21-06-2013, 10:12 AM
Quote: time was Mike's
Not me - far too sensible. But agree.
Can I drag it back onto topic?
One of the problems I see in selecting purely on an average, especially a statistically biased one based on a selected sub-set of results, is that players have different results profiles: some will will have great wins against highly rated opponents combined with poor results against lower rated opponents while others are inherently more consistent. They beat those they should beat and loose to those they should loose to if you like. To know who is the better player you need to understand the reasons for the differences. For example it may be that the first player gets more motivated against the better players and genuinely plays better the harder the event. But perhaps the losses are an indication of some weakness in their technique and the number of good wins is less significant?
The alternative to selecting players based on their five best results, selected with hind sight, the selectors could nominate at the start of the season a selection of events for players in the squad to play at least five from to be considered for selection and their performances at these events becomes a major selection criteran.
This not only tests their chess ability but their ability to turn up at a specific event and perform on the day - as they will have to for the event they are hoping to be selected for.
At these events selectors would attended and observe the players and provide coaching after the games and if practical before. This would both help the selectors get to know the players but gets the players partly used to the routine involved in major events.
It is only appropriate for players above a certain age or ability but it is something they do in swimming and it seems to work.