Mitigation Dept.

Comments

I am sure there were many things that Hungary had to consider. And I dont think a 2-2 tie is so bad against historical powerhouse Russia. I like to assume that they made a good decision.

now if they lost 0-4. someone would say. why did you turn down the 2-2 draw offer.

I know Susan Polgar talks on her web site that she likes to go for it. well as a winner that is a good strategy. and susan is a winner.

But the Hungarian team did not have all its best Hungarian players.

I said a long time ago and frequently. If you want these problems to go away then change the rules so there are no draws. only winners and losers in all the games. but of course everyone scoffs at my idea. so they try instead a million different patches to fix the leak. but it all can be accomplished so easily by eliminating draws.
Posted by: tommy at June 13, 2006 19:17

What's the deal with the release of Kasparov's book "The Attacker's Advantage" being delayed for so long? It was originally due for publication in Mar. 2006, but now I'm hearing it's possibly coming out in 2007.

Also, what about the next installment of "My Great Predecessors"? I believe the next one won't be a part of that series, but instead would be a no-annotation "history" of some kind?
Posted by: noyb at June 13, 2006 21:49

Mig's post offers no mitigation fo the Hungarians. In Hungary a medal in an Olympiad offers a stipend for life for both the players and their trainers, so the incentive to play for bronze or better was certainly there.
Incidentally, there was nothing to stop the chief arbiter Geurt Gijssen from double-forfeiting Armenia and Hungary for their pre-arranged match, but that would take some courage and Gijssen is not known for standing up to the top players or FIDE.
Posted by: Tassie Devil at June 13, 2006 22:54

Tassie, let's imagine the actual situation Guert Gijssen could possibly have seen:
Armenia offers a team draw (within the rules)
Turkey accepts as they are a much weaker team and have incentive to. No rules broken.
Posted by: Joshua Gutman at June 13, 2006 23:27

Indeed Hungary didnt break any rules and its decision was totally legitimate. However besides formal rules lie the informal ones. And what sport spirit dictates is to fight for the best (anyway, this is the utter meaning of sports!).
So Hungarians were dissappointing, Mig's critic fair enough and they ,without doubt, proved that they lack the attitude of the winner.

" Try and fail, but don't fail to try "
An unknown.
Posted by: christos Koutsabelas at June 14, 2006 05:26

I thought Putin had locked up Khodarkovsky and thrown away the key...... Mig were you chatting in the gulag ?
Posted by: Brian at June 14, 2006 06:05

Christos, along the same lines, somebody (I forget who) who enjoys his tipple posted on this blog the advice "Drink to forget, but dont forget to drink" :-) I am also reminded of the the immortal rejoinder by Captain Haddock when somebody advised him of the fact that alcohol is a poison that kills slowly: "That's fine with me, I'm in no hurry".
Posted by: d at June 14, 2006 06:35

noyb,

With regards to ATTACKER'S ADVANTAGE: This is just the way things are in the publishing world. Delays can happen for myriad reasons: The author is not ready with a manuscript, marketing problems, printing problems, cover design problems, you name it. A few months ago, I had emailed Owen Williams, Kasparov's manager, about the delay, and he didn't give any details. So it goes...

Lo and behold, Karpov has got his name on a book called, CHESS AND THE ART OF NEGOTIATION, (supposedly) coming out in September. The primary author of this book is a French businessman, but Karpov and Koutly have their names on it too. Did Karpov slap his name on this book to compete with Kasparov's "business" book, or was it just a coincidence?

Howard
Posted by: Howard Goldowsky at June 14, 2006 08:35

Armenia and Hungary broke the rules by agreeing to a result before the match started - just as Armenia and Georgia had done at the previous Olympiad.
Both deals were common knowledge at the Olympiad; indeed the Israelis told the arbiters the score of the Georgia-Armenia match in 2004 before it had started. (Despite the official protest, lodged before the match, the arbiters took no action.) It just requires a bit of courage by arbiters to stop the flagrant rule-breaking but noone is prepared to do it. In this case Gijssen could have proven the breach easily, since the players were openly discussing it long before the games began. He just didn't have the guts to do it. (Note that Gijssen was not to blame in 2004 - Leong was chief arbiter.)
Posted by: Tassie Devil at June 14, 2006 08:40

Watched some World Cup soccer games yesterday. Some pretty interesting stuff. At halftime, the score was even in one of the matches, and both teams had the same number of pieces on the field. Each playing piece had two arms, two legs, one head; neither team had the slightest advantage. Needless to say, I was slightly surprised when they showed up to play the second half. I expected a quiet handshake between the coaches, and the stadium electronic billboard announcing a draw. It's very interesting that they chose to play on despite the apparent equality; or maybe the rules of soccer just don't take into account the possibility of a tie at half-time? (which is a quite common scenario, one would think!?)

I think chessplayers could learn from this.
Posted by: Alex Shternshain at June 14, 2006 09:50

If Tassie Devil's account is accurate, then am I the only one to consider this a scandal?
Posted by: acirce at June 14, 2006 10:44

Brian:

The Khodarkovsky Mig is talking about is different from the Khodarkovsky in the gulag. The Khodarkovsky Mig is talking about is an IM and head of the Kasparov Chess Foundation. The Khodarkovsky in the gulag is a billionaire oligarch and former head honcho of Yukos.
Posted by: peach at June 14, 2006 10:54

You want a scandal? I'll show you a scandal: today at the World Cup, Ukraine were down 0-3 against Spain, and also down on material (one of their playing pieces was ejected from the game). For some strange reason, the Ukrainian team refused to resign and kept playing on as if nothing was out of the ordinary.
Eventually it ended 4-0, and the Ukrainians lack of courtesy left the fans booing. I guess they learned from Ponomariov to never resign and play till checkmate.

I think soccer could learn a lot from chess too.
Posted by: Alex Shternshain at June 14, 2006 10:58

No, it's just that we've all become jaded and used to such preposterous behavior in individual games and entire team matches.

I was under the impression that the Armenia-Hungary draws were agreed at the start of the match. Armenia showed up with the same four players, perhaps ready to play. Had the draw been agreed well in advance they might have put the reserves out just to preserve higher performance ratings for Sargissian, for example. Just a pet theory, not that it much matters or would make things less horrible.
Posted by: Mig at June 14, 2006 11:00

Prearranged draws are commonplace, of course. And they was certainly in the Armenian team's interest here.

(I am not assuming that they really were prearranged. I don't know for sure that they were.)

I am not aware that it is usually tolerated by both players and arbiters in such crucial situations, though. What if in the next World Championship tournament the same thing was to happen? The leader before the final round openly discusses with someone out of contention to agree to a draw to secure the former's victory? What is the difference?
Posted by: acirce at June 14, 2006 11:14

Soccer is a game in which an X amount of time has to be played. Many a team plays lackluster in the end of second half when the score is tied. If chess had a minimum on the number of moves we wouldn't see 12-move draws, but it doesn't mean the games would be any more exciting.

The more appropriate parallel is with tennis, which does find many instances of players not doing their best after being down a set and a break. Pre-arranged draws, or at least games in which teams don't seem to be trying worth a damn do happen in other sports.
Posted by: Yuriy Kleyner at June 14, 2006 11:43

What I don't understand is why Mig and other make such a big deal of this encountered between Armenia and Hungary. If they would try to play against Armenia, Hungary would lose, so, in fact drawing was better for them (despite we know that if .5 more points they could have get the medal).

For me something prearranged would be important if the fixed result would have real incidence in an event; for example, a team needed to win 3.5-0.5 to win a tournament that suddenly gets that result against a strong team (for example in previous Olympiads when Russian suddenly won 4-0 games to win a Olympiad in the very last round).
Posted by: Pascual at June 14, 2006 12:15

Right. In fact, why ever play any games at all? Since Pascual knows all the results in advance, we should just assign points based on his statements and save loads of time. If you don't think you can win you shouldn't show up.

Two points prearranged is not any better than 3.5 points prearranged. That it is is the illusion we've been swallowing for too long.
Posted by: Mig at June 14, 2006 12:42

I am trying to understand what went through the Hungarian's heads. Let's take a look at their situation:
- They showed up at the Olimpics without their two biggest start, and conversely, with little to no expectations.
- For the most of the tournament, they have been trailing at the second echelon. They've been doing alright, but not great. No surprise here.
- Suddenly, a couple of big wins toward the end put them on table #1.
- Now they actually have a chance to do great - a 3-1 win gives them the bronze, and a 4-0 even the gold!

Now, at this situation, when Caissa tossed them this golden ticket at the end of a mediocre tournament, WHY THE HELL WOULD THEY NOT TAKE IT? Sure, there's not much chance to win 3-1 against Armenia (albeit Israel did get a 3-1 vs. Russia), let alone a 4-0, but why not at least try? It's sports, and anything can happen:

- A couple of Armenian players can get stressed, fatigued, or just misplay the opening.
- China could potentially draw 2-2 vs. Netherlands, making even a 1-3 loss acceptable to Armenia - In that case Hungary could offer draws on their black boards and play out the white ones.
- OR maybe, horror of horrors, the Hungarian players could simply play well and win.
- Finally, IT'S NOT LIKE THE ARMENIANS WOULD DECLINE A DRAW ON ALL BOARDS IF IT'S OFFERED TO THEM ON MOVE 30 RATHER THAN PRE-GAME. The Hungarians could at least start off the games and see how they're doing in the middlegame.

The bottom line is, they had a chance at winning a medal, even a gold one, and chose not to even try. Boooooo.
Posted by: Alex Shternshain at June 14, 2006 13:06

You know, this is a pretty good point. Hungarians didn't really have a whole lot to lose. Were they perhaps promised a considerably larger stipend if they finished in the top 8 or whatever rather than where they could have finished if they lost to Armenia considerably in the last round?

Yuriy
Posted by: Yuriy Kleyner at June 14, 2006 14:56

Yuriy,

With regards to your post of 11:43, where you wrote:
"If chess had a minimum on the number of moves we wouldn't see 12-move draws, but it doesn't mean the games would be any more exciting."

I beg to differ. The excitement of a sport contest lies not only in the fact that something HAPPENS on the playing field, but sometimes in the potential that something CAN HAPPEN. In soccer, the last 10 minutes of a tied games are usually pretty nailbiting, because even if there is no last-gasp winning goal, the POSSIBILITY of one keeps the audience at the edge of their seats. Eventhough a late winner is scored only in about 10% of games, the chance of seeing one makes the remaining 90% more interesting to watch.

Same with chess. The Sofia rules did not change the draw ratio much. We can still have a lackluster draw (in 60 moves instead of 20), but the fact that something COULD happen during those extra 40 moves provides the interest and intrigue (and the fact that sometimes, something actually DOES happen in those extra moves is the bonus).
Posted by: Alex Shternshain at June 14, 2006 15:29

The teams for the final round of the Olympiad had to be submitted on the evening before the 10am final round. At that time Armenia and Hungary had not yet made their agreement so Armenia had to list their regular four.
Posted by: Tassie Devil at June 14, 2006 18:44

Not today I had breakfast with Tassie Devil, and I must say that he's the most charming Devil I've met.

Hasn't the rule proscribing pre-arranged draws been removed from the Preface of the Laws of Chess? Maybe that's why he did it, so he wouldn't have to forfeit them.

This might be the place to introduce a new subject: captains. In the Chess Olympics, captains have large and not well-defined powers. As an arbiter, I think that those powers should be better defined, and limited. So even though it would bring the game into disrepute if the players agreed to a draw beforehand, what is the case if the captains agree to such a draw? Me, I think that captains could be removed from the picture. In the old days, with qualifications and match points, there might be a team strategy that could be implemented by a savvy captain, but today everything is by game points. The captains shouldn't be there to give permission to offer a draw or accept one; they needn't have any role during play at all.

Posted by: Jonathan Berry at June 14, 2006 19:32

Hi Howard - Thanks for the opine. I'm in the publication biz and so understand the issues, but over a year delay?! Somebody blew something along the way.

Thank you for the Karpov info, hadn't heard that. Kind of interesting... Seems like those two just can't stop competing with eachother, eh? ; )
Posted by: noyb at June 14, 2006 21:06

I have mixed feelings about this one. Agreeing to a draw is legal in chess competitions. So why are we getting upset about the agreement to a draw happening before the players even get to the board? You might say "Beacause its a violation of FIDE rules to pre-agree to a draw". And of course you are correct. But this is just avoiding the fundamental problem ... in chess, we allow players to agree to draws, which is unlike what is allowed other sports. The solution is to revise the rules of the game to only allow results achieved through play, which could still include ties.
Posted by: RP at June 14, 2006 22:25

Alex,

When you see players storming the penalty box, fighting for loose balls, etc., that is exciting. However, seeing midfielders shuffle passes with the other team obviously not trying to intercept for the last ten minutes is no different from a pre-arranged draw and in fact does occur in soccer. There are also instances where it doesn't benefit either team to try too hard in the match at all and so a pre-determined draw, if you will, take place. We may see a few of those in the last round of group stage of World Cup. The relation to chess is that Leko and Ponomariov may choose to move bishops around and shuffle rooks. That will make the game last another twenty moves. But if neither is trying to win, it doesn't make for a better game.

To change the point, you may want to see Kamsky and Anand go through all the moves of a position which both them and us know from theory is a draw. You may even say from your knowledge of both GMs that is more likely Kamsky will blunder in such a position. I get no thrill from either possibility--a chess position devoid of opportunity for either player to seize or neutralize an advantage through tactics is of little interest to me.
Posted by: Yuriy Kleyner at June 14, 2006 23:08

Yes it does happend that midfielders shuffle passes for the last ten minutes (Sweden-Denmark two years ago comes to mind), but it is rare! And the possibilities makes it worth it (Germany-Poland yesterday...)

The question is if we accept the "bore" of a long fruitless game as the price for more action and the possibilities for entertainment. Given the experience we've had with minimum move rules, I'd say the answer is pretty obvious.

Q
Posted by: Quely at June 15, 2006 05:06

Q,

Germany-Poland is hardly the kind of situation I spoke of. Both teams had something to play for, Germany wanted to impress its fans, Poland was facing elimination. I don't think yesterday's Germany-Poland game was an example of a pre-arranged draw.

In soccer, it is possible that an extra pass will be intercepted and lead to a goal. My point was that in a minimum chess rules it would be easy for GMs to extend the game by an X number of moves to go up to the required limit by moving pieces around, at the benefit of no extra entertainment to the onlooker.

Of additional significance, in championship matches, mandating that GMs battle each day would require additional rest days for GMs, leading to longer matches and higher cost to sponsors. I would rathet let the Kramniks and Topalovs agree to create a couple of rest days on their own.

There is also the possibility of not prearranged short draws. A few moves in, one of the GMs sees his opening innovation effectively neutralized, with no strategy available to gain an advantage. A draw in such a situation is a logical and fair conclusion.
Posted by: Yuriy Kleyner at June 15, 2006 10:27

Maybe captains will have more of a role again in Dresden 2008 - the next Olympiad will apparently be played on match points rather than game points. I guess FIDE had to make a change as too many people were happy with the current system.
Posted by: Tassie Devil at June 15, 2006 20:10

Yuriy, I did not say Germany-Poland reminded me of an pre-arranged draw, just an example of exiting finish, but I could have looked harder for a better example...

Of course it is possible to "cheat" the move limit rules, but our (admittedly small) experience have shown differently, and I believe it is an improvement.

If real battle requires extra rest days, then that is the sollution rather than 12 move draws created for the purpos of "not scheduled rest days"; and I think Lineares have shown the way this can be organized.

I'm not saying that draws are not natural results, just that there are acceptable ways of avoiding "staged" draws.

Q
Posted by: Quely at June 16, 2006 09:52

Mig should brush up on Game Theory :-)
Posted by: saguni at June 16, 2006 12:59

There's scant info about the new Olympiad format, and FIDE's website still has the old (4+2, 3+1) team formats. I wonder, was the change arrived at in the usual way?

One person who must be very happy is Robert Bellin, who in 1982 savaged Fridrik Olafsson. Bellin (loudly): "We must have full equality between women and men". Olafsson (softly and drily): "We offered full equality, but they didn't want it." Of course, what Olafsson meant by full equality was not what Bellin meant.

So, I wonder if there will be a rule now that women can't play on men's teams. Now that they are equal.
Posted by: Jonathan Berry at June 18, 2006 03:23

I have to agree with Alex and others who found the whole Armenia v Hungary debacle distasteful.I don't know if any of you out there had money wagered on the outcome but could you imagine the uproar there would be from the worlds press and punters if results were fixed before a ball was kicked or a starting gun fired.I'm not so naive as to believe these things don't happen but it doesn't make it acceptable when it does.My solution!, ban draws except from natural play i.e. stalemate,threefold rep of position etc.We are always banging on for authorities to accept chess as a sport.I believe this episode does nothing to help our cause.
Posted by: Robin at June 18, 2006 06:49

Q,

I understand. Your point, however, was that in a prearranged or perhaps in soccer case, more appropriately, "agreed, no effort to win" draw forcing the game to play out can lead to an exciting conclusion. I disagree with the qualification of Poland-Germany game as such a draw. Certainly, a game in which neither team is able to get going can have an exciting conclusion. I am talking about a different kind of draw.

I am not too familiar with "move limit" rules competition. What were these tournaments?

I agree that if you have sufficient rest days in a match you will lessen the reason for and incidence of short draws. That, to me, would be the more effective way of dealing with situation. I am also not convinced that the money and the opportunity is not out there for a viable 20-game match with sufficient number of rest days.

There is a slight difference between Linares and a match however. In Linares, if Shirov and Leko play an intense game in Day 5, there are still games on Day 6 which do not involve Shirov and Leko and you should not put the tournament on hold because those guys are tired. It is fair to make these guys work hard the next day, as long as you don't turn the tournament in an endurance contest. On the other hand, in a match, if both Shirov and Leko are tired after Day 5, it makes sense to let them choose to rest on Day 6--in other words, here the two GMs should be able to control their own pacing as long as they still play X games in X days.

Lastly, I don't think that forcing GMs to shuffle rooks for ten moves is an acceptable way of avoiding an early draw. My favorite idea is using a top-rate chess computer to evaluate winning chances and accepting a draw only when the computer judges chances to be below X percent for both sides. Such an idea should open the door for sponsorship as chess computer makers will want to say that "Our Deep Fritz was used to judge the last world championship."
Posted by: Yuriy Kleyner at June 19, 2006 10:02

Yuriy,

How would you deal with this?: http://chessmind.powerblogs.com/posts/1150497866.shtml
(see especially the final comment, by the host of that blog)

Or for that matter the one draw from the Hydra-Adams match, where the sheikh made a fool of himself -- dare I say that? -- by ordering Chrilly to reject a draw offer because Hydra thought it was up +2 or thereabouts?
Posted by: flyonthewall at June 19, 2006 11:59

I spoke to the Hungarian delegate at the General Assembly just before the game and he said the Hungarians were going out to play and see what the situation was after the opening moves. If there seemed to be no sign of an advantage, then a draw offer would be made.
Posted by: Nigel Freeman at June 19, 2006 11:59

Produce better engines ... I don't know enough about chess computers to say they are ready for this kind of task ... in fact I am not sure I understand the Hydra or the blog situation fully. I don't even follow human vs computer, computer vs computer chess much.
Posted by: Yuriy Kleyner at June 19, 2006 15:54

An honest answer, for which you deserve credit, Yuriy. I take it that you do see the seeming irony between your reply, and the final paragraph of your preceding comment, where you said your "favorite idea" is to let engines, in effect, adjudicate games between human GMs (at least, where a draw offer is involved)?

The intent of my earlier comment was not to skewer you, but was meant more as a tonic for a few other Dirt habitues who place near-religious faith in engines -- and especially in the areas where those people who know the most about chess (i.e. active GMs, programmers like the Hydra team, and mainstream chess authors/editors), consider the engines to be most fallible (such as position evaluation).
Posted by: flyonthewall at June 19, 2006 16:10

Fly,

Yep. My first comment was based on the fact that I often hear people using engines like Deep Fritz to analyze how much of an advantage/winning opportunity somebody has at a given point in a chess game. My second comment was an indication of how much this was simply believed on an impression.

Once chess engines are capable of evaluating chess positions at least as far as presence of winning lines (whether that time is now or ten years from now) they, to me, would be a great objective way of determining what constitutes an acceptable draw.
Posted by: Yuriy Kleyner at June 19, 2006 17:03

All this anti-draw stuff has been done to death.

Consider the Tour de France. Lance Armstrong picked the stages he wanted to win and conserved energy in the rest. As a result, with the race won, he didn't try to win the final stage into Paris. Nobody slated him for not trying to win every stage.

Chess tournaments are an endurance event like stage cycle races. The work doesn't stop when the cyclists cross the finish line or the clocks stop at the end of the game (cyclists have to have a massage to recover from the day and ensure that they are fit for the next day , ingest sufficient calories to stop wastage (no easy task)and discuss team strategy for the next day). Cynics may say they also need to take their "vitamins".

To stay competitive, professional chess players have to digest the other games (to see novelties- how often do you see a theoretical discussion evolve over several rounds during a match/tournament- where do you think all that work is done?) and prepare physically and mentally for the next opponent. So what if they decide to take a quick draw to rest up or in the last round, so that they can confirm their tournament position.

If you must have anti-draw rules, to avoid compromising quality, there should be rest day between every rounds- not practical as it doubles the running costs of the event. I'd rather have quality (and classical time limits) any day.

Yuriy, keep computers out of it. That's like racing in the slipstream of cars to see which cyclist is fastest.
Computer chess should now become a curiosity or another sport. The computer is a tool to help players and let patzers like us evaluate the tactical motifs in their games.
Posted by: Al at June 19, 2006 17:55

Hi,

Some additional arguments on why the Hungarians favoured the early draw IMHO:

-> If they decide to play real fighting chess, then the chance of beating the Armenians is very slim, whereas the chance of getting beaten, perhaps even very badly, is much higher. Thus, the probability of losing their unexpectedly good position was much higher than the probability of getting an even less expected medal.

-> I do not think that the argument for getting the four draws at any time of the game holds. If the Hungarians start fighting and things go wrong let's say at about move 30, then the Armenians may just decide to play on and win the match anyway. The Armenian's attitude would be influenced also by the situation in other matches (i.e. if they see that the Chinese, the Russians and other competitors are not doing very well) and by the possibility to gain a few more Elo points. So, playing for a win was not a risk-free option for the Hungarians.

-> The comparison with the Israel-Russia match is also misleading a bit: do not forget that they were playing against a dispirited and dissapointed Russian team missing their top player, whereas the Hungarians were playing against a sharp and victorious team. So, the chance for Israel to beat the Russians was more realistic than the Hungarinas' chance to beat the Armenians. (Still, Israel's win was a surprise and I respect them for their fighting spirit and their great win.)

-> As Mig pointed out the incentive for place 5 was probably quite good, whereas the incentive for place 10, 15 or 20 would have been much less.

In summary, I think that playing for a win would have been a very risky and unwise decision and the Hungarians made a rather rational decision instead.
Posted by: József at June 20, 2006 03:23

Hi,

Some additional arguments on why the Hungarians favoured the early draw IMHO:

-> If they decide to play real fighting chess, then the chance of beating the Armenians is very slim, whereas the chance of getting beaten, perhaps even very badly, is much higher. Thus, the probability of losing their unexpectedly good position was much higher than the probability of getting an even less expected medal.

-> I do not think that the argument for getting the four draws at any time of the game holds. If the Hungarians start fighting and things go wrong let's say at about move 30, then the Armenians may just decide to play on and win the match anyway. The Armenian's attitude would be influenced also by the situation in other matches (i.e. if they see that the Chinese, the Russians and other competitors are not doing very well) and by the possibility to gain a few more Elo points. So, playing for a win was not a risk-free option for the Hungarians.

-> The comparison with the Israel-Russia match is also misleading a bit: do not forget that they were playing against a dispirited and dissapointed Russian team missing their top player, whereas the Hungarians were playing against a sharp and victorious team. So, the chance for Israel to beat the Russians was more realistic than the Hungarinas' chance to beat the Armenians. (Still, Israel's win was a surprise and I respect them for their fighting spirit and their great win.)

-> As Mig pointed out the incentive for place 5 was probably quite good, whereas the incentive for place 10, 15 or 20 would have been much less.

In summary, I think that playing for a win would have been a very risky and unwise decision and the Hungarians made a rather rational decision instead.
Posted by: József at June 20, 2006 03:25

Warning: another partisan opinion from Hungary below.

I think our country's team did well to accept the draw vs Armenia and to take the 5th place. To gain a medal a 3-1 victory would have been needed against an Armenian team that was in top form and outrated the Hungarians by 40-100 Elos on each board. A slim chance, to say the least, and there was also a lot to lose: a 1.5-2.5 loss would have resulted in 9th, a 1-3 loss in 11th place for the Hungarian team. That would hardly have made the headlines in Hungary, while the 5th place with such a reserve team did ('outstanding performance', 'far above expectations' etc). Before the torunament, when it had turned out that Leko and Polgar would not play (well, Polgar for entirely legitimate reasons), the team had been practically written off as having no chance to finish anywhere near a worthy place. I'm sure material incentives also played a role. A 5th place is worth more than a 9th or an 11th, and we had a reserve team of 2nd-echelon GMs this time to whom such a result must have really been pleasing, in financial terms as well.

Finally, I think the 5th place was also important because it conveys a message to Leko: 'look, if you were here we might even have won a medal'. So, MiG and others: if you are looking for candidates for a Cowardium Medal in Hungary, search outside the team and you might find an illustrious suspect! After this result, next time he will hopefully be more receptive to 'the call of the nation' and will join the team.

Cheers,
Misi
(= Mike)
Posted by: Misi at June 20, 2006 08:28

Not sure I understand the racing analogy...I agree that computer chess should be a separate curiosity--using computers to evaluate tactical motifs (or lack thereof) however is pretty much what I am suggesting.
Posted by: Yuriy Kleyner at June 20, 2006 11:42

Yuriy- all I was saying is that Armstrong really tried in 5 or maybe 6 stages in the Tour de France. He picked his targets and aimed for them. The other 15 stages (including the flagship final stage down the Champs Elysees-equivalent to Olympiad last round) he didn't do anything at all- the cycling equivalent of the quick draw. In cycling it is accepted as the norm and he is acknowledged as an all time great.
Posted by: Al at June 20, 2006 12:17

Hi Misi,( and others )
I,m sorry that you have so little faith in your teams ability.Why did they even bother to go ????
I for one, and in this belief I may be being foolish or naive but I thought the value in competing was in your ability to triumph over the opposition.I understand that having reached a position of mediocrity that the team were reluctant to relinquish all they had achieved prior to the final and that the financial returns of this were beneficial.It still doesn't make it acceptable behaviour.

Please don't take this as a personal attack or insult it's purely intended as an observation on the mindset of sport superstars before competition.I know that sports psychologists train athletes to visualise themselves on the winning podium weeks before they compete in order to achieve maximum performance, for them the thought of accepting 5th place would be unthinkable.
Posted by: robin at June 24, 2006 15:30