Chess Scotland Noticeboard

John_Dempsey · Queen Joined: 14 Feb 2007 Posts: 113

One of the things which I came to appreciate last year in Dresden is that so very many countries put forward teams in Olympiads which we in Scotland would consider woefully weak. This has been reinforced in me due to my sojourn in St. Croix. So far I have played 3 of the Virgin Islands Olympians (and ex Olympians), and whilst these are very nice, decent people, they would not survive long in the GCL never mind against our Olympiad teams, of any era. We (Scotland) may not be in a position to challenge for gold medals but we have players who can give anyone on the planet a run for their money! And moreover they get selected/approached, time after time.

However, what happens in the selection process in Scotland may not be a univeral phenomenon. The prospects of improvement, under the current federation management on these islands (US Virgin Islands) are, in my opinion, bleak, to say the least. Faction fights over the years have all but destroyed any hope of fielding the strongest possible team. My understanding of the situation is that many of the stronger players no longer want to represent their country, due to past (and present?) 'difficulties' in the selection process.

There was a move afoot at last years Olympiad to effectively 'throw out' the weaker teams which showed no improvement over time. I wondered at that then, but now I think I see some of the effects/reasoning behind it. I suspect that it is less about penalising the weaker teams but more about penalising federations which are less than committed/transparent about how individuals get into their teams, and why some individuals are not selected. This results in weaker players 'somehow' being selected over stronger players. We are not talking about a few grading points, we are talking about considerable differences in playing strength. Whole classes of strength.

I wonder how many countries are, for one reason or another, failing to put forward their best people, time after time. If this was happening in just one instance I doubt it would be seen as something which needed to be addressed by FIDE. It leads me to suspect that this may be a rather more widespread situation

We are very fortunate in Scotland, but I did not realise it until now.

Hope Perth goes well!

John

Alan Jelfs · Queen Joined: 31 Mar 2007 Posts: 81

Might it not just be a simple matter of finance, John?
The team Scotland fielded in the European Team championships was of lower strength than the Scottish Olympiad team, simply because the European Team players had to pay their own way.
I can't imagine the Virgin Islands Chess Association being particularly well off.

regards,
Alan
_________________
Chess Club - the first rule of Chess Club is you don't talk about Chess Club.

John_Dempsey · Queen Joined: 14 Feb 2007 Posts: 113

Hi Alan.

Finance is always a consideration in these things. But, first you have to get to the stage of actually approaching people to find out what they can afford or not.

Finance can often be raised, both by individuals and organisations, but first there has to be a reason to do so. If you are never going to be approached the money side of it is never reached. I don't doubt that it would be a limiting factor in some instances, but when you are fielding teams which produce chess as in the following Olympiad 2008 game then it is time to go back to the drawing board and start again. By the way the 'winner' of this game was the person from the Virgin Islands (VI). This was by no means the worst of the bunch produced at the Olympiad (although you may find that incredible!). It is also worth mentioning that this is from a 2064 FIDE rating (obtained at Olympiads). Each and every game produced by this team member is of the same standard in my opinion. Why don't you play it through and then tell me when you last saw the like of it? If you are feeling particularly masochistic I can send you some of the games of the VI board 2!

[Event "Dresden Olympiad"]
[
[White "Mien, Arnold"]
[Black "Mody, Ila"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "B10"]

1. e4 c6 2. Nf3 d6 3. Nc3 g6 4. Bc4 e6 5. O-O Bg7 6. d3 Ne7 7. Bg5 O-O 8. Qc1
Re8 9. Qf4 d5 10. exd5 exd5 11. Bb3 Be6 12. d4 Nd7 13. Qh4 Qc8 14. Bf4 Nf5 15.
Qh3 Nf8 16. g4 Nxd4 17. Nxd4 Bxd4 18. Rad1 Bxg4 19. Qg3 Bxd1 20. Rxd1 Bg7 21.
Nxd5 cxd5 22. Bxd5 Ne6 23. Qf3 Nxf4 24. Bxb7 Nh3+ 25. Kg2 Nf4+ 26. Kg1 Ne2+ 27.
Kf1 Qxc2 28. Bxa8 Qxd1+ 29. Kg2 Qg1+ 30. Kh3 Bh6 31. Bc6 Nf4+ 32. Kh4 Qg5# 0-1

What is revealing is that her opponent was even weaker! The standard at Olympiads is not as high as we would like to think. I observed games at the event that were painful to watch.

My point is that there are much stronger players around on these islands but for some reason they do not represent their country. It is not in every case a financial constraint that is the problem. Sometime in the past decade the Federation here all but vanished. But not quite. It is there in name.Many left the Federation and want nothing to do with it. It has become something of a very smallsecret society. Transparency is just a word. The result is chess like that shown above being 'representative' as far as the rest of the world knows.

If we were sending people who consistently produced this kind of chess then I think we would have a rethink! But not here it seems. Superficiality not substance , is the order of the day. It is worth saying that these islands have better players than the above game ( and many more like it) suggests. It is just that we are not going to be treated to seeing their games in print and sadly the world's chessplayers will have a very poor opinion of the standard of chess in the VI.

John

sigrun · King Joined: 25 Jan 2007 Posts: 307 Location: Europa

Let only the best play chess! A teenager once told me that his father refused to teach him chess because he met him when he was 12 & that was too old to learn the game Crying or Very sad

I'm off to Dresden very shortly & no doubt will produce 'bad' chess. So, should i not go? I'm looking forward to it very much & hope that my games won't be too bad. A GM I've met there before told me that he thought it was great that i ventured out to play! He obviously didn't think anything wrong with low skilled players coming to admire his games & even learn from them.

Now that the women can look after themselves in the chess world, we've got to get the seniors more attention. So far the chess establishment has given too much attention to juniors. Money poured into their comps is wasted, especially since the strongest juniors leave these comps quickly to join adult comps. The majority of juniors drop out.

It is also very shortsighted to look at juniors only. We all get older, so in chess, is there nothing for older people? You were argueing, John, that weak players shouldn't be supported. At the mo none of the seniors are supported to go to Dresden. I think that's wrong. Its the adults who put in all the money that the ass has. So shouldn't we get some of it back? Wouldn't it be great if the average adult could say to herself: When I'm 50, I'll be able to play for Scotland? Very Happy

_________________
''All murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets.'' Voltaire

John_Dempsey · Queen Joined: 14 Feb 2007 Posts: 113

No Sigrun,

I am not arguing that weak players should not be supported. Nor am I saying that only strong players should play chess. I am arguing that the best chess players should represent their country. I am also calling into question the FIDE grades which are obtained solely through participation in Olympiads. There is no way that the games I am finding on Chesslab, played by some of these Olympians, are of 2000+ standard. Call it like it is, not how some would wish it to be. A level playing field Sigrun, that is all that I would desire.

John

AMcHarg · Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 12:44 pm Post subject:

Daniel Rocks · Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 1:35 pm Post subject:

Andrew,

The Fide System is completely different to the Chess Scotland system. It is true that with the Chess Scotland system that performance is related to grade and this becomes more accurate the more games someone plays in a season. However, with fide-rating there is a limit on how much one's grade can improve with in a certain time-frame - this is due to the "K-factor". I'll give an example that one of our most talented Juniors had a first fide-rating of 1500 odd and after going to a tournament in Italy and scoring a 2100+ performance over 9 or 11 games, his rating was still stuck in the 1500 or 1600s. Another factor, if people have only played a small number of games then their ratings are subject to being completely distorted as the K-factor starts at 30 (it drops to 15 after a certain amount of time). For instance, I got my first fide-rating when I was 16 and it was 2129 though I had only played 11 fide-games or something... it was clear now that I probably was not playing to that standard at that time, I just had 1 good tournament. Now 2 years on my rating is lower than when I started out... this is due to the number of games having increased, which with FIDE is something which can take a very long time. Hence, John's claim that these Virgin Islands players who are apparently 2000+ players have extremely distorted ratings is 100% true! Just by playing a 2450 in a FIDE tournament, you get a 2100 performance or so for that game and it is inevitable that such weak players will get to play IM+ standard players in the early rounds of an Olympiad.
_________________
Daniel Rocks

Paul Denham · Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 4:17 pm Post subject:

Andrew,

Check out the history of Claude Bloodgood a US chess player convicted of killing his mommy who became 2nd strongest US player behind Gata Kamsky a few years ago.

Sure wikipedia will have enough on him to give you the facts you need.

The grading events he played in were extremely flawed to say the least... but come back to me if you feel his grade was likely or unlikely to be genuinely hard earned, and reflected his actual playing strength (i.e would he have come out of the state pen. and got silver in a US Championships) Question

To think grade always equals strength is naive - there have been many bogus events in the world (some pre-arranged and some ficticious) where people have "bought" norms.

Generally grade will be genuine and reflect strength - but not always and I think John D has made it clear that there is something fishy going on with the games/players he has highlighted.

PD

HLang · Queen Joined: 08 Feb 2007 Posts: 151 Location: Oxford

AMcHarg · Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:52 pm Post subject:

Isn't this a problem with the Fide grading system though? It seems like a bad system if someone can genuinly get a grade that their playing strength does not warrant. Confused

SteveHilton · King Joined: 24 Jul 2007 Posts: 443 Location: Greenock

Alastair,
A grade is after all only a number. A player will know within themselve what their actual grading strength is.

John_Dempsey · Queen Joined: 14 Feb 2007 Posts: 113

Yes Stephen,

On some level we all know our playing strength, yet so many of us believe we are better than that, or could be.

Imagine a scenario whereby you are apportioned a grade, perhaps 700 points, above realty. Imagine that yoiu really want to play for your country and this grade 'justifies' your place. Moreover, as there are no FIDE rated tourmanments in your geographical neck of the woods, your shiny new grade cannot be challenged. Also, you get the chance to play in Olympiads against other equally inflated players and you win a few games. You are vindicated. All you have to do locally is not rock anyones boat who is on the selection board. Be compliant. Your a local hero'

I know, all of this is hard to imagine, it is almost a nightmare scenario.

Yet the evidence of inflated grades is in the games produced. It is clear, it is unequivecal. So we seem to have teams containing really weak payers competing in events that we as Scots play in. What if we draw a tough team and our near rivals draw a team with such players in it? Maybe it will balance out, but more likely it will not.

FIDE aught to be asked to justify these grades based upon the games produced, consistantly produced. These games are clear, hard, empirical evidence of ability.

What a player knows within themselves, about their true abilities to play on a level playing field, is often hidden. Some people out ther may even fight for every unfair advantage they can obtain. Some people only care about how others percieve them to be. They want to seem strong. We cannot rely upon the self-perception of individuals, unfortunately, to obtain a level playing field.

John Dempsey

yes

SteveHilton · King Joined: 24 Jul 2007 Posts: 443 Location: Greenock

[quote="John_Dempsey"]Yes Stephen,

On some level we all know our playing strength, yet so many of us believe we are better than that, or could be.

Imagine a scenario whereby you are apportioned a grade, perhaps 700 points, above realty. Imagine that yoiu really want to play for your country and this grade 'justifies' your place. Moreover, as there are no FIDE rated tourmanments in your geographical neck of the woods, your shiny new grade cannot be challenged. Also, you get the chance to play in Olympiads against other equally inflated players and you win a few games. You are vindicated. All you have to do locally is not rock anyones boat who is on the selection board. Be compliant. Your a local hero'

I know, all of this is hard to imagine, it is almost a nightmare scenario.

Yet the evidence of inflated grades is in the games produced. It is clear, it is unequivecal. So we seem to have teams containing really weak payers competing in events that we as Scots play in. What if we draw a tough team and our near rivals draw a team with such players in it? Maybe it will balance out, but more likely it will not.

FIDE aught to be asked to justify these grades based upon the games produced, consistantly produced. These games are clear, hard, empirical evidence of ability.

What a player knows within themselves, about their true abilities to play on a level playing field, is often hidden. Some people out ther may even fight for every unfair advantage they can obtain. Some people only care about how others percieve them to be. They want to seem strong. We cannot rely upon the self-perception of individuals, unfortunately, to obtain a level playing field.

John Dempsey

I agree with a lot what you are saying John. The problem would still be the same whatever grading system we use though. The grade only reflects a period of play and does not reflect the actual playing strength of the player. The grade does not reflect the knowledge or the understanding of chess of the player concerned. I do not know how you can incorporate those factors into a players grade.

There are players who are lowly rated but possess an excellent knowledge of chess. At the opposite end of the scale, there are those players who do not have a great knowledge of opening theory but have high grades because they have good understanding of chess.

I think that a grading system should take into account these factors and then you might see the grade start to reflect the players actual playing strength.

I think that a key factor in being a selector for a team is to develop a good knowledge of the actual playing strength of potential players.
I sincerely believe that here in Scotland, our selectors do have that knowledge.

I will have a say in the selection of the IBCA team for this years olympiad and will take into account what I have said in the above in determing our teams for this event.

Best Wishes
Stephen Hilton
Secretary General
IBCA

Geoff Chandler · Posted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 12:15 pm Post subject:

At the last Olympiad there was a wee girl whose games
gave the appearance she had been taught the moves
on the plane going there. They were awful.

She came from one of those African war torn countries and for
those two weeks she had a once in a lifetime wonderful adventure
and perhaps for the first time in her life, she was safe.

The game of Chess did that. What a wonderful game.

Gens Una Sumus (irrespective of grades).

John_Dempsey · Queen Joined: 14 Feb 2007 Posts: 113

Stephen/Geoff,

I do take on board the very valid points you are making. It is very dificult to legislate for everything and knowing the real strength of your players is key in selection. Also, which of us would deprive any wee girl of such a chance? But my beef with this is where selection is based upon factors which are far more to do with local chess politics than ability. We in Scotland are part of a much wider chess community (England and the rest of Europe are not far away). In so very many other countries the checks and balances of fair selection are at best tenuous. Isolation allows this. It can result in deep unfairness becoming entrnched. To a large extent we can more or less shrug our shoulders and let them get on with it, but it is still unfair.

I am very proud to be part of the Scottish chess community. To some extent I have taken for granted the very many good things we have in our institutions and it is only through seeing the lack of such things, from hearing the woes of other chess players in places like thiis, that I now more fully appreciate what we have. We must guard what we have jealously.

Best Regards

John

[/b]