Olympiad Goals

[Andy Howie]

Found my notes. Just to correct an earlier statement, we are currently ranked 58th in the world and 40th in Europe (I got the 70s from the table for 2016, it was just alphabetical so apologies for the mistake), To give you an idea the following European Countries are ranked lower than us.

Portugal, Ireland, Monaco, Luxemburg, Andorra, Faroe Islands, Kosovo, Wales, Albania, Malta, Cyprus, San Marino, Guernsey, Lichtenstein and Jeresey

Everyone else ranks above us. That's the reality at the moment.

A couple of more facts from the Commission

101 of the 189 member federations do not have a GM (We have 6)
132 do not have a WGM (including us)

Europe contributed 8,543 of the open tournaments in FIDE (79%), of that we have 6 - 10 from memory (Davids, + Edinburgh + Scottish, the team events don't count as they are not classed as an open tournament)

There were 1,195,894 rated games played in 2015. Austria (Population just over 8 million) were in the top 20 with 39,941. I am hoping to get the figures but we are not going to be into 4 figures.

Greece, France and Czech Republic at the top 3 for Chess "Tourism" (Games played by foreign players)

The top 5 countries with players playing in tournament abroad are Germany, Russia, Ukraine, India and Poland

You want to improve our performances, we need to do the groundwork. With Brexit and the pound crashing v the Euro, we are now a cheap destination. Why is that such a good thing? If we can tap into the chess tourism, we can get players from abroad playing in the tournaments. Suddenly you are not playing the same players weekend in and out.

I think the most fundamental thing we should do is to wherever possible, ensure at least the top section of a weekend open is FIDE graded. Not only that but advertise it on the FIDE calendar. Lets tap into this chess tourism, make Scotland a destination that players want to play in and increase the pool that our top players play against. I know some players are against it, if you want to bring in foreign players to add to the experience pool, it is going to have to be done.

Secondly, lets look at getting funding for organizing some round robin norm tournaments. We have an excellent venue in the Edinburgh Chess Club. We also have a suitable cheap venue for a small tournament in Glasgow.

Thirdly, we need to re-energize our congress scene. Falling numbers and tournaments not continuing is not an acceptable situation and sitting on our backsides is not going to do anything about it. We have experienced people who know how to run tournaments that can help. Want to run a tournament but not sure of how to do it. Ask one of us (David, Alex, Myself to name just a few). We have the experience there to assist.

Fourthly, and this ties in to point 3, we need the support structure in place. We need more arbiters. To maintain arbiter status, you need to be an arbiter at a couple of events every 2 years. You don't have to be out most weekends like some of us (who are doing it as there is no one else!). We need people to learn how to use the live boards. There is a new proposed system coming in that I would like to use that will dramatically improve the viewing experience. I'll tell you now I am not doing it myself.

Fifthly, again tying into point 3. We need bodies to help us. We can't do this alone. Nearly a month ago, I put an appeal for volunteers for Council. I have a huge number of responses (exactly 0!)

Sixthly, Where possible, use incremental time controls to get players used to them.

Finally, and this is probably, the most obvious. We need to increase our membership, a greater membership brings in more money giving more funds to do things. For example, funding training for all members (not just the top players), organizing norm tournaments etc etc.

You want to see improvements? You want to see better performances? We need to get the basics working and we are now at the stage where either people start coming forward and helping or we will as Johnathan has said, go into terminal decline.

[andyburnett]

The question of adding a certain number of games to selection criteria is a tricky one. I believe there should be a number, but the goal is to get players into shape, not sideline them. Adam says that games against lower rated players are pointless but I think all practice is good practice.

Andy H's post about needing more round robins is a good one and I look forward to seeing what comes of it.

I didn't write this at all! I think Alan has used the 'quote' function wrongly :/

[Matthew Turner]

Andy,
That seems to me to boil down to, "Things are not very good we need more tournaments". I don't think I, or indeed anyone else, would disagree with that. The problem I have is what can a national organisation do about it? It seems to me that organisers come and go determined by completely random factors, so it is hard for me to see how a national organisation can 'encourage' more organisers to come forward.
I think it important that Chess Scotland is realistic and talks about what it can change.
P.s. I agree that there are many foreign players who would like to come and play in Scotland and that would be a great market to tap into. Portugal and Italy seem to be doing a great job of marketing holiday tournaments, there is no reason Scotland couldn't do the same.

[andyburnett]

Andy B: "I believe there should be a number, but the goal is to get players into shape, not sideline them"

It would be better if this number were not fixed, as this could lead to dropping a player who should be picked on strength even after taking account of inactivity. Rather, a big gap down to the next candidate should count more than a small gap!? An adjustment for inactivity could be made on agreed basis so the gap to the next player can be assessed.

Just for example, I think I remember Douglas Bryson saying that a returning inactive player loses about ten rating points on average for each inactive year. This could be adjusted to take account of the number of games played, and form the basis of a tweak to the ratings.

Walter, the part I've put in bold begs the question: Why should an 'inactive/relatively inactive' player be chosen?

Using the example of Jonathan Rowson from my previous post: he decides he wants to play the Olympiad, has played 2 games in a year, and is expected to perform at his level immediately? I'd love our best players to represent Scotland again in Olympiads, but it does a disservice not only to our team if they are not ready to play at their best, but also to those who are fighting all year to make the team.

This then begs the question: what is an acceptable level of commitment to the game for selection? Should selectors be left to decide if 2 games, or zero, or 8 or whatever is the number? Views vary - as other have stated - so why not have a minimum level in place?

The tweaking of the ratings due to inactivity doesn't deal with this. Jonathan would have to be inactive for 10 or 15 years before he reaches the rest of our guys!!

What I want are players committed to playing chess, and ready and able to give it their best when they reach the biggest team tournaments. There are several factors which can be taken into account here and I firmly believe that 'activity' is one of the really important ones.

[Alex McFarlane]

Selection can be done using mathematical formulas. The simplest way is to go simply by rating. This can be complicated or improved depending on your point of view by including a factor for CS grade and/or number of games played.
Once such a formula is derived there is no need for a selection committee, a computer can pick the team.

However, I do not believe that selection is so simple.
A major factor should be team moral. A team where there is unrest will not perform to its maximum ability. This can be caused by various factors including a player or captain that the others do not get on with. Often the arrangements mean players have to share a bedroom, being able to co-exist is necessary.
At this Olympiad the Canadians did very well. Before the event there was however much questioning of the selection. Some of the questioning was about how ‘Canadian’ some of the players were but another was about the selection of a relatively inactive player over younger up and coming players. The player in question worked on his game and his performance has caused his critics to eat their words.
Activity v inactivity is a factor but can it be measured? The above case would imply that it is not easy to do so.
Age v experience is another complication. We know what the old guard are capable of but should a poorer performance be expected so that youngsters can be blooded? With the English team this time it was the two older players who did better than their younger teammates.
That leads to another question, how do you measure Olympiad success? We are never going to win the event in the foreseeable future so a top 10 finish for example would not be a realistic target. We could enter a team of unrated players, be seeded bottom, and finish with a prize for the best performance by a team in the bottom band. But would such a prize be meaningful?

I am not suggesting any answers – I don’t see any simple solutions. I’m merely trying to expand the points which have been raised.

The big problem is that there does not seem to be a younger generation coming through to the extent that everyone would want. That, of course raises another question. With the limited resources available should any money be spent on the Olympiad team or should it be diverted to development? It is easy to say “Development” but I strongly believe that a major problem for the younger players is the fact that chess will never be a career with which they will be able to support a family in the manner they would want. We have few carrots to encourage people to progress. Removing one of the few we have seems counter productive. But having said that the current squad are not getting any younger. How much longer can they play at the level they are? How do we even keep the team at its current level if we don’t develop younger players?

The simple answer to many of the problems is MONEY. Andy Howie talks of the lack of volunteers. Society has changed. People now expect to get some sort of financial reward, or at the very least break even, if they are giving up their time. Also, if things are too cheap people don’t appreciate them. If England is anything to go by then players want better venues and are willing to pay more to get them. The Scottish Tour would support the idea of better venues being popular.

Money would also allow more 9 round events to be organised. But how do you get money into chess? Media coverage is poor in Britain. Sponsors will get little return on their money so are not interested from a marketing point of view. The Scottish benefitted from a benefactor for a good number of years. There was an obvious improvement in the event. But even here the numbers did not increase significantly. Timing of events is important. The Scottish has limited scope for moving but there is potential for hotels to do end/beginning of season deals and attract the chess tourists talked about elsewhere.

A simple question but has anyone who works for a large company considered approaching them with the idea of running an international chess event? Has anyone in tertiary education approached their establishment to sell the idea of chess to attract potential students?

The improvement of chess requires everyone to do a little – many a mickle makes a muckle.

[andyburnett]

This was posted on the Canadian Chess Federation website at New year:

"The next Olympiads will be in Baku, Sept 17-30, 2016. Players must have played at least 10 games during the year prior to 180 days before the start of the Olympiad.

The national team consists of 5 players:

The Canadian Closed champion (Tomas Krnan).
The three players with the highest rating average during the previous months (CFC-FIDE)
One player selected by the Selection Committee.

[Andy Howie]

The improvement of chess requires everyone to do a little – many a mickle makes a muckle.

Amen to that

[amuir]

In terms of tournaments , I offered to run the AK Miller (Glasgow League Handicap) but no entries.
Glasgow League Quickplay also has no entries.
I have asked about the Glasgow Schools League but after 3 weeks of asking, it does not seem to exist.
I offer to run it , just to get some juniors coming through. Could we put a notice on the CS website for schools to enter ? Otherwise our 45 year old olympiad team will just be 55 years old in 10 years time. I see little of people aged 20-40 coming through.

[Alan Tate]

Andy B and Walter: Apologies for quoting confusion. As the other thread was locked I was not allowed to quote and I find being creative makes using the forum a bit less mundane (Small tip: Quotes are a different colour to the rest of the text)... Also I don't like cluttering up posts with masses of text.. I'll keep it simple from now on ; )

Matthew, That would involve giving a lot of responsibility to the selectors. Do you even know who they are? I don't. I know that there are only 3 of them which is open to abuse as all it takes is for 2 to have a mate and they're in. I'm not suggesting this has or may happen, but why have it as a possibility. How much thought do selectors actually put into making their selections? I'd like a bit more transparency and maybe even an explanation so those not selected understand what they need to do next time.
Finally If all 3 selectors have represented Scotland and know what it's about then fine, if not then perhaps rules are needed. As Andy Burnett says everyone has a differing view on so having clear criteria makes sense.

Performance related pay would be an additional bonus for hitting targets such as winning matches. An extra £1 increased to the membership fee would cover this and more. Anyone who is insulted by this needs an ego check.
Jonathan L, Robin and Walter broadly mention that CS members already subsidise stronger players in tournaments and for events like the Olympiad which is true, but is one more pound really such a big deal? I'd rather add a bit more to the membership fee with the chance of seeing results than the current situation which is frankly a waste of money. There is also Kickstarter and other ways to generate money. I'd like to add that playing and performing well is a pressure situation - sometimes the better you do, the higher the stress - it makes sense to reward this and provide additional motivation pre-tournament.

Various CS officials are all on the same page regarding needing volunteers, money and sponsorship which makes me think they might be on to something....
As I've said a few times before I want to run round robins in the future, preferably when I stop playing, but might consider having a go at an IM tournament this winter if there is enough interest and would depend on Edinburgh CC being available. My motivation tends to fluctuate though so there would have to be clear interest. It also depends how time and energy consuming it's going to be.

[robin moore]

Alan,

I am not sure what your motivation is but I am quite taken aback that you support increasing ChessScotland membership subscription in order to give it to players who are already representing their country with travel and accommodation costs all already paid for as you feel it will somehow improve their results.
Are you saying that our international squad will try harder if they are paid more?