Laughing Stock

When you do a bad parody, the joke will be on you. Here is one example of a bad parody. And below is my reply to it.

I am sure your second class attempt at humor is appreciated by all. You have completely missed my sarcasm in pointing out that Hamid is a Grandmaster and that WE are playing blindfolded. When I said WE, I meant everyone in the chess community who has refused to see or ignored the facts.

An impersonation is good only when it accurately portrays the character that is being impersonated. While I have singled out Hamid, I have also talked about the culture of meritocracy and competitiveness that is crucial to chess development. The reason I singled out Hamid is because I have identified the root of the problem. Have you? You are just asking us to try this and that until we succeed.

I have provided the simplest and easily, the fairest solution of all. MERITOCRACY. I have talked about this again and again. Your ignorance and closed mind has shut out my main point. Why don't you ask Greg to implement a fully meritocratic solution, since you talk to him so much? Maybe you can help me pass along this message to him?

Is it REALLY so hard to reward your players based on their results? ALL OF YOU must be so stumped. If you select players for international tournaments through chess results, not only do you get all the strong players to participate in these tournaments, but you give everyone a chance to succeed. 2 things will be achieved from this.

1. You get a wider base of strong players because now, your culture has allowed "ANYONE and EVERYONE" the chance to succeed.

2. You get a larger incentive for the top-tier players to improve. Because now, they MUST stay ahead of the pack, lest they do not qualify to represent Malaysia.

This is a win-win scenario. But meritocracy is hampered by vested interests who hold key positions, i.e. people who call the shots. I find it disturbing that Greg has offered a 4th placed player from ONE single tournament a spot to represent Malaysia. Firstly, everyone knows that usually, the 4th placing is inaccurate as it is typically determined by tie-break, which is subject to luck quite often (via pairing, Bucholz etc). Secondly, the result of 4th placing was just from 1 tournament, despite it being the Nationals. So if a player is first in MSSM (which is arguably a much stronger tournament), consistently performing well in other local tournaments, but was pushed to 5th place by tie-break in the National Age-Group, he would have been excluded from a place to represent Malaysia. That is why, we need to fix a group of tournaments and make it public so that all potential players will have a fair go at it. The most consistent player should be selected to represent Malaysia. Why is this so hard?

People who perform well at many tournaments are not being selected to represent Malaysia. The selection criteria changes EVERY YEAR. Why don't you think about things carefully and FIX a criteria and PROMISE to use it for the next 3 years. Allow people to succeed within a proper system. I guarantee you, Malaysian chess will see success within 3-5 years.

The reason all the strong players have "failed" as you pointed out, is that they were not allowed to succeed. Most of them just moved on to greener pastures which frankly, makes more sense.

So Raymond, I would appreciate it if you can just change "Hamid" to "lack of meritocracy" as the culprit. If this ONE simple thing cannot be implemented, then there is no hope for Malaysian chess, regardless of how many millions in sponsorship you can acquire. Try this ONE thing. Please, I beg you. Let the chess results speak for themselves.