2016 Olympiad - Baku

[Matt Mackenzie]

Just out of interest, when did the board medal places switch from being decided by % score to rating performance?

[John Moore]

With two players badly off form I think it's a tremendous result.

For David, just one of those things, but should we question selecting part-time players for an event like this? It's not as if you can prepare in advance for a known list of opponents, like in the Classic, but if not Luke (or Matthew), who else? When Mickey and Nigel start to slow down, 10th (or =4th) will be many years away.

I agree that it's a great result, but Simon raises a good point which has, of course, been mentioned before. Below is the last FIDE rating list of English rated players down to 2450.

T 1 Adams, Michael g ENG 2738 11 1971
2 McShane, Luke J g ENG 2671 0 1984
3 Sadler, Matthew D g ENG 2670 0 1974
4 Short, Nigel D g ENG 2666 0 1965
5 Howell, David W L g ENG 2665 11 1990
6 Jones, Gawain C B g ENG 2635 11 1987
7 Nunn, John D M g ENG 2600 0 1955
8 Hawkins, Jonathan g ENG 2590 0 1983
9 Pert, Nicholas g ENG 2566 11 1981
10 Parker, Jonathan F g ENG 2530 0 1976
11 Speelman, Jon S g ENG 2526 0 1956
12 Haslinger, Stewart G g ENG 2521 0 1981
13 Conquest, Stuart C g ENG 2510 0 1967
14 Gordon, Stephen J g ENG 2501 0 1986
15 Hebden, Mark L g ENG 2500 18 1958
16 Gormally, Daniel W g ENG 2498 11 1976
17 Adair, James R m ENG 2488 7 1992
18 Zhou, Yang-Fan m ENG 2473 0 1994
19 Emms, John M g ENG 2464 11 1967
20 Trent, Lawrence m ENG 2463 0 1986
21 Plaskett, H James g ENG 2458 0 1960
22 Ghasi, Ameet K m ENG 2455 0 1987
23 Arkell, Keith C g ENG 2452 20 1961
24 Fernandez, Daniel Howard m ENG 2450 0 1995

A lot of relatively elderly players and a lot of inactivity. Jonathan Hawkins or Nick Pert (who has played in Olympiads before) might I suppose replace the part-timer in the team but if you are looking at ten years time might the team be Jones, Howell, Hawkins, Pert (N) and then you are looking for big improvements from Adair, Zhou and Fernandez. Or maybe a junior appears from nowhere in the ten year period. Or maybe we import some already strong players.

Lots of maybes but, at this stage, not much by way of answers.

[Mick Norris]

Just a couple of good moves away from 4th place, but a good performance nonetheless

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Just out of interest, when did the board medal places switch from being decided by % score to rating performance?

Might be complicated. Both systems were used for a while, e.g.:

https://www.olimpbase.org/1984/1984in.html#medals

(i.e. three medals for overall rating performance, plus individual board prizes).

Looks like you can go through Olimpbase to see when the change took place.

A change took place between 2006 and 2008:

https://www.olimpbase.org/2006/2006in.html#medals
https://www.olimpbase.org/2008/2008in.html#medals

[JustinHorton]

if you are looking at ten years time might the team be Jones, Howell, Hawkins, Pert (N)

Without disputing your general point I suspect Adams, M will still be strong enough to play, if available.

[John Moore]

Oh I agree but it rather depends on whether he still has the drive at 55, particularly if he's still clearly the board 1.

[Gary Kenworthy]

I wonder what Najdorf, Bronstein, Korchnoi etc would have thought. When you are Class, Real World Class, don't write any possibility off...
BTW: I hear from Yorkshire, they expect more from James Adair.
GK

[JustinHorton]

I believe Bronstein played his last Olympiad at the age of thirty-four, which may or may not be of any relevance.

[Jonathan Bryant]

... should we question selecting part-time players for an event like this?

I don’t think so. McShane knocked over Aronian, Kramnnik and Morozevich at the Tal Memorial a few years ago when he was a part time player. He may have had a tough time this Olympiad but poor events aren’t exactly the sole reserve of the part-timers.

Of course if there was somebody better/equally good available then the question might arise, but as you ask if not McShane then who else?

[Simon Brown]

That's my point. When he knows who he is playing he can prepare in advance. But not at an Olympiad

But I agree there is no alternative and I don't see one emerging.

[Gary Kenworthy]

Bronstein record - Olympiads
USSR at the Olympiads of 1952, 1954, 1956 and 1958, winning board prizes at each of them, and losing just one of his 49 games in those events. Along the way he won four Olympiad team gold medals. In the 1954 team match against the USA (held in New York), Bronstein scored an almost unheard-of sweep at this level of play, winning all four of his games on second board.
Yes, does sounds like de-selection material......over the hill? -- Well, he played some more chess later on.

Working long shifts in armaments factories in WWII as prep? - which may or may not be of any relevance.

Late one night he dropped into bulletin room, 1995 Intel, Hastings, where I was alone de-ciphering illegible scoresheets and re-engineering games. Pretty experienced in that. I had a really nice conversation on various things, one heck of a story in its own right....one heck of a man, a polymath.
Rgds GK

[Jonathan Bryant]

That's my point. When he knows who he is playing he can prepare in advance. But not at an Olympiad

And they for him. It’s not obvious to me that the 'preparation' aspect favours part-timers. Actually it seems more likely to be the other way around. Full-timers having more, err .. time.

But, yes, the problem is not Luke. It’s the (relative) lack of GMs coming through post Michael Adams compared to pre-Michael Adams.


The usual questions crops up. How do we know if what we are experiencing now is par or under-performing? It *feels* to me that we’re doing less well than perhaps we 'should' - but that’s just a function me happening to come of chess age just before a period that was the historic all time high for England at Olympiads.

Are we not, in fact, punching above our weight at the moment, all things considered?

[John Moore]

Gary - I guess the point is that of your three examples, both Najdorf and Bronstein clearly loved chess and played until the end of their lives. The same is true of Korchnoi although whether he loved chess or loved the fight that chess meant for him is a moot point and probably unimportant anyway.

I certainly don't intend any disrespect to Mickey who is, arguably, the greatest player these islands have ever produced but I don't really see him in quite the same way - although if he was still playing board 1 for England in the Olympiad into his 70s, none would be more pleased than me even if I won't be here to see it.

[Gary Kenworthy]

No issue John.
When Mickey played for Barbican he loved chess. It is in his DNA.
I expect at 55 he still will be impressive.

BTW: He arrived early, moved tables around, set up the boards, set the clocks, with me, often whilst everybody else looked on.
Korchnoi and Bronstein had severe issues with the selectors/ authorities, they did not fit the ruling regime, and thus could have been even greater.
Although, I did have to tell Korchnoi off a few times at the Barbican, as arbiters escalated things to me.
Rgds GK.

[Matt Mackenzie]

I believe Bronstein played his last Olympiad at the age of thirty-four, which may or may not be of any relevance.

Maybe not so much, given that he played well into old age. Which makes me wonder - when was Smyslov's last Olympiad?