Olympiad Goals

[Matthew Turner]

I don't really see that bonus related pay (in the context) is really going to work. However, I have nothing against your other ideas.
In the context of developing the Scottish team longer term then spending £5000 on the Olympiad may not be the best use of money. However, I think there should be room for longer term development AND sending a 'representative' team. Parents of Scottish juniors spend tens of thousands each year on chess, so the money is there, but how can Chess Scotland help people use the resources for the best development of Scottish chess - not easy.

[iaing]

Hi Iain, I didn't single you out - John was also included.

I think you got my point and I addressed your comments regarding John. Pedantry not needed.

Seeing as you pressed me, you played 24 games 2 seasons ago and 14 last season.

No I didn't. I played 29 games last season and 15 this season (14 FIDE rated). Two reasons for fewer games this season, both of which are personal. Besides the point really: I was simply clarifying that I wasn't sitting on my rating. I was making every effort to play when I could despite significant life commitments outside of chess because I love the game. Clearly I'm not the most active player (I've never been a 50 games a year guy) but people who know me better than you do (i.e. at all) would certainly not question my motivation or passion for the game. Playing is one part of it but I actually spent a very large amount of time preparing and training before the Olympiad as my understanding wife can attest to. I had very high hopes for myself and the team going into the event which is what makes is all the more frustrating. You might notice that I rarely post here but to read stuff like:

Andrew deserves praise for this and frankly showed more heart and fighting spirit than any of the native born Scots. You can't have part-timers on high boards. It sets a bad example to the rest and honestly I found it insulting and discouraging in both Olympiads that I played.

when I and the rest of the team were giving 100 per cent is, to use your word, insulting and I take it as a personal attack because you weren't there and yet are willing to question our fighting spirit. More than half the team were ill during the event (I had food poisoning since the rest day and stopped eating proper food until the final day. Others in the team were also afflicted but I won't name them: that is up to them) but we still did our best. You seem to be equating being in form and playing well with having fighting spirit. Andrew did indeed show great fighting spirit but we all did. For what its worth the opinion of at least two of my team-mates was that my poor form was partly down to over-preparing and expending too much nervous energy before the games. I suppose that's because of my lack of commitment??

I'm sure you're a nice guy but I've only seen you once at a Scottish tournament, at the Scottish in Edinburgh in 2009.

Whether (or not) I'm a nice guy is not relevant. What is your point? Should I now be penalised for working in England? For (e.g.) entering last year's Scottish and having to withdraw for reasons much more important than chess? For having a personal life which at times in the past has meant that chess has had to take a back seat for a few years (I wasn't really playing much 2010-2011 or most of 2013-2014 in Scotland or anywhere else)? The fact is I'm now back playing and working hard to improve and get the IM title.

All I ask for is serious pre-tournament preparation, 100% commitment to the team, and a belief that we can win.

Well I tick those boxes, thanks. Btw I do think a some team sessions before team events would be really great. We did this before Turin (the only other Olympiad I played in). You can make such a (constructive) point without assuming that everyone is apathetic, lacking fighting spirit, etc etc.

Yes, and pre-tournament preparation involved what, exactly... Online blitz?

What?? I can only speak for myself but...no. I do play online blitz but my preparation involved working on my black repertoire and doing exactly the kind of practice/problem solving that Dvoretsky and Yusupov encouraged when they previously visited Scotland (I did this every day in the run up to the Olympiad).

I'm not saying that our GMs are finished, but they need a serious kick up the ****. If I ever get to the stage where it's about protecting what I have and not even enjoying it, I trust that someone will do the same for me.

I don't know what this sort of comment achieves.

Seriously Alan, whether intentional or not you are being quite offensive to people who gave their all and are feeling disappointed with how things went and I think that it significantly detracts from some of the reasonable points you are making. It's a pity because you are making these kind of remarks about this years team when you weren't there and don't know, when I think we should support and encourage each other as Scottish chess players. Its much more useful and interesting e.g. to discuss Matthew Turner's question about how we can help the next generation that represent the future of Scottish chess. That's a difficult question indeed.

I'm going to bow out of this thread because a long running back-and-worth might detract from the useful discussion that Matthew started so feel free to have the last word. If I think of any constructive suggestions regarding helping future generations/preparation for future team events I'll share them but not in this thread.

[Alan Tate]

Iain, Although I went a bit far with my provocations, you appear to be taking some things personally that were not directed at you. As I said, most of my comments related to previous Olympiad experiences. (For the record, the European Team was similar the first time I played - "We play for ourselves" was what I was told by one player... but now there is better team spirit.)

Look at it from the point of view of the 'fans' watching at home. As a CS member am I not allowed to know something about the players who use a large % of CS funds to represent Scotland? The only post on here I remember reading by you was entitled "I hate chess" (can't find it).
Now that you've explained your training (the blitz comment was not aimed at you) and desire I don't doubt your commitment. I still stand by 15 games not being enough in an Olympiad year, but hey, I'm not a selector.

Glad you like the idea of pre-tournament training. When a player(s) refuse this it does kind of feel like they are holding things back and is a significant part of my frustration.

No player is above questioning or criticism. Take some of my comments seriously, laugh the others off, figure out what you need to work on and do it. I'm glad that you have motivation and fire and I wish you all the best for IM.
(p.s. try preparing your openings before the tournament so as to have a clear head before the game)

[andyburnett]

I had been hoping that our Olympiad teams would be given a chance to at least return from Baku in peace before discussions such as we have seen, but it wasn’t to be.

Before I share my own thoughts and views on how we can improve matters, and I do think we can and should improve our approach - I’d like to point out that I was happy with the final results of our teams.
The men performed at about the expected level in the Open section, with Andrew Greet proving he is capable of greater heights. Could we have done better? Of course – things can always be improved, and that will be the focus going forward.

The women played very well overall, facing many stronger teams and achieving some excellent team and individual results. Everyone got on well, there was good team spirit and plenty of hard work being done both on and off the board.

My own role, as captain of both teams for half of the event, hopefully helped everyone to focus almost exclusively on their chess – but it was far from an ideal situation compared to that of other nations.

Ok, onto the here and now and future…none of which is directly related to our recent Baku trip or those who represented us there! Nevertheless, the results over the past many years have seen us pretty much stand still in world and European terms, and there is much to be learned from those who have found ways to advance chess at the highest level in their countries.

I am going to qualify all my further thoughts by stating that we are an amateur chess nation comprised of more than 99% amateur players! This does not mean, however, that we should be content with a purely amateur approach in everything we do.

Time, money and quality of training/resources can be viewed in a professional way – even if those participating are not full-time professionals. There are numerous ways we can develop a more professional approach within an amateur framework, and utilise resources which are available or can be made available with a little work.

-Goals
Alan Tate questioned what our goals as a team actually are, and it’s not such a simple question to answer.
Possible goals are:

-to finish above seeding
-to enable players to achieve norms
-to ensure continued representation of Scotland within FIDE as a separate entity
-to introduce up-and-coming players to high level international team chess
-and no doubt there are many others slipping my mind at this moment.

-Selection process
To my mind, the criteria and approaches adopted up until now need to be changed. It should be an honour to represent your country and should not be given away lightly, despite our limited resources with regard to players/funds/etc.

My suggestions are as follows:-

-the cut-off date for selection will be June 30th each year
-4 players will be chosen by the selectors based on the following criteria:
-minimum 15 FIDE-rated games played during the preceding 6 months to ensure reasonable ‘match-fitness’ when it comes to the big team tournaments.

-FIDE rating
-the usual qualifying criteria re: nationality/FIDE code/etc
The 5th spot will be reserved for the Scottish champion in July each year (European teams one year/Olympiad the following, and so on) or the highest-placed Scot not already selected, subject to a minimum 2300 rating at the time of selection/qualification (for men) and 1600 (for women)

-Pre-event training
Once selected, players must commit to a pre-event training weekend – preferably to be arranged 1 week before the event, which will include morning seminars from FIDE trainers focused on preparation and then a match against a) our top juniors (to replicate playing weaker teams we might face) and b) an invited squad (for example Ireland) to replicate playing a team roughly our own strength.

-Captains/tournament coaches
As most serious teams have captains/coaches (often separate people!) we should endeavour to send one person for each team (Open/women’s sections) to aid the team by not only taking care of all the bureaucracy/registrations/accreditation involved, but also to help with opening preparation. As such the player should be of a standard/standing that they can actually help. (In Baku, for example, I could do little to help the men in the Open section as I am not strong enough as a player or trainer)

-Funding
I will be looking to secure funding for the travel/pre-tournament training event/Scotland ‘kit’ (! We should really try to LOOK like a team if possible during play – CS logos on polo shirts for example)

The current use of the adult budget for such things as travel expenses to Olympiads precludes funding for almost any other adult-focused activities throughout the year. Helping players to play internationally and gain experience/norms is hugely important in developing stronger players and I feel that a decent chunk of the adult budget should be spent on this.

Ok, these are just my brief thoughts on things – and will no doubt be added to, argued about, refined, changed, whatever. I will be e-mailing all prospective players/captains/interested parties about these maters over the next couple of months with a view to effecting whatever changes are deemed necessary and useful at the start of January 2017.

Feel free to comment , discuss and argue about these ideas on the forum -and you can also contact me directly on abburnett (at) hotmail.com

All the best,
Andy Burnett
(CS International Director)

[Adam Bremner]

Going forward... selection criteria:

-minimum 15 FIDE-rated games played during the preceding 6 months to ensure reasonable ‘match-fitness’ when it comes to the big team tournaments.

That is surely not practical. If you have a full time job and/or are skint it makes things very difficult. Not every congress is FIDE rated, and even if it was, 4 congresses (Friday travel with a job is almost impossible) in 6 months on the current calendar would give no wiggle room for other things. There is also the question of how much benefit some of these games really would be. If 10 of those 15 games are played against people -500 points, what is the benefit for an Olympiad player? Asking people to play a 9 rounder (using holidays which presumably also need to be used for the Olympiad) to supplement this also seems unreasonable in our current situation. Asking that of a chess professional is one thing, but of a semi-pro (?) is another. I think all you can really ask is a reasonable attempt to play FIDE games given a person's situation. Maybe more useful would be 10-20 CS games to show some activity, and split the difference of FIDE and CS for a selection grade?

Also Scottish Champ should definitely get a board as far as I'm concerned. If you can win that you deserve it.

What could CS do to improve things?

I guess the people in line for this are better qualified to answer than me, but I would suggest trying to provide access to training and games of a high level to these players. I know when I was preparing for Euro Club Cup I played eastern European GM/IMs in training matches online, because that was the sort of level I would be facing, and where else could I get access to those games? Admittedly I got absolutely gubbed in that event, but it definitely raised my game following it. Playing top players makes you raise your level. Perhaps CS could try and arrange training matches online, maybe against each other, maybe a challenge match against a team from another federation? Training weekends aimed at a high level would probably be a great idea too. Just anything to improve access to the sort of things required to improve, and not leave it to the individuals. If they refuse it then fine, other people hungry for it would be grateful I'm sure.

[andyburnett]

You have a point Adam, but if you can't play 15 game in 6 months, how are you going to be in condition to play 9 games in 11 days at a high level?

I gained my FM title by playing 100 games in 5 months financed by a combination of my club sponsoring me for 1 tournament, Friends of Chess for another, working a shitty job and saving to pay for 3 or 4 more...

It's a number which can be discussed, and non-FIDE rated games is obviously an option too, as is for example a full 4NCL season, etc -but the premise just now that you can play a handful of games and then play the Olympiad/Euros at a level matching your rating just isn't happening - we have the results over a decade to prove it.

Some level of commitment should be shown when it's international events- what that level is has yet to be decided, but as you state later in your post: other people hungry for it would be grateful I'm sure.

Online training games is an option. I tried it last year and didn't enjoy it particularly, but it was interesting and can be used to mitigate the costs of real events/games. Still, when you play chess in a tournament it's different.

[Alan Tate]

This is music to my ears :ymapplause:

[amuir]

-Selection process
To my mind, the criteria and approaches adopted up until now need to be changed. It should be an honour to represent your country and should not be given away lightly, despite our limited resources with regard to players/funds/etc.

My suggestions are as follows:-

-the cut-off date for selection will be June 30th each year
-4 players will be chosen by the selectors based on the following criteria:
-minimum 15 FIDE-rated games played during the preceding 6 months to ensure reasonable ‘match-fitness’ when it comes to the big team tournaments.

I wasn't involved in selecting the Open team this time but by the new criteria we have selected the completely wrong team. Using players who played a minimum of 15 FIDE rated games 1/1/16-30/6/16 the team should have been :
1. Arakhamia 2 Tate 3 Mannion 4 Burnett 5 Giulian .

These "match-fit" players would have performed above seedings and we would all now be praising them for selection foresight ,hard work & dedication.

[robin moore]

I am clearly not a strong enough player to make any contribution towards playing ability selection. However, as the Olympiad can involve long hours of travelling, preparation, playing and analysis then perhaps we need give part of our focus to the physical fitness and diet of our selected squad. I understand food poisoning reared it's usual ugly head again this year and also at the Euroyouth.
I am reminded of football players like Ray Wilkins and Graeme Souness who went to play in Italy. The first thing they did when they came back was employ dieticians to look after their teams well-being as they had discovered on their football travels that the correct diet and fitness programme kept them running about till the end of the game.

[Jonathan Livingstone]

If Andy B has a spare £10-20k in his budget he can also employ renowned sports psychologist expert Dr Steve Peters (who is well known for working with English football teams, Cycling people and snooker player Ronnie O' Sullivan). If while playing their games the Scotland team are going to be sipping supper high protein healthy energy infused smoothie drinks consisting of cucumber, pineapple, broccoli and the like, that could be a good sponsorship link tie-in. A bit tongue in cheek of course but Robin makes a decent point. There is a certain IM player at my club I have heard talk about mental strength/stamina/fitness many times being important to play chess well, and I quite agree. I should listen more myself as I am shamefully prone to enjoying a nice bottle of sauvignon blanc half way through a weekend congress.

In all serious though, the talk of 10yr plans has to consider the ever sharpening decline of Scottish Chess. As the amateur players (99% of us Andy B estimates) reduce, the CS membership declines, and income reduces. What if any is the Olympiad budget going to be in 10 yrs time? How long is it going to be before players are asked to fund 100% of all expenses on their own? The team at some point will be less about rating/games played and more about who is willing and able to afford to play?

I haven't renewed my CS membership and don't intend to under current climate. With the game in Scotland seemingly doomed on so many levels, I need to be convinced there is a plan to deal with that. It is actually the likes of Robin, myself and the other 99% of amateur players that provide much if not all of the CS income for helping players out with their expenses at international events. When you think of it like that, halting the overall decline of the game and ever reducing number of players must be a priority and the starting point. Pep Guardiola could not produce his majestic results at Man City, if the supporters were not attending and providing the funds. Likewise if the pitch is in tatters and full of holes, the performance is going to be reduced.