30-09-2012, 02:14 PM
Olympiad results:
These were not much different from what we might have expected. We are probably no better or worse than we were in the past but it is an undeniable fact that much of the ‘developing’ world is now catching up with the once-dominant Europeans. This is particularly true in the Women’s game where we are now ranked below countries with comparable or smaller chess-playing populations such as Bermuda, Guatemala, Myanmar, El Salvador, Cyprus, Botswana, Zambia and Costa Rica. (Closer to home even Leichtenstein outranks us!).
Is this a vindication of the much-maligned FIDE President’s (successful?) ‘inclusive’ policy of encouraging and supporting ‘third world’ chess? I know many will see it differently—but do the attempts to re-establish the ‘old’ order include some element of outdated ‘colonialist’ attitudes? (I’m not taking a stance on this—just pointing out how others might see it).
Analysing the games themselves, there were many instances where ‘our guys’ established highly promising positions only to be outplayed later on and either drawing games which might have been won, or losing games which might have been drawn. Perhaps it was always thus but those who suggest that unfamiliarity with the incremental time controls (which give you a better chance to ’grind’ down an opponent) may have a point. So to the next posting…
These were not much different from what we might have expected. We are probably no better or worse than we were in the past but it is an undeniable fact that much of the ‘developing’ world is now catching up with the once-dominant Europeans. This is particularly true in the Women’s game where we are now ranked below countries with comparable or smaller chess-playing populations such as Bermuda, Guatemala, Myanmar, El Salvador, Cyprus, Botswana, Zambia and Costa Rica. (Closer to home even Leichtenstein outranks us!).
Is this a vindication of the much-maligned FIDE President’s (successful?) ‘inclusive’ policy of encouraging and supporting ‘third world’ chess? I know many will see it differently—but do the attempts to re-establish the ‘old’ order include some element of outdated ‘colonialist’ attitudes? (I’m not taking a stance on this—just pointing out how others might see it).
Analysing the games themselves, there were many instances where ‘our guys’ established highly promising positions only to be outplayed later on and either drawing games which might have been won, or losing games which might have been drawn. Perhaps it was always thus but those who suggest that unfamiliarity with the incremental time controls (which give you a better chance to ’grind’ down an opponent) may have a point. So to the next posting…