Dear Friends

Winter Butterfly - 18 30/1/03

Dear Friends

I consider the following to be an important contribution to the selection debate from our new IM. So I am forwarding it straight and unabridged to all Winter Butterfly readers.

Best wishes

Dai James.

----- Original Message -----

From: Leighton Williams

To: Dai Winter Butterfly James

Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 7:53 PM

Subject: Selection Procedure.

Dai,

You seemed pleased that we were finally getting a debate on the selection procedure when Tim Kett emailed you.

Well I don't know how happy this email will make you, but can you circulate it through your fantastic Winter Butterfly for me, as I'm sure this will heat-up the debate a bit.

Leighton Williams

ps. Great work on WB. please keep it going if you can, and good work on the Olympiad coverage, didn't know at the time just how many people were following my exploits.

Dear chess friends,

Here's a lengthy report which I have written regarding the current on-going debate regarding selection criteria. Some have wondered why I hadn't made any comment yet, well here it is, Enjoy!!!!! or not as some will see.

Leighton Williams

(apparently an IM)

The current selection views of Leighton Williams

I have read with interest (as others have I'm sure) the ideas and comments of Kevin Staveley, Chris Walsh, Mark Adams, James Cobb, and Tim Kett over the past weeks and months with regard to the selection procedure for the Welsh team, along with many other conversations I've had with people which have gone unpublished. As some already know, and for those that don't, I've probably had more than my fair say on this matter over the past few years, and have personally considered almost every available option (still one which I've yet to consider, i.e. the right one) for a `fair system` during this time, including all of those which the people above have suggested (and countless more besides)

As has become standard for me, and so is now expected, I speak my mind and hold back no opinions on anyone or anything. So the following views are sure to please and offend many different people, some who know me well and some who I've never before met. I offer very view advanced apologies as I have very strong feelings regarding selection for Wales, and I continue to feel my country is selling itself out with the people we continue to choose to represent it, and by the current methods we go about it.

I will begin with the most recent suggestions of James and Tim. Both have their good points and bad points. I can't agree with James that a formal structure based on grading will prove more accurate than `gut feeling` , as I for one have always had great faith in my gut feeling for selection purposes (and lots of other things, including my chess games) and it has mostly always proved in hindsight to be correct, and far more accurate than any grades. But I do agree with James on many of his other points.

Wales do have a lot of 2200-2250 graded players, who have been this grade (but NOT that standard, see later) for X number of years, and will probably continue to have this grade for Y years to come. There is very little point in selecting these players for an Olympiad, and especially not if they have been many times before. He also rightly points out that one place should be given to a junior, although I would add regardless of age to this (although I accept other issues then become relevant) providing they are considered strong enough, as he rightly points out that they usually perform better over longer events and could easily `rise to the occasion` such as an Olympiad. A quick note on this point............

Three years ago during the selection meeting, difficulties selecting a `decent, strong enough` 2000 Olympiad team occurred, I suggested as one possible solution, to select TWO of our very promising juniors (not including Richard Jones who was already selected on merit) who were judged to be of equal ability. Both had a current national grade of 2100+, both were improving rapidly, and both of whom I thought would view selection as a great opportunity, confidence boost, and extra incentive to study chess over the school summer holidays prior to the October event. This had already been done in 1994 when Steven Cordy (who did not accept) myself, and David Martin were all selected as high reserves, with the latter two subsequently playing.

This suggestion was treated with considerable hostility by some un-named selectors, who came up with such `sensible` arguments as "Juniors have enough trips abroad as it is" or "This is the adults team, it shouldn't be full of juniors" or "They're too young to be selected" or "I'm as good as them two, and could easily put 200+ points on my grade if I studied over the summer as well". All these `great points` are in my opinion, COMPLETE RUBBISH, they were good enough at the time and should have been selected instead of the two adults who were eventually chosen. As my `gut feeling` at the time was the adults would probably do badly, and I'm not happy to say this (because they were representing Wales at the time) but with hindsight, they did. One of them even played (and I’m quoting an undisclosed, experienced, third party here who was there at the time) "The worst game of chess by anyone representing Wales he has ever seen"

James also makes very good points about local league chess not preparing you for Olympiads (see later), participation in the Welsh Championship NOT being compulsory, and, I must say this one made me laugh big time when I first heard it suggested, that board order will be determined at the Welsh Championship All I can say about this is that this is one of the worst suggestions I have ever heard, and James correctly points out it could easily be luck of the draw, which is reason enough to not even consider it, regardless of the many other possible reasons.

Tim's thoughts...... Refreshing to hear him declare up-front an interest regarding Welsh selection, good, this is far better than the `worming in through the back door method` which is mostly done. And I agree with most of the points he made. The team should only be selected from definitely qualified players with absolutely no consideration given to any strong, but very dubiously-eligible players. This has been my major argument, concern, and mis-grievance over the past few years, since I started to take an interest in the `political side` of Welsh chess.

Tim rightly points out that it makes no real difference if we finish 70th or 80th in an Olympiad, so why `sell out` the Welsh nationality to some foreign player just for ten higher places? Even I admit that it could be very beneficial to Welsh chess if Mr.Kasparov and Mr.Kramnik suddenly had an uncontrollable urge to plant daffodils, eat lava bread, watch quality rugby (only on video now though) and wail their hearts out to `Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau` or `Delilah` in the pouring rain at the Millennium stadium. Then even I might concede that `making up a rule for them to play` could be good for Welsh chess. But news flash to some people, THEY ARE NOT GOING TO GET THAT URGE, and until they do, there is no point even considering giving up any more `Welsh` places to 2300, 2400, 2500, or even 2600 graded foreigners who have no interest in developing Welsh chess in the long term.

I also agree with Tim that pride can play a part in things (see later), and that any "close selection between two players, one of who had played several times before and the other not at all, that one should certainly choose the latter." As probably someone who hadn't played before is likely to have more enthusiasm to perform, than someone who has played before.

Selection solely on the grounds of rating.....

In a short sentence, NO, NO WAY I personally don't agree with this method in any form, but I can see why a lot of people do, and will consider this to be the correct `way forward`. As it gives a clear set of `black and white` rules on which selection is decided, every player knows where he stands, and what he `has to do` to get `in the team` i.e. "All I have to do is get my grade up another 20 points" or "All I need is a couple more rating points to get above Joe Bloggs and I'm in"

But consider the following hypothetical tournament,

Six players graded 2200 are asked to play one game a week for a year (they get two weeks off for Xmas) against:-

10 players graded 1800

10 players graded 2000

10 players graded 2200

10 IM's (2400)

10 GM's (2600)

they do this every year for three years and the results were alway the same

1800 2000 2200 IM's GM's

Player A 10 10 5 0 0 25/50 =

Player B 9 8 6 2 0 25/50 =

Player C 9 8 4 3 1 25/50 =

Player D 7 6 4 6 2 25/50 =

Player E 10 10 10 0 0 30/50 +5

Player F 6 5 3 5 1 20/50 -5

Now going purely on ratings Player E would be first choice (over 2200), Players A-D all equal (all 2200), and Player F last choice (below 2200). Which is close to the complete opposite of the order in which I would place them, and let me explain why.

There are certain players in Wales (not limited to Wales obviously), these permanent 2200-2250 graded players mentioned earlier, who are in my opinion just not up to scratch when it comes to playing against FM's, IM's and GM's. Said player will always `duff-over` players graded well below him, and is able to hold his own against players his own grade, but given `quality` opposition, he will never score any points because 1). He's just not used to facing them 2). His natural style of play is only suited to `setting traps` for lower graded players to fall into, or `winning a level ending`, none of which work against titled players 3). He's suddenly the very small fish in the very big pond , and basically, it's very obvious that he's just not good enough. (Player A, and Player E) So why should these player ever get selected???? In an Olympiad they could be `trusted` to get a result in round 2, when it's Wales's turn to play the BIG fish v the little fish , due to our usual first round drubbing. After that they may as well be sent home, since for the rest of the tournament there'll be no other opposition that they can be sure to score any points against (when I say points, I mean any remote chance that they'll actually WIN a game, and not bore a draw off of someone)

Player B and Player C. Decent enough players, they can be `trusted` to `get the point` against players graded lower than themselves, and can hold their own against players of their own grade, and can maybe pick up a result against a titled player on occasions. Useful, mainly as reserves and lower boards.

Player D and Player F. These two players would immediately be my first choice. Why? Because it's obvious that they can take points off titled players, which probably means they take chances, go for their attacks, and this CAUSES PROBLEMS for the IM's and GM's. This style of play is also probably why they scored so badly against the lower graded players (i.e. mis-analysed, sacrifice didn't work etc.) but this is far better than trying to `survive` against titled opponents, by keeping it `solid` or `swapping off lots of pieces` as given a level position, an IM or GM will outplay an average 2200 player nine times out of ten.

In my opinion it makes no difference which grading list is used, national or FIDE, the current idea for selection based on grading will just not work. What is stopping someone graded 2250 only playing `select` games in the local league against `easily beatable` 2000 opposition, thereby scoring 90-100% and gaining say 20-25 points a year? Soon they're over 2300 and guaranteed a place in the team and they haven’t played `anyone`. The only way I can ever see a grading method being employed is if a completely separate list is issued, and only results against players graded above 2250 or 2300 counted towards grading, then at least players would have to score points against `someone` decent, and I know the current top order of Welsh players would be in for a big change were this list to appear.

Now a few points I'd like to make about selecting the team, regardless of what criteria is used, there is something equally as important as this. Can they actually play `proper` chess? You may think this is a very stupid question but.............. after having been to four Olympiad's, and during discussions with the various captains, and noticing the performances of my Welsh team members, I have come to the very quick conclusion that not everyone is suitable to play in Olympiads. Let me explain more.........

The Olympiad is played over four boards, so two white's and two black's each round. The ideal `professional` result would be to win the match 3-1 draw your black's, win your white's and here the problem for Wales begins. Out of all the players I've been to Olympiads with, very, very, very few have had any sort of repertoire as black which `stood up to the test` of an Olympiad. I include myself in this list, because in general there's nobody in Wales who can play as black against stronger opposition. Take the last Olympiad, Wales scored 11/27 with black (not from 28 as one black game was a default) now if you take out the top two point scorer's (myself and Richard Jones) you are left with 3/13, which is below 25% and not really acceptable. Now my black opening repertoire is `well dodgy` and Richard will be the first to admit that his is shambolical, so where does that leave the rest of the team?!!?!? and with two of the team members coming back with rating performances as black of 1623 and 1973 I can see nothing worth writing home about.

Ok, this is somewhat un-fair I admit, as myself and Richard played over half the black games, and some of the loses were not directly related to the opening phase, but as these type of percentages are seen every time, it can not be treated as a one off occasion.

The problem on the white side is somehow even worse. I feel that every team needs two different types of `white` players, type A. is one who will `always try to win regardless of opponent`, as these cause the most problems to titled player, and type B. is one who is `solid, but should never loose` as these can have a good-go at a titled player, but should also be able pick up draw if needed. Every `white` at an Olympiad is important, so none should ever be wasted.

A word about the word solid, this does not mean as white playing 1.d4... 2.Nf3... 3.Bg5... 4.e3... 5.c3... 6.Bd3...7.etc this is NOT SOLID this is PASSIVE. Have a guess how much this worries a titled player NONE WHAT-SO-EVER, ok on occasions they may not be able to `break white down` and may only draw, but their chances of losing is almost zero. Take the following example from a popular Sicilian line, 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e6 now a type A. player would probably go 6.g4!? with the intent of mating black inside of 20 moves. While a type B. player might play 6.g3!? with the idea of completing development and then generating play on the queenside or centre. THIS IS SOLID , as black still has to think about every move as `a game` is still being contested, rather than a `white could hold that after the solid 4.e3 and 5.c3` affair.

The opening phase of a chess game is obviously very important, and especially so at this level. The choice of opening can almost immediately decide the result of the game, and for me (even though I've probably lost to all of them in my time) openings such as the Tromp, Torre, London system, Barry attack, exchange French/Caro-Kann/Slav, Anti-this or Anti-that lines, and dozens of other similar openings are just NO GOOD for TRYING TO WIN against titled opponents. As WINNING is what it's all about, and should be everyone's objective at the start of EVERY GAME, no matter WHO YOU ARE PLAYING, and NOT just "TRY TO HOLD THE DRAW". Any player with the latter attitude is not Olympiad material, and should never be selected to represent Wales at any time. I was so concerned with `wasting my white's` (after my pathetic round 4 game) at the last Olympiad that I told the captain that I didn't want any more whites, as I couldn't guarantee him a win (didn't think I had much chance of a 13 round title at the time, so wasn't expecting to play all the games)

As a team, with regards to the chess performance, the last Olympiad was very poor, but as I'm in the process of doing a detailed report on this, I'll leave it for another time.

So while I'm on the subject, and as I may as well get most of it said here, in my opinion there is sometimes a question of the `commitment` levels of some team-members. As I think some should have a good `think` about why they're actually at the Olympiad. I know most people will immediately be saying I'm not one to talk on this matter (and perhaps I'm not, but I don't foresee anyone else saying anything, and I think some people may want to, and actually should know more about what really goes on at an Olympiad, rather than just knowing the results) considering certain events in my past, and my regular `nocturnal` activities, but I can say that NOTHING I do at Olympiads affects my performance at the board, and most of the time it has considerable benefits (a happy chess player is a good chess player).

What I'm more concerned with is certain attitudes like "Captain, can I not play tomorrow because I've planned to look around a famous bridge/tree/man in a funny hat/etc." or "Captain, I don't mind if I don't play tomorrow (hint, hint, wink, wink) because that'll give me a chance to look around the village/town/city/pretty shops/etc." or "Captain, I'm too tired to play tomorrow because I'm exhausted after spending all day looking around the bridge/tree/village/town/city/funny man in a pretty shop/etc." It's up to the Captain to select the team he thinks best, and he should be able to select from his full squad. Not being able to play through illness is fine, but not being able to play due to other plans is TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE, as a player you have been selected to PLAY CHESS FOR WALES, and this should be given priority. Any other ideas represents a lack of enthusiasm and interest, as EVERY PLAYER should WANT to play in EVERY GAME, not just when it suits them. I know there are any number of Welsh chess player who would love the chance to play just ONE game for their country at an Olympiad, and it really irates me when these players are denied that chance by players who would rather go off sight-seeing than representing, apparently, `their` country. I know Wales are not a professional team, probably never will be, and I have no interest in seeing it as one. I have no problems with players sight-seeing (a happy chess player is a good chess player) but ONLY on REST DAYS, or when the CAPTAIN decides they are not playing, and NOTHING ELSE.

The pride of playing for your country........ This little emotion can have such a big difference on any players performance at an Olympiad, PROVIDING they are playing for THEIR COUNTRY, and are not imported via their great uncle, aunt or neighbours Welsh terrier. The whole question about `what does it mean to be Welsh` is I admit, tricky and is difficult to define, but I definitely know of some things it isn't.

A lot of people have congratulated me on my recent Olympiad performance, and thanked me for giving them some renewed enthusiasm for the game. "Thanks, and your welcome anytime". Most people think `I really played well` or `you must have done loads of work beforehand` or `I bet you were on good form going into it` , but lets have a closer look. Did I play well? Not convinced myself, but I guess `good enough` and I didn't blunder once which helped. Did I do loads of work? Before the tournament, no, none, haven’t studied chess in a long time, but I worked my a%$* off for over four hours the morning before all of my Olympiad games, as I thought it would be of more help to get a result than going sight-seeing at the local castle/museum/church/puddle of water/etc. Was I on good form? Who knows, didn't play any chess over the summer (apart from losing to both Tim Kett and Iolo Jones in twenty moves) I think I played some league matches, but not sure as I was too busy with university work to remember.

So I can tell everyone now that there was only one real reason why I achieved this result at that time, and that's THE PRIDE I FEEL WHILE PLAYING FOR WALES, and nothing else. I know that if it hadn't been an Olympiad, I wouldn't have done anywhere near as well. I only ever really perform well at Olympiads, which no one else in Wales has yet seemed to notice (members of the Irish team have noticed though) Why? Because sitting next to the Welsh flag, mascot in-tow, representing my country, gives me such a boost, and gets my `head in shape`. As if I don't win then I've let myself, my team-mates, my friends, and MORE IMPORTANTLY my COUNTRY down, so I'm going to fight and battle EVERY game like never before, and all my opponents are going to have to play the game of their life to stop me. Now I'm aware that this all sounds like `out of the movies` kind of talk, but this is how I think and feel during an Olympiad, as it's an honour, privilege and pleasure to represent my country at the highest level, and I have, and always will, continue to give my best performances at these times, and if I am honoured with any chance to represent my country in the future, I will do so again with the best performance I can. So for anyone thinking I'll be churning out 2500+ performances every week, sorry, but I can't see anything anywhere near that happening again until I (hopefully) represent Wales at the 2004 Olympiad.

This is why I feel so strongly about who should play for Wales, and why I've argued and argued to have no `foreign` players in the team, as there's no way they can ever appreciate the same feeling of honour and passion while playing for Wales, because basically, they're not Welsh. I'm not sure if I'm the only Welsh player who gets this feeling while representing Wales, but as we normally select a half-half mixture of Welshman and Johnny foreigner, I guess I'll never find out. But as an Olympiad usually makes me perform about 200+ points better than my current grade, wouldn't it be interesting to have a `Welsh` team full of `Welsh` players all performing at 200+ points above their ratings??? As I know I'm not the only one who would be affected by this `ratings surge` while playing for Wales, and it's just a case of `finding the others`.

Finally a word about the people who select the team, and I sympathise with Chris Walsh here, as some of the people present at selection committee meetings, and therefore entrusted to pick the `best team in the interests of Welsh chess` should just not be there. Mainly because they have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA of who the top/in form players are at present, some of them are of, shall I say, `poor` chess playing quality, and other so called `zonal representatives` have never once turned up to a meeting in the five years I've been West Wales representative (but they do send a letter of apology, great, that's useful isn't it).

The very memorable 2000 Olympiad selection meeting again comes to mind, when top class Welsh players such as Stuart Hutchings, Andrew Jones, and random foreigner Roy Phillips were all suggested as possibilities by a WCU. `top dog`. Great idea, Stuart hasn't `really` played (that I know of, but well before my time) since winning the Welsh Championship in 1990, Andrew disappeared in 1994 after going to Cambridge University, and Roy was very much active but, not Welsh, and has never claimed to be (and I'm too disgusted to talk about the "Who's Howard Williams, and is he any good?" comment from one of our `quality selectors`)

This is the current level of knowledge some of the selectors have when they select the team, very concerning in my opinion. I'm still not sure who should rightfully be attending these meetings, as new people just seem to appear every year by a` magic invite` from somewhere. Votes on selection at these meetings are even cast by `observers`, who are merely there to `help the selectors` with their views, but nobody there but myself seems to notice this, or even care.

As to the way forward? Not sure at the moment, certainly nothing in that `great` WCU. production should be adopted. I still have lots of ideas and thoughts on the selection matter, and I'm hoping to put together a proposal in the future. But I've come to the conclusion that I'm just one person trying to make a difference, and after disappointing results from previous WCU. AGM's where I've tried to introduce changes, I know the support for my ideas is just not there.

Maybe I'm the only true Welshman out there playing chess, and maybe I'm not, but it certainly feels like it sometimes, or maybe I'm just the only one brave, confident or stupid enough to even try and change things against the current `welcome all` tide. So if anyone else out there shares all, or even any of my views then feel free to try and change things, all I can say is "Good Luck" you'll need lots of it and more besides.

But I will add that if the selection bus is currently on the way forward then someone change the £$^*£^" driver please.

Last thought. I know some of those who have managed or bothered to read all of this through will be thinking "He's only saying that now because of his recent success, he wouldn't have said any of this otherwise", or something along these lines. Well you're wrong, I've thought this way for a long time as people who know me well enough are fully aware.

I have a bet on with myself as to which will get sorted out first, Welsh chess or Welsh rugby, since both are moving about as fast as an asthmatic ant. My money is on Armageddon personally, odds on favourite.

Best of Luck to all for your next game or tourni.

Leighton Williams

Jan 2003.