15-09-2016, 07:57 PM
I am quietly confident that if you were to analyse the Baku results of all teams, those who have played frequently/recently will have done better rating-wise in Baku than those who haven't been playing regularly 
I wouldn't expect anyone to play as many games as, say, myself (I am fortunate in that I have great freedom with my work, although this hasn't translated into good results!) but those who want to make the Olympiad teams can and should show that they are committed to playing chess.
Again, I want to state that none of the following is intended to reflect on our recent Baku performances - we did well in Baku, but I believe we can, and will have to, up our game for the future.
OK, let's use the extreme example of our top 5 rated players on the current published list:
Player Games played 2015/16:
GM Jonathan Rowson 2
GM Paul Motwani 0
IM Andrew Greet 53
GM John Shaw 11
Gm Colin McNab 20
Average FIDE rating 2485 and seeded about 55th in the Open section.
Indeed, if we removed games played outwith my suggested Jan 1st to June 30th period, only Andrew would meet the criteria. But if these players all said they were available for the Olympiad, can you expect the selectors to say no to any of them based on number of games played recently?
That's not an easy shout for selectors at all. Sorry Jonathan, we know you are our highest-ever rated player but we don't know if 2 games, or 6 games, or 12 is enough. Much easier for prospective players to know: minimum games needed for selection: 15 (or whatever)
And could we expect these players to finish ahead of their seeding of 55th anyway (one possible goal we might have in mind for team Scotland)? That would be a tough task, given that it might take a few rounds to hit the level they are used to playing at. Chess at this level is very tough!!
Pre-Olympiad training games and seminars could help to address this; playing more regularly almost definitely would I believe.
If we chose instead players who had met the criteria, I guesstimate we would be seeded about 80th. Players of FM/IM strength who have been competing regularly could well be expected to finish ahead of 80th spot, particularly if we added in the pre-event training matches.
This of course is open to debate, but that's why I'm on the forum asking for comments and sharing ideas!
Does the fact we enter a team at 55th seeding or 80th seeding matter? Medal contention, top 10 or 20 spot are not on the horizon - so what are we looking for? Doing better than expected is an easily-quantifiable goal which many other teams set their sights on.
I wouldn't expect anyone to play as many games as, say, myself (I am fortunate in that I have great freedom with my work, although this hasn't translated into good results!) but those who want to make the Olympiad teams can and should show that they are committed to playing chess.
Again, I want to state that none of the following is intended to reflect on our recent Baku performances - we did well in Baku, but I believe we can, and will have to, up our game for the future.
OK, let's use the extreme example of our top 5 rated players on the current published list:
Player Games played 2015/16:
GM Jonathan Rowson 2
GM Paul Motwani 0
IM Andrew Greet 53
GM John Shaw 11
Gm Colin McNab 20
Average FIDE rating 2485 and seeded about 55th in the Open section.
Indeed, if we removed games played outwith my suggested Jan 1st to June 30th period, only Andrew would meet the criteria. But if these players all said they were available for the Olympiad, can you expect the selectors to say no to any of them based on number of games played recently?
That's not an easy shout for selectors at all. Sorry Jonathan, we know you are our highest-ever rated player but we don't know if 2 games, or 6 games, or 12 is enough. Much easier for prospective players to know: minimum games needed for selection: 15 (or whatever)
And could we expect these players to finish ahead of their seeding of 55th anyway (one possible goal we might have in mind for team Scotland)? That would be a tough task, given that it might take a few rounds to hit the level they are used to playing at. Chess at this level is very tough!!
Pre-Olympiad training games and seminars could help to address this; playing more regularly almost definitely would I believe.
If we chose instead players who had met the criteria, I guesstimate we would be seeded about 80th. Players of FM/IM strength who have been competing regularly could well be expected to finish ahead of 80th spot, particularly if we added in the pre-event training matches.
This of course is open to debate, but that's why I'm on the forum asking for comments and sharing ideas!
Does the fact we enter a team at 55th seeding or 80th seeding matter? Medal contention, top 10 or 20 spot are not on the horizon - so what are we looking for? Doing better than expected is an easily-quantifiable goal which many other teams set their sights on.