Few ideas for the Olympiad selection

[Victor Plotkin]

1. Eliminate the Selection Committee (SC) completely.

If we do not agree here, the rest is useless.

2. Use only FIDE rating for the National Team. Continue to use FIDE-CFC average rating for the Women Team.

I see it like this:

a. FIDE under 1800. FIDE rating is irrelevant.
b. FIDE between 1800 and 2000. CFC rating is more important.
c. FIDE between 2000 and 2200. Both ratings important equally.
d. FIDE between 2200 and 2400. FIDE rating is more important.
f. FIDE above 2400. CFC rating is irrelevant.

3. Use the last rating instead of a "top 12 months rating".

For example, one player has a max-rating of 2500 and current rating of 2450. Another one has both rating of 2470. Obviously, the second player is a better choice.

4. Bonus/penalty for Canadian Closed.

The Champion guarantees his spot. In some cases that means bonus of more than 100 points (Tomas instead of Bator for this campaign). It looks logical to give some bonus for 2nd and 3rd place also. So my proposal is:

Bonus of 20 points for 2nd place, bonus of 10 points for 3rd place. Penalty of 10 points if player did not play/withdrew from the last Canadian Closed.

5. Bonus/penalty for last Olympiad performance. Add/subtract the number of rating points which player gained/lost on last Olympiad. 0 points if player did not participated.

6. Bonus for young players. It's very difficult to decide about a certain number. I would like something like this.

Bonus of 5 points for every year under 23 years old. For example, Razvan gets 35 bonus points this campaign.

The calculation is not so complicated. Number 4, 5 and 6 since counted, are valid for the whole campaign. Taking this campaign as an example, we get (using Apr, 1 FIDE rating as a basis)

1. E.Bareev 2675 - 10 = 2665.
2. A.Kovalyov 2608 - 10 + 9 = 2607.
3. E.Hansen 2580 + 20 + 0 = 2600.
4. B.Sambuev 2544 + 6 = 2550.
5. A.LeSiege 2497 - 10 = 2487.
6. R.Preotu 2462 + 35 = 2497.
7. N.Noritsyn 2476.

My proposals are absolutely not "The Torah from Mount Sinai". So any constructive comments are welcome.

[Nikolay Noritsyn]

Re: Few ideas for the Olympiad selection

Much better than what we have currently..and well thought out proposal.

1. Absolutely.
2. I think its a good idea to encourage play in canadian events by including the canadian rating..but I might also be biased here :) The majority of the players on the current team are too strong to play in Canada.
3. Using the last rating is much better than using a top rating, but it can cause players to sit on their high ratings. The alternative would be an average rating of the last twelve months like FIDE uses for candidates.
4-6. I really like these ideas. The exact numbers are debatable, but the proposed ones make sense.

[Tom O'Donnell]

Re: Few ideas for the Olympiad selection

5. Bonus/penalty for last Olympiad performance. Add/subtract the number of rating points which player gained/lost on last Olympiad. 0 points if player did not participated.

Perhaps, but at the very least it should be adjusted to take into account:

1) colour distribution - scoring say +3 rating points with say 6-3 distribution is less impressive than -3 rating points with 3-6 distribution imo
2) any situations where a player agreed to a draw for team strategic reasons in favourable positions, or where a player was obligated to play for a win in a drawish position then lost for same.

[Adam Cormier]

Re: Few ideas for the Olympiad selection

If anything these suggestions are far superior to anything found in the Torah.

I like 1-3 100%, 4-6 are interesting and debatable.

[Tom O'Donnell]

Re: Few ideas for the Olympiad selection

3. Using the last rating is much better than using a top rating, but it can cause players to sit on their high ratings.

This is a good point. Perhaps some sort of weighted system, putting more emphasis on recent ratings and having an activity adjustment.

[Fred McKim]

Re: Few ideas for the Olympiad selection

#3. One way to penalize players who sit on a high FIDE rating is to penalize them X rating points per month (measuring from the end of the selection rating period to when they last played). I would suggest two or three points.

#4, This is good.

#5. In my opinion, using any measure from the previous Olympiad is a little dangerous, short of awarding 25 total rating points and having the players (and possibly coach) voting on their distribution immediately after the Olympiad.

#6. I like this, but there should be the proviso that only one young player qualifies by this method.

Are you leaving the measure as the same 12 month period and 20 CFC / FIDE games ? Anybody who only played CFC games would be penalized 12 x X rating points.

The women's team would be a little trickier, if you are still going with the average. Average of the two highs ?

[Vlad Rekhson]

Re: Few ideas for the Olympiad selection

1. Eliminate the Selection Committee (SC) completely.

If we do not agree here, the rest is useless.

2. Use only FIDE rating for the National Team. Continue to use FIDE-CFC average rating for the Women Team.

I see it like this:

a. FIDE under 1800. FIDE rating is irrelevant.
b. FIDE between 1800 and 2000. CFC rating is more important.
c. FIDE between 2000 and 2200. Both ratings important equally.
d. FIDE between 2200 and 2400. FIDE rating is more important.
f. FIDE above 2400. CFC rating is irrelevant.

3. Use the last rating instead of a "top 12 months rating".

For example, one player has a max-rating of 2500 and current rating of 2450. Another one has both rating of 2470. Obviously, the second player is a better choice.

4. Bonus/penalty for Canadian Closed.

The Champion guarantees his spot. In some cases that means bonus of more than 100 points (Tomas instead of Bator for this campaign). It looks logical to give some bonus for 2nd and 3rd place also. So my proposal is:

Bonus of 20 points for 2nd place, bonus of 10 points for 3rd place. Penalty of 10 points if player did not play/withdrew from the last Canadian Closed.

5. Bonus/penalty for last Olympiad performance. Add/subtract the number of rating points which player gained/lost on last Olympiad. 0 points if player did not participated.

6. Bonus for young players. It's very difficult to decide about a certain number. I would like something like this.

Bonus of 5 points for every year under 23 years old. For example, Razvan gets 35 bonus points this campaign.

The calculation is not so complicated. Number 4, 5 and 6 since counted, are valid for the whole campaign. Taking this campaign as an example, we get (using Apr, 1 FIDE rating as a basis)

1. E.Bareev 2675 - 10 = 2665.
2. A.Kovalyov 2608 - 10 + 9 = 2607.
3. E.Hansen 2580 + 20 + 0 = 2600.
4. B.Sambuev 2544 + 6 = 2550.
5. A.LeSiege 2497 - 10 = 2487.
6. R.Preotu 2462 + 35 = 2497.
7. N.Noritsyn 2476.

My proposals are absolutely not "The Torah from Mount Sinai". So any constructive comments are welcome.

1) Obviously I like the first one:D

2) The second one is potentially good, but I am not sure what is the current policy in terms of FIDE rating most events in the East, in other words would there be many tournaments where potential candidates play, are CFC rated but not FIDE rated.?

3)I am not a big fan of the third suggestion because I feel that some candidates would simply stop playing tournaments when they feel that they achieved a high enough rating. Although, perhaps 12 months is too long of a period, instead it can be 6 months and perhaps push it further up the year since there is no need to give time for selection committee to decide. I think that the "highest achieved" is good for more active players and I think that we want our top players to be active.

4-6) I like all of those, I am just not sure whether it makes sense to complicate the system more, but if it makes a better team I say go for it.

[Ian Findlay]

Re: Few ideas for the Olympiad selection

Well thought out Victor and much better than the current method. Just a couple of comments.
1) Using current rating instead of average - if someone has some good results, they might be tempted to stop playing to keep their current rating high. I prefer the average rating, but I understand the point you make.
2) Bonus points for last Olympic performance - Tom's points are well taken and although good incentive to do well in the Olympiad, I don't think it is fair to the players who were not able to play, so I would not include these bonus points.

All your other ideas, I think are excellent.

[Victor Plotkin]

Re: Few ideas for the Olympiad selection

#3. One way to penalize players who sit on a high FIDE rating is to penalize them X rating points per month (measuring from the end of the selection rating period to when they last played). I would suggest two or three points.

#4, This is good.

#5. In my opinion, using any measure from the previous Olympiad is a little dangerous, short of awarding 25 total rating points and having the players (and possibly coach) voting on their distribution immediately after the Olympiad.

#6. I like this, but there should be the proviso that only one young player qualifies by this method.

Are you leaving the measure as the same 12 month period and 20 CFC / FIDE games ? Anybody who only played CFC games would be penalized 12 x X rating points.

The women's team would be a little trickier, if you are still going with the average. Average of the two highs ?

5. I am strongly against any voting between team players. Also, my proposal was neutral and did not give any advantage to participants. You may not only win rating, but also lose. On average, this adjustment is close to 0.

My proposal for Women Team was the average between last FIDE and last CFC ratings.

[Victor Plotkin]

Re: Few ideas for the Olympiad selection

Much better than what we have currently..and well thought out proposal.

1. Absolutely.
2. I think its a good idea to encourage play in canadian events by including the canadian rating..but I might also be biased here :) The majority of the players on the current team are too strong to play in Canada.
3. Using the last rating is much better than using a top rating, but it can cause players to sit on their high ratings. The alternative would be an average rating of the last twelve months like FIDE uses for candidates.
4-6. I really like these ideas. The exact numbers are debatable, but the proposed ones make sense.

3. Agree. Average rating of last 12 months is OK. It's also possible to use the average between (the average) and (the last) ratings.

[Victor Plotkin]

Re: Few ideas for the Olympiad selection

Color is more important against opponents with close rating. 2500 will likely beat 2200 player with any color and lose to Carlsen with any color. Once, I read an article about performance difference with white and black. White color gives you something like 50 points advantage. (To be honest, I find this number too low, but this was the result of some research.)

So we can make "color adjustment" and manually calculate performance. If you play white, we reduce opponents rating by 50 points, if you play black, we add 50 points.

My opinion about this: not must, little bit too complicated, but doable.

I fully understand your second suggestion. However, it is very difficult to implement this idea. It happens very rare, and could potentially reduce rating by 5 points (actually, less; nobody accepts a draw in absolutely winning position and nobody plays for a win in absolutely losing position).

[Fred McKim]

Re: Few ideas for the Olympiad selection

Color is more important against opponents with close rating. 2500 will likely beat 2200 player with any color and lose to Carlsen with any color. Once, I read an article about performance difference with white and black. White color gives you something like 50 points advantage. (To be honest, I find this number too low, but this was the result of some research.)

So we can make "color adjustment" and manually calculate performance. If you play white, we reduce opponents rating by 50 points, if you play black, we add 50 points.

My opinion about this: not must, little bit too complicated, but doable.

I fully understand your second suggestion. However, it is very difficult to implement this idea. It happens very rare, and could potentially reduce rating by 5 points (actually, less; nobody accepts a draw in absolutely winning position and nobody plays for a win in absolutely losing position).

Another idea would be to grade the team as a whole. +/- depending on team gain of rating points divided by 4 or 5.

[Jack Maguire]

Re: Few ideas for the Olympiad selection

Until Canada is playing for a realistic chance at a medal, certainly highly improbable in my life time, I think there should be far greater emphasis on developing our juniors. I would have one, two, or even three spots reserved for our top juniors. The fact that Razvan is not on the 2016 edition of Canada's Olympiad team is beyond absurdity to my way of thinking.

[Larry Bevand]

Re: Few ideas for the Olympiad selection

Excellent thread! When I created Chesstalk in August of 1999 this was the kind of discussion I was aiming for. As we all know, although this has become THE meeting place for Canadian chessplayers, the level of discussion rarely stays at this level. Thanks Victor!

I have been taking care of this board for the last 17 years. I am seriously considering selling the domain name chesstalk.com. Of course the money derived would go to the Chess'n Math Association...which means the buyer would also be contributing to the development of chess in Canadian schools. I have to get approval from my board in September, but if you are interested in purchasing this site, please send me an e-mail : bevand at chess-math dot org. If all goes as expected, the site will be for sale on or around Sept. 15, 2016.

Larry

[Frank Dixon]

Re: Few ideas for the Olympiad selection

There has long been a debate over whether to use FIDE and / or CFC ratings; I recall this going on in the 1970s. There are more FIDE events in North America now, but Canada is still a long and expensive journey from Europe. My major concern is activity levels of potential players. For this reason I would place GM Hansen on a higher board than GM Lesiege, as Alex has been mostly inactive for many years, while Eric has been very active. Overall, though, I like our 2016 team, and believe they will do well in Baku! :)