Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #2   Report Post  
Old October 31st 04, 08:03 PM
chapman Billy
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Taylor Kingston wrote:
(Isidor Gunsberg) wrote in message . com...


The Libyan Men's Chess team employed interesting tactic to strive to
garner individual honors for several of their players. This involved
having their highest rated players--Hussien Asabri (2286), and FM
Ibrahim Chahrani (2273)--play on the **lowest** boards, so that they
could compete for the Board 5 and Board 6 Board prizes.



Interesting. Perhaps the Olympiad might consider instituting a rule
long in force at the US Amateur Team tournaments, where boards must be
assigned strictly in rating order, highest-rated on board 1, lowest on
board 4, etc.

Taylor Kingston


This ignores the case of a country whose players don't play that much,
e.g. suppose A is much more active than B, yet B's grade is higher; A
could well be significantly stronger. Then there are those without a grade.

In the UK there are two broadly similar methods that I am aware of:

a) The team must play in order of recognised playing strength.

b) No player must be more than 80 Elo points stronger than the player
above him.


The latter is used in the 4NCL, the former in local leagues; sometimes
"order of recognised playing strength" in local leagues is taken to be
that players rated at most 15 BCF points apart are roughly the same
strength. Both approaches allow for a degree of flexibility, a player
with the lower grade may genuinely be playing more strongly than a
higher rated team mate. The 4NCL method is subtly different in that
teams may be, and frequently are, played in a different order to playing
strength, this complicates the preparation of opposing sides.

In my experience as a team captain (27 years), fiddling the board order
usually rebounds, which is why I liked it when my opponents tried it. I
only did it once in a must win match; knowing most of the opposing
players, I guessed their board order before exchanging team lists, I
swapped boards with a team mate of about my grade, having got his prior
approval, and ended up playing my intended target, someone I had a huge
plus score against, with no losses. That night I lost, although
fortunately the team won.

Of course in the Olympiad the object was to win at least one board
prize, but something like either a) or b) above would catch the most
egregious attempts without being totally inflexible.


Regards,

Simon.


--
Excise Burns and his dates to email me.
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"Cherry Picking" to win Board Prizes for the Libyans Taylor Kingston rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 2 October 31st 04 09:14 PM
12 (9?) bits for a move, 276 (274?) bits for a board Guy Macon rec.games.chess.computer (Computer Chess) 0 August 16th 04 12:49 AM
Confronting Reality WPraeder rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 0 April 24th 04 12:14 AM
Revisiting June 2001 on Contract Disclosure and Board Oversight. Bruce Draney rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 2 September 17th 03 12:33 PM
Early Resignations by Board Members a Bad Trend. Tom Klem rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 3 September 5th 03 10:44 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:41 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017