Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 47

Thread: 10.2 Olympiad Selection Rules

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    411

    Default

    About juniors. Our current system does not give any priority to young players. Actually, the opposite is the truth. In 2012 (Porper) and now the oldest possible player was selected. By proposed system, juniors would have 2 (actually, 2.5) advantage.

    1. Bonus 5 points/year. In many cases in the past this bonus would have been very important.
    2. Using "last" and not "average" is in favor of juniors.
    3. Tie-break (younger age). Sure, it's unlikely, but still can happen (example 2010, there Panjwani has advantage over Samsonkin).

    I still believe, that the best chance to change something in current selection system - is to vote now.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    411

    Default

    Fred, if we significantly increase age bonus (from proposed 30-40 points to something like 60) we can create situation, there a junior would be much lower rated then the rest of the team. In this case it would be somewhat uncomfortable for a junior. I believe, Olympiad is a tournament for best players.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    591

    Default

    I wonder if 5 points per year is too generous for juniors. They have many more opportunities per year to represent Canada because of all the age based competitions. We should always be sending our best team to the Olympiad.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Charlottetown, PE
    Posts
    2,158
    Blog Entries
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hal Bond View Post
    I wonder if 5 points per year is too generous for juniors. They have many more opportunities per year to represent Canada because of all the age based competitions. We should always be sending our best team to the Olympiad.
    Hal it is always possible to vote on the formula and have the number of points = X - and tweak X later in a second vote. As well Y could be the age - maybe it should be 20 or maybe 25 and not 23.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Kanata, Ottawa, Ontario
    Posts
    1,227

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hal Bond View Post
    I wonder if 5 points per year is too generous for juniors. They have many more opportunities per year to represent Canada because of all the age based competitions. We should always be sending our best team to the Olympiad.
    Yes, I have come around to what Hal and Victor are saying, we always want to send our best or almost-best or best-enough. I know those phrases might seem weird, but what I'm trying to get at is that I would give even more weight to a shooting-star junior if he was "close enough" to 5th place as a choice. I know what I mean in my mind, but I'm having trouble expressing it here. I have zero interest in sending someone for experience if it hamstrings the current team, but as any gap for 5th place shrinks, then more and more I want the shooting-star junior. Note that I am NOT in favour of advantage due just to younger age, but rather advantage to a very rapidly improving junior. There is a difference, in my opinion. I guess I would be more in favour of any shooting-star improvement, but I have only seen it with youngsters like Razvan. Hope it makes sense.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    110

    Default

    I think the whole point is to avoid subjective criteria, and replace all with mathematics..a "very rapidly improving junior" is subjective. Also, I do agree its important to send the strongest possible team (and that favouring juniors with Victor's suggestions is likely to achieve that).

    I don't see how 5 points per year can be too generous. I would support a (very) unlikely case of a 13 year old who is 50 (that is, relatively, a small rating difference..consider how many people support Razvan to play on the olympiad..when Sambuev was ~80 fide rating points higher) points lower rated then another candidate to play on the team.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Kanata, Ottawa, Ontario
    Posts
    1,227

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nikolay Noritsyn View Post
    I think the whole point is to avoid subjective criteria, and replace all with mathematics..a "very rapidly improving junior" is subjective. Also, I do agree its important to send the strongest possible team (and that favouring juniors with Victor's suggestions is likely to achieve that).

    I don't see how 5 points per year can be too generous. I would support a (very) unlikely case of a 13 year old who is 50 (that is, relatively, a small rating difference..consider how many people support Razvan to play on the olympiad..when Sambuev was ~80 fide rating points higher) points lower rated then another candidate to play on the team.
    I agree Nikolay with Victor's "objectivizing" plan. However, I don't know offhand how to QUANTIFY "very rapidly improving". All in all, I like this change we are building.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Almonte, ON
    Posts
    371

    Default

    It is possible to quantify "very rapidly improving". One example would be to add/subtract 1 point for every 5 points that the player's rating has improved/declined over the rating period.

    By the same token, one could put in an activity score of (for example) one point per game played.

    Victor's original motion has great merit, and he has done good work. I would support a motion where his system is accepted, subject to the creation of a committee to come up with a better formula. Said committee would submit their ammended formula to the VM within 6 months to vote on. If the committee fails to come up with an alternative formula by then, or if the VM members do not approve the submitted formula, then Victor's formula would be used to decide the next Olympic team.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    14

    Default

    I like motion #1 but not motion #2. The idea of using objective criteria to select the team has much merit and should eliminate most of the questioning and criticism that follows the announcement of the team’s selection. I don’t like the idea of bonuses for performance in a particular event or tournament. One bad event could assume an importance all out of proportion to the player’s strength. I don’t agree with age based discrimination for the National Team. The CFC should send the strongest team possible based purely on rating. An up and coming youngster will have ample opportunity of legitimately earning a spot on the team in the years ahead of him/her.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Bowes View Post
    I like motion #1 but not motion #2. The idea of using objective criteria to select the team has much merit and should eliminate most of the questioning and criticism that follows the announcement of the team’s selection. I don’t like the idea of bonuses for performance in a particular event or tournament. One bad event could assume an importance all out of proportion to the player’s strength. I don’t agree with age based discrimination for the National Team. The CFC should send the strongest team possible based purely on rating. An up and coming youngster will have ample opportunity of legitimately earning a spot on the team in the years ahead of him/her.
    Richard, I absolutely understand your position. I hope that after many years with problems around Selection Committee, VMs are ready to more objective approach.

    Now about motion 2. By changing many parameters from the current rules, I tried to keep balance. Eliminating CFC rating from the consideration and giving some bonuses/penalties for Canadian Closed. Eliminating Selection Committee and giving significant bonuses for young players. Many people proposed here and on chesstalk higher bonuses, many people do not like bonuses at all. That means, my proposal is somewhere in the middle.

    We have more than 50 VMs and hundreds active players. Each one has his own opinion. It's really impossible to create a system, which would be 100% for everyone. I guess, by voting for this change or against it, you should answer a very basic question: "Is this proposal better than the current rules?"
    Last edited by Victor Plotkin; 08-25-2016 at 03:39 PM.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •