Tromso Olympiad

[Jonathan Edwards]

Judging by my endgame technique I'd call me young too...

£10 says Andy Burnett gets to 2300 before anyone else

I'll take that bet... A certain Clement Sreeves will be there pretty soon .

[andyburnett]

Guess I'd better make up that 50 point deficit pretty quickly then! Oh, plus 21 from last week <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://chess-results.com/tnr141385.aspx?lan=5&art=9&fed=SCO&flag=30&wi=821&snr=17">http://chess-results.com/tnr141385.aspx ... 821&snr=17</a><!-- m --> that'll do for starters

P.S. I bet you a tenner someone will complain about your betting on the forum ^#(^

[Kevin Mayo]

Does it make any difference if Scotland finish 53rd in the Olympiad or 87th? (or any other random number).
I would suggest not.

I am in agreement with George, which in itself is a cause for personal concern . That aside.

What does Chess Scotland gain from being represented by ageing GM/IMs who have been in decline for many years? That is not in any way an attack on them, merely a painful factual observation.

Step aside relatively old men, forsake your subsidised holiday and give the youngsters a chance.

The team could easily have been
Greet (there might be a couple of arguments for leaving him at home)
Tate
Sreeves
... +any number of 2100+ guys under 30 years of age.

They might have finished 9,671st. So what?
You can invest in the future, or invest in the declining present.

Then again, we all love a subsidised holiday.

[David Deary]

I'll take that bet... A certain Clement Sreeves will be there pretty soon .

You beat me to it...

Thought provoking stuff from Kevin, I have asked myself the same question re "You can invest in the future, or invest in the declining present" and I'm inclined to agree with you but don't want to hijack this thread...

[Andy Howie]

Interesting comment on the ECForum

2 Youth still counts

We saw it everywhere. Runaway winners China had a team of players so young that the Western chess media has not actually had time to track some of them very well before the event. The secret of France, by far the best performing Western Europe country, must lies somewhere in the relative youth of its team as well as their Elo strength. Hungary too show signs of rejuvenation and looks able to cope without Judit Polgar in future, and a relatively youthful Indian team did just that without Anand. For England, the news is sombre (just imagine them coming in the top 5 without Adams!). In all probability our best players likely to be available for Olympiad chess are all over forty; and it may be that this time, even with the best board order and without the last round defeat England would probably have finished no higher than just in the top 20. Realism must be the watchword in future events, with a top 20 finish being seen as entirely respectable in Olympiad and European events, even if we do continue to be ranked ninth at the outset. This should be understood not just by selection committees and the International Director of the ECF but more broadly by ECF members. The way to support our players will be to congratulate them on a good top 20 finish, which will be easier done if we don’t constantly talk up their medal chances before each and every event.

[andyburnett]

Interesting stuff from Kevin in his usual style

However, why should we give places to players based on age, many of whom simply do not put in the time or effort (which was required by the oldies) or have the ability, to reach international standard? (Let's say 2300 elo) Wouldn't this just be subsidised holidays for youngsters? This is not investing in the future - it's rewarding 'mediocrity' (at an admittedly rather high level!)

Would giving places to 2 or 3 younger players spur them on to fulfil their potential? Possibly, but the thought of representing Scotland in the Olympiad should already be a spur for those who have the potential.

I agree with Kevin that the final placing of the Scottish team isn't so important (and those who follow such events closely know that the luck of the draw in final round in such a huge Swiss event can radically alter that finishing position anyway as Andy Muir pointed out recently).

So what should we want from such an event?

a) that Scotland continue to be represented as a separate entity in such competitions (still important should September's vote come back 'Nay')
b) that we field as strong a team as possible containing those worthy of representing Scotland?
c) Perhaps that we attempt to better our seeding position?
d) That we give chances to those who are in the running for (even higher) titles to gain a 'double norm'.

I'm sure there are other reasons (which others will hopefully supply) but I have to run now to get to my chess club and actually play!

[George Neave]

I want to elaborate my earlier point.When I say I'd like to see more young players in the team I mean if places have been earned as demonstrated by rating. S what I really mean is I'd like to see more under 30s start pushing over 2300. Noone has taken up my question - what were we doing differently now compared with the post FIscher era when we produced multiple GMs and IMs I think almost all achieved under 30? e.g. Motwani, McNab, Condie, Muir, Bryson. I have probably missed a few there are so many. Was the training different? Was there greater access to strong events closer to home? What is different today?

PS I am not up for that bet.

[Adam Bremner]

Noone has taken up my question - what were we doing differently now compared with the post FIscher era when we produced multiple GMs and IMs I think almost all achieved under 30?

I would be interested to know where they played all their games to get up to that level. I think regular games of a high standard are needed to kick on to the titles. The way things are now, for most people of my age it is either too expensive to do this so you are lucky to manage 2/3 events a year, or you simply don't have the time to study it seriously with university. Also, what real benefit comes of getting your number up, is it really worth the fortune needed?

Alan seemed to shoot up a lot when constantly whizzing around Europe, getting lots of games in against some seriously good players. Andrew Green shot up over 2250 in his year off when constantly playing, and Clement did something similar. There has to be a link. My feeling, which could be rubbish, is in years gone by you could get these games in easier within the UK.

As for the side bets, I'll have a tenner on Bon Accord having at least one FM in the next 5y.

[Alan Tate]

I want to elaborate my earlier point.When I say I'd like to see more young players in the team I mean if places have been earned as demonstrated by rating. S what I really mean is I'd like to see more under 30s start pushing over 2300. Noone has taken up my question - what were we doing differently now compared with the post FIscher era when we produced multiple GMs and IMs I think almost all achieved under 30? e.g. Motwani, McNab, Condie, Muir, Bryson. I have probably missed a few there are so many. Was the training different? Was there greater access to strong events closer to home? What is different today?

PS I am not up for that bet.

I could be wrong but aren't most, if not all of these players self-taught? There were however a few GM tournaments for McNab and Motwani if I recall correctly. There was also healthy competition between this group as far as I am aware. Any potentials post 2000 in this Facebook era are more interested in making 'friends' and having a laugh as opposed to 'success' and I don't blame them - there are lots of fun things to do in your twenties and chess will always be there to come back to.

Also, what real benefit comes of getting your number up, is it really worth the fortune needed?

Alan seemed to shoot up a lot when constantly whizzing around Europe, getting lots of games in against some seriously good players.

I can guarantee you that a smack habit is more expensive than trying to get your rating up )

[JRedpath]

What is the incentive to break 2300? Seems like it is being used as some magical figure, when the truth is that 2300 is nothing these days. I see many European players who I beat 10 years ago now rated 2500-2600 plus. The issue is clearly a lack of opportunities in Scotland and this has and always will be the case! The sad fact is there is little to no money to be made in chess so unless you enjoy spending 8 hours plus a day studying and spending a fortune travelling to Europe to play stronger events it is pointless.

I stopped studying chess seriously 10 years ago, aged 18 and rated 2250. Now in 2014, I am still rated 2254 and looking at the current FIDE rating list still no-one younger has over-taken me. I am trying not to sound negative, but I think that says a lot about the current state of chess in Scotland.

Let's hope things change, would be great to see some of the up and coming players reach not only 2300 but IM level and beyond.