Tweet
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.
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.
Comment