Batumi Olympiad

[Alex Holowczak]

It's been pointed out on Twitter that board 35 sees IBCA take on ICCD - has that pairing come up many times before? I'm also genuinely interested to know how it works logistically as presumably announcing moves wouldn't work particularly well?

Martin Lewis is playing do ICCD - and what a tournament he's having!!!
http://chess-results.com/tnr368908.aspx ... 30&snr=580

Unless I've read it wrong Lewis has got the FM title with his performance.

That's right: http://chess-results.com/tnr368908.aspx ... 60&flag=30

[Jonathan Rogers]

Gawain amusingly punting 4...O-O in the King's Indian, Makhnyov not tempted

But 5 e5 does not appear to promise anything. I've generally preferred 4....0-0 to 4...d6, ever hopeful of imitating Letelier v Fischer. In fact I am not aware of any downside to 4...0-0

[JustinHorton]

Which makes it odd that it isn't played more often, no?

[JustinHorton]

Useful link: if you scroll down on the Chess.com report you can find sections on what has to happen for various treams in both events to win gold.

What they can't do of course is tell you how the tiebreaks are going to go much beyond telling you who has a better tiebreak now. I can't say I'm a big admirer of the way this is done - spectators would really like to be able to follow what's happening and what needs to happen, not play some guessing game involving a match that might finish on board sixty-three several hours later.

[Jonathan Rogers]

Which makes it odd that it isn't played more often, no?

I've always thought that.

[Jonathan Rogers]

Useful link: if you scroll down on the Chess.com report you can find sections on what has to happen for various treams in both events to win gold.

What they can't do of course is tell you how the tiebreaks are going to go much beyond telling you who has a better tiebreak now. I can't say I'm a big admirer of the way this is done - spectator would really like to be able to follow what's happening and what needs to happen, not play some guessing game involving a match that might finish on board sixty-three several hours later.

Everyone has always thought that

[JustinHorton]

The two China white games are identical, at least as I write. Meanwhile Nakamura is still in his preparation against Bu's 7...Nb6 Slav.

[Alex Holowczak]

What they can't do of course is tell you how the tiebreaks are going to go much beyond telling you who has a better tiebreak now. I can't say I'm a big admirer of the way this is done - spectator would really like to be able to follow what's happening and what needs to happen, not play some guessing game involving a match that might finish on board sixty-three several hours later.

For what it's worth, I think the tie-break is very good at trying to achieve what it is setting out to achieve. A win against a team that did well counts more than a win against a team that did less well; and big wins against teams count more than narrow wins against teams. You've adequately described the problem with the tie-break. That problem has existed in the Olympiad for as long as it has been a Swiss, the tiebreak used to be Buchholz before it became this.

Can you come up with something better? It isn't obvious to me. They all have their pros and cons, and your ranking of the options may vary depending on what you think are desirable traits and undesirable traits of your tiebreak.

[JustinHorton]

What they can't do of course is tell you how the tiebreaks are going to go much beyond telling you who has a better tiebreak now. I can't say I'm a big admirer of the way this is done - spectator would really like to be able to follow what's happening and what needs to happen, not play some guessing game involving a match that might finish on board sixty-three several hours later.

For what it's worth, I think the tie-break is very good at trying to achieve what it is setting out to achieve.

I'm sure that's true, but what it is setting out to achieve does not appear to include "being less than opaque to the spectators".

[Jonathan Rogers]

I find myself somehow supporting China v USA. Do others feel the same way?

[JustinHorton]

I find myself supporting "I don't mind, so long as it's not all over bar the shouting early doors".

[Alex Holowczak]

What they can't do of course is tell you how the tiebreaks are going to go much beyond telling you who has a better tiebreak now. I can't say I'm a big admirer of the way this is done - spectator would really like to be able to follow what's happening and what needs to happen, not play some guessing game involving a match that might finish on board sixty-three several hours later.

For what it's worth, I think the tie-break is very good at trying to achieve what it is setting out to achieve.

I'm sure that's true, but what it is setting out to achieve does not appear to include "being less than opaque to the spectators".

Agreed. You could also take the view that because it is unclear to the players too, they are more inclined to play their games "properly", rather than play for a solid draw, because they cannot be certain of what will happen in the tie-break either.

[Richard Bates]

What’s wrong with just using game points?

[Thomas Rendle]

I'd be surprised if the team captains of the leading teams weren't tasked with keeping at least some eye on tiebreaks. I assume they could take that into account when instructing players on draws?

[Jonathan Rogers]

What’s wrong with just using game points?

It helps teams who played weaker opponents and racked up big scores, presumably.