Monday, August 1, 2011

False Assumptions Lead to False Conclusions

Sometimes, some of the stuff that comes out of "recognized" and "endorsed" mind coaches makes the logician in me cringe. Well, you can almost believe that he thinks he is God/Jesus because he can make something out of nothing. Or he thinks he can.

Here is an example:
Note: The Malaysian Open and private tournaments are not the best determinants. I think the best tournament to find the strongest junior is the National Junior since all the juniors will be fighting one another in that one tournament. 
The assumption made is that the Malaysian Open and private tournaments are not the best determinants of strength. The most glaring question is, on what basis is this true? Was there any justification at all? How strong are the justifications? How clueless does one have to be to believe that?

This is amazing because, when you make false assumptions, you will most likely end up with false conclusions. If the Malaysian Open is a poor determinant, and Li Tian performs well at the Malaysian Open, it just means nothing because you already assumed the tournament is a poor determinant in the first place.

That is equivalent to assuming:

1+1 = 3

Therefore, 2+2 = (1+1) + (1+1) = 3+3 =  6.Yes, 2+2 = 6.

Yup, that is how ridiculous it is.

And the next assumption is, the National Juniors is the best determinant. On what basis? It is because it is just juniors vs juniors? This is the typical Malaysian jaguh kampung mentality that I have been against since Day 1. The world is really bigger than you. This is like saying it does not matter that Lee Chong Wei is World No.1 in badminton. If he lost in the Malaysian Closed or whatever tournament it is among Malaysians, then Lee Chong Wei is not the best player in Malaysia. No, it doesn't matter if he is World No.1. He lost among juniors, so he is not the strongest junior. How thick does your skull have to be to make this kind of illogical argument?

Has it ever occured to you that Mark can ONLY do well against juniors? (This is a question) Has it ever occured that being "strong" requires one to play well not ONLY against juniors, but also against everyone else who knows how to play chess? So what if you are the strongest junior? If you keep living in that world of juniors, then you will always BE in that world of juniors. That is the jaguh kampung mentality. You keep praising yourself for being the champion of the village. Ignore the outside world.

Personally, I think I should request for the endorsement criteria of a mind coach. There is no written criteria for being a mind coach by the MCF. How does MCF select its mind coaches? Why the double standards? Why does MCF have selection criteria for chess players but no call for selection criteria for mind coaches? Maybe I want to throw my name into the hat for mind coach selection. Our mind coach does not seem to be capable of thinking logically. This is scary. Without logic, 2+2 can be 6.


  1. No written selection criteria for mind coaches? double standards?

  2. Is Raymond Siew a qualified mind-coach, whatever that is? What is his qualification? Just going back to basics....

  3. He mentioned he worked in a developer company and as an optician. Nothing else. Self-taught I would venture.

  4. Not all juniors played in NationalJuniors. Players like Edward and Evan never played as there are already National Masters. Eng Cheam and Tariq Amru did not take part after being National Juniors champions. Many strong players from other state do not play becuase it is always in KL. Therefore , you can claim to be a National Junior Champion but not the No 1 National Junior player. The one with highest FIDE rating can claim the title.

    That is also why MAS did not win this year's National Closed but is still Malaysia No 1.

  5. Now Raymond Siew is hinting IM Mok is not a match for the juniors. Anyone agrees with him?

  6. "Mind Coach" isn't a real job. Google it and you'll see.

    I claim to have a PhD in talking cock. MSc in bullshitology too.

  7. The Malaysian Closed which determines who becomes the next NM and Malaysian Champion has always been dominated by school-boys who are barely in their teens. From Choo Min Wang (first) to Lim Zuo Ren (latest)with Christie Hon (FM), Peter Long (FM), Lim Yee Weng (IM) Mok Tze Meng (IM) and Jimmy Liew (IM), etc. etc. in between, ... all won the title of NM in their early years. This is peculiar to Malaysian chess and IMHO the junior championship is not worth its weight in sand. Anyone who wants to be recognised as top junior should go for the national championship, so stop trying to go for the junior title and be boastful with a placing there.

  8. Peter, Mok, Jimmy were not in their teens when they won. Neither was Yeoh Chin Seng, Kamalariffin, Mohd. Kamal and others.

  9. True. Those were the exception. Peter was 21 when he won. Young but no longer teen. Jimmy was 26. Mok was 24. You got those right.

    Mohd Kamal Abdullah was 18 when he won the National Closed in 1988.

    Kamal Ariffin was 17. Christi Hon was 16.

    Please get your facts straight. All still teenagers!

    Other teen National Champions -->
    LZR,Capel, Edward, Zarul,Marcus Chan, Nicholas Chan, Zi Jing, Ronnie, Tze Han, Jonathan Chuah, Ng Ee Vern, Lim Yee Weng, Mas, Lee Soi Hock, and others.

  10. I think also Chan Swee Loon, Goh Yoon Wah, Tay Chong Thai.

    The oldest was probably Tan Bian Huat in the mid 1970's. Not even Christie and Jimmy could stop him. He came and went like the wind, without a trace.

    Nevertheless, those were young National champions of Malaysia, and not just Junior champion. So what is the glory of a second placing in the National Junior?

  11. Christi Hon and Tay Chong Thai were not teenagers when they won. Christi should be around twenty at the time.

  12. Er... Marcus Chan was 21 when he won. Wong Zi Jing was 20 when he won.

    Everyone forgot about Tan Khai Boon? Or is he not recognised? LOL...