Tuesday, January 25, 2011

What is the Real Issue?

It is indeed most unfortunate that I have to speak about this issue again. Why do we need to beat a dead horse? Please point out to me the existence of the word "sue". Did you forget that you insisted for an apology from me and Rationality. Does that not mean that you are accusing us of doing something wrong?

Leaving Rationality aside, you insisted that I was "wrong" to promote whatever Rationality said. Hence, I made a poll to see how many people think that the mentioned parties are in the right or in the wrong. The polls show that I don't need to apologize to you. If you have your own objective, why don't you create your own poll?

You are right. Don't be distracted by the issue. I have come up with my very own proposal for the Olympiad selection. In case you missed it, click HERE. Just like you have asked others to learn how to read, why don't you actually learn how to read yourself?

All I asked was an equal fighting chance for seniors and juniors and EVERY OTHER PERSON who wants to represent Malaysia. I even suggested a minimum participation rate to make sure that "senior" players do not get an "entitled" spot. NO SELECTION BASED ON RATING WAS MENTIONED.

What about seniors vs juniors? How does it work? What happens if the juniors beat the seniors? Who do we select? What is your selection criteria? How do you select your "juniors" team? How do you assemble your "seniors" team? Will you be sure that you have indeed assembled the "best" respective seniors and juniors into the teams? How can you be sure you did not leave anyone qualified out?

Oh wait, you just want to prove that the juniors can fight. I guess proving that point has some use. Hmm... or does it? THINK ON THAT! I will give you that all juniors have more fight than seniors. Does that automatically mean they can become better? Of course, no. But they have a CHANCE to go further. But what would turn this "possibility" into reality? A system that works. A system that recognizes talent and achievements. Without that, there will never be progress. "Juniors" will turn into "seniors" and the cycle will continue.

These are all very relevant questions that you are trying to distract everyone from. No one is doing any cheap tactics, except you. Maybe if you can see the ideas for what they are, you can actually help people improve their chess.

About the PICA issue, no one said that you have anything to hide. I even pointed out that having courage to show your balls in public without using brains would only make you a flasher. You better be able to prove it when you want to accuse someone of cheating. Is that not what you were preaching?

Only beginners use cheap tricks. Beginners like Raymond Siew. I have focused on the REAL ISSUE again and again and again. If you refuse to see it, you will NEVER improve. One of the worst mistakes a beginner can make is that they over-focus on trying to checkmate their opponent without noticing that their own king is in danger. Why don't you learn how to see the whole board before you assess the position?

I am still waiting for the details of your selection criteria. I am still waiting for your real ideas. How can you debate anything by just name-calling, flashing and plain rhetoric. Asking people to just "think on it" without providing any basis for ideas is just lazy and only demonstrates your stupidity and lack of ideas. You need ideas and I have long demonstrated mine. I am only hearing air blown into the wind.


  1. Not another round again? You should know that FGM will never stop. I finally figured it out. The guy needs attention. When he sees nobody making comment on his blog anymore he digs up all the old "issues" and make some more outrageous comments to get people riled up. He actually loves it when you respond. :)

  2. Jimmy has hit the spot. You should not even bother to visit his blog let alone respond. Say, what would you do if a psycho start ranting at you as you walk casually down the street minding your own business? Would you stop to argue with him to prove that whatever he is ranting about is wrong?

  3. thats so true.. dont worry people, everyone is getting the adrenaline rush of "bashing" him at his blog. When it start to settle, he will be singing his own song

  4. This Ramon chap trying to sell his 'inner child' crap to the chess community. He doesnt even know the meaning of rating or elo! The way he goes around making enemies means his idea and approach is not acceptable. No wonder he is unheard of in the corporate circle he claims to be. A bigger concern however is that he is a dangerous man because of his destructive streak. Beware the azhars and the yeohs you may be taken in by this half baked idiot.

  5. The problem with this character he has a negative inclination on anything that matters. He dont know anything about chess and we have serious doubts of his leadership or management skill and he wants to head PICA? Without the EQ like not able to get along with most people he is a liability to chess.

  6. But people like the azhars and stuck-in-the-middle but still ambitious parent/players needs characters like him to push the idea of the mediocre below 2200 ratings benchmark to represent the country. It is not acceptable to have a bunch of 1900s kids to represent the country merely for 'experience' and holiday.

  7. Can you please define "characters like him"? Because I don't see how alienating himself from pretty much every respectable chess player in the community can get those players anywhere.

    Personally, I don't see the big deal about the rating. I can name you at least 10 Filipino players who have ZERO rating and can play at least at the level of an FM.

    I also propose an incentive scheme based on the performance at the Olympiad. Perhaps each player at the Olympiad or any event can be entitled to a small base sponsorship plus a performance-based sponsorship. Perhaps using their percentage scored multiplied by a particular factor.

    For example, an ASEAN Age-Group representative may get 50% initial sponsorship and the other 50% is based on his score at the tournament. This will strongly encourage the players to be serious about the tournament and fight hard for their sponsorships as well. But again, the effectiveness of such implementation is only as effective as those implementing the system.

  8. "characters like him" refer to the chamelion type behavior who appears reasonable but with manipulative and destructive intention. Never seen such a character exposing himself to the public! Yaikk.. enough of this fella!

    You are right on the rating but it is a good guide especially in the local chess scene. We have local rating too which help to track performance, it is fairly accurate.Pinoy has many strong but unrated players due to different environment unlike ours.Do agree to an incentive scheme, but the benchmark should not be based on personal performance but the achievement of rating/norms or at least a respectable rating above 2300. Anything less is easy target and reward should just be by parents or girlfriends , not the public. Otherwise we will breed jaguk kampong and arrogance like this ramon over say the recent (substd) msia-singapore game which to him a great performance We should not even talk about partial sponsorship without any expectation of winning medals. These players should just aim for open tournaments locally and abroad and see whether they have the potential to go beyond weekend warrior right? Perform first and reward later, not the other way - the forward in this challenging world

    The Challenger

  9. Just a comment on the idea of rewards for olympiad performance. This happened in past olympiad. The players had to contribute part of the airfare costs which would be refunded for those who scored 50% or more. this had an unintended side effect. Those who scored 50% refused to play after that. This affected the team tremendously.

  10. The Challenger,

    I seriously doubt the accuracy of the national rating. Especially for players who start at a young age. A beginner could have started with a rating of maybe 1200+ but as his/her improvement progresses rapidly during the first few years, the rating will probably improve to around 1400-1500. But the K-factor would then become smaller and any progress in rating from then on is much slower.

    I would wonder how long it would take for a player with 1200 to get to 2200. This is a huge gap to catch up on. Personally, for me, I can safely say that I am playing about 100-200 above my current rating. I am consistently beating players with 100-200 points above me. But my rating gains do not put me up there fast enough to "enjoy" whatever rewards that can be obtained from ratings alone. I still prefer a reward system based on performance and not on rating.


    Thanks for the comment. I had forgotten about that. I can understand the difficulty to come up with a perfectly fair system. My other suggestion would be to use a discount based on number of points scored (which disregards percentages), but then it still would not escape the deviousness of players who would only choose to play when the opponents are easy and rest when the opponents are tough.

    Any other ideas anyone?

  11. Rating is a start point. It is a more objective measure. But if say a 1200 player suddenly consistently disposing off the likes of Mas, Mok and Nicholas in standard time control games and stays at that level, then we can talk. But by just beating a mamak player which I would define as regular pawn pusher probably with stagnant rating strength below 2000 is not a passport to free holiday. Otherwise these parents should just shut up.

    The Challenger

  12. Chess Ninja,

    If your claim is true on beating players 100 - 200 pts higher, then your National rating should move up easily UNLESS

    1. You took part in non-rated Events --> Check with Organiser;

    2. At the same tournament, you lose or draw to players 100 to 200 pts lower, so it average out;

    Fyi, a player can move up their National rating very fast. Just to quote an example, Yeoh Li Tian moves up from 1807 (end of 2009) to 2031 in just 6 months after the China stint backed in Dec 2009. That represents 224 pts increase.

    Bear in mind at 1800+, he is already listed inside the top 1% of the whole National Rating database. Yet, he can have that jump in local tournament. Why? Fyi, he is playing at elo 2300 to 2400 in those 6 mths. Btw, you must aware that National Rating is roughly 250 pts below elo equivalent.

    However, the effect from the stint was fading on the 2nd half of 2010 where he dropped 46 pts.

    So, the perception that it is difficult to move up your National Rating is not true.

    If you still have any doubt, you can contact the Rating officer (Lim Tse Pin) for details.

  13. Hah, so national and Fide rating is the only objective measure.Any deviation like super achievements of beating the IMs or GMs could be brought forth as exceptional factors. Work towards it and dont give false expection to yr kids. This nothing new only that it was not well implemented. Consider the joining the dot rubbish or inner child trash as just another parent trying to attract listeners but the REAL ISSUE is'my son was discriminated in perak and now in KL, but you know he's good'. He would want to sound too direct but we understand where you ar heading ma

    The Challenger

    The Challenger

  14. The Challenger,

    Agreed on using an objective measure. No doubt about it. Question is, why not just use tournament results? First of all, it would be difficult to even beat Mok or Mas or Nicholas in open play because two things have to happen. One, they would have to actually play in the same tournaments (which sometimes they don't). And two, you would have to meet them in the tournament, which is pretty much up to Swiss Manager.

    So, as long as they can perform at that level, say maybe score about 6-7 points in a 9 round standard Open event, they deserve a chance, considering that's what the players you mentioned score anyway. What's wrong with using tournament performance as a benchmark?

    Anonymous (above),

    Thanks for the Li Tian example. I am not unaware of that. I am not talking about Li Tian who started with a relatively high rating. He is able to gain that many points because of his high K-factor. I am talking about players who have played enough such that their K-factor has fallen to a relatively low level.

    Using myself as an example is always an iffy issue. Anyhow, I understand why my rating is not going up. Plus, I don't care much for my rating anyways. I am just trying to point out how players who have played a long time (started at 1200) compared with someone who managed to start at 1600. It takes quite a while for the 1200 player to catch up. I do not have a real example, which I apologize for. I hope you can understand what I mean when I talk about the difference in K-factor. Maybe at some point in the future I will find some time to write in depth about this. Please be patient with me.

  15. BTW, IM-elect Ronnie Lim just recently beat Mok AND achieved an IM norm. I don't see him being called up to represent Malaysia. Would anyone like to volunteer to call Ronnie up to check if he was contacted to play for Malaysia?


  16. Chess Ninja,

    National Rating K-factor works differently from Elo K-factor.

    For the former, you will hv a K-factor of 40 if your rating 1000 to 1399, K-30 if 1400 to 1799, K-25 if 1800 to 2099, and so on. I used Li Tian is to show that he still able to climb 224 pts despite having a low K-factor as compare with players below 1800. Let say, Li Tian one day fall back to below 1800, then his K-factor will be revert back to 30, this make him easier to climb. Hence, the 1200 guy can easily climb his rating with K-40 in Malaysia.

    As for the latter, your observation is true if you started off low rating because the K-factor will be lowered after you played X number of rated games. One good example is to use Li Tian elo. Despite his near 2400 performance, he can only climbed up to 2100++ in elo. Now, his performace is around mid 2200, it will be difficult for him to rise his elo. Well, here I can say he is under-rated in elo term.

  17. Thanks for the clarification. Not trying to poke holes but national rating also includes rapid games etc. Which is why I wouldn't say it is an ideal benchmark. But you know, to each his own. My opinion is only one tiny voice.

  18. Mrchessninja, we need to be realistic and to go along with Second Best Theory. It seems that notwithstanding the rojak tournaments being included, where players have both the national rating and that of FIDE the numbers do move quite in tandem. And the issue of these 1700s juniors not meeting the higher rated players should not arise at all - what I mean is if the fella can be among the top ranks and sort of stay there in many other tournament ( not flash in the pan thing,or in some unimportant/isolated tournaments) that will give the player a favourable consideration,right?
    BTW I consider Li Tian, Capel, Zhuo Ren or Edward has broken the 'junior' crutch held so dearly by this Ramon and his small band of 'counterpart" which I wont name for now.

    The Challenger

  19. The Challenger,

    Agree with you in priciple. But I don't get what's your second best theory. You seem to be suggesting that the ratings will correlate with their tournament performance. My question to you is, why don't you just use the tournament results in the first place? Why must we wait to convert those into rating? Just use the tournament results!

  20. Whatever the shortcomings given the so many variables,thus the theory of second best, we do see the correlation.
    Solely using tournament results may also be arbitrary - which tournaments - local foreign and how many tournaments to consider? On the other hand rating is an acceptable yardstick

    The Challenger

  21. Chess Ninja,

    Do you know that this so called best system [tournament results] was used and abused by MCF back in the 80's, 90's, early 00's?

    May be you are not old enough to know how well some guys in MCF had abused the "Tournament results" system to choose who they like over the others for the few spots in representing the country?

    It always boil down to which specific tournaments to be considered having priority over the others?

    MCF did not advertise on the "deciding factor" events to the chess players but will decide on who to go based on cetain tournament results. I leave it to your imagination on why it was done that way.

    This method was used for 2 decades until the chess faternity start labelling MCF always shift their goal post when come to selection.

    The awareness from chess faternity is growing when CAS introduces the Selangor Rating List backed in 2002 to check on the so called abuses of selection. Two years later, MCF had decided to adopt the Selangor Rating as the National Rating.

    With the adoption, the rebirth of National Rating List begins. In the first 4 yrs of adoption, some high-level people within MCF gave so much resistency and run-down on the accuracy/important of National Rating. Why? Again, I leave it to your imagination on why they are doing it.

    Only in the last 3 yrs, our chess faternity begins to understand more about the Rating System and the pressure mounted from the faternity to start demanding MCF comes up with a proper guideline on selection and basis of selection.

    The National Rating begins to see some light for its existent to give a benchmarking gauge among the players.

    National Rating was fi

  22. I must take it as a compliment that you think I am so young. Perhaps you may have missed my previous posts, so I shall give you the benefit of the doubt.

    I already listed the tournaments to be used for selection and the exact selection criteria. I also listed the necessary ingredients in every competitive process.

    Forgive me if I do not repeat the whole thing as the comment field would be insufficient. If you wish to read more, you can visit the link here:



    P/S: I have not only seen the MCF selection mechanism, but experienced it first hand. I know what it is like.

  23. Actually I did read ur previous article in passing sometime ago. However, I feel that whatever you have listed still open to abuse.

    If you want to see one of the best model of transparency, feel free to visit SCF website. Whoever comes up with the SCF guidelines had put in some deep thinking to make the guidelines looks so perfect in term of transparency. Are you aware that it CAN be manipulated in a big way. Note that I have used CAN, instead of HAS (as per my S'porean friends passing remark)to avoid slanderous statement without proof.

    I'm just saying few chosen tournaments as a basis of selection still subject to many abuses.

  24. Perhaps you can share some of the same abuses possible and then we tackle it together? Enlighten my limited knowledge please.

  25. I think it is not good to give examples on SCF since it is none of our business.

    As for Malaysia, r u aware that one particular person always got to represent M'sia in many international tournaments although there are many other stronger players. What MCF did was 1. They will ask say top 4 (usually) to 8 players (at best) based on the FIDE rating list?

    2. When no one was interested, MCF will jumped to that person who ranked not even in top 20 by claiming that no other top players will be willing to go and this guy willing and he is deserving to go based on "certain local tournament" result.

    3. If wants to compare tournament result, there will be other players who ranked higher than him in term of elo rating and also done well in other important local tournament which is of no inferior based on public opinion. Unfortunately, these names were not mentioned for consideration. The question on which tournament have higher avrg elo will never arise when comes to weightage.

    Personally I heard this from MCF people, A who managed top 10 finishing in 2 tournaments will become the prefered choice over B who played only in 1 tournament (an event A joined too) but got a podium finishing. The reason --> We looked for consistency.

    Now, A always took part in all major events. Unfortunately, B, C, D, E and etc can played only one of those events due to work commitment but finished in podium standing will still lose-out to A who always top 10. Well B, C, D, E are people who ranked between 8th and 20th place in elo rating.