England teams for 2011 European Team Championship

[Jonathan Rogers]

I know that on the Full English Breakfast interviews from the British this year Adams and (I think) Gwain said that they don't follow any online coverage actually during the event - I think this is good. But I'm not sure how helpful it is for Loz to have to log on everyday and field the opinions of us armchair captains.

We'd all like the men's team to be doing better - but you can guarantee that the people who would most like to see an improvement in our form and fortunes are in the hotel each night preparing and trying to put previous results behind them - I'm not sure the aded pressure of forumites commening on their performance, who should sit-out for a match, etc... will do much for the team's morale - and thick-skinned though he is I doubt Loz looks forward to coming on here each night - and in fact if I was him I dont think I would until the event is over.

Once the event is over - absolutely the team should discuss what could have gone better and how collectively and individually they might want to change things up - but this should occur after every event whether we win the gold medals, perforrm to rating or have a disappointing result.

Keep up the good work Loz (if you come on here and read this)


Paul

We have this discussion every year!

I would agree with you more strongly if we had lots of uninformed or abusve comments. But only one person has called their performances shameful; the forum itself has been reasonably supportive.

As to forumites suggesting that certain players should be dropped - well, is that so bad, assuming the reason are chess-based? Is that not what thousands of people will do online when England plays in the football European finals next summer? Besides which, there is no expectation that anyone in Greece should be following this forum - and if no one commented at all on their performances lest they were, how would that look to a (non-anonymous!) sponsor who might be trying to work out how much publicity he would get through sponsorship?

[Mick Norris]

Might have been better to just ignore the shameful comment rather than dignifying it with a response

Back to the chess:
Bo. 24 Montenegro Rtg - 22 England Rtg ½ : ½
12.1 WGM Vojinovic Jovana 2346 - IM Houska Jovanka 2415
12.2 WFM Milovic Aleksandra 2171 - IM Ciuksyte Dagne 2327
12.3 WFM Stojanovic Marija R 2095 - WFM Yurenok Maria S 2106 ½ - ½
12.4 Blagojevic Tijana 1925 - WFM Bhatia Kanwal K 2087

[Mick Norris]

Bo. 8 England Rtg - 28 Finland Rtg ½ : ½
15.1 GM Adams Michael 2734 - GM Nyback Tomi 2631 ½ - ½
15.2 GM Short Nigel D 2698 - IM Sammalvuo Tapani 2492
15.3 GM Jones Gawain C B 2635 - IM Agopov Mikael 2450
15.4 GM Pert Nicholas 2563 - IM Karttunen Mika 2434

[Jonathan Rogers]

Early White draw? Not exactly helpful for Adams' board prize chances (but we can't see the game, so not much more to be said)

[Michael Jones]

So far the performances of both teams have been pretty shameful- will write more about this when I have time.

They may be slightly below what we might have hoped for, but "shameful" is a frankly stupid exaggeration. Have you noticed that Adams is currently in the running for a board prize?

You cant criticise the UK teams for there efforts at this event.
However, I do wonder whether some restructuring might be beneficial for this event.
Firstly, if the England team is sponsored, why dont the sponsors get a mention anywhere?
Personally, I`d like to see this reformated as a 6 or 7 board event..and I`d also like to see the present UK teams replaced by a combined UK team, on the basis that each of our `home` countries is allocated at least one board. ie, at present that might mean England taking say 4 boards, & Scotland, Wales, and N Ireland taking 1 each..if seven board teams. (Maybe Scotland might claim 2 boards).
Such a team....say Team `Shell GB` would be more cost effective (saving money for all three federations...and maybe easier to sponsor/find sponsorship for....and I guess could give a creditable account of themselves). Not sure how much `weight` these events carry, in terms of prestigeousness for our respective chess scenes. Certainly it would be good to find ways of using such events to raise the profile of `British Chess`, as well as help with costs, etc.....
It might also be good to hold a `home championships` event, which might attract some of our `up & coming` players, and not necessarily involve the `top guns`.
At the other end of the scale...chess needs good publicity, and needs to generate fresh interest from grass roots players. We need an initiative(s) throughout the chess movement to attract new players at the 0 - U125 level...if we could double the numbers at these levels (and I dont mean just juniors), it might help reinvigourate our clubs and leagues and create a new generation of players to replace those that resulted from the `Fischer boom`.

Firstly, I presume it's the sponsors' own wish to remain anonymous; if they wanted their identity to be publicised, no doubt they'd have requested it before agreeing to the sponsorship. Even if they did want publicity, I can't think of any instance of a sponsorship deal which included having the sponsor's name as part of the team name. The England football team is sponsored by Vauxhall, but they're not called Vauxhall England.

Secondly, the whole event is not going to be restructured based solely on the idea of one federation. Thirdly, I can't see anyone agreeing to a combined UK team - if the majority of the boards were "reserved" for England, the other federations would probably view it as an attempt to annex them into England. Fourthly, I would guess that in chess, the fortunes of the national team have very little effect on the number of people taking up the game at a recreational level. Most juniors or novice adults in football, rugby or cricket would still follow their national team; only a fairly small proportion of the very keenest chess players follow theirs. I'd wager that most U125 players in local leagues wouldn't know that England are playing a tournament at the moment.

[Michael Jones]

Aronian has beaten Giri - that won't help Adams's chances. Bulgaria 2-0 up on Italy, including a win for Topalov; the only good news for Adams there is that Caruana wasn't playing, so Topalov had a relatively weak opponent.

[Mick Norris]

SNIP

Firstly, I presume it's the sponsors' own wish to remain anonymous; if they wanted their identity to be publicised, no doubt they'd have requested it before agreeing to the sponsorship. Even if they did want publicity, I can't think of any instance of a sponsorship deal which included having the sponsor's name as part of the team name.

4NCL does, are you referring to countries rather than normal teams?

[Jonathan Rogers]

I'd wager that most U125 players in local leagues wouldn't know that England are playing a tournament at the moment.

An interesting (and doubtless correct) observation

[Mick Norris]

Aronian has beaten Giri - that won't help Adams's chances. Bulgaria 2-0 up on Italy, including a win for Topalov; the only good news for Adams there is that Caruana wasn't playing, so Topalov had a relatively weak opponent.

And Radjabov looks in a difficult position

Aronian and Topalov have presumably moved ahead of Mickey today

[Jonathan Rogers]

Presumably I am not the first to notice that the men won 3.5 - 0.5 today?

Consequences, Alex?

[Michael Jones]

SNIP

Firstly, I presume it's the sponsors' own wish to remain anonymous; if they wanted their identity to be publicised, no doubt they'd have requested it before agreeing to the sponsorship. Even if they did want publicity, I can't think of any instance of a sponsorship deal which included having the sponsor's name as part of the team name.

4NCL does, are you referring to countries rather than normal teams?

Yes, sorry - I should have clarified that I meant national teams.

[Alex Holowczak]

Presumably I am not the first to notice that the men won 3.5 - 0.5 today?

Consequences, Alex?

I've been having enough difficulty doing the pairings when the round is done, let alone while it's still in progress!

I'll have another go at pairings when the round finishes.

The immediate consequence of interest is that we should avoid the countries at the bottom upfloating to play us; we have a situation not unlike the British where the teams at the bottom will have played most of the teams around them, so there can be some quite dramatic floats.

[Michael Jones]

Aronian has beaten Giri - that won't help Adams's chances. Bulgaria 2-0 up on Italy, including a win for Topalov; the only good news for Adams there is that Caruana wasn't playing, so Topalov had a relatively weak opponent.

And Radjabov looks in a difficult position

Aronian and Topalov have presumably moved ahead of Mickey today

Radjabov's position is currently evaluated as -19 by whatever engine the tournament site uses. Azerbaijan already have two draws, so they're going to need Mamedyarov to win with BNPPP vs RPPP.

[Jonathan Rogers]

yes, the Azeris may be messing up their tournament here...,

[Alex Holowczak]

yes, the Azeris may be messing up their tournament here...,

All is not lost. Azerbaijan have played Germany, Armenia and Bulgaria. So if Mamedyarov wins, they'll still be tied on matchpoints with Armenia, and could have a two-point downfloat against a team like Romania or Hungary. If they get white v Romania, I think they'd settle for that in the final round!