"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