16-09-2016, 01:47 PM
Selection can be done using mathematical formulas. The simplest way is to go simply by rating. This can be complicated or improved depending on your point of view by including a factor for CS grade and/or number of games played.
Once such a formula is derived there is no need for a selection committee, a computer can pick the team.
However, I do not believe that selection is so simple.
A major factor should be team moral. A team where there is unrest will not perform to its maximum ability. This can be caused by various factors including a player or captain that the others do not get on with. Often the arrangements mean players have to share a bedroom, being able to co-exist is necessary.
At this Olympiad the Canadians did very well. Before the event there was however much questioning of the selection. Some of the questioning was about how ‘Canadian’ some of the players were but another was about the selection of a relatively inactive player over younger up and coming players. The player in question worked on his game and his performance has caused his critics to eat their words.
Activity v inactivity is a factor but can it be measured? The above case would imply that it is not easy to do so.
Age v experience is another complication. We know what the old guard are capable of but should a poorer performance be expected so that youngsters can be blooded? With the English team this time it was the two older players who did better than their younger teammates.
That leads to another question, how do you measure Olympiad success? We are never going to win the event in the foreseeable future so a top 10 finish for example would not be a realistic target. We could enter a team of unrated players, be seeded bottom, and finish with a prize for the best performance by a team in the bottom band. But would such a prize be meaningful?
I am not suggesting any answers – I don’t see any simple solutions. I’m merely trying to expand the points which have been raised.
The big problem is that there does not seem to be a younger generation coming through to the extent that everyone would want. That, of course raises another question. With the limited resources available should any money be spent on the Olympiad team or should it be diverted to development? It is easy to say “Development” but I strongly believe that a major problem for the younger players is the fact that chess will never be a career with which they will be able to support a family in the manner they would want. We have few carrots to encourage people to progress. Removing one of the few we have seems counter productive. But having said that the current squad are not getting any younger. How much longer can they play at the level they are? How do we even keep the team at its current level if we don’t develop younger players?
The simple answer to many of the problems is MONEY. Andy Howie talks of the lack of volunteers. Society has changed. People now expect to get some sort of financial reward, or at the very least break even, if they are giving up their time. Also, if things are too cheap people don’t appreciate them. If England is anything to go by then players want better venues and are willing to pay more to get them. The Scottish Tour would support the idea of better venues being popular.
Money would also allow more 9 round events to be organised. But how do you get money into chess? Media coverage is poor in Britain. Sponsors will get little return on their money so are not interested from a marketing point of view. The Scottish benefitted from a benefactor for a good number of years. There was an obvious improvement in the event. But even here the numbers did not increase significantly. Timing of events is important. The Scottish has limited scope for moving but there is potential for hotels to do end/beginning of season deals and attract the chess tourists talked about elsewhere.
A simple question but has anyone who works for a large company considered approaching them with the idea of running an international chess event? Has anyone in tertiary education approached their establishment to sell the idea of chess to attract potential students?
The improvement of chess requires everyone to do a little – many a mickle makes a muckle.
Once such a formula is derived there is no need for a selection committee, a computer can pick the team.
However, I do not believe that selection is so simple.
A major factor should be team moral. A team where there is unrest will not perform to its maximum ability. This can be caused by various factors including a player or captain that the others do not get on with. Often the arrangements mean players have to share a bedroom, being able to co-exist is necessary.
At this Olympiad the Canadians did very well. Before the event there was however much questioning of the selection. Some of the questioning was about how ‘Canadian’ some of the players were but another was about the selection of a relatively inactive player over younger up and coming players. The player in question worked on his game and his performance has caused his critics to eat their words.
Activity v inactivity is a factor but can it be measured? The above case would imply that it is not easy to do so.
Age v experience is another complication. We know what the old guard are capable of but should a poorer performance be expected so that youngsters can be blooded? With the English team this time it was the two older players who did better than their younger teammates.
That leads to another question, how do you measure Olympiad success? We are never going to win the event in the foreseeable future so a top 10 finish for example would not be a realistic target. We could enter a team of unrated players, be seeded bottom, and finish with a prize for the best performance by a team in the bottom band. But would such a prize be meaningful?
I am not suggesting any answers – I don’t see any simple solutions. I’m merely trying to expand the points which have been raised.
The big problem is that there does not seem to be a younger generation coming through to the extent that everyone would want. That, of course raises another question. With the limited resources available should any money be spent on the Olympiad team or should it be diverted to development? It is easy to say “Development” but I strongly believe that a major problem for the younger players is the fact that chess will never be a career with which they will be able to support a family in the manner they would want. We have few carrots to encourage people to progress. Removing one of the few we have seems counter productive. But having said that the current squad are not getting any younger. How much longer can they play at the level they are? How do we even keep the team at its current level if we don’t develop younger players?
The simple answer to many of the problems is MONEY. Andy Howie talks of the lack of volunteers. Society has changed. People now expect to get some sort of financial reward, or at the very least break even, if they are giving up their time. Also, if things are too cheap people don’t appreciate them. If England is anything to go by then players want better venues and are willing to pay more to get them. The Scottish Tour would support the idea of better venues being popular.
Money would also allow more 9 round events to be organised. But how do you get money into chess? Media coverage is poor in Britain. Sponsors will get little return on their money so are not interested from a marketing point of view. The Scottish benefitted from a benefactor for a good number of years. There was an obvious improvement in the event. But even here the numbers did not increase significantly. Timing of events is important. The Scottish has limited scope for moving but there is potential for hotels to do end/beginning of season deals and attract the chess tourists talked about elsewhere.
A simple question but has anyone who works for a large company considered approaching them with the idea of running an international chess event? Has anyone in tertiary education approached their establishment to sell the idea of chess to attract potential students?
The improvement of chess requires everyone to do a little – many a mickle makes a muckle.