"Colm Daly also covered the Olympiad at his website - you can see his reports at http://www.dublinchess.com/dresden2008/index.html On one level he provided a valuable service to the Irish chess community, explaining what was going on in the games, etc."

Well I guess that I should be glad of this endorsement and be flattered that somebody thinks I am providing any sort of a service to the Irish chess community, let alone a valuable one. Having played in several Olympiads alongside the 2008 team members and known these players for a great number of years, I think it fair to say I might have some valuable insights to offer by way of comment and analysis?

"But on the other level his reports were full of prejudice against players on the main team."

To be sure, any commentator has certain biased ideas or notions before ever putting pen to paper, but they surely should be of a kind that one is happy to defend and be confident in their correctness? I think any prejudice or bias that I might have, subconscious or otherwise, is easily swept away by the facts as I observe them.

In other words, I just go by what I witness, and if a player does well, I highlight or applaud it, while if a player does bad I try understand it and then make the best assessment I can of what it means, or why it happened. [A blunder or some bad choice/s in the opening for example?]

It is the very nature of any commentary that it is ultimately subjective, but that does not have to mean it is not a genuine attempt to be objective and informative. It is certainly not my roles as a commentator to be a cheerleader for the Irish team, though if I am guilty of bias then I confess that such a bias would tend to be in favor of the national team.

Of course some players being commented upon may, at times, not like or agree with what someone else sees or writes but then that is just too bad really and comes with the territory. I totally reject the suggestion that I showed any prejudice against players on the team.

As a commentator I don't expect the players to like or agree with every word or impression I document. The world would be a boring place if people did not have different views and perspectives. Below in red are just some examples of some of the comments I made through the course of my coverage of the Olympiad:

"The first round was tough for the Irish delegation as both the men and women's teams lost 4-0. Still it is early days yet and in the case of the men's team, which is, on paper at least, the strongest ever [in rating terms anyway]. There is bound to be some good results and games to come"

"After getting nothing from the first round it would be hoped that Ireland would come out with all guns blazing for round two. A better recovery could hardly have been asked for, as an impressive 4-0 for Ireland was achieved with little difficulty."

"Irish Champion Saves Team From Another 4-0 White Wash"

"The first game to finish was the crucial draw Alexander Baburin made with classy opponent Nikolic who at first outplayed Alex with Black in an impressive and instructive manner. However a vital half point was secured when Alexander Baburin fought back and tenaciously kept alive his drawing chances throughout."

"Brian Kelly's play has been somewhat sluggish and rusty so far, even the two wins seem to be a bit of a struggle, yet often that is part of the process of playing oneself into form and while well out of practice it would not be at all surprising to see Brian Kelly get stronger as each round went on."

"Sam Collins played a good opening and was comfortable all the way through into the middle game when if anything he seemed to be playing better than his opponent"

"Mark Quinn had a nice win from a clever and crushing King side attack that was in his best style. Mark Heidenfeld also seems to be playing quite well in the tournament so far generally and looked sure to win this game with ease."

Naturally these examples are given just to show that Alexander seems to only see what he wants to see and projects his own prejudice by showing such intolerance of someone else expressing an opinion or perspective differing from his.

"For me it would be one thing not to like players on a national team – and quite another to enjoy the national team's downfalls."

Now we have this weird preoccupation with liking or not liking players? Soon after we have this equally odd and highly insulting suggestion of someone enjoying the national team's downfall? As a matter of fact, during the 2006 Turin Olympiad I had some great times with my team mates. Therefore in more recent times it is simply preposterous and misleading to imply that I do not like players on the national team or that I would take joy in the downfall of the national team.

"Obviously, Cold Daly thinks differently as Ireland's win over Japan (3-1) is called a "minor disaster", while Ireland's loss to Serbia becomes a "good result".

Now we have crude name calling more suitable for a bad tempered exchange between teenagers and a failure to understand the comparative value of one result over another plus the associated context of the comments. For a player of such strength this is astounding, or possibly worse, willfully stupid.

Lets look at the simple facts here:

Ireland versus Japan, from board one down, sees a rating difference of 272, 268, 190, 383 points so it would seem abundantly clear that a big win for Ireland is easily the most likely result. In short, any of the Irish players failing to win his game in this match would be disappointed [to put it mildly] but as I wrote during the match "At least, with a rating advantage of a few hundred rating points on every board, it would seem reasonable to expect another big result today? Certainly anything less than 3.5 would be a shock and disappointment"

Therefore it naturally follows that when one player actually losses to someone basically two hundred points below him, then that can be considered a bad result and a minor disaster. Certainly nothing to get too excited about, but still something that can fairly be described as a minor disaster.

It seems that through the mental device of projection Alexander has somehow managed to configure things in his mind to the following way: Minor DISASTER As IRELAND STRUGGLES To Beat Japan. By contrast if I am guilty of a similar projection then I probably see things as more along the lines of: MINOR Disaster As Ireland Struggles To Beat Japan. However regardless of these different perspectives it seems clear that beating Japan by 3-1 is not a good result. 3.5 would have been acceptable on the basis of human error and 4-0 would indeed have been a good result.

Let's look at the result against Serbia then. Again we see that if we compare the rating difference on each board we find that the differences are as follows 114,183,180,197. This time however it is the Irish who are comfortably out rated on every board. Accordingly if Ireland were to lose 3-1 then it would not actually be a bad result. A 3.5 loss would be a bad result and 4-0 dare I say it! A minor disaster. As it happens thanks mainly to Alexander we see Ireland only lose by 2.5 to 1.5 which I would contend is by any rational and objective measure a good result!

The way the match went was also very revealing. Sam and Mark both playing Black basically got smashed, losing in 31 and 32 moves. No shame there at all, as they were playing very strong players who out rated them by 183 and 197 points and they never got out of the opening. Then we had Mark Quinn playing White and gradually find himself in a difficult and even precarious position, but showing great skill and composure he gains a well deserved draw against a player 180 points higher.

Meanwhile the hero of the match: Alexander himself, turns the tables on a player 114 points higher rated than himself. I even identified the exact moment in which he gained an advantage after having been worse from out of the opening and into the endgame. In playing to one of his main strengths (skillfully punishing players who over press). Alexander gained an unlikely full point for Ireland and brought the score to 1.5 which I would contend is a good result well worth noting and respecting. Certainly it was a far more impressive result than the surprising 3-1 win against a very weak team from Japan.

"Finally, consider this sub-title: "Switzerland Narrowly Fail To Make Swiss Cheese Out Of Ireland" (on Ireland's 1-3 loss to Switzerland)."

Well to return to the theme of "projection" it seems clear to me that Alexander again see's an alternative reality, which I am guessing looks more like: Switzerland Narrowly Fail To Make Swiss Cheese Out Of Ireland , whereas my own projection was more along the lines of: Switzerland Narrowly Fail To Make Swiss Cheese Out Of Ireland. In any event who could resist using the witty line about Swiss Cheese when playing Switzerland?

The point I was making, more than anything else, was that the Swiss had failed. During the match it had looked to me to be very possible that Ireland would be beaten very badly in this match. As it happens, Ireland was quite lucky not to lose 4-0 or 3.5 in this match, so to my mind this was a failure for Switzerland. They actually had been amazingly impressive in this match.

First we seen Sam and Mark smashed off the board in very impressive style [just look at the games] and pointing out this is a compliment to our players too, it underlines how rare it is to see Sam and Mark beaten like this. It takes two players to make a good game or an impressive game and while I don't doubt that Mark and Sam were not at their best, I would bet that they were just as impressed as I was with the way their opponents prosecuted their advantages against them. They (Sam and Mark) played what seemed like logical enough moves and yet they fared so badly on the board in this match. Such losses are noble and great learning experiences.

Meanwhile again we see Alexander be the hero along with Brian Kelly. Both could have easily lost, and in the case of Brian, he was indeed totally lost at many points during the game. Yet he tenaciously hung on and got a fantastic draw. Alex too defended well, as despite being outplayed in the opening [And how often do we see this when Alex is White - not a lot!] and a pawn down in the endgame, he held off no less than Kortchnoi.

Both players, by their efforts, insured that this match was, at the end, something of a failure for Switzerland. Before the match I think Ireland could be content with a 3-1 loss, so to actually get such a result in the circumstances which looked like being much worse, is again something which the team could take some pride in.

"Poor Colm was clearly disappointed that Ireland did not lose 0-4! Well, I guess few Irish chess fans would share his sentiments in this case."]"

Finally we come to the crux of the matter, cheap insults and phony assertions which accuse me of wishing that the Irish team do badly. Well what a bloody nerve! My guess is that few Irish chess fans would share his sentiments or believe such nonsense.

It is frankly hard to stomach such a mischievous personal attack and it only serves to create doubts about the sincerity of Alexander, and I am very disappointed in him as a result.

There is plenty of room for many divergent views on a great many topics but they should be based on some facts and logic. I defy Alexander to point to one single thing I wrote during my commentary of the Irish Olympiad team that was, or could be considered, an attack on the person or character of a player. The worst I could ever be accused of was making a critical observation about somebody as a chess player, though even then I don't think I wrote anything that was not fair comment about their tactics/style or opening choices etc?

My advice to Alexander would be to take a chill pill and stop believing in, or propagating fairytales or imagining things that never were.