Response to E.Porper's article.

[Jean Hébert]

Re : Re: Response to E.Porper's article.

I just believe that chesstalk is more popular than CCN. I didn't read CCN last couple of years, and I don’t think that most Canadian chess players regularly pay attention to this source.

E. Porper is the editor of CCN. Everyone knows that media has a lot power, and Porper doesn't hesitate to use the media to show his own approach on the last Olympiad.

How can a media even less popular than ChessTalk that "most chess players" don't pay attention to have "a lot of power" ?

[Vlad Dobrich]

Re: Response to E.Porper's article.

Victor,
Thank you for the recap on the Olympiad. One item which I have not seen discussed anywhere was an analysis of our match with Sweden. There, we needed to find a win on any one of the boards and yet Porpor drew early by repetition of moves where it seemed he could have played on after an exchange of queens. I don't have the position in front of me but he had achieved a position with a protected passed d-pawn as well as an unopposed a-pawn. It seems that the opponent would have had to fight for the draw.
Perhaps someone could post the diagram of the position here for further discussion.

[Tom O'Donnell]

Re: Response to E.Porper's article.

I cannot comment about most of what Mr. Plotkin writes, but two things jumped out at me:

"I am very happy that L. Gerzhoy doesn't regularly read this forum (other players do). I read a lot of posts here hugely underestimating his level of playing, which he definitely doesn’t deserve. Some players are very popular here in Canada. Probably, Leonid isn't so popular. BTW, he always received great respect from the top Canadian players."

I don't think I had ever even seen Leonid until the Bahamas International. From what I saw, he wasn't weaker than the players he faced, many of whom were GMs. In my view he makes a very good high-board player. Much like GM Thomas R-R, he's very solid and almost never loses. The ability to hold off upper 2500s to mid 2600s - with either colour! - is a great skill that should be very useful as a board 2 in the Olympiad.

"I remember myself reminding Bator of some statistics (again, statistics) about his performance last summer. Bator played a lot of tournaments, alternating bad (Toronto International) and great (Canadian Closed, Larry Bevand's tournament) results. But one point was very important - he made just 2 draws (against A.Calugar and R.Preotu). 2 out of 33 looks like a very low number, and I asked him to play differently.

Unfortunately, he couldn't switch, couldn't change his style. I have to say, it couldn't be an easy task. 5 years Bator plays in Canada, mostly against lower rated opponents, and tournament strategy forces him to play for win almost every game. How many games did he play against his level opponents (or higher) those 5 years? Probably, much below 10 % level."

I am reminded of the late Igor Ivanov, who surely would have been a GM much earlier but had to make a living "pounding idiots", often in rinky-dink events on the Swiss circuit. I'm afraid that Bator has to do the same (e.g. against guys like T. O'Donnell ;-) ). Maybe that makes him too optimistic when playing guys roughly his own strength. I agree with the comment that he has a lot of untapped potential. Hopefully he can at least play some tournaments on the US circuit (e.g. World Open, Philadelphia International, SPICE cup, etc.) and get in more games against non-idiots to balance things out.

[Victor Plotkin]

Re: Response to E.Porper's article.

Continuation...

I agree with Egis Zeromskis, and I would much rather talk about the Olympiad instead of discussing E. Porper. However, my response should help other people who don’t know him, especially CFC leadership, to better understand him. I find it especially important for CFC because E. Porper is a very powerful person in Canadian chess right now. I could mention at lest 4 different positions that he has filled this year, is filling now or is going to fill in the nearest future.

1. E. Porper was a Team member for the last Olympiad. He was controversially chosen by Selection Committee after a very long discussion.

2. E. Porper is the editor of CCN. Everyone knows that media has a lot power, and Porper doesn't hesitate to use the media to show his own approach on the last Olympiad.

3. E. Porper manages a project for Canadian Team League. Personally, I am not very optimistic about the future of this project, but CFC has decided to grant him the responsibility for it.

4. E. Porper is a coach for the Canadian Team at the WYCC. While his chess level and knowledge makes him a very good choice, his personality would play against him. A good children’s coach should be serious, but positive and friendly, and has to have an ability to understand other people and their jokes (sometimes). Porper’s nature is exactly the opposite.

A few days ago I got inside information (and I absolutely trust the source) that Porper uses this position for discussion, explanation and complaining about Olympiad tournament. I can live with him using CCN for this matter, but not kids... Furthermore, he complained to every possible person in the Canadian delegation during Olympiad (including Women team members, FIDE representative), and now he continues trying to convince at least somebody that the team captain made a lot of harm by discriminating valuable player.

To finish discussing this person I want to quote him: "Victor forces me to root for our opponents" (to increase his chances to play the next round). Maybe he feels like this, but to say it publicly was not too smart, to say the least.

Now I want to answer some questions that were raised on this forum before, during and after the Olympiad.

1. About the board order.

As a team captain, I was asked by the CFC president to set the board order in the beginning of June. It was clear to me that I wouldn’t be able to wait until August to see changes in the current ratings after a lot of big Canadian and International tournaments (Canadian Open, Toronto International, Quebec Open, World Junior, Canadian Closed). Of course, I understood that these tournaments could completely change the general rating picture (and the differential between boards 2-4 was very small that time, 10-20 points, meaning that 1 tournament can change it). I remember that at that time, I regarded that requirement as pretty strange, not modern and a typical Canadian way to do things.

At that time (as of May, 2012), Nikolay had FIDE 2475, Leonid - 2464, Eric - 2454, Bator - significantly higher, Edward - much lower. I made only one change and placed L. Gerzhoy above N. Noritsyn because of his greater international experience and higher average last year rating. Each player immediately got an e-mail from me with our board order.

In the 3 months before the Olympiad, Eric gained almost 50 rating points, and his rating was 2502. Both Leonid and Nikolay had 2461 FIDE that time. I remember myself a few days before the departure to Turkey spending a lot of time thinking about a possible board order change. It definitely wasn't an easy decision. By FIDE rules, I could make any changes that I wanted one day before the start of the tournament, without any financial penalty.

I decided not to make any changes. Players knew their numbers, and had some hopes and expectations. A last minute change could really hurt the team spirit.
Now, after the Olympiad, I think this call was pretty successful. Players, who can be potentially involved in this board-order change, gained 8 points (Leonid), 9 (Nikolay) and 25 (Eric). There was a total gain of 42 points, Eric became a GM, and Leonid was 1 game from the title. It's tough to imagine a better performance for boards 2-4.

I am very happy that L. Gerzhoy doesn't regularly read this forum (other players do). I read a lot of posts here hugely underestimating his level of playing, which he definitely doesn’t deserve. Some players are very popular here in Canada. Probably, Leonid isn't so popular. BTW, he always received great respect from the top Canadian players.

2. About Bator's performance.

Maybe it started 1 day before the event, when Bator wasn't allowed to enter Turkey. He had a Canadian travel document (not a Canadian passport) and thus had to obtain a Turkish visa not just in the airport, but before his trip at the Turkish Consulate in Canada. He didn't do that.

We (Bator and I) waited about 5 hours together in the Istanbul Airport while officers from the Turkish Chess Federation were trying to arrange some documents from the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs (they were very helpful). We got a good opportunity to talk, being from different parts of the Turkish border.

I remember myself reminding Bator of some statistics (again, statistics) about his performance last summer. Bator played a lot of tournaments, alternating bad (Toronto International) and great (Canadian Closed, Larry Bevand's tournament) results. But one point was very important - he made just 2 draws (against A.Calugar and R.Preotu). 2 out of 33 looks like a very low number, and I asked him to play differently.

Unfortunately, he couldn't switch, couldn't change his style. I have to say, it couldn't be an easy task. 5 years Bator plays in Canada, mostly against lower rated opponents, and tournament strategy forces him to play for win almost every game. How many games did he play against his level opponents (or higher) those 5 years? Probably, much below 10 % level.

I hope now, since he has the legal opportunity, Bator will play in strong and big tournaments outside of Canada. He should gain rating not because it's easier to achieve south of USA-Canada border; he just should become a stronger player.

At my opinion, Bator has the biggest unrealized chess potential among top Canadian players. His talent, knowledge, time devoted to chess had to bring him to 2600-2650 level. Can he achieve it? I am not sure, but I hope he will try.

Back to the Olympiad... I started to think about giving him a bye after his 3-rd consecutive loss (to Mexico). This loss probably was the toughest one: Bator missed very big advantage, and after this, in already equal position, decided to play for win. We lost that very important match 1.5-2.5. After some consideration, I decided to give a rest to Nikolay (he lost 2 games in a row).

After his next loss (to Belarus) we got a very weak opponents (Maldives). I hoped that easy win should be even better than a bye, but Bator lost his next real game (against Kazakhstan). It forced me to switch from my initial plan: to play last 2 rounds with the strongest line-up (no Porper), and to give Bator a rest in round 10.

Sure, Bator had a bad tournament and couldn't hold the 1-st board. His performance 2386 was much lower than his real strenth. But even this very low number is pretty close to initial rating of our reserve player and 135 points higher than performance rating of this reserve player. That's why I can't accept the approach of giving E. Porper more games instead of B. Sambuev.

Also very important. Even after losing a lot of games in a row Bator remained the same good and friendly teammate he was before the streak.

For the end, few sentences about myself. I was really lucky to be selected to serve as a team captain. For me it was a very interesting and enjoyable experience. Selection Committee by choosing E. Porper made my job a bit harder; but difficulties which don't kill us, make us stronger. Maybe Edward reduced my "amount of fun" by 1 or 2 %, but no more.

I also want to thank all the people who donated money to the team, organizers and players of fundraising events.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: Response to E.Porper's article.

a possible line-up for our round 5 match against Azerbaijan

That was a good lineup: Bator got a chance to play a strong[est for Canada] opponent. Got a real feeling what he may expect the next year :) And the next day was a rest day (I think).
imho, after the third loss he might needed some meditation in Istanbul. However Nikolay had 0-0 too :/ A tough job for a coach.

I didn't read CCN last couple of years, and I don’t think that most Canadian chess players regularly pay attention to this source. Taking into account the content of Porper’s article, I think that a response is absolutely necessary.

Your article would balance views on the Olympiad. You should have more to share than discussing only a player Porper and his position.

[Victor Itkine]

Re: Response to E.Porper's article.

You're right, but for Canadian chess players not to argue about Olympiad results would be highly IMPorper. (sorry)

I would like to nominate this post for "post of the year".

[Peter McKillop]

Re: Response to E.Porper's article.

...

The team's starting rank was #53.

The teams's finish was #52.

Why there is any angst about this, I fail to understand. There is no great failure here.

You're right, but for Canadian chess players not to argue about Olympiad results would be highly IMPorper. (sorry)

[Dan Hunter]

Re: Response to E.Porper's article.

Seems to me that Porpers article was totally out of line ......:D

[Nikolay Noritsyn]

Re: Response to E.Porper's article.

Thanks for the kind words, Victor.

The Olympiad is a team event. As Porper says, it isnt like soccer, and we can not "pass the bishop" to our teammates. But the results matter as a team, not individually. Especially now, when match points are the most important.

So all the five team members should do all possible for the team to achieve the best result. Some days, the best one can do is sit out. I was quite out of form during the frst half of the olympiad, and I think that sitting me out in the match against Argentina was a good idea. I was very happy to root for the team, and congratulate them on an eventual 2-2 result.

Before the Olympiad, we voted for Plotkin to be our team captain, giving him the power to make decisions. Disagreement with the captain's decisions is normal, but I think complaining is simply absurd. For each round, the best possible lineup should be placed, to achieve the best possible result.

I think Porper agrees with that, as he was very emotional about Canada not doing well, and matches being lost. That, however, makes his complaint about not playing enough games irrational. If he performed better, he would play more games, and the team would only benefit from that.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Response to E.Porper's article.

Seeing as how you want to discuss the performance.

The team board order is questionable. Your board 2 was barely holding his own and could not be expected to do much on board 1. Board 1 turned into a real problem with a low performance rating, only 3 wins (30%) and not one single draw. Your reserve scored 50% and made draws only losing 2 games. Yet you praise your board 1 and complain about your reserve.

Why didn't you rest your board 1 more? Did you ask him to try to play some draws considering it's match points and half points are important?

[David Ottosen]

Re: Response to E.Porper's article.

Is there some way to post the Porper article here? Then I would know what you were talking about.

Not really, it was in whatever En Passant is called today. IMO it was quite out of line to raise those issues publicly (especially in a newsletter where you are the editor). I disagreed with most of the points - as the captain points out, it seems much more like teams are moving towards using the reserve player as just that - a reserve.

With that said, I can absolutely see Porper coming into the event with a chip on his shoulder after (in my opinion) Teplitsky's equally inappropriate actions as part of the selection committee.

The whole thing was pretty sad and didn't reflect well on anybody.

[Roger Patterson]

Re: Response to E.Porper's article.

... is that Canada’s team had the potential for success, yet failed to achieve it... .

A lot of people have written about this with some thinking that if we had somehow convinced some inactive players we would have had a stronger team. Even if we had done that, it would have raised the team rating average by maybe 50 points - and that assumes inactive players keep their strenght.

Fact is:

The FIDE ranking of countries top 100 puts Canada at #46 http://ratings.fide.com/topfed.phtml

The team's starting rank was #53.

The teams's finish was #52.

Why there is any angst about this, I fail to understand. There is no great failure here.

[Michael Yip]

Re: Response to E.Porper's article.

Is there some way to post the Porper article here? Then I would know what you were talking about.

[Victor Plotkin]

I am not sure that chesstalk is the best place to respond to E. Porper's article posted on the last issue of CCN, but this is how I will respond. I just believe that chesstalk is more popular than CCN. I didn't read CCN last couple of years, and I don’t think that most Canadian chess players regularly pay attention to this source. Taking into account the content of Porper’s article, I think that a response is absolutely necessary.

The article itself includes some interesting ideas, but it is extremely negative – not only about me as a team captain, but about many other things: Turkish organizers, FIDE rules, team Canada’s performance, selection committee... Looks like Porper waited his whole life for this event, and thus he was highly disappointed. I always try to understand different and even opposite opinions, but in this case I disagree with many of the writer’s points. Here are just few of them:

1. Edward's approach is that Canada’s team had the potential for success, yet failed to achieve it. My opinion about our team’s performance is different. If I were to grade our team, I would give us a B. Yes, our final position was pretty close to our initial ranking; however, in a tournament where you are ranked in the middle, final position is not the most important thing. The way you achieved this final position is much more important. You can play "Swiss gambit" and beat a lot of weak teams, or you can play well in the first part of the event and be paired against strong teams such as Azerbaijan, Argentina and Belarus; either way, you will probably still be around +1 or +2 before last 2 rounds. In this way, for the final standing, the last 2 rounds (or rather the pairings for those rounds) are more important than the previous 9 together. Does this mean that the first 9 rounds are not important? Of course not.

Our good results in the first 9 rounds allowed us to play interesting matches against mostly higher-rated opponents, and almost completely eliminate easy games versus 1800 players (solely 2 matches). Also a solid start to the Olympiad allowed us not to worry about the minimum rating requirement for the GM norm. A player needed an average opponents’ rating of 2380, because otherwise even a result of 9/9 wouldn't give him a norm. At a previous Olympiad, P. Charbonneau, playing on board 2, had an average opponents’ rating lower than 2380; playing "Swiss gambit" could have potentially eliminated any chances for norms.

In total, our team players gained 23 rating points, which is significant. And very important: Canada got new GM. As a team captain, I really appreciated Eric's readiness to play in the last round, even after his goal of becoming a GM was already achieved.

2. E. Porper complains about the low amount of games that he played. In my opinion, he played too much. To prove my point, here are just a couple of facts:
a) His performance, 2251, was not only the lowest in the team, but probably the lowest in Canada in a very long period of time.
b) At the last Olympiad, the reserve player A. Samsonkin played just 6 games (E. Porper played 7), with a much better performance (around 2400, very close to his own rating) and never complained.
c) Many teams used the same approach: the reserve player played a fewer amount of games than the rest of the players, unless he showed great results from the beginning of the tournament. I am not even talking about Armenia, which played the same line-up for the last 8 (!) rounds with great success; I am talking about teams at our level.

3. E. Porper writes about our conversations in Victoria this summer. I never promised him that everyone would play an equal amount of games. He was really scared about playing just 3 games, and I assured him that he would play much more. Isn’t 7 much more than 3?

4. His ideas about a possible line-up for our round 5 match against Azerbaijan are just ridiculous. Porper wrote that the best solution was to give B. Sambuev a rest after his previous round loss. Just a reminder: before this loss, Bator won 14 games in a row: 8/8 in the Canadian Closed (last round draw with L.Gerzhoy isn't counted), 4/4 in the Larry Bevand tournament (last round draw with R. Sapozhnikov isn't counted), and 2/2 in the Olympiad against very strong opponents. Is it the best option for the team to punish the 1st-board player after just one loss?
Chess-wise speaking: Radjabov was expected to play King Indian (and he did in fact play this), and Bator felt pretty comfortable playing this opening for White. Bator got a significant advantage, but was just outplayed by a much stronger opponent.
We now know what happened after Bator's loss in round 4. But I want to see at least 1 team captain who could have predicted, and avoided, this scenario. To talk about this now, with the benefit of hindsight, is just unfair.

5. E. Porper complains about playing 4 games in a row with Black. Indeed, he played 4 out of 5 important games (matches against 1800 opponents aren’t counted) with Black. Analysing the players’ statistics before the Olympiad, I compared their performance with White and with Black. Team Canada had 2 white-lover players: B. Sambuev and L. Gerzhoy (difference above 15%) and 2 black-lover players: N. Noritsyn and E. Porper (difference around or below 5%). E. Hansen had a pretty normal distribution.

As a person with a background in math, I believe in statistics. My approach was clear: more games with White for Leonid, more games with Black for Nikolay and Edward. Of course, for 1st board, I didn’t have much choice. During the tournament, I also tried to have Eric playing more games with White, due to his great results. So Leonid played 4/7 important games with White, Nikolay – 5/7 with Black, Eric – 6/9 with White, and Edward – 4/5 with Black. I think it was a pretty good approach and I explained it to the team. Nikolay understood it, and played the last 4 rounds (8-11) with Black, collecting 3.5 out of 4 (2.5/3 for important games) and never complained (of course). Edward, on the other hand…

Maybe this is slightly off-topic, maybe I am just tired of writing about Porper... 30 years ago I played a lot in different Soviet Union team chess tournaments. Among my teammates were a lot of different players including very strong future GMs, such as: A. Khalifman, G. Kamsky, K. Sakaev. I have to say, N. Noritsyn is one of the best (if not the best) teammates I have ever played with.

Now, analysing the decisions I had made prior to and during the Olympiad (and there were a lot of decisions; the team captain truly has a lot of power), I regret just one. Now, I believe that the line-up for the last round was my mistake. I gave a rest to Leonid, who had very solid tournament, after his previous round loss to Sweden (which not only caused our team to lose the match, but it also eliminated his chances for the GM title), and made Porper play another game (and a very important one at that). He lost, and we lost 11 positions in final standing.

My post already looks too long. I will probably continue tomorrow.