Tough loss for the American men in round 10. The women, meanwhile, are thoroughly underperforming, having drawn Mongolia. A very disappointing tournament, given their seeding.
The men still have a (slim) chance at a medal…but they’re in a good-sized tie for fifth right now, so ideally, they’ll get paired with a team in front of them, and win. (Sounds easy, right?)
Current standings (not in tiebreak order):
1-3. CHN, RUS, ARM: 17 match points
4. UKR: 16 match points
5-8. HUN, GER, USA, POL*: 15 match points
this assumes that Swiercz doesn’t lose to Hracek; if he somehow manages to do that, Poland can be dropped from the 15-point group.
I guess the best we can hope for is a pairing against Armenia…which, naturally, is no picnic. Kamsky will be asked to deliver a win if that one comes about; asking Nakamura to beat Aronian is a pretty big lift. Even if the top 2 boards do come up with 1.5, it is hard to see where the extra 1 point will come from on paper; like most of the top teams, Armenia’s bottom boards are very strong.
The 17s have played each other. Ukraine has not yet played China.
Russia has already played Hungary and USA.
Armenia has already played Germany.
Hungary has already played Poland and Germany.
USA has already played Germany
So (ignoring colors) maybe…
China-Ukraine
Armenia-Hungary or Poland
Russia-Germany
USA-Hungary or Poland
Having Armenia play USA requires Russia to play one of Poland or Germany and then the other, along with Hungary, gets paired down.
I’m not speculating on pairings, because as the previous post says, I don’t know the tiebreak order, and really don’t feel like calculating it. I’ll leave that to Swiss Manager. I believe FIDE’s Olympiad pairing rules (section D.II.02, I think) say that pairings are made without regard to color.
If the US has the tiebreaks I think they do among the 15-point group, a pairing against Armenia is a definite possibility. I would think China and Ukraine will play, and Russia will get paired down to a 15-pointer they haven’t already played. This leaves Armenia to play…probably the US.
I guess it depends on whether or not they opt to drop two 15-point teams to a lower group.
If Armenia plays USA then Hungary has to drop down (already played Russia, Germany and Poland). Then Russia plays either Germany or Poland and the other joins Hungary in dropping down.
If Germany plays Poland then Russia has to drop down to a 14-point team.
So that leaves Russia-Germany. With Hungary having already played Poland, those two either each play one of USA and Armenia or they both drop down.
Folks here are willing to speculate on what the US team captain does, and second guess him, but are not willing to second guess a computerized pairing program?
And there’s the famous “it’s a matter of chess culture” game, played after Kasparov had disparagingly called Movsesian and others “chess tourists” at the 1999 FIDE world championships: Movsesian-Kasparov, Sarajevo 2000, annotated by GK in New in Chess. The whole story is told in the “Real Chess Players” chapter of Aagaard’s Excelling at Chess.
If you’re trying to provoke me, you’ve succeeded. You should, however, be careful what you wish for.
I don’t recall anyone in these Olympiad threads - least of all me - second-guessing either of the US team captains. I certainly have not criticized them in any way.
The unfortunate thing about the round 11 pairings is that it makes it almost impossible to medal. We need a scenario like China and Armenia winning, Germany beating Russia, and USA blowing out Poland - and even then, we would need to beat Germany on tiebreaks.
I was thinking the same as Bill - this has been a tough Olympiad with a lot of really good teams. We need a bit more depth - too many rounds where fourth board is just not up to the level of our primary competitors. Maybe Robson will grow into that naturally - he definitely has a lot of upside. Others, like Hess, Lenderman, Shankland have that possibility as well.
Well, of course I wouldn’t be disappointed with a fourth place finish. Truthfully, given the established “problem” we have on bottom board (no disrespect to either Akobian or Robson), finishing in the top six would be a good show, I think. I agree that Onischuk might not play too many more Olympiads, given his new job. But we’ve got a lot of good young GMs in the pipeline, and some new emigres (Gareev, for example) that will challenge for spots. That said, you always like to take advantage of opportunities when they arise, because you don’t always know when that chance might come around again.
It doesn’t look like second guessing when folks here discuss who should play and who should sit and what strategies should be employed, if the match has not yet occurred. But it’s the same thing, and will be read the same way by the captain and the players later on. Of course, they will not be reading it in advance or real time, anyway.
We who watch from afar cannot know all the factors taken into account on the scene, in any case.
What is fun to me is the rooting, and the discussion of the actual games. We have a team of strong and mostly young men, led by two absolutely world class players, who have as strong wills as any champion. Every man on the team is likely to be able to continue helping us contend for many years to come.
I haven’t seen anyone “second-guessing” captains at all on here. If the match has not yet occurred it is not “second-guessing”. It is just discussing what might occur. Second-guessing is criticism of choices made. Haven’t seen any of that.
Your definition of second guessing appears to be unique.
It doesn’t look that way, because it isn’t that way. There’s a clear difference between second-guessing and prognosticating (or “first-guessing”, if you prefer). People enjoy doing that with this competition for the same reasons they enjoy fantasy football or fantasy baseball - they get the chance to play GM/coach/captain. ICC’s “Guess The Move” contests are no different in their appeal.
I’d hope they wouldn’t be reading this - they have better things to do.
Any prognostication undertaken in any endeavor is naturally an exercise in incomplete information for all but the most inside of insiders. That doesn’t make it any less interesting to most people.
Then why not start your own discussion thread on a specific topic that interests you? Or, why not contribute material you find interesting to an existing thread? (The threads in rounds 9 and 10 had some game-specific discussion.) Alternately, you could practice addition by subtraction, and simply ignore this and similar threads, if you feel such banal discussion is beneath you.
I believe FIDE’s Olympiad pairing rules (section D.II.02, I think) say that pairings are made without regard to color.
Truthfully, given the established “problem” we have on bottom board (no disrespect to either Akobian or Robson), finishing in the top six would be a good show, I think. I agree that Onischuk might not play too many more Olympiads, given his new job. But we’ve got a lot of good young GMs in the pipeline, and some new emigres (Gareev, for example) that will challenge for spots. That said, you always like to take advantage of opportunities when they arise, because you don’t always know when that chance might come around again.
There’s a clear difference between second-guessing and prognosticating (or “first-guessing”, if you prefer). People enjoy doing that with this competition for the same reasons they enjoy fantasy football or fantasy baseball - they get the chance to play GM/coach/captain. ICC’s “Guess The Move” contests are no different in their appeal.