"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 23:26:20 GMT, "Chess One"
wrote:


Why not consider the inconvenient truths? These include:

1. Teams sent in previous years were much weaker, mostly experts.

And yet Sam Sloan wanted an inactive expert to take part, though she never
said she even could, or even wanted to, being a busy professional in NY
City, too busy to play any rated chess for the past year.

Do you mean the person who was the reigning Woman's Champion of the
United States?

Yes.

What effrontery to think she should have played on the
U.S. Olympic team!

Yes! You think Garry Kasparov should have been on the Russian Olympiad team
even though he doesn't compete in the national championship? Or maybe Adams
and Short on the British team? Strong players don't necessarily take part in
their national championships since it gives others a chance to prove
themselves, no?

I would include these players because of their ratings. In this instance the
US Champ would have been the lowest rated, and the least active on the team.

So the question of inclusion is really a team point of view, rather than an
individual one, and including a weaker player is to consiously favor
individual prospects over that of the team's performance in a team event.

(And I have vague recollection of Sloan being on
the other side of that issue at the time -- am I wrong?)

He argued for the ladies' inclusion. I am not sure that she even wanted to
play - but that's no matter. Its a political inclusion decided by USCF board
to award team places, and notably, US Women never won a medal before. I
understand his argument which he presented well, though disagree with it
since USCF's role is to be the coordinator for the national effort for the
USA, and it is not a USCF team. USCF people have disagreed with this point
of view yet I note that people play with their country's flag beside their
board, and talk about representing their country, not their chess
federation. In some countries, UK for example, it is even a requirement to
be a member of the BCF to play rated chess nor to represent any UKcountry.

So what exactly is
Sloan's beef in this case? That Truong organised a team strong enough to
win
the silver? And presumably this is not OK with Sloan? What am I missing
here?

Sloan, quite reasonably, asked what value the coaching and organizing
added to the strength of the team, as expressed in their ratings.

No, he didn't ask anything. To ask a question means that you have to attend
on an answer. His 'question' was merely rhetorical, and with an already
decided prejudice - apart from that approach, his quoting from Chess Bitch
is highly selective and misleading.

After never winning a medal, to then 'ask' if this approach organised by
Paul Truong had significant training value, is at least an anti-intuitive
question. Sloan himself does not detail why he has such doubts, and as far
as I can see, is representing no other opinion of substance.

I wonder if substantive doubts about the training have arisen in anyone's
mind in these 2 public newsgroups? From consistent reading of them, I would
say the evidence is not to the extent that anyone has 'questioned' the
issue. Therefore these 'questions' are a form of inane rubbishing of the
whole team's historic achievement, and the process that got them there.

At some time I hope Paul Truong will write a bit more liberally on these
subjects himself - maybe after the election? At the moment instead of
personalising every 'question' raised by Sloan, I see vastly more attention
being paid to issues - and this approach is likely to do the same for US
Chess in the long term, as Truong's management of the US Team did for its
world status.

His own role is more than a little under-reported, and perhaps he will never
write about such stuff, then or now. When you have serious threats against
the player you manage and the whole team, and sit up all night in the
corridor prepared to do real Jackie Chan stuff to anyone comes through the
door... well, maybe it will get into the movie?

2. The US Team was trailing far behind the leaders during most of the
Olympiad. The US Team finished second because of a successful "Swiss
Gambit" by wiping out Vietnam in the last round whereas other top
teams had to face much stronger opposition in the last round.

Sam Sloan accuses the Olympiad organisers of unjustly pairing the
Vietnamese
team with the US team - and forgets to say why. Isn;t this an insult to
the
Vientnamese team who earned that pairing?

He said, "Swiss Gambit", not "unjust pairings".

So who do you think he is criticising in that instance? The Fide organisers?
Or maybe Paul Truong's famous Jackie Chan Ninja Hypnotic Tie Collection, the
most feared items in all of chess, had some special voodoo effect?

Phil Innes

On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 13:18:18 GMT, "Chess One"
wrote:

1. Teams sent in previous years were much weaker, mostly experts.

And yet Sam Sloan wanted an inactive expert to take part, though she never
said she even could, or even wanted to, being a busy professional in NY
City, too busy to play any rated chess for the past year.

Do you mean the person who was the reigning Woman's Champion of the
United States?

Yes.

What effrontery to think she should have played on the
U.S. Olympic team!

Yes! You think Garry Kasparov should have been on the Russian Olympiad team
even though he doesn't compete in the national championship? Or maybe Adams
and Short on the British team? Strong players don't necessarily take part in
their national championships since it gives others a chance to prove
themselves, no?

The case under discussion differs from your examples, since she was
the *reigning* Woman's Champ and, AFAIK, no minimal activity
requirements had been levied against candidate Olympic team members.

I would include these players because of their ratings. In this instance the
US Champ would have been the lowest rated, and the least active on the team.

So the question of inclusion is really a team point of view, rather than an
individual one, and including a weaker player is to consiously favor
individual prospects over that of the team's performance in a team event.

But it's not just a *team* event. It's an Olympiad, in which each
team represents a country. What does the "United States Team" mean if
the current US Champ does not represent the US ? I'm sure someone
like Bill Gates could put together a stateless team with high
likelihood of winning either the Olympiad or the Women's Olympiad, but
what would such a team signify?

So what exactly is Sloan's beef in this case? That Truong organised a team strong enough to win
the silver? And presumably this is not OK with Sloan? What am I missing here?

Sloan's post was an extract of some material from the USCF forum, and
this may have obscured his point, or at least, what I think was his
point. That is, the USCF team was *way* higher rated than any
previous USCF Women's Team. These posts didn't question Truong's
selection or organizing. The point is, a good result provides no
evidence of coaching skill when the average team rating is several
hundred points higher than any previous team.

I wonder if substantive doubts about the training have arisen in anyone's
mind in these 2 public newsgroups? From consistent reading of them, I would
say the evidence is not to the extent that anyone has 'questioned' the
issue. Therefore these 'questions' are a form of inane rubbishing of the
whole team's historic achievement, and the process that got them there.

No, the issue resurfaced because another poster noted that the Polgar
blog had recently ratcheted up PT's contribution to the results.

His own role is more than a little under-reported, and perhaps he will never
write about such stuff, then or now. When you have serious threats against
the player you manage and the whole team, and sit up all night in the
corridor prepared to do real Jackie Chan stuff to anyone comes through the
door... well, maybe it will get into the movie?

This would indeed be a contribution, but one unrelated to coaching,
much as if he had been driving the team car and skillfully avoided an
accident.

Sam Sloan accuses the Olympiad organisers of unjustly pairing the
Vietnamese team with the US team - and forgets to say why. Isn;t this an insult to
the Vientnamese team who earned that pairing?

He said, "Swiss Gambit", not "unjust pairings".

So who do you think he is criticising in that instance? The Fide organisers?
Or maybe Paul Truong's famous Jackie Chan Ninja Hypnotic Tie Collection, the
most feared items in all of chess, had some special voodoo effect?

I don't think he was criticizing anybody. He was ascribing the
pairing to the luck of the Swiss gambit.

"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 13:18:18 GMT, "Chess One"
wrote:

1. Teams sent in previous years were much weaker, mostly experts.

And yet Sam Sloan wanted an inactive expert to take part, though she
never
said she even could, or even wanted to, being a busy professional in NY
City, too busy to play any rated chess for the past year.

Do you mean the person who was the reigning Woman's Champion of the
United States?

Yes.

What effrontery to think she should have played on the
U.S. Olympic team!

Yes! You think Garry Kasparov should have been on the Russian Olympiad
team
even though he doesn't compete in the national championship? Or maybe
Adams
and Short on the British team? Strong players don't necessarily take part
in
their national championships since it gives others a chance to prove
themselves, no?

The case under discussion differs from your examples, since she was
the *reigning* Woman's Champ and, AFAIK, no minimal activity
requirements had been levied against candidate Olympic team members.

Levied by USCF? They awardt an opportunity to play, true.

I would include these players because of their ratings. In this instance
the
US Champ would have been the lowest rated, and the least active on the
team.

So the question of inclusion is really a team point of view, rather than
an
individual one, and including a weaker player is to consiously favor
individual prospects over that of the team's performance in a team event.

But it's not just a *team* event. It's an Olympiad, in which each
team represents a country. What does the "United States Team" mean if
the current US Champ does not represent the US ?

What does the current Russian Olympiad team represent if top players are
absent from it? Is this a question that has some particular meaning to it?

I'm sure someone
like Bill Gates could put together a stateless team with high
likelihood of winning either the Olympiad or the Women's Olympiad, but
what would such a team signify?

You are escaping into hypotheticals. What does putting together the
strongest team US can put up signify?

So what exactly is Sloan's beef in this case? That Truong organised a
team strong enough to win
the silver? And presumably this is not OK with Sloan? What am I missing
here?

Sloan's post was an extract of some material from the USCF forum, and
this may have obscured his point, or at least, what I think was his
point. That is, the USCF team was *way* higher rated than any
previous USCF Women's Team. These posts didn't question Truong's
selection or organizing.

What did it question?

The point is, a good result provides no
evidence of coaching skill when the average team rating is several
hundred points higher than any previous team.

Such a proposition neither affirms coaching skill nor denies it. What is in
question is if the /selection/ of players is one designed to win as a team.
Is that Ok, not Ok? I still don't understand from you or Sloan.

I wonder if substantive doubts about the training have arisen in anyone's
mind in these 2 public newsgroups? From consistent reading of them, I
would
say the evidence is not to the extent that anyone has 'questioned' the
issue. Therefore these 'questions' are a form of inane rubbishing of the
whole team's historic achievement, and the process that got them there.

No, the issue resurfaced because another poster noted that the Polgar
blog had recently ratcheted up PT's contribution to the results.

What does that mean? "No" means what? And does 'ratcheted up' means 'says'?\

Or is the fact that some unnamed person's noting of some other significance?

His own role is more than a little under-reported, and perhaps he will
never
write about such stuff, then or now. When you have serious threats against
the player you manage and the whole team, and sit up all night in the
corridor prepared to do real Jackie Chan stuff to anyone comes through the
door... well, maybe it will get into the movie?

This would indeed be a contribution, but one unrelated to coaching,
much as if he had been driving the team car and skillfully avoided an
accident.

So that the players can concentrate on playing? Rather than worrying about
getting there or surviving being there?

Sam Sloan accuses the Olympiad organisers of unjustly pairing the
Vietnamese team with the US team - and forgets to say why. Isn;t this an
insult to
the Vientnamese team who earned that pairing?

He said, "Swiss Gambit", not "unjust pairings".

So who do you think he is criticising in that instance? The Fide
organisers?
Or maybe Paul Truong's famous Jackie Chan Ninja Hypnotic Tie Collection,
the
most feared items in all of chess, had some special voodoo effect?

I don't think he was criticizing anybody. He was ascribing the
pairing to the luck of the Swiss gambit.

O! I thought he intended whatever to be someone's fault, as if US had
somehow got an easy round? That's what I read from his message. But if
actually there is nothing he criticized, I wonder what the hell he meant, or
you.

Phil Innes

On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 21:15:20 GMT, "Chess One"
wrote:

Sloan's post was an extract of some material from the USCF forum, and
this may have obscured his point, or at least, what I think was his
point. That is, the USCF team was *way* higher rated than any
previous USCF Women's Team. These posts didn't question Truong's
selection or organizing.

What did it question?

Obviously, it questioned whether this team of highly rated players
played better with PT's guidance/strategy/advice, etc., than it would
have without it.

The point is, a good result provides no
evidence of coaching skill when the average team rating is several
hundred points higher than any previous team.

Such a proposition neither affirms coaching skill nor denies it. What is in
question is if the /selection/ of players is one designed to win as a team.
Is that Ok, not Ok? I still don't understand from you or Sloan.

Nobody said there was anything wrong with the selection from a point
of view of strength. Nobody was complaining about that. Sloan was
questioning how much Troung's advice, coaching, training and
strategizing *added* to the strength of the team. Since you persist
in interpreting an examination of effective *strategy* as reflecting
unhappiness with the *result*, let me reiterate, nobody was unhappy
with the fact that the US team won -- the question was about
allocating credit for how they did it.

No, the issue resurfaced because another poster noted that the Polgar
blog had recently ratcheted up PT's contribution to the results.

What does that mean? "No" means what? And does 'ratcheted up' means 'says'?

"No" means your interpretation is wrong. "Ratcheted up" means that
earlier, the blog had claimed PT had contributed, months later it
claimed his contribution was decisive. Get it? His ascribed
importance had "ratcheted up".

The post that started the thread over on USCF questioned this recent
quote from the Polgar blog: "Paul's strategy in the last round of the
Olympiad help our team defeated Vietnam 2.5 - 0.5 to win the team
Silver. If it was not for Paul, we would have went home with no medal
as a number of teams were separated by only 1 point (The US Women's
Teams have never won a single medal in Olympiad history until Paul was
involved and we came back from the 2004 Olympiad with 4 medals - 2
Gold and 2 Silver.) ".

This would indeed be a contribution, but one unrelated to coaching,
much as if he had been driving the team car and skillfully avoided an
accident.

So that the players can concentrate on playing? Rather than worrying about
getting there or surviving being there?

Right, Phil, just like the waterboy helps or the bus driver or the
security guard or the accountant. They all help. But they don't play
the role of John Wooden.

I don't think he was criticizing anybody. He was ascribing the
pairing to the luck of the Swiss gambit.

O! I thought he intended whatever to be someone's fault, as if US had
somehow got an easy round? That's what I read from his message. But if
actually there is nothing he criticized, I wonder what the hell he meant, or
you.

He meant just what he said. We got a relatively weak opponent in the
last round due to the Swiss gambit. There was no "fault" in this;
neither was there extra merit or skill. I believe Sloan's point was
that strategy isn't well-tested when the opponent is relatively weak.

"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 21:15:20 GMT, "Chess One"
wrote:

Sloan's post was an extract of some material from the USCF forum, and
this may have obscured his point, or at least, what I think was his
point. That is, the USCF team was *way* higher rated than any
previous USCF Women's Team. These posts didn't question Truong's
selection or organizing.

What did it question?

Obviously, it questioned whether this team of highly rated players
played better with PT's guidance/strategy/advice, etc., than it would
have without it.

So how do we understand from the 'question' if it did so - notwithstanding
that the ladies team never won a medal before?

The point is, a good result provides no
evidence of coaching skill when the average team rating is several
hundred points higher than any previous team.

Such a proposition neither affirms coaching skill nor denies it. What is
in
question is if the /selection/ of players is one designed to win as a
team.
Is that Ok, not Ok? I still don't understand from you or Sloan.

Nobody said there was anything wrong with the selection from a point
of view of strength.

Not so - Sam Sloan's previous hobby-horse of why the weakest player should
be included is his motive for writing what he did.

Nobody was complaining about that.

Wrong.

Sloan was
questioning how much Troung's advice, coaching, training and
strategizing *added* to the strength of the team.

And how did he propose his 'question' be answered? Did he, for example,
suggest any single measure by which it could be?

Since you persist
in interpreting an examination of effective *strategy* as reflecting
unhappiness with the *result*, let me reiterate, nobody was unhappy
with the fact that the US team won -- the question was about
allocating credit for how they did it.

Once more, how should any question like this be answered, according to the
person who raised the 'question'?

No, the issue resurfaced because another poster noted that the Polgar
blog had recently ratcheted up PT's contribution to the results.

What does that mean? "No" means what? And does 'ratcheted up' means
'says'?

"No" means your interpretation is wrong. "Ratcheted up" means that
earlier, the blog had claimed PT had contributed, months later it
claimed his contribution was decisive. Get it? His ascribed
importance had "ratcheted up".

His contribution was first described as a contribution, and later the extent
of the contribution? We can, and should, discuss these things, but only if
we are clear on what happened, and how we should decide on anything -
agreed?

The post that started the thread over on USCF questioned this recent
quote from the Polgar blog: "Paul's strategy in the last round of the
Olympiad help our team defeated Vietnam 2.5 - 0.5 to win the team
Silver. If it was not for Paul, we would have went home with no medal
as a number of teams were separated by only 1 point (The US Women's
Teams have never won a single medal in Olympiad history until Paul was
involved and we came back from the 2004 Olympiad with 4 medals - 2
Gold and 2 Silver.) ".

OK!

This would indeed be a contribution, but one unrelated to coaching,
much as if he had been driving the team car and skillfully avoided an
accident.

So that the players can concentrate on playing? Rather than worrying about
getting there or surviving being there?

Right, Phil, just like the waterboy helps or the bus driver or the
security guard or the accountant. They all help. But they don't play
the role of John Wooden.

You mean, they typically don't. Or that they never don't?

I don't think he was criticizing anybody. He was ascribing the
pairing to the luck of the Swiss gambit.

O! I thought he intended whatever to be someone's fault, as if US had
somehow got an easy round? That's what I read from his message. But if
actually there is nothing he criticized, I wonder what the hell he meant,
or
you.

He meant just what he said.

So what did he say?

We got a relatively weak opponent in the
last round due to the Swiss gambit. There was no "fault" in this;

O.

neither was there extra merit or skill. I believe Sloan's point was
that strategy isn't well-tested when the opponent is relatively weak.

You mean to say that the Vietnamese team were relatively weak yet still
qualifying for last-round Swiss-inclusion under the rules that existed
before the tournament started, but someone had to draw them as partner, and
still beat them to get the Silver? OK!

Phil Innes

On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 18:33:14 GMT, "Chess One"
wrote:

Obviously, it questioned whether this team of highly rated players
played better with PT's guidance/strategy/advice, etc., than it would
have without it.

So how do we understand from the 'question' if it did so - notwithstanding
that the ladies team never won a medal before?

Not claiming we *can*.

The fact that in past Olympiads, we sent teams composed mostly of
Experts and below, and in this one sent 1 legit GM, 2 IMs and 1 Master
says it wouldn't be prudent to ascribe too much credit to the coach
for a best ever performance. He had the best ever team by a huge
margin.

So the question was the soundness of the basis on which SP gave PT so
*much* credit.

Nobody said there was anything wrong with the selection from a point
of view of strength.

Not so - Sam Sloan's previous hobby-horse of why the weakest player should
be included is his motive for writing what he did.

That may or may not have been his psychological motivation. It wasn't
the topic of the USCF forum thread to which he was contributing.
Although I can see where his penchant for spewing chunks of threads
from the USCF forums to the rgc* newsgroups guarantees confusion.

Sloan was
questioning how much Troung's advice, coaching, training and
strategizing *added* to the strength of the team.

And how did he propose his 'question' be answered? Did he, for example,
suggest any single measure by which it could be?

Jeez. You already responded to his suggestion in this very thread!
His proposed test was whether the team performed above or below their
rating. You had problems with that test, and you may or may not be
right, but it's false that he proposed no measure.

Since you persist
in interpreting an examination of effective *strategy* as reflecting
unhappiness with the *result*, let me reiterate, nobody was unhappy
with the fact that the US team won -- the question was about
allocating credit for how they did it.

Once more, how should any question like this be answered, according to the
person who raised the 'question'?

The person who raised the question considered Polgar to have given PT
too much credit for the result. He wanted to see some evidence for
her claim.

You mean to say that the Vietnamese team were relatively weak yet still
qualifying for last-round Swiss-inclusion under the rules that existed
before the tournament started, but someone had to draw them as partner, and
still beat them to get the Silver? OK!

By Jove, I believe you've finally got it.

"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 18:33:14 GMT, "Chess One"
wrote:

Obviously, it questioned whether this team of highly rated players
played better with PT's guidance/strategy/advice, etc., than it would
have without it.

So how do we understand from the 'question' if it did so - notwithstanding
that the ladies team never won a medal before?

Not claiming we *can*.

There you go! Like most Sloan questions, is there any means to determine an
answer? He certainly is not interested in such stuff as answers!

The fact that in past Olympiads, we sent teams composed mostly of
Experts and below, and in this one sent 1 legit GM, 2 IMs and 1 Master
says it wouldn't be prudent to ascribe too much credit to the coach
for a best ever performance. He had the best ever team by a huge
margin.

That's fair!

So the question was the soundness of the basis on which SP gave PT so
*much* credit.

Sure - but if it can't be answered, is it actually a question? How much is
'much'? There are no benchmarks for us to assess how to answer the question,
so, sure, maybe its overstated, maybe not? And in between is de ol debil and
de deep blue sea.

Nobody said there was anything wrong with the selection from a point
of view of strength.

Not so - Sam Sloan's previous hobby-horse of why the weakest player should
be included is his motive for writing what he did.

That may or may not have been his psychological motivation. It wasn't
the topic of the USCF forum thread to which he was contributing.
Although I can see where his penchant for spewing chunks of threads
from the USCF forums to the rgc* newsgroups guarantees confusion.

His motive may or may not be evident, to whom? I don't have the slightest
doubt that his interest in women's chess is only in terms of his
relationship to them. Have you seen a Sam Sloan post which impartially
assesses any topic whatsoever without his own rather ideosyncratic
connection being front and foremost?

Sloan was
questioning how much Troung's advice, coaching, training and
strategizing *added* to the strength of the team.

And how did he propose his 'question' be answered? Did he, for example,
suggest any single measure by which it could be?

Jeez. You already responded to his suggestion in this very thread!
His proposed test was whether the team performed above or below their
rating. You had problems with that test, and you may or may not be
right, but it's false that he proposed no measure.

I may or may not be right! And individual ratings may be some level of
indication of...?

But this is a TEAM event, and the captain will say, we need to win board 1
and 1 other. If you have a slight advantage don't wreck the team's need by
'going for it' and losing. How do you rate them bananas?

Since you persist
in interpreting an examination of effective *strategy* as reflecting
unhappiness with the *result*, let me reiterate, nobody was unhappy
with the fact that the US team won -- the question was about
allocating credit for how they did it.

Once more, how should any question like this be answered, according to the
person who raised the 'question'?

The person who raised the question considered Polgar to have given PT
too much credit for the result. He wanted to see some evidence for
her claim.

Isn't the evidence the medal itself, and US coming #2 in the world? Is that
nothing? And if players who score hugely on board #1 against the best there
is applaud the team captain, is that of some significance? Maybe it isn't to
Sam Sloan, to you or to me, but then again, we haven't been there, don't
know the pressures of it all, and is our opinion quite the same as those who
have? Not just for board 1 on the team, but for keeping the whole troupe
going?

Sure, you can argue something about it, but let's get over ourselves a bit -
or get over Sam Sloan's ego - is our argument anything to do with experience
of managing winning Olympiad teams?

You mean to say that the Vietnamese team were relatively weak yet still
qualifying for last-round Swiss-inclusion under the rules that existed
before the tournament started, but someone had to draw them as partner,
and
still beat them to get the Silver? OK!

By Jove, I believe you've finally got it.

I had no trouble getting it right the first time.

What I read here of this 'issue' which Sam Sloan raised; which is mean in
spirit, in his reporting, and does no one no good, especially women, is an
obvious attempt to deflate political opponents by raising questions which
intend to deflate high achievement by others, while not offering even this
level of conversational intercourse, Mike.

We disagree some - but at least we can say why that is. Sam Sloan is
increasingly monomaniacal involved in things to which he demonstrates a very
uncertain grasp with every new 'question'.

Phil Innes