Olympiad Goals

[andyburnett]

OK, with you now Walter An absolute threshold would be set, but by the International Director, not the selectors -although of course many people would be involved in such a decision. the selctors themselves are not required to come up with such criteria, merely implement them.

My minimum number of 15 games in a 6-month period is related to the minimum 30 games required for statistically relevant grades. Complete inactivity in a season should immediately disqualify anyone from selection.

Should it be the entire CS membership who gets a say in this, or only the ones who have some experience or knowledge of such things? Democracy is a dangerous thing as the Brexit vote has recently shown!

Naturally any change to the selection process would be communicated to everyone -and selectors in particular would be made aware of any such changes.

[Craig Pritchett]

There is no perfection!

No perfect 'absolute numbers/indicators', not even ratings, which are all based on systemic assumptions that are in the end fundamentally limited by that (and often incorporate significant statistical margins of error that no one ever seems to wish to acknowledge in chess). Assumptions, even between FIDE and CS rating systems (both 'good' statistically), also often differ, sometimes subtly, not infrequently quite starkly. Eg FIDE / CS are both based, each a little differently, on forecasting a view of possible outcome in a player's next outing NOT on a primary view of performance in a player's recent (and past) outings. We are NOT (purely definable by) 'numbers'!!

Equally no perfect judgements ... by any selector. Judgement requires great skill. It is also completely unavoidable.

I am broadly status quo. I do not think that the current selection system or selectors have let anyone down in any serious fashion ... but there are always difficult and contestable decisions at the margins (the less/more active player, ratings close debates, age discrimination for the young or old and so on). They won't ever disappear.

Our selection criteria really are, in my view, very difficult to argue against. Interestingly it has become increasingly difficult to find selectors willing to come forward to do this job. Could it be connected with the fact that in the modern age they get lambasted more quickly than praised ... even when they are doing a good job, essentially selflessly and acknowledging / dealing properly with conflicts of interest (also unavoidable at times)?

I also definitely don't like this 'top-down', near autocratic approach to a top player's training regime. Everyone's different. Some 'need' to prepare by playing lots (eg and famously, Tony Miles); others prefer quiet study. Life generally, not least work and family, most certainly complicate, what is already a complicated and personally highly sensitive area.

I don't think I have ever known any player selected to play for Scotland who hasn't attempted to prepare himself / herself as well as possible, with their own balance of play, practice, study before an event. There is no one size fits all for this and attempts to impose excessively in this regard are only ever likely to fail, possibly even causing understandable player resentment, which is in no one's interest at all.

There are vastly more important areas to try to improve in Scottish chess than marginal tweaks in the selection process. Seeking 'real' sponsorship for Olympiad (and other Scottish selections) is certainly one of these. We have even more significant youth development issues, especially in the teenage years, perhaps a subject for elsewhere.

Oh and very well done our Olympiad women. Our Open team also battled hard and didn't actually do so badly ... especially AND fundamentally learning a heck of a lot for the future of their game and the wider Scottish game.

[Matthew Turner]

Craig,
Agreed.

[Andrew Greet]

Well said Craig (and Walter earlier).

If we were to apply the 15-game minimum (it was only a tentative suggestion I know, but I'll use it to illustrate my point) then I myself would BARELY have been eligible for consideration for Baku, as I played exactly 15 FIDE-rated games in the first half of 2016. Had I missed the odd SNCL match, or not played in the FIDE-rated Livingston Open in January, then I would have been disqualified under that proposal. I've been the top performer for Scotland in two consecutive Olympiads now, so - although I guess I was not the primary target of the proposal - I do find it unsettling.

I'm not sure how many games Colin played in the same period, but here we have a guy with 18 Olympiads and endless big-match experience under his belt. I find it astonishing that we are even discussing the possibility of disqualifying a GM of his experience (the same could be said for John to some degree) in favour of some weaker but more active player.

Here's another (unlikely but still possible) scenario. Jonathan Rowson gets in touch at some point in 2018 and says he'd like to return for Scotland. What are you going to tell him? "Thanks for the offer, but you haven't played much recently so we're going to stick with McBunny as he's played more than 15 games this year."

In short, it's a terrible idea.

[andyburnett]

I'm ok folks, I got up at the count of 8 from Craig's post and am currently trying to get out of Andrew's triangle choke! b-(

None of what I have said so far has been intended as a negative or personal attack on anyone who has represented Scotland either in Baku or previously, so please don't take it that way.

We played well in Baku, performing to about our expectations, and the less active players prior to the event did well - John and Colin have huge experience and are great players and naturally I want them in a team! But how do we improve on this performance?

Perhaps it's not the selection criteria which needs changing. I personally think it is somewhere we should be looking to tweak things, but I do not plan to ride roughshod over the views of those who have more experience than I do, or who have provided solid arguments against my suggestions.

However, selection is also a privilege not a right. I don't see how anyone can argue that just walking into a team without playing any games is in any way correct or desirable or likely to produce a better (relative) result. If this isn't what we should be looking to achieve, then we need to decide what is :/

[Alan Tate]

1. If the selectors followed the selection criteria then none of this would be necessary.

2. Andrew G says he finds it unsettling that it's not ok to not play. Good. Some players need taken out of their comfort zone.

3. Craig mentions that it's a bad idea to impose training regimes on anyone. I agree to an extent. Although my mind finds it almost impossible to understand how someone would not benefit from a weekend of solving 'Dvoretsky style positions', even if that's true then they can impart some of their knowledge at a training event. Everyone can learn something from someone.

4. Who would want to sponsor the current Scotland squad? "Hey, give us some money and we'll associate your brand with consistent under performance."

5. The 15 game rule is not just about getting into shape. It sends a positive message to Scottish chess players and creates a more dynamic selection process. I'd also like to see how one or two players perform when not with their mates at a team competition (4NCL, Olympiad, 4NCL Olympiad.....).

6.Would the players in question really ignore the 15 game rule and not play? Of course not. They love chess and Scotland. We want our best players, not some diluted version of them.

7. Craig says that all players always give their absolute best in pre-tournament preparation. Really? I'll be honest and say the most I have ever prepared for a tournament has been around 40%. Anyone who says they prepare 100% is either lying or delusional.

8. I'm leaving this discussion for a few weeks - Going to try and raise that pathetic 40%. People's views show no sign of changing, I find most of the views here backward, negative, or with agenda, and as usual no one offers a decent alternative.

What's the worst that can happen by trying something? What are people so afraid of?

I'm with the International Director Andrew Burnett regarding the Brexit analogy. Unless you've played or been around the Olympiad team recently then you don't know what you're talking about. Andy is strong enough to see this through.

If it is a disaster then change it after Georgia.

For the love of god, if you're still unhappy then think of an alternative. No new ideas to add? Didn't think so.

[WBuchanan]

Thanks AndyB for the constructive reply.

I think what might be making these discussions difficult is the conflation of the two issues of present playing strength and the desire to have match fitness. Am I right in thinking you are looking for some leverage to get a better level of match fitness Olympiad (and hopefully thereby performance)?

We’re all aware that at least 30 games are desirable for rating accuracy/validity but 15 games does not have equivalent significance over a six month period in terms of stats. The player’s ratings are a good general guide, the question from the viewpoint of selection being what adjustment to make for inactivity.
Of course, as captain you would rather they all played at least 15 games anyway!

Isn’t there a halfway? (Oops I nearly said a third way ). You say:

“Perhaps it's not the selection criteria which needs changing. I personally think it is somewhere we should be looking to tweak things, but I do not plan to ride roughshod over the views of those who have more experience than I do, or who have provided solid arguments against my suggestions.”

You can tweak the criteria and also encourage players to play more games by simply devising a scale of adjustments to the ‘effective rating’ for inactivity.

I think can see where you’re coming from here:

“However, selection is also a privilege not a right. I don't see how anyone can argue that just walking into a team without playing any games is in any way correct or desirable or likely to produce a better (relative) result. If this isn't what we should be looking to achieve, then we need to decide what is :/”

Well of course we’re not arguing that pre-Olympiad inactivity is desirable, but it’s quite a jump there to a blanket ‘unacceptable’ if this means ‘unselected’.

But using a system of sliding scales, a borderline player might well miss out due to inactivity, while a clear selection on rating would have more leeway (but would also not be selected if the period of inactivity were long enough). Doesn’t this reflect the thinking adequately? No-one would be completely indispensable and selectors could still have some leeway built in.

It is open to the objection that 2500+ players will get in easier than the bog standard 2400 ( ) ones, but as the Olympiad itself is an elitist concept so this is not a very convincing objection.

Craig put the point well about the top-down, near autocratic approach – I would add that the painless way to exert influence over players is via the selection criteria and its surely worth taking some time over these to make sure they reflect the thinking in a measured way.

Cheers

[WBuchanan]

Hi Alan

“I'm leaving this discussion for a few weeks - Going to try and raise that pathetic 40%. People's views show no sign of changing, I find most of the views here backward, negative, or with agenda, and as usual no one offers a decent alternative.”

Thanks…Alan did you read my suggestion of sliding scales related to the level of inactivity and the relevant rating gap? If so, what didn’t you like about it? You could have anything up to and including a 15 game cutoff threshold if you want – just by having the numbers reflect that.

“What's the worst that can happen by trying something? What are people so afraid of?”

I might get in the team on a 15-games in six months basis :-).

“I'm with the International Director Andrew Burnett regarding the Brexit analogy. Unless you've played or been around the Olympiad team recently then you don't know what you're talking about. Andy is strong enough to see this through.”

Well then if you’re right, you’ll get support from the other players :|

I’ll read any reply and continue following the thread but I need to bow out here…Cheers

[Alan Tate]

Walter, In principle I like the sliding scale. I suggested a basic version somewhere of adding say 2 points per game played to a player's rating but it didn't set the world alight. One for the mathematicians to discuss. (Ok I'm really going now)

[Craig Pritchett]

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!