The very final list for the National Team

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: The very final list for the National Team

The decision to include GM Lesiege does seem odd but there could be a logical explanation. Hopefully the CFC or Selection Committee will provide that explanation rather than leave lingering questions.

The CFC will not provide an explanation. I was not part of the confidential deliberations of the selection committee and neither was any other member of the executive so any explanation would involve speculation on our part. The whole point of having a selection committee is to take the decision out of the hands of the executive who are probably less capable of assessing chess talent than the members of the committee are.

The output of the selection committee process are a number of names for each team. There are no explanations provided. The members of the committee are free to consult any information sources or people that they wish to in arriving at their decision.

In fact, I can say that I botched the release of the information in part because I saw that some incorrect information had been released and I was not able to get a hold of Hal Bond. If I had it to do over, I probably would have informed the other members of the executive of the decision and asked Hal Bond to release the decision but I saw the pressure building and tried to release it before we had another Chesstalk explosion.

I probably have taken on a bit too much on my plate at the moment and eagerly await the end of the summer when I can return to our regularly scheduled madness.

[Denis Allan]

Re: The very final list for the National Team

The decision to include GM Lesiege does seem odd but there could be a logical explanation. Hopefully the CFC or Selection Committee will provide that explanation rather than leave lingering questions.

No. The committee should not disclose their deliberations to anyone, including the CFC Executive. Commenting on what they perceived to be the strengths and weaknesses of the candidates would only inflame this discussion. For example, some may not be good team players. It would serve no purpose to elaborate on that, but I will offer an example to the contrary. In 1996 we selected Jean Hebert. His politics were no secret; he would much rather be playing for a team Quebec. But he had always been a good team player for Canada. That was my last year on the committee. Much has changed since then with the larger and stronger talent pool. Commenting on individual players would just lead to questions about the sources and reliability of information the committee members used. There is a reason we have a committee; following the 1990 Olympics in Novi Sad, the Board of Governors determined that selection simply by rating was problematic. As it happens the first committee, which picked the 1992 team for Manila, chose Alexander LeSeige, who would not have qualified by rating, probably because most Quebec events were not CFC rated at that time. By the time of the Olympics he was the Canadian Closed Champion and we would have looked stupid not having him on the team.

[Halldor P. Palsson]

Re: The very final list for the National Team

Alexander LeSeige in 1992 was a star and was picked to go to the front of the line. In 2016 the committee picks him based on what exactly?

As Allen states we have selection committee picks to catch the LeSieges of 1992 but picking him in 2016 looks like a double ??

Alexander LeSeige is invited to prove us all wrong with his play.

[David Ottosen]

Re: The very final list for the National Team

No. The committee should not disclose their deliberations to anyone, including the CFC Executive.

Couldn't disagree more. I too have served on this committee in the past, and there was a great hullabaloo when we didn't select IM Nickoloff. I had no trouble standing up and saying I would not consider him as I did not believe that due to his personal issues, he would not be a player I believed could be relied upon to perform. In that particular year, there were multiple players who were all relatively close performance wise who could be picked, so I had no hesitation in saying that external issues played into my decision.

This isn't an office where you need to play political games and make sure no one's feelings get hurt. If the selection committee thinks Sambuev is a disruptive force on the team and left him off, fine, say that. If the CFC or governors disagree, they can choose a different committee next time. If they selected Lesiege over Preotu because they wanted all GMs, fine say that.

If the selection committee doesn't disclose their reasoning, it's pretty hard to evaluate their performance. Simply waiting and seeing whether Lesiege has a good or bad result doesn't prove anyone right - it's just results based confirmation bias.

As it happens the first committee, which picked the 1992 team for Manila, chose Alexander LeSeige, who would not have qualified by rating, probably because most Quebec events were not CFC rated at that time. By the time of the Olympics he was the Canadian Closed Champion and we would have looked stupid not having him on the team.

I'm not sure what your point is here. This is a perfectly valid reason for selecting Lesiege in 1992, and one the selection committee should have had no problems articulating. I just can't see what the reason is in this case.

*I do want to stress that I feel somewhat bad about dragging GM Lesiege's name through the mud here; he's obviously a fantastic player and has never been anything but a positive force in Canadian chess and has no blame for putting his name forward for the Olympiad team and being selected. I don't in any way have an issue with him being an Olympiad team member other than that I think there are other choices that would have led us to score more points.

[Fred Harvey]

Re: The very final list for the National Team

[QUOTE=Denis Allan;102973]No. The committee should not disclose their deliberations to anyone, including the CFC Executive. /QUOTE]

I believe this is absolutely correct!

In Ontario at least, there is a "sunshine law" that applies to local politicians that requires all relevant discussions be conducted in public. Of course there are many devious people out there who can try to circumvent this, but the reason I raise this is that the municipal act contains surprisingly clear provisions as to when you can retreat into "closed session", and discuss stuff in private. Basically the reason are all related either to personal stuff about identifiable people, or things that would compromise your legal or negotiating position down the road. It works well. It protects people's privacy for the many trivial things that always come up and do not need to be paraded in full view on sites such as this one!

For those who advocate full disclosure, great theoretical virtue that it is, be thankful that you have never experienced a truly awkward situation, where the defence of "truth", and "public interest", are very murky indeed.

A good question on here would be who selects the selection committee....and why? LOL!

[Hal Bond]

Re: The very final list for the National Team

Thank you Denis and Fred!

I invited the members of the Selection Committee to serve, in consultation with the CFC Executive. They are the same gentlemen who volunteered their service in 2014. They are experienced chess masters and stalwarts in our community, bringing as much pan-Canadian perspective as any 3 people can do. As for their deliberations, I only know that they did not have an easy time of it.

I am grateful for their service and I look forward to a terrific Olympiad for both teams!

[Denis Allan]

Re: The very final list for the National Team

[QUOTE=fred harvey;102982]

No. The committee should not disclose their deliberations to anyone, including the CFC Executive. /QUOTE]

I believe this is absolutely correct!

In Ontario at least, there is a "sunshine law" that applies to local politicians that requires all relevant discussions be conducted in public. Of course there are many devious people out there who can try to circumvent this, but the reason I raise this is that the municipal act contains surprisingly clear provisions as to when you can retreat into "closed session", and discuss stuff in private. Basically the reason are all related either to personal stuff about identifiable people, or things that would compromise your legal or negotiating position down the road. It works well. It protects people's privacy for the many trivial things that always come up and do not need to be paraded in full view on sites such as this one!

For those who advocate full disclosure, great theoretical virtue that it is, be thankful that you have never experienced a truly awkward situation, where the defence of "truth", and "public interest", are very murky indeed.

A good question on here would be who selects the selection committee....and why? LOL!

"Full disclosure" can be an endless slippery slope. I will give a few specific examples. A team captain believes that a player is pretending to be sick so that his friend, who is not playing well, will get more games. A member of a later selection committee is aware of that, and it is one factor he takes into consideration. On the last free day a player who is scoring well is seen calculating his chance of winning a board prize. He asks not to play the next day when he would almost certainly have been used. A member of a selection committee has personal knowledge of that. These are matters which if true, affect the evaluation of those candidates as "team players." Hearsay is only allowed in court for specific reasons, but in real life is acted on routinely. We hear information about others, good, bad and indifferent on a daily basis, and believe, reject, or doubt it based on our knowledge of, and experience with, both the source and the subject. Members of a selection committee may or may not share all their knowledge or beliefs with the others. In the past the majority of the team would be easy selections, often coming down to the last place being between two players. This year seems to have had a remarkable number of qualified players for the last position, with the pros and cons of each being capable of reduction to statistical evidence as has been done above. But if questions of the personal character of the candidates come into play, as perhaps may be the case here, a report which might be considered libelous by some , and at best hurtful, is not in the interest of the Federation and in any event would be virtually impossible to produce.

The selection committee in entitled to use any sources of information, including the opinions of players who are certain selections to the team. If the top candidates say "please don't pick..........." is that something that should be disclosed??? Certainly it will be given weight.

It is also dubious to suggest that personality clashes between players should not be a factor. We have two teams in the past, one men and one women, where two players did not speak to each other at all.

The question of how the selection committee is chosen is a reasonable one, and my advice to the CFC in this respect is simple: pay careful attention to what you read of Chesstalk and ignore it all!

[Steve Douglas]

Re: The very final list for the National Team

[QUOTE=Denis Allan;102987]

"Full disclosure" can be an endless slippery slope. I will give a few specific examples. A team captain believes that a player is pretending to be sick so that his friend, who is not playing well, will get more games. A member of a later selection committee is aware of that, and it is one factor he takes into consideration. On the last free day a player who is scoring well is seen calculating his chance of winning a board prize. He asks not to play the next day when he would almost certainly have been used. A member of a selection committee has personal knowledge of that. These are matters which if true, affect the evaluation of those candidates as "team players." Hearsay is only allowed in court for specific reasons, but in real life is acted on routinely. We hear information about others, good, bad and indifferent on a daily basis, and believe, reject, or doubt it based on our knowledge of, and experience with, both the source and the subject. Members of a selection committee may or may not share all their knowledge or beliefs with the others. In the past the majority of the team would be easy selections, often coming down to the last place being between two players. This year seems to have had a remarkable number of qualified players for the last position, with the pros and cons of each being capable of reduction to statistical evidence as has been done above. But if questions of the personal character of the candidates come into play, as perhaps may be the case here, a report which might be considered libelous by some , and at best hurtful, is not in the interest of the Federation and in any event would be virtually impossible to produce.

The selection committee in entitled to use any sources of information, including the opinions of players who are certain selections to the team. If the top candidates say "please don't pick..........." is that something that should be disclosed??? Certainly it will be given weight.

It is also dubious to suggest that personality clashes between players should not be a factor. We have two teams in the past, one men and one women, where two players did not speak to each other at all.

The question of how the selection committee is chosen is a reasonable one, and my advice to the CFC in this respect is simple: pay careful attention to what you read of Chesstalk and ignore it all!

I seem to be one of the few people here who don't have a big problem with this selection.

Thank-you for saying what you just did. I was about to wade into this cesspool but you've already mentioned two of the incidents that I already know of, even as a casual observer of these politics.

The purpose of having a "Selection Committee" is to pick the final one or two members to make a ***team***. If people are concerned that player X or player Y should have been included because of their rating they are missing the point. The determination of the committee is almost certainly going to be based on subjective criteria. That's the point of having a committee selection.

One thing which hasn't been mentioned is the whole sticky point (about to come up) about board order. I presume the committee took this ego-fueled issue into consideration when making their choice.

Steve

[Nikolay Noritsyn]

Re: The very final list for the National Team

The selection committee in entitled to use any sources of information, including the opinions of players who are certain selections to the team. If the top candidates say "please don't pick..........." is that something that should be disclosed??? Certainly it will be given weight.

Here are the results of the chosen ones in recent Olympiads. I will use rating gain instead of performance, because some opponents with very low ratings make performance ratings unreliable.

2010 I was chosen, when Canadian champion Jean Hebert declined - elo 2414, result +2.8 rating points
2012 Porper Edward - elo 2418, result -7.4 rating points
2014 Gerzhoy Leonid - elo 2473, result -19.5 rating points

Now, I like the idea of a committee deciding one place on the team, not leaving everything to ratings alone. However, I am not sure what special knowledge the current committee has of the top Canadian players, their chess or their personalities. With the exception of Vladimir Pechenkin, they are not active chess players, and none of them have been to chess Olympiads. There seem to be no rules on how the members of the committee are selected.

I also would love to hear the reasons for this year's selection, but the decision will not change, so best think about the future. Denis Allan's post led me to an idea..who can be a better expert for deciding the 5th player on the team, then the players themselves? The three qualified by rating + Canadian champion, I would also include the team captain. Five, so no tied votes. Most of the team players participated in at least one Olympiad before, know the possible candidates quite well, and are the least biased. After all, they are the most interested in a strong team, to maximize the team result (making the tournament much more interesting and enjoyable).

Re. personalities - team mates not speaking to each other is not good, but it does not necessarily lead to bad play..so I am not sure how important of a factor that is.

[Tony Li]

Re: The very final list for the National Team

I feel like the selection committee wanted to show respect to the Canadian Champion by making sure he is one of the 4 "starters". My gut feeling is that any of the more active players under consideration would have wanted one of the starting spots, whereas GM Lesiege is probably happy being a reserve.

My guess is that if either GM Sambuev or IM Preotu wrote to the selection committee that they would be happy to be a reserve, they would have been selected.

[Hal Bond]

Re: The very final list for the National Team

Nikolay - I travelled with IM Brian Hartman to the 1984 Olympiad in Thessalonikki where he played, and followed his success in at least one more Olympiad (Bled, or Turino?) as Captain and fundraiser for the team. FM Richard Berube has is ear to the ground in Quebec as Director General, as with FM Vlad Pechenkin in Alberta. These guys are tuned in.

Your player selection idea is interesting. Maybe optimistic, but interesting.

[Nikolay Noritsyn]

Re: The very final list for the National Team

The team captain decides on the board order, not the committee. So that could not have been a reason, unless GM Sambuev or IM Preotu were contacted and offered board 5 (which did not happen).

[Brian Hartman]

Re: The very final list for the National Team

Hi Hal, you are correct regarding 1984 and under the stewardship of legendary GM Suttles; however, I was a "playing" captain in 2004 in Spain (Halldor convinced me to go), though I never found myself to be the best choice each day, thus I didn't play. And, yes, 2006 (Turin, Italy), and while I was the fundraiser/organizer, due to family circumstances, I had to decline being captain (IM Day graciously filled in on very short notice). Interestingly, 2004 and 2006 were historically best results for Canadians in terms of performance rating achieved (2004) and points (2006) under the newer Olympiad system, and post USSR.

Best of luck to the teams!

Brian

[Nikolay Noritsyn]

Re: The very final list for the National Team

Mea culpa - and as Brian pointed out in a post above me, he has been involved in 2004 and 2006 as well. None of the current players or candidates for reserve spot were around 10 years ago though.

Interesting, yes. I don't know of any country where they do that. Why optimistic?

[Rene Preotu]

Re: The very final list for the National Team

http://www.olimpbase.org/teams/can_tea.html