PDA

View Full Version : GM Kevin Spraggett Olympiad Report



David Lavin
11-17-2008, 10:23 AM
GM Kevin Spraggett will be sending me his thoughts on the Olympiad and I will be posting them as soon as I get them. These should be very interesting!

David Lavin
11-18-2008, 12:40 PM
MY OBSERVATIONS


The chess Olympiad traces its origin to Paris 1924, where 54 players met to participate in and create what would become one of the longest standing tradtions in the chess world. (For historians, it should be mentioned that FIDE was formed along the sidelines of this same event.) Since then, the Olympiad has grown into a gigantic and prestigious festival attracting thousands of fans and players. The 38th edition ,held in Dresden between the 12th and 25th of November, boasts approximately 2000 participants from more than 150 countries. As well as a number of side events held in parallel to the main event, FIDE holds its congress there.

Probably motivated by a desire to reduce organizational costs, the 38th Olympiad has seen implemented a number of key changes to how things had been traditionally run. Amongst these are the use of accelerated pairings for the first two rounds, a reduction of number of rounds (from 14 to 11), a reduction of the size of each team from 6 (4 players and 2 reserves) to 5 (4 players and just 1 reserve) and a brand new scoring system (2 points for a team win, 1 point for a draw, and nothing for a loss ). The combination of these changes will likely have a profound effect on the course of the Olympiad.

The use of accelerated pairings , while facilitating the reduction of the number of rounds without mathematically hurting the chances of the top teams, has the disadvantage that a poor start by any team will make it that much more difficult to get back onto the top tables. My personal experience in Cappelle LaGrande (where accelerated pairings are normal) has shown that once relegated to the middle of the pack it is necessary to win quite a few games before finding yourself playing near the top boards. Accelerated pairings seem to created a type of 'cushion' that insulates the top boards from the rest of the pack, which I suppose is part of its idea in anycase.

The new scoring system also has immediate practical significance. While not necessarily superior to the old system (where the score over 4 boards is summed), it definitely works to reduce the 'bounce' effect: if team A loses to team B by a big score, then team A gets paired way down against weak teams for several rounds, while team B gets paired way up to strong teams. If Team A then wins by big scores , it can likely find itself having more points after several rounds than Team B, even though Team B is a stronger team and has been playing stronger opponent teams! (We call that 'bouncing' back with a vengence!)

Under the new scoring system, there is a maximum of only 2 points a team can win , regardless of whether this win is by a total score of 4-0 or 2.5-1.5, and therefore it is that much more difficult for a team that loses to find itself 'bouncing' past the team that had just recently beaten him.

The reduction of the number of reserves to 1 can also have a impact . It is not uncommon for more than one player on each team to be unable to be at his best, either due to poor form or suddenly coming down with a cold. Having 2 reserves ready to jump in , even temporarily, allows the team to smooth over its performance. With only 1 reserve player, however, there is a serious loss of team flexibility. If even 1 player has to be sat out for an extended period of time, there is the very real danger that the remaining 4 players will start to suffer from fatigue. In long team events this can seriously hurt your chances.

Opinions are mixed over these above changes. It will be necessary to pay attention to how things work out before making a final judgement. All in all,while the new rules seem to have as many plusses as negatives, I think that they favour teams whose players are strong, healthy and in good chess form!

One of the more attractive features of an Olympiad is its democratic nature: more than 90%of the world's top players participate, and this allows the average mortal chess player to see their idols upclose, mingle and chat, and from time to time rub shoulders in long cafeteria lines! But especially , the Olympiad allows for pairings between players who , under normal circumstances, would never meet over the board. The vast majority of the world's top tournaments are essentially private affairs , more often than not organized by cliquish individuals who invite whomever they please. And usually the same players , year after year. Linares/Morelia comes immediately to mind. So does Monaco and Wijk Ann Zee, just off the top of my head. So for a good number of the more ambitious younger players, the Olympiad offers an opportunity not only to face the top players, but to become better known.

The chess world has seen a recent 'explosion' (if I may use this colorful word) in popularity among young people of all nationalities. The internet has something to do with this. Undoubtedly, school chess programs has had some effect also. Today there are just so many more strong players participating in tournaments. The ELO rating system has had convulsions trying to keep up with this expansion. Countries like India and China, where chess was never very big, have now become chess superpowers. The current world champion , Anand, is Indian. There are already several chinese grandmasters sporting 2700 ratings who are only in their early 20's! And in countries where chess was always big, it is becoming even bigger: the Ukraine and Russia immediately come to mind. Both countries can field 3 or 4 teams each that would be a medal contender at this Dresden Olympiad.

(Unfortunately, against this positive trend is a very negative backdrop: FIDE has dropped the ball and sponsors are fleeing the game. Newspapers are eliminating chess coverage and even some of the most longstanding and prestigious chess columns have disappeared. The failed policies of Kirsan are a big problem. Politics is hurting the game. The increase of tempo of the game has not led to more television coverage: it has reduced the interest of TV. The new rules for the world championship (one can ask whether they should really be dignified as 'rules'?) are unfathomable even by the players themselves. And FIDE has a track record of changing them without notice! If the chessworld itself does not respect the title of World Champion, then why should the real world ? And the rapid time control is destroying the game: it is almost impossible to play endgames correctly with just 30 seconds per move. Fifty years from now, chessplayers will look back on this period of time and they will conclude that very little great chess was produced, inspite of having so many great players...in my opinion, it is time for Kirsan to go. But there is no realistic alternative insight.)

The Dresden Olympiad is an imposing sporting event by any standard! Each time the Olympiad is stronger than the previous edition. Apart from havng more than 90% of the top elite players participating, there are 23 teams with an average rating of 2600 and above. Team USA is ranked 10th with an average rating of 2673, while any team that has an average rating of less than 2575 will not find itself amongst the top 30 starting teams!

And the competition is not just tough for those teams seeking a medal, it is excrutiatingly difficult for 'wanna be' teams seeking just to improve their initial team ranking. For example, have you any idea of how difficult it is for a team that is initially ranked 50th to finish amongst the top 20 teams? It is mindbogglingly difficult to imagine ,because other sports only focus on the medal winners and there is nothing to reference/compare that is similar to what exists in chess. After 5 rounds in Dresden (almost the half-way point), of the top 20 spots in the current classification, we find that 17 of these teams are amongst the top 20 initially ranked teams. That is, only 3 'outsiders' have managed to 'sneak' in (and one of them is initially ranked 21st!). Of the top 30 spots, only 4 teams are outsiders. Of the top 40 spots, only 7 teams do not belong to the initial top 40 ranking teams! It is an achievement in itself for any given team to improve over his starting rank.

David Lavin
11-18-2008, 12:40 PM
But the real story of the Dresden Olympiad is the competition between Russia and Armenia for the gold medal. For either of these chess superpowers the silver medal will be equivalent to failure! On the one hand, Armenia is the defending Olympic Champion, having won the gold medal in Turin 2006, for the first time in its history. Armenia is a very small country, a chess superpower for decades, its people proud and very nationalistic. Armenia takes chess very seriously. Even its president is an avid chess fan! Maybe Armenia considers the gold medal their property! On the other hand, Russia considers it a patriotic duty to restore its traditional domination in chess: in Turin 2006 their team finished a 'humiliating' 6th position.

From 1952 to 1974 Russia (more accurately said, the USSR) was the undisputed Olympic Champion. In 1976, they did not participate in Haifa because of a political boycott, but in 1978 , Hungary surprised everyone by finishing ahead of Russia at the Buenos Aires Olympiad. Since regaining the gold in 1980, Russia has held the title straight up to 2004, when the Ukraine narrowly edged them out of the gold. Then followed the 'disaster' in Turin, 2006. Russia finished outside of the medals for the first time in modern chess history.

Now we find ourself in 2008, and both Armenia and Russia have come to Dresden with one single goal: gold. All or nothing. Patriotism. Russia is fielding what is arguably the strongest team in modern times (Kramnik, Svidler, Grischuk, Morozevich and Jakovenko—the first 4 also having participated in 2006) Armenia also has a powerhouse, essentially the same team as in 2006 (Aronian, Akopian, Sargissian, Petrosian and Minasian-only Petrosian is new, replacing the recently deceased Karen Asrian)

After 5 rounds, six teams find themselves tied for first place: Armenia, Russia, Germany1 , Azerbaijan, Ukraine and England. Each is undefeated so far (4 match victories and 1 draw) with 9 match points. Right behind them, hot on their trail, are not less than 10 teams (Poland, India, Sweden(!), Georgia, Romania, Bulgaria, China, Israel, Bosnia (!) and France) each with 7 match points.

I feel that only the silver and bronze are up for grabs, as the gold belongs to either Russia or Armenia. There are undoubtedly other great teams in Dresden, but what separates them from Russia and Armenia is the sense of historic mission and patriotic duty that follows them into each match. The pressure must be enormous. So far , few real cracks have appeared in their armour.

Russia has lost only 1 game of the 20 disputed so far, and all of its players are performing strongly. Kramnik has a solid 2pts /4 games on board 1, Svidler has 1.5/3, Grischuk as 2.5 /4, Morozevich as a spectacular 4/5 and Jakovenko (the reserve) has 3.0 /4. There is some discussion about why Morozevich (top rated on the Russian team) is playing board 4, but I think the reason has more to do with team strategy and player dynamics than anything else: there are advantages to having such a killing machine on bottom board!

Armenia has not lost any individual game of the 20 disputed so far. Aronian has an excellent 2.5/4 on board 1, Akopian has 3.5/5, Sargissian has a spectacular 4.5 /5, Petrosian has 4.0/5 and its reserve player Minasian has 1 from 1 . Armenia is certainly not taking any chances, and is living up to its reputation as defending champion. Armenia looks like a champion is supposed to look like!

But I sense that there is a potential problem with the Armenian squad, and this might be significant. Their reserve player Art Minasian, who is much lower rated than the team average, has only been allowed to play 1 game so far. Could it be that the team feels uncertain about his playing against the strongest teams? It seems very risky to always play the same 4 players since fatigue will become a factor, even though the players are still quite young and in excellent physical shape. As I see it, the team is going to have to let Minasian play against some of the strongest teams. And here is where the Russian strategy of having Morozevich on 4th board can be seen to be putting pressure on Armenia. Morozevich is a steam roller, Minasian is not.

Everyone looks forward to the Armenia vs Russia match. It could be decisive for the gold medal, but maybe not. Both teams will still have to watch out for the other medal contenders. Probably as many as 10 other teams are strong enough to compete with either Armenia or Russia on any given day. But over an 11 round team event, who can seriously match the stamina and drive of Russia or Armenia? (I look forward to be surprised!)

Germany1, the home crowd favourite, has been performing spectacularly! They have suffered only 1 game loss so far, and their first board , Naiditsch, has a spectacular score of 4pts from 5 games. Khenkin has 3pts /4 on board two. Undoubtedly Germany1 is helped by the enthusiasm of the crowd and media coverage, and will undoubtedly be a candidate for a medal up until the end. But I doubt Germany1 will win the gold. I do think that the most likely role of this wonderful team , at best, will be spoiler. They held Russia to a solid 2:2, no decisive games. They still have to meet Armenia.

Azerbaijan is a great team with real medal shots. They have lost only 1 game of the 20 disputed so far, and all of their players are performing magnificently: Radjabov has 2.5/4 on board 1, Mamedyarov has 4pts /5, Gashimov has 3pts from 4, as does Husenov and their reserve has a great 2.5/3. I would consider them an outside chance for a silver if they had more experience (they are all young lads!), and like Germany1, I think that the role of spoiler seems to be more fitting to them this time around. Who knows about 2010!?

The Ukraine is always a contender:with great players like Ivanchuk, Karjakin, Eljanov, Efimenko and Volokitin who can say otherwise. But so far, even though they are tied for 1st, there are some cracks showing. The team has lost 3 games of the 20 disputed so far, and Ivanchuk seems to be showing signs of fatigue. He is the one top player who is always playing, almost never taking a break. He has probably won more tournaments in recent years than all of the other top 5 or 6 players combined, he plays so much. But in Dresden he is proving to be a bit too shaky for board 1. But let's see what happens. I think the Ukraine will encounter a difficult second half in Dresden.

It is a surprise to see England tied for first after 5 rounds, but their opposition so far has not been the strongest. Last round they defeated the outsider Italy handily, even though Adams managed to lose on board 1! I think that this is the high point of the English participation in Dresden , and from now on it will be a steady slide to a final showing that will with difficulty be among the top 20 teams. England has lost 3 games so far, and their first board , Adams, has lost two of them! The other players are doing much better (ofcourse), except that their reserve player , Stuart Conquest (a good friend of mine and fellow team player in Spain and Portugal) is a bit off form.

Bob Armstrong
11-18-2008, 01:17 PM
Hi David:

A very interesting and readable assessment from Kevin. Congratulations for getting him to provide material for us here on CFC Chess Forum. Too bad we can't convince him to come back and play for Canada at the Olympiad.

See if you can get some more musings out of him as the second half progresses.

Bob

David Lavin
11-18-2008, 06:11 PM
China finished with a silver medal in 2006, and certainly has a team to fight to equal their result this time. With an average rating of 2714, they certainly will give Armenia and Russia a run for their money. The team has only lost 2 games so far, but their second board, Bu, seems a bit shaky. They only won 1 match with a blow out score, and I think that their players are a bit tired, so many of them having played so much this past year. I would like to think that China will do something special in Dresden, but from what I have seen from their games, the fact that this Olympiad is being held in November (rather than June) will likely have a very negative impact on their final placing. In anycase, certainly China is always a spoiler for those playing for the medals.

Israel has a super team, and they are doing well. Gelfand has a great 3.5/4 on board 1. Their reserve, the young Max Rodshtein, has an excellent 3pts /4, and this means that they can count on their reserve player for the final rounds. Which they will probably need, since Postny seems to be out of form and has struggled to get 2.5/5 games. Israel is probably not going to win a medal, but is always a spoiler. They have lost 3 game so far.

France has a chance this time around. It would be great if they could make it to the medals! There team is young, ambitious and they want to make history! Only their reserve player is a bit out of form (with 1.5/3). Definitely always a spoiler, but France's drive and youth could push them the distance for a bronze.

The USA finished with a bronze in 2006. Ranked 10th before the event began, things have been a bit rocky so far. They have lost 4 games so far from 20 disputed, which is a lot if you want to try to win a medal. Only Onischuk has avoided losing a game. Kamsky seems to be in fine form. Nakamura's play always impresses me, but he might be a bit tired. I would think that the final placing of this team will depend on his ability to win pressure games. But unless things turn around, it will be very difficult , if not impossible, to repeat their performance in 2006.

Poland is one of my favourite teams. This team is a spoiler. Watch for Poland this time around! Their players are not well known, and the average team rating is 'only' 2609, but they have youth, talent and ambition on their side. Poland narrowly lost to Russia (1.5-2.5...one loss and three draws), but has been clobbering everyone else. Their players have character. I remember when Miton sat down to play Kramnik and was surrounded by dozens of photographers, almost everyone of them pointed towards Kramnik and not himself. He remained poised, relaxed and not the least bit put off. It did not bother him at all. Not a very easy thing to handle right before a big game.

I know most of the Polish players personally. (In 2007 I had the honour to be asked to coach them for a team championship late last year, but the timing was awkward and the practical difficulties of getting a visa in a small space of time made it unworkable. Maybe in the future!) I think that Poland has an outside chance for a medal if they can continue to play in the second half like they have so far.

Bulgaria has a super team. Topalov is on first board, (he has 2.5/3) and the average team rating is 2691. If Kiril Georgiev (one of my favourite players) was not in such bad form these past few months, I would think that Bulgaria would have excellent chances for a medal. But Bulgaria has lost 3 games so far out of 20 disputed, and Kiril is responsible for 2 of them. But who knows? The combined score of their 4th board and reserve is 9.5/10 games...certainly they are atleast a spoiler.

India is always a strong team. Anand is not playing this time around, and this is a curious thing since India never seems to perform its best when it fields its absolute best team! However, with an average rating of 2634 and a very young team, this team will be influential in determining the medals. I do not believe India will win one, but depending on who it plays in the final rounds , it could be a spoiler for any team looking for a bronze.

This brings my observations at half time to a close. Undoubtedly there are other great teams in Dresden, and I apologize for not mentioning them here. And I wish them all the best. In the final analysis, chess is but a sport, and as all sports, the only thing that really matters is how you perfom on any given day when the right opportunity faces you. How you react to the pressure and whether you can walk the walk. I certainly will watch with much enthusiasm how the second half plays out.

Kevin

Egidijus Zeromskis
11-18-2008, 10:02 PM
I certainly will watch with much enthusiasm how the second half plays out.

I hope you'll comment games as well :rolleyes:

Valer Eugen Demian
11-19-2008, 01:19 PM
There is a very interesting detail I picked up from a Romanian discussion board: players are not allowed to offer a draw before 30 moves are played! As far as I can remember this is a first for an Olympiad event, isn't it?

Jonathan Berry
11-21-2008, 04:47 PM
MY OBSERVATIONS

Kevin Spraggett wrote:

The use of accelerated pairings , while facilitating the reduction of the number of rounds without mathematically hurting the chances of the top teams, has the disadvantage that a poor start by any team will make it that much more difficult to get back onto the top tables. My personal experience in Cappelle LaGrande (where accelerated pairings are normal) has shown that once relegated to the middle of the pack it is necessary to win quite a few games before finding yourself playing near the top boards. Accelerated pairings seem to created a type of 'cushion' that insulates the top boards from the rest of the pack, which I suppose is part of its idea in anycase.


...which is all true. But one might add that the accelerated system used in Cappelle (known as S.A.D.) is quite different from the accelerated system used at the Olympiad. Under S.A.D., the removal of the phantom points doesn't come off all at once in round 3. Using S.A.D. would reduce the yo-yo effect, at least in rounds 3, 4, and 5. Pairings such as USA vs. Hong Kong (and not in the first round!) raised eyebrows and hackles.

I'm also puzzled by the results when a team is floated (in an individual tournament in Canada you'd call it the "odd man"). We have witnessed very strange pairings such as Ukraine vs New Zealand (where Ukraine was paired against the bottom team in the matchpoint group below it) this round, and Netherlands vs. Faroe Islands in an earlier round. I don't see how you use the rules published at the FIDE website to get such pairings.