Few ideas for the Olympiad selection

[Fred McKim]

Re: Few ideas for the Olympiad selection

Victor. You should put your proposal into the form of a motion (or series of motions)

1. Change the number of players by Selection rating from 3 to 4 (eliminating the selection committee nominee).

2. Change the Open team's Rating to simply be FIDE rating.

3. Change the Selection rating to the rating at a fixed date before the Olympiad or an average of the monthly ratings for a 12 month period a fixed date before the Olympiad (or leave the way it is).

4. Rating correction for previous Canadian Closed participation (that applied to the Olympiad).

5. Rating correction for performance at most recent Olympiad.

6. Rating correction for age.

Maybe you intend for 4-6 to be a package that you don't want separated....

Contact me by e-mail, if you need any help. No seconder is required on motions that are admissible.

[Ian Findlay]

Re: Few ideas for the Olympiad selection

It would be interesting to do a poll of Canada's top players to get their input. I realize that you cannot please all the people all the time, but I would also hate to have rules that the top players detest. I would think they would welcome Victor's ideas. One of the drawbacks of stringent rules, is that someone might be less willing to sponsor the team, if they do not have some pull as to selecting the players. This does not seem to be the case with Victor! Bravo!

[Victor Plotkin]

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.

I believe my proposal is much better for juniors than the current system. Last 6 years, the Selection Committee never gave a priority to younger players. Actually, the opposite is the truth. In 2012 (IM E.Porper) and 2016 the oldest possible player was selected.

Having said this, I do not agree with your idea about reserved spots. Not every campaign we have a junior who is ready to compete in Olympiad. 2 years ago, for example, we did not have any (I am talking about National Team only). I also don't know if it's good for a junior - to take the undeserved spot and likely to play a low number of games.

I also feel sorry for Razvan. Interesting, twice I had a chance to be his captain: in 2014 U-16 Olympiad and now, in 2016 Olympiad. Twice in did not happen. Probably, the Gods are against it.

[Victor Plotkin]

Re: Few ideas for the Olympiad selection

Yeah, I was kinda thinking the same thing. It's like duelling four-pleats solutions. Why not something straightforward like: Canadian champ plus four by FIDE rating as at X date subject to some FIDE-rated activity requirement? Between Canada and the United States, aren't there plenty of opportunities to play in FIDE-rated events? On the other hand, a super complicated selection formula could make for lots of intetesting chatter at ChessTalk. :)

A agree with you, Peter. It's very important not to over-complicate the formula. I do not think my proposal is super-complicated. Just 3 additional numbers, each of them is easy to understand and easy to calculate. After Canadian Closed (which usually happens 9-12 months before the deadline), every number will be known and published.

[Peter McKillop]

Re: Few ideas for the Olympiad selection

So... let's take an arbitrary, but flexible system... and replace it with an arbitrary and rigid system.

Sounds like a good idea.

Yeah, I was kinda thinking the same thing. It's like duelling four-pleats solutions. Why not something straightforward like: Canadian champ plus four by FIDE rating as at X date subject to some FIDE-rated activity requirement? Between Canada and the United States, aren't there plenty of opportunities to play in FIDE-rated events? On the other hand, a super complicated selection formula could make for lots of intetesting chatter at ChessTalk. :)

[Kerry Liles]

Re: Few ideas for the Olympiad selection

So... let's take an arbitrary, but flexible system... and replace it with an arbitrary and rigid system.

Sounds like a good idea.

I'm not sure why your reply was attached to my post but perhaps I am missing something. I have to presume you thought you were replying to some other post? {shrug}

[Mathieu Cloutier]

Re: Few ideas for the Olympiad selection

So... let's take an arbitrary, but flexible system... and replace it with an arbitrary and rigid system.

Sounds like a good idea.

[Kerry Liles]

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

In case no one else mentions this Larry, you might want to seriously consider *archiving* all of the existing threads of Chesstalk before the final cutoff of the domain. There may be a lot of historically interesting information buried in CT that is worth preserving [in my opinion, you could leave out the Climate Change thread... lol -actually, I was being sarcastic there just in case there is any doubt. The threads should be preserved exactly as they are.]

Perhaps the archiving could be broken into two parts: thread contents *before* Real Names were required and thread contents *after* that constraint was added.

Just a thought; no idea who should 'keep' that data or for that matter where it could be housed. The CFC doesn't have a very good track record for keeping historical information... and I don't know the status of David Cohen's Canadian Chess information if that is even a proper archive.

[Victor Plotkin]

Re: Few ideas for the Olympiad selection

Even with 50 points advantage for white, the total adjustment should be 3-4 rating points. With 35 points, this is just waste of time to calculate it.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Few ideas for the Olympiad selection

I recall [now GM] Larry Kaufman, in his book The Chess Advantage in Black and White calculated the advantage of White to be worth a mere 35 rating points, fwiw. Also fwiw, in my case, as a mere 2200+ player nowadays, I don't even find the advantage of White to be worth that much for me, based on my personal CB database's calculation of my performance rating with each colour for all my games (and even if I do so if just taking into account opponents rated over 1800).

[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! :)

[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

[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.

[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.

[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).