon England, and good luck to all our players

Mick Norris wrote:After each event, it would seem sensible to look at team selection, and I would have thought board order in particular in team events, to see if there are lessons to be learnt

Perhaps before each event it would be worthwhile spelling out the approach to take with draw offers and perhaps revisiting this before key matches?

Jonathan Rogers wrote: shake hands (no icon for that, but isn't one needed on this forum? ) and hopefully we'll chat again over a drink at next 4NCL.

There isn't even an icon for a drink!

Unbelievable, on a chess forum.