17-09-2016, 11:08 PM
Alan / Andy B: no one is arguing that the selection process can't incorporate marginally improved metrics merely that no metric on its own should dominate all other judgemental criteria in selections and especially a selector's reason for being on a selection committee, viz. to exercise, having considered all arguments, his or her best considered view.
In fact, I would change the criteria to ensure that Scottish champions had a right to a place in the following Olympiad or Euro team (if they want it ... some might indeed refuse it on the grounds that they don't really feel that they are sufficiently strong compared to other 'candidates'). That way opens up a route for up and coming players to break into teams and both recognises the prestige of the title and boosts the attractiveness of the Scottish because of that. I've long argued for that - see elsewhere going back years.
Alan: I am also having trouble deciding what you actually think went wrong with the recent Olympiad selection process. Would any other (available) team have been a clearly 'better' choice? If not, does that not suggest that the selection process plus criteria aren't really the (main) 'problem'?
By all means write in some kind of aspirational recent minimum number of games rule (though I'd not do it) but bear in mind that it might easily be open to abuse, quite apart from objections in principle (if too much is read into it compared to all the other judgements that selectors must make). Do high quality rapid games count? Online competition? Games played against players, say 2000 or below? A commitment to study Kasparov's games in the KID in depth? And so on?
Of course, no selector worth his or her salt is ever going to select anyone whom he or she deems likely to be unacceptably rusty when the 'big' event takes place. And if any highly 'inactive' (but very highly rated) player, who might 'normally' walk into the top two or three boards of a team, were to be selected, I am quite sure that the selectors would have a quiet word with that player - to ensure that he or she had an appropriate study, play and training regime in place in the run-up to the 'big' event to justify the relative risk in making that selection.
If you think that any real problem lies more in such areas as team bonding, away-days. study sessions, etc before the 'big' event, that's another matter and I have some sympathy with that. Realistic (and preferably well-funded) proposals along such lines would be welcome but they also have their logistical (and financial) problems and need to be managed with exceptional professionalism and sensitivity, or they, too, can be 'unattractive' - with players coming away from them thinking that they might have better spent their time on dedicated individual opening study or other forms of individually organised practice sessions.
I'm sure many would indeed gain and enjoy a one-off Dvoretsky session ... run by a top GM, with proper teaching qualifications and experience (not all have these skills) ... and fully paid for at a nice weekend venue. Even those, who along with the Adgestein/Carlsen/Norwegian school of chess (rather than the old-style 'heavily serious' Russian school), prefer to put more emphasis on 'fun' in the actual learning.
I am open to 'solutions' but think that we must first more clearly define any real 'problem'. Help required!
In fact, I would change the criteria to ensure that Scottish champions had a right to a place in the following Olympiad or Euro team (if they want it ... some might indeed refuse it on the grounds that they don't really feel that they are sufficiently strong compared to other 'candidates'). That way opens up a route for up and coming players to break into teams and both recognises the prestige of the title and boosts the attractiveness of the Scottish because of that. I've long argued for that - see elsewhere going back years.
Alan: I am also having trouble deciding what you actually think went wrong with the recent Olympiad selection process. Would any other (available) team have been a clearly 'better' choice? If not, does that not suggest that the selection process plus criteria aren't really the (main) 'problem'?
By all means write in some kind of aspirational recent minimum number of games rule (though I'd not do it) but bear in mind that it might easily be open to abuse, quite apart from objections in principle (if too much is read into it compared to all the other judgements that selectors must make). Do high quality rapid games count? Online competition? Games played against players, say 2000 or below? A commitment to study Kasparov's games in the KID in depth? And so on?
Of course, no selector worth his or her salt is ever going to select anyone whom he or she deems likely to be unacceptably rusty when the 'big' event takes place. And if any highly 'inactive' (but very highly rated) player, who might 'normally' walk into the top two or three boards of a team, were to be selected, I am quite sure that the selectors would have a quiet word with that player - to ensure that he or she had an appropriate study, play and training regime in place in the run-up to the 'big' event to justify the relative risk in making that selection.
If you think that any real problem lies more in such areas as team bonding, away-days. study sessions, etc before the 'big' event, that's another matter and I have some sympathy with that. Realistic (and preferably well-funded) proposals along such lines would be welcome but they also have their logistical (and financial) problems and need to be managed with exceptional professionalism and sensitivity, or they, too, can be 'unattractive' - with players coming away from them thinking that they might have better spent their time on dedicated individual opening study or other forms of individually organised practice sessions.
I'm sure many would indeed gain and enjoy a one-off Dvoretsky session ... run by a top GM, with proper teaching qualifications and experience (not all have these skills) ... and fully paid for at a nice weekend venue. Even those, who along with the Adgestein/Carlsen/Norwegian school of chess (rather than the old-style 'heavily serious' Russian school), prefer to put more emphasis on 'fun' in the actual learning.
I am open to 'solutions' but think that we must first more clearly define any real 'problem'. Help required!