Squads for European Team Championships

[NickFaulks]

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

Oops.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

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

Oops.

Did I say he needed to avoid getting mated?

McShane's game dead drawn. Jones hopefully winning. Adams needs to convert his extra pawn.

I wonder if those who heaped opprobrium on Howell for losing will do the same for Short?

[JustinHorton]

As you know I'm all in favour of heaping opprobrium on Nigel, but in my view we're not talking about similar types of error here.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

As you know I'm all in favour of heaping opprobrium on Nigel, but in my view we're not talking about similar types of error here.

True. It was the first game to finish, and looks like it won't do any real harm given how the other results are going. Jones has won and Adams will hopefully win as well. Am not sure how sanguine the other three England players felt when seeing what was going on in Short's game, though...

[Tim Harding]

It's a team event and if you have a draw available to win the match you take it.

Match points are the priority. So, as a former team captain in a FIDE team event (World Seniors 2016) I am with you on that. Howell was irresponsible but blame also attaches to the team captain [name??] if they failed to make it clear to their player that a draw was required to win the match.

The team captain cannot order a player to offer a draw but can advise him to do so, when it's not his turn to move. This must be done away from the board in the hearing of an arbiter who understands your language.

[Jonathan Rogers]

I believe that Malcolm is the captain, but whoever it is was surely blameless here. In that match yesterday, David would have known the score: Short had won his grotty position, played right next to him, sometime ago and the other games were always headed for draws.

But are we sure that the captain could advise a draw, rather than merely advise of the score? I don't know the rules for this eevnt but I would be surprised. If he cannot advise a draw offer, there would have been no point for the player to approach the captain yesterday.

There is no getting away from it; everything depends on one's assessment of the probability of losing. If it was less than 5%, maybe one should indeed go for the extra half gamepoint. If it was more like 25%, then the draw should have been forced. Even if a captain had been able to offer advice on accepting a draw, it would have been a tough call yesterday. I believe that Nxa5 (spurning the draw) was objectively the best move.

[Alex Holowczak]

But are we sure that the captain could advise a draw, rather than merely advise of the score? I don't know the rules for this eevnt but I would be surprised. If he cannot advise a draw offer, there would have been no point for the player to approach the captain yesterday.

The rules are item 12 here: http://www.fide.com/FIDE/handbook/Competition_Rules.pdf

The relevant one is as Tim suggests, "A team captain is entitled to advise the players of his team to make or accept an offer of a draw unless the regulations of the event stipulate otherwise. He shall not intervene in a game in any other way. He must not discuss any position on any board during play."

This is in keeping with the view FIDE holds that a good team captain should be encouraged, and so the captain should be able to intervene in this way. I don't agree with that principle, which is why the County Championship rules, for example, say they can just advise on the score.

[Tim Harding]

But are we sure that the captain could advise a draw, rather than merely advise of the score? I don't know the rules for this eevnt but I would be surprised. If he cannot advise a draw offer, there would have been no point for the player to approach the captain yesterday.

The rules are item 12 here: http://www.fide.com/FIDE/handbook/Competition_Rules.pdf

The relevant one is as Tim suggests, "A team captain is entitled to advise the players of his team to make or accept an offer of a draw unless the regulations of the event stipulate otherwise. He shall not intervene in a game in any other way. He must not discuss any position on any board during play."

Precisely. In the case in point last year (we had been easily winning until a player blundered his Q and it was suddenly 2-1) I wanted to ensure we won the match. In the remaining game we had only a tiny edge though our player was the higher rated.

So I approached an arbiter and said I wished to advise the fourth player to offer a draw next time he was off move. The arbiter was doubtful at first (thinking a captain could only be involved if the opposition offered the draw) but when I showed him the paragraph quoted above, he agreed it was in order. The arbiter has to hear what you say to the player, though, and the decision to offer (or accept) a draw remains with the player.

[Alex Holowczak]

But are we sure that the captain could advise a draw, rather than merely advise of the score? I don't know the rules for this eevnt but I would be surprised. If he cannot advise a draw offer, there would have been no point for the player to approach the captain yesterday.

The rules are item 12 here: http://www.fide.com/FIDE/handbook/Competition_Rules.pdf

The relevant one is as Tim suggests, "A team captain is entitled to advise the players of his team to make or accept an offer of a draw unless the regulations of the event stipulate otherwise. He shall not intervene in a game in any other way. He must not discuss any position on any board during play."

Precisely. In the case in point last year (we had been easily winning until a player blundered his Q and it was suddenly 2-1) I wanted to ensure we won the match. In the remaining game we had only a tiny edge though our player was the higher rated.

So I approached an arbiter and said I wished to advise the fourth player to offer a draw next time he was off move. The arbiter was doubtful at first (thinking a captain could only be involved if the opposition offered the draw) but when I showed him the paragraph quoted above, he agreed it was in order. The arbiter has to hear what you say to the player, though, and the decision to offer (or accept) a draw remains with the player.

Indeed. It can't be the hardest thing in the world to pre-arrange some sort of coded message, where an instruction to offer a draw doesn't mean that, and actually means something more substantial. You can also have other reasonable conversations. E.g. a player might ask his captain to get a drink, via the arbiter. There are usually two or three drinks options in the playing area, so you could code a reply based on what drink the captain brings back. None of this is any more far-fetched than, say, the Feller case a few years ago; you'll see 12.3 is the anti-Feller rule. If you really wanted to cheat using a code, the rules as written don't prevent that.

[Jonathan Rogers]

Ok, thanks for the clarification.

But still the captain yesterday would have had little reason to suppose in advance that the player would do anything meaningfully to risk defeat. He also had only limited opportunity since it was only possible for Howell to exchange knights once - so what to do if Howell was at the board when his opponent offered the exchange and did not get up until after he decided to play on (quite likely the case)?

[Richard Bates]

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!)

To take the question more broadly without dealing in individuals I would think that their are a number of “ideals” you might want in a team event.

1) ideally I think you would want games to proceed at a similar pace so that decisions can be made on approaches to individual games based on a reasonable assessment on how other games are proceeding
2) you would want a reasonable level of reliability in the value of the above assessments ie. if a game is assessed as a player with a slight advantage pushing for victory, you would like to be able to discount the possibility of the game resulting in a loss. It actually works both ways - if your player has a slight disadvantage you want to discount the possibility that they might win, otherwise you might take risks which with hindsight prove unnecessary.
3) you would like to have a coherent (team) match strategy (usually I imagine press with white, hold with black) which would only require adjustment if games assessments seemed to be deviating significantly from the original strategy.

It’s all a bit simplistic, but on the basis of the above one can imagine that it becomes very difficult when a team is characterised by players who get into time difficulties from early stages of games and, probably as a direct consequence, often have results that defy (both positively and negatively) assessments from earlier stages of their games.

Of course in saying this I have no real idea of how much England has attempted to put together a genuine “team approach” to international events, or whether there has been more of an approach of “every individual for themselves, let’s hope everyone is on form simultaneously”

[Roger de Coverly]

Of course in saying this I have no real idea of how much England has attempted to put together a genuine “team approach” to international events, or whether there has been more of an approach of “every individual for themselves, let’s hope everyone is on form simultaneously”

I've seen mention of this in annotations by members of the Russian team that they felt a particularly double-edged move was inappropriate in a team competition.

Domestically a particularly successful county squad of twenty to thirty years knew each others styles well, so that after play had continued for a while, they looked at the games in progress and seemed to be able to decide who should press for a win and who should shut up shop and steer for a draw. That the strategy was a success is indicated by the number of matches they won 11-9 or 9-7 over 16 boards.

[Alistair Campbell]

Some very interesting views on match tactics and strategies. I suspect this is an underdeveloped area.

In football, if you have a slender lead and possession of the ball in stoppage time, it is orthodox thinking to take the ball into the corner and run down the clock. [Unless you have a penalty, as the benighted Senhor Caixinha found to his cost recently] Basically the view is that goal difference is unlikely to be material, but points are.

One* might have thought that a well-organised team would have match strategies and tournament strategies, as well as pre-determined goals to help guide decisions.

In particular, there could be a view on how important match points were. If you are to challenge the orthodoxy, or seek to finesse with a secondary strategy (no harm in that), some analysis would be helpful to the case.

A priori, I would have agreed with Tim (and Justin) – match points are the most important so maximise those. (Of course there might be an argument about “taking a dive” in an early round to ensure an easier draw and doing it that way). But winning match after match also seems to work well.

At a club level, one might prepare for an individual game, or have a goal for the season (win promotion, avoid relegation). A single match does not seem to attract the same thought beforehand (assuming that the result matters to any great extent) - it seems more a case of: there are n boards – let’s hope we win more than we lose. One might have thought that there might be slightly more to it than that, such as win with white, draw with black, to paraphrase Jonathan, or hold them on the lower boards and win on the top boards where your strength lies (or whatever). Obviously the strategy might have to change if things go unexpectedly. How often have we relied on Jimmy to get the draw only to lose? Which brings in Richard’s point about knowing your team-mates.

*I say “one” as I’m not convinced others share this view.

Do teams have strategies and goals? Should they? Or are there just too many variables and so it’s just a case of take one match at a time, see what happens and then maybe give it a go in the last couple of rounds?

I’m not sure to what extent I am paying for Team Scotland’s presence in Crete this year (not very much, certainly) but as far as I am concerned they have already done the business with a win and a draw. I am quite happy for Graham, for example, to take a draw when the team is 2-1 down if that improves his norm or title chances (ditto other players). But who knows what we are trying to achieve.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Rest day today. England back up to 14th place, in the middle of the pack on 6 match points. Still only the loss to Poland. If England can avoid any further losses, that might be a good target.

In round 6, they are paired with Belarus (Zhigalko on top board and the team as a whole consists of 2500 and 2600 GMs). If England can win that, then there are three more rounds after that.

Croatia beat Germany and are top. Paired with Hungary for round 6. The next two clashes are Russia vs Poland and Armenia vs Azerbaijan.

In other news, Mamedyarov is the new World number 2 (in the live ratings), and Sadler is the new England number 2 (in the live ratings).

[NickFaulks]

Sadler is the new England number 2 (in the live ratings).

Good move to declare himself unavailable ( if that's what happened ).