Just2Good

When I played my last tournament in Bardon, I had the chance to briefly speak with International Master Stephen Soloman. I asked him a question relating to the selection committee which fielded Australia's team to the Olympiad.

Stephen told me that he believed that Kevin Bonham from Tasmania was on the selection committee.

As many of us already know, Nick Speck filled out the last board on the team, despite Australia having at least two titled International Masters who could have, and perhaps should have, been offered that opportunity themselves (Soloman and Chapman).

While Mr Speck surely tried his hardest and did the best he could as his abilities allowed for, his losses meant that Australia was ultimately paired up against weaker teams and this in turn precluded IM David Smerdon from attaining a FIDE Grandmaster title. Hence, the decision to put Mr Speck in the team as opposed to a titled player may not have been the best choice.

It must be said the Mr Speck has done his country proud by stepping up to the plate to bat for us. This thread is not intended to reflect on him in any way.

However, it is the undeniable responsibility of the Australian Selectors to field the absolute best team that they could have to represent this country. By choosing Mr Speck over a titled IM they arguably failed in this regard. As a result David Smerdon still has yet to attain a Grandmaster titled, and the snubbed IM's would now be well within their rights to knock back any future invitations from the selectors because of the loss of face.

Apparently Solomon may have been incorrect in believing that Kevin Bonham was on the committee. Kevin has claimed that he was only a messenger on behalf of the committee, but was not a committee member himself. I would take Kevin at his word on that, but it is still my contention that he should complete his duties as messenger and apologise on behalf of the Australian selectors to:

David Smerdon;
Stephen Soloman; and
Mark Chapman.

Spiny Norman

A couple of questions:

What were the respective FIDE ratings of the players at the time of selection?

Did both the alternative selections (Solomon and Chapman) apply for a spot on the team within the timeline and parameters that the ACF mandated?

I don't know what criteria the ACF use ... but it seems sensible that selection ought to be based firstly on meeting selection criteria (applying before deadline, etc) and secondly on rating strength ... not on titles previously awarded.

Just2Good

Hi Frosty

My understanding was that Soloman had previously been on Australia's team. Without question he is Australia's 3-4th strongest player:

Ian Rogers
Johansen
Smerdon = 3rd - 4th
Solomon = 3rd - 4th

Stephen seemed genuinely disappointed about the result, so that implies if there was an application process he complied with it. Also, Nick Specks current rating is 2440 and Stephens is higher.

lotlizard

without question??? what about zhao or wohl??

Spiny Norman

AO, before you posted in #1 above, did you check your facts? A few PMs to/from people in the know, plus a bit of cross-checking, elicited the following facts:

Kevin Bonham was not a selector. He was the coordinator. The selectors for the open team were:

IM Guy West, FM Geoff Saw, FM Tim Reilly, Ian Rout and IA Dr Charles Zworestine

Ref: http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.ph...97&postcount=7

Mark Chapman did not apply, so that bit is not really relevant.

At time of selection, the selectors ranked Speck ahead of Solomon. He had a higher rating tham Solomon on the ACF ratings list at that time, although Solomon was higher-rated on the FIDE list.

Speck was first reserve. Johansen was picked, but then decided not to play, so Speck was then added to the team.

So if you have a problem with the selections, it would be better addressed to the selectors, not the coordinator. It was they who decided/voted on the makeup of the team. Kevin was just "the messenger" who advised of their decision.

Perhaps its you that owes Kevin Bonham an apology?

Just2Good

Hi Frosty

You are missing the part of my post that answers your above question.

I said that "Stephen told me that he believed that Kevin Bonham from Tasmania was on the selection committee."

I took this at face value. Ultimately the decision to choose Speck over Solomon for first reserve cost Smerdon a Grandmaster title. That much is self evident.

As Kevin apparently was the messenger for the selectors, he still should provide an apology on behalf of them for having made the wrong choice, and the consequences which flowed from that poor choice.

Just2Good

They are both strong players as well, but Stephen has held the IM title for longer and, all things being equal, likely is stronger than them.

I do, however, acknowledge that the ranking is subjective.

lotlizard

not likely, zhao and smerdon are almost gms already

Just2Good

Solomon has beaten GM's in the past, and basically eats them for breakfast.

lotlizard

any im beats gms sometimes

Pax

That much is not evident by any stretch of the imagination. Smerdon's performance rating at the Olympiad (2505) while good, was a long way short of the 2600 required for a GM norm.

If you ask David, I am sure that he will tell you that his round 11 loss to Dominican Republic was what cost him the GM norm, not the inclusion of Nick Speck. Incidentally, the team's performance overall was the best in many years so you can hardly say that they were denied top class opposition.

Also for information, Nick Speck was selected on the basis of strong performances in European Open events in the lead up to selections - this included at least one IM norm (with wins over Ganguly and Stefanova), and one near IM norm performance. He also had an excellent performance at the Bled Olympiad in 2002 with 5.5/9.

Unregistered

This is a remarkably insulting thing to say, and you should apologize for it. Speck's Gibraltar performance and his Bled performance showed that he is quite capable of a 2450-2500 performance.

Iconoclast

I suspect that AO was being realistic, rather than insulting. Quite surely, Speck did do his best. And also as surely he is human and sometimes plays above/below his usual level. Perhaps Speck runs hot and cold - I don't know - but I suspect that the selectors were expecting him to run hot. Unfortunately, he may not have, but, then again what if he had :eek: Then this conversation would not be happening.

Just2Good

Dear Unregistered

If Mr Speck did not try his hardest and perform as best as his abilities allowed for, then he let his team down and his country down. I never insinuated or suggested that that was the case. Indeed, I gave Mr Speck the benefit of the doubt on those matters.

Regards

AO

Pax

To suggest that 1/6 was "the best as his abilities allowed for" is insulting. Speck had a bad tournament - we all have those from time to time. Your comments clearly imply that you think 1/6 should have somehow been expected by the selectors.

p.s why are you blocking the IP address I posted from yesterday?