Lesson in 2012

 
Amongst all the things that I learnt while blogging in 2012, this particular lesson stood out:

If you are truly capable, you do not need to put others down to make yourself look good

I think this lesson applies even in the corporate world that is filled with backstabbing and office politics. Sometimes, it is very tempting to criticize others so that we feel better about ourselves. I will not pretend to sit on a high horse because I sometimes do have such tendencies as well. But I try my best to avoid it. I find that the following guideline by Elaenor Roosevelt helps:

Great minds discuss ideas; 
Average minds discuss events; 
Small minds discuss people. 

I think we must strive as much as possible to practice the first line. I am sure that we can't go very wrong by associating ourselves with what great minds would do. Of course, inevitably, we will discuss events every so often. After all, if an event is not discussed, it is probably not even supposed to be called an event. But what I find to be the most important is that we should, at all cost, avoid discussing people. People rarely change. You can talk about them all day and all night, but they are who they are. It is counterproductive to discuss people. So, in an increasingly competitive environment globally, time is of the essence. It hardly pays to waste our time discussing people.

As another year passes, while we reminisce about how fast time flies, I hope that we take a moment to think about how better we could have used our time. Life is, indeed, short. I hope that you have had a year that is as fulfilling as mine and wish all of you the best in your future endaevors.

Happy New Year!

Good At Chess?

We do not need a self-proclaimed mind-coach cum idiot to tell us that chess skills can be applied elsewhere successfully. This is a long-standing, well-known fact known for centuries as many a successful chess player have transitioned from chess into successes elsewhere. As an example read here (Good at Chess? A Hedge Fund May Want to Hire You). Here are some excerpts:

Boaz Weinstein’s opening move on Wall Street came as a result of chess.
Mr. Weinstein, now a star hedge fund manager, was trying to get a summer job at Goldman Sachs in 1991, when he was just 18. After being told there was nothing available, he stopped in a bathroom on the way out and ran into David F. Delucia, then the head of corporate bond trading. 

Mr. Delucia, who is ranked as an expert by the United States Chess Federation, had played Mr. Weinstein, ranked as a master by the federation, many times. He arranged for a series of interviews until Mr. Weinstein got an internship on a Goldman trading desk.

Mr. Weinstein is not alone among Wall Streeters who have a chess connection. 

...

Chess helps in trading, Mr. Weinstein said. To become a good chess player, he learned to focus on how he made decisions because he could not calculate the results of all his possible moves. Learning to deal with that uncertainty or risk has been useful. When you make an investment, “you can have an 80 percent chance of being right. And then the 20 percent comes up,” he said. “But really it is the process that you used to make the decision.”

But being skilled at games is no guarantee of success. James E. Cayne, the former chief executive of Bear Stearns, which collapsed in March 2008, is a world-class bridge player who has won many international bridge tournaments.

...

Still, the idea that gaming skills may be adaptable to investing spurred a hiring program in the early 1990s at Bankers Trust. At the time, the bank had a successful trader named Norman Weinstein (no relation to Boaz Weinstein), who had earned the title of international master from the World Chess Federation. In an effort to replicate his success, the bank hired a small group of people who had little or no trading experience, but were world-class chess and bridge players.

David Norwood, a World Chess Federation grandmaster (the highest ranking a player can obtain), was one of the recruits. “I was studying history at Oxford,” Mr. Norwood said. “Right out of the blue, I got contacted by Bankers Trust who said, ‘You would really make a good trader.’ I had no idea what trading was.”

Mr. Norwood took the job and was soon put on a trading desk, but it was too sudden. “It was like being stuffed into a world-class chess match without knowing the moves,” Mr. Norwood said. He quit after only a few months.

Despite the setback, Mr. Norwood said the experience “kind of planted a seed in me.” After a year, he found a job at Duncan Lawrie, a British private bank, and began learning trading and investing. In 2008, at the age of 40, he retired a multimillionaire.

How To Become A Grandmaster?

If you expected a list of steps here to become a GM, then clearly you will be disappointed. There is not and never has been a shortcut to becoming a GM.

Here is a reminder on what I wrote about the 1st step to being a GM.

You just need to ask yourself this:

1. Do I want to become a GM?
2. How badly do I want it?
We want many things in life. We want to have friends, we want to have fun, we want to watch TV, we want a good family, we want a nice car, we want a nice house, we want a comfortable job, we want we want.

But all we have is 24 hours a day. Everyone has that same amount of time per day. With so many things that we want, how do you expect to divide that 24 hours? What do you want to achieve in life? That is the fundamental question.

Deep down inside, if you know that you do not want to become a GM, then you should not even try because a half-hearted attempt will only waste your time.

Becoming world-class in anything requires a lot of hard work. No doubt you cannot do it alone, but if you want something badly enough, you can make it happen. Whatever it takes. You need to make sacrifices. Watch less TV. Spend less on the things you don't need. Channel more resources to your chess development. More time, more money etc. You may even have to take time off your occupation. I have talked about Praveen Thipsay before. More recently, even Goh Weiming is taking time off his work to focus on getting his GM. Being a married man, this kind of decision must surely have not come easy.

The main ingredient towards becoming a GM is most definitely desire. You will never achieve it if you do not want it badly enough. It is not going to fall on your lap. You can sit around and wait for your "coach" to teach you enough things to become a GM. You can sit around and wait for some company or other to sponsor your efforts. As we have seen, sponsors and coaches and money are not what makes a GM. Ask Mas to give you an honest answer. Why did he not become a GM? He had all the backing in the world. More than many of us have ever had.

Stop blaming the environment. Look at yourself. Do you really want to become a Grandmaster?

1st Step to GM

By now, I am sure that everyone is tired of reading about how to become GM by mere rhetorics:

1. Chess is about decision-making (No kidding)
2. Chess is a mental sport, so we must free the mind (Wow, spoken like a true expert)
3. Chess requires analyzing opponents (And we didn't know that?)
4. Think on it
5. No, seriously, think on it
6. Think on it again

I could go on all day. As I said before in a previous post (Why First GM is Stupid), getting the whole country to want a GM is a stupid idea. It is a very Mahathirist frame of mind, where the success of one person can represent the success of everyone. It is like saying, America has Steve Jobs, or Bill Gates, we should all be happy, because America Boleh (Or in Obama's words, Yes, We Can (although he was speaking in a totally different context)). In Malaysia, we always want things like the tallest buildings, sending people to space, climbing Mount Everest, and in the chess scene, a GM.

As I asked before, what use is a GM in Malaysia if the chess environment doesn't improve? In Singapore, for many years after Wong Meng Kong attained his GM title, chess in Singapore was relatively stagnant. It is only recently (last 10 years or so?) when they started opening up their borders to chess talents that the level of chess exploded from the doldrums.

Anyway, I digress. The main issue I want to talk about is simple. The first step to becoming a GM starts from yourself. If you start expecting the chess federation or whoever to support you in your efforts to become a GM, then it will remain a dream forever. The two REAL questions (as opposed to useless rhetorics) that you must ask yourself are:

1. Do I want to become a GM?
2. How badly do I want it?

I think if you ask yourself these two questions daily, and provide yourself with honest answers, you can accurately assesss how close you are to become a GM. The second question is probably the one that is the most important. How badly do you want it?

Of course, asking yourselves questions is never enough. The above questions are guiding principles. In fact, they apply to everything we do. Success is achieved through personal motivation. We don't expect our bosses to give us a high-paying job, but we work to deserve it, because we want it. And how hard we work depends on how badly we want it. Simple as that. For some of us, we want big cars, big houses, comfortable lives etc. We slog day and night for it. Why do we do that? Now, imagine yourself wanting to become a GM as much as you want a big house, or a big car. Are you willing to give all that up?

We don't expect our spouses or children to automatically love us. The same goes for chess. We should not expect anything from the MCF or whatever F there is.

The question is simply how badly do you want it?

Why First GM is Stupid

I have been planning to write such an article for a while, but there was a serious lack of motivation on my part. For some strange reason, (actually, not so strange when you think about it), certain parties are obsessed about getting Malaysia's first GM by hook or by crook. What do we really get from a first GM?

1. Inspiration/Idol

Arguably, getting a GM in our country may inspire the younger generation to pursue the same dream. I even remember the days when the juniors aspire to be an IM like Jimmy Liew. With or without the crutches of the MCF, we did manage to get several IMs, but for the most part, it was through the personal efforts of the individual players.

Let us take a look at other sports. Many people say we need more "Nicol David"s or "Lee Chong Wei"s to inspire more juniors. Has that really happened? Other than Nicol, there are not many strong squash players around. I saw some potential in the Low sisters (Low Wee Wern and Low Wee Nee), who are also from Penang. But is this truly a product of inspiration from Nicol? Who else besides them? Don't you think that after being World No.1 for 3 years, it would already garner enough attention and publicity to create more champions?

What about badminton? Badminton is of a very different nature because even before the arrival of Lee Chong Wei, Malaysia was already a very prominent country in the sport. Those of you who are more senior will remember Eddy Choong, Tan Aik Huang, Ng Boon Bee, and the likes. The younger ones will remember the 1992 Thomas Cup win in Stadium Negara. All this happened before the arrival of Lee Chong Wei. You may ask, was Lee Chong Wei inspired by our past champions? Maybe. Look at China. They have player after player who are just as competitive.

But the real question is, why can't we be inspired by Champions of other countries? Yeah, they may not be Malaysians, but that does not mean they do not have qualities that we can emulate. In fact, some of them have to face much tougher obstacles than the ones in Malaysia.

So, I don't buy this hogwash about having an idol to inspire other Malaysians. We have idols all over the world and if you choose to close your minds to them, it is your own loss.

2. Something to be proud of

This is an even bigger bullshit than No.1. Many people preach the spirit of Malaysia Boleh when we see other Malaysians perform well in the international stage. I'd like to go back to the examples of Nicol and Chong Wei. If we take a hard and honest look at their achievements, we should be asking ourselves, is it really "Malaysia Boleh" or "Sendiri Boleh"? What has Malaysia done for those two in helping them achieve what they have today? The only thing Malaysia has given the both of them that is noteworthy is the biggest insult (my personal opinion), that is, by calling them Datuk. Why in the world would a decent young woman want to be called "Datuk" (Grandfather)? Lee Chong Wei is not even 30 years of age and he too, is being labelled a grandfather.

Another joke about this is that we as Malaysians, like to claim other people's success as our own. Nicol and Chong Wei's achievements are their own. We may have cheered them on in the stadium, or in front of our TV screens, but that is the extent of our achievements in squash and badminton. We have done NOTHING, and hence have NOTHING to be proud of. They are not products of the Malaysian system. They are the products of their very own hard work and dedication. This is the message that I hear Nicol David preach every morning on radio (Fly FM or Hitz FM or something).

Claiming to be proud of the success of one person is like claiming that Malaysia has the tallest twin towers in the world? What is the big deal? What good has it done for anyone? We want the biggest this, the longest that, the first this and that, all for the sake of ego-boosting. Look at Dubai. It boasts the tallest building in the world, but it almost went bankrupt trying to achieve that feat. Are we as individuals so devoid of personal achievements that we need to go out of our way to feel proud of someone else's achievements?

3. What is wrong with importing a GM?

Very often, we look over to our neighbour, Singapore, and mock them for importing GMs to fill their roster. Let me pose this question, can Malaysia even attract a GM to play for Malaysia if it wanted to? Why not? Are we too poor to pay for a GM? Maybe, maybe not. If we look at it deeper again, we will understand that Singapore (good or bad), has a system that attracts talent. This is not only in chess, but in all areas in Singapore (in sports, in the workplace etc). Why don't you ask, why do the GMs want to play for Singapore so willingly, that they are willing to foresake their own country? Is it purely because of money? Or is it because Singapore recognizes their talent?

Let us consider a hypothetical situation. In fact, this is as real as it gets. As we all know, Malaysia is suffering from severe brain drain. Our best minds are leaving us for greener pastures. It is not just the money, but the quality of life, the  recognition etc. Now, who is to say, if we do end up getting our first GM or super GM after years of struggle, that he/she won't just move to another country to play for that particular country? It happens everywhere, even to Super GMs. Sergey Karjakin now plays for Russia instead of his home country, Ukraine. Gata Kamsky plays for the US, Boris Gelfand plays for Israel. So there is nothing wrong if Zhang Zhong plays for Singapore. It happens. So what's going to stop Malaysia's first GM from NOT playing for Malaysia?

So, we come back to the point of attracting foreign GMs to play for Malaysia. If we have the culture and environment to attract foreign GMs, then only we have the capability to keep our very own GM, if he/she ever comes by. If not, who is to say that the GM won't leave Malaysia? Brain drain is a reality. Singapore has foreign GMs and those GMs have helped their locals to improve.

This is like the story of Proton. We insist on having our own national car (like having our own first GM), but at what cost? Just like we pushed so hard for Mas to become a GM, but he has failed, just like Proton has.

Look at our neighbour, Thailand. They do not have their own national car manufacturer. But Thailand is the 3rd largest car exporter in Asia (if I am not mistaken, only behind Japan and Korea). How many cars does Malaysia export? Thailand has a robust and resilient automobile manufacturing industry thanks to its liberal economy. Conversely, Malaysians are all suffering because we have to pay huge import and excise duties for purchasing foreign cars to subsidize Proton. Otherwise, you have to buy the low quality Proton cars. Thank god for Perodua (which intelligently collaborated with Daihatsu). Do we not see this similarity in the chess scene in Malaysia? Are we going to keep focusing on subsidizing one or two people (with potential) to become a GM at the cost of everyone else?

Whether it is Yeap Eng Chiam, or Yeoh Li Tian, or Teh De Zen, or Tan Li Ting or whoever the next top junior is, the goal should not be to focus on individuals. The goal should be to focus on creating a culture that promotes excellence, and recognizes achievement. That is of utmost importance. If talents and achievements are duely recognized without bias, I can assure you that the GM will come automatically. We don't have to subsidize them.

In short, this goal of striving so hard to get a first GM is utterly stupid. We need the right environment to grow a GM and so far, I have not seen anything close. Hopefully, I will be proven wrong someday.

P/S: The strong language and provocative tone in this post is intentional. You Malaysians need to wake up and smell the coffee. I am open for debate on this subject and feel free to post in the comments section. As always, only vulgarities will not be tolerated.

There Is More to Chess Training

After scouring the Malaysian chess blogosphere, it is hard to ignore the fact that the only consistent "source" for chess training tips comes from someone who does not play chess. Unfortunately, THIS does not count as chess training tips (Sorry Jimmy). But thankfully, the internet is a vast resource, and that is why I am able to share the following articles by IM Goh Weiming here:

1. This article mostly contains analyses of Weiming's own games and his thought processes during the tournament. The more subtle pointers included the weight that Weiming places on opening preparation. I am afraid I am not qualified to assess the strength of Weiming's play, but I think it is clear that he puts in a great deal of effort in opening preparation, not just prior to the tournament, but as a whole.

2. The second article, although classified as a book review, shows that training and preparation goes far beyond opening preparation. Many of us revel in the fact that we keep ourselves up to date with the latest novelties, but how many of us truly understand chess openings? A strong player would be able to play any opening based on understanding alone (Mok is one such example) but this is by no means discarding the importance of opening preparation. My point is that openings are not everything, and there is no one-size-fits-all approach to this. One of the most foresaken part of training among players (based on anecdotal evidence) is in analysis. The main reason for this is that Malaysia has way too many rapid tournaments. To be "successful" in Malaysian chess simply does not require strong analytical skills. If I may be so bold, I would say it requires strong cheapo skills, and a lot of experience in time management (among other things).

So, the above articles are for those of you who are more serious in improving your chess. Be warned that it is unlikely to improve your results in rapid chess significantly, but it could help you in tournaments like the Malaysian Open or the KL Open. Of course, the key takeaway is not just in the contents of the articles, but in the methods of training.

P/S: It took me quite a while to go through the two articles in their entirety and even then, I still don't think I have fully benefitted from them. But then again, it could be due to my weak chess skills.

Get Paid to Play?

Jimmy said something about how some senior players should be paid appearance fees to play. There may be some merit to that, but I must say that I can't agree with such additional broad-based preferential treatment. There is already the incentive where FIDE rated players are given free entry, and also how the top 8 players being eligible to represent the country. On top of that, there is also the prize money offered. Granted, it is not much, but since when do chess players in Malaysia feel like they are entitled to high prize monies?

Jimmy is right to say that there is too much to lose, and too little to gain. Nonetheless, being a strong believer of the incentive-based system, I also doubt that urging seniors to do some "national service" will do the trick.

However, I think paying appearance fees for the IMs to play would not be a bad idea. I must say that I am utterly disappointed that both Mas and Mok were given automatic spots to play. It is not that I feel they are not qualified to play for Malaysia, but "forcing" them to play for their spot would certainly encourage a more competitive culture in Malaysian chess. In fact, any of the IMs that we have are welcome.

I just don't think that NMs should be paid, despite the fact that some of them are actually hard-earned. Perhaps the defending champion can be paid an appearance fee, but most certainly not all the past NMs. Please rethink the incentive system so that all players would know what behavior is rewarded and what behavior is "punished". Incentives should be exclusive and be performance-based.

More Chess Training

More of IM Goh's selfless sharing.

For those of you who are preparing hard for the National Closed in studying your openings and what not, perhaps you can take a break and look at something fresh.

Practice some calculation and determination. It just might come in handy during the National Closed.

A Good Chess Player

In the spirit of the upcoming NAG and National Closed, just thought I'd like to share some words of inspiration in hopes that we will all do better than our best.

Not sure about you guys, but back when I was in my prime (not that it was that great), almost every player strove hard to be one up on each other in terms of resources. This is not only limited to chess books, the latest novelties, etc. Having the latest ideas in chess was not only a fashion, but it was an incredible advantage. This is of course not limited to openings only. But it is a start.

Nonetheless, I would like to draw your attention to chess databases. Any chess player who aspired to be someone in the chess scene knew where to find new chess games. Off the top of my head, one of my favorite sites was TWIC. I had updated my database weekly back then. If you wanted games of anyone important, they would be there, as long as they played in a tournament of note.

While I think it may be OK to share our resources in the spirit of the greater good, I think it should not come down to a culture of begging. If you have the moxy to play good chess, or at least the smallest inkling to try, then you should be ready to put in the extra effort to amass your own resources.

Being a good chess player is not only being able to play well on the board. Kasparov (and probably Sun Tzu) will tell you that half (at least) of the battle is already won at home.

I find it shameful when we have to rely on others for links, or for material or books or any kind of assistance provided by others to improve ourselves. In short, a good chess player must be resourceful. Stop holding onto your crutches and try to walk on your own. Hard work is only the beginning.

Nothing Else Better To Do

In economics, we learn about this idea of specialization and comparative advantage. For those of you who are unfamiliar, the above two ideas stem from real world occurences where a group of people (labor) can produce more when they are "assigned" to tasks that they do best as a part of a production chain.

This idea was implemented on a massive scale when Henry Ford used it to mass manufacture cars for the first time which completely revolutionized manufacturing. I leave it to you to read more about it here.

So, why bring this up?

This brings us to FGM's latest hoo-hah. Let us see what he said (about me):

(I have decided not to link his blog because he has shown the tendency to edit the things that he has said and twist his meaning later. So I am just going to paste what he said here. The comments in parentheses are mine)

First let me explain what was/is going on at Chess Ninja's site. He first appeared on my site as a new blogger. In the beginning he was all out against Hamid. We had a long discussion on that. Then he urged me to use my influence on MCF. I told him I didnt have anymore than the next person and asked him to present his own ideas like everyone else. Then he started talking about selection criteria and challenged me to state mine. (Up until this part, it is not too far from the truth that I need to challenge it.) And of course it all went down hill after that. (Now, you can ask why this is so. How did this first go downhill? FGM decided to start his name-calling (remember poisonous snake?) and went berserk and attacked pretty much anyone who disagreed with him.) He just needs to attack something or someone.

(Any 12 year-old can tell you that this statement is ludicrous. Do I sound like someone who has nothing else better to do than to attack someone for the sake of attacking them? For someone who tries to sound intelligent and claims to be intelligent (aka a man of reason), Raymond shows very little reasoning power.

Why do I have the need to attack you? You are self-deteriorating into kingdom come. You are fighting invisible demons. No one is in kahoots to get you. I have not mentioned a single thing about you for the past week and now you decide to drag me into the mud with you. Perhaps you are the one who has nothing better to do.)

Here is the next paragraph:

So what is the point? The point is us talking about the details of the selection criteria now is a waste of time. We are not MCF and so we must know our role. I have said that we can urge MCF to come up with written criteria. If that happens we will have something we never had before. That is step 1. From there the criteria can only improve. But getting dragged into the details of something that doesnt exist yet is just a diversion. Coffee shop talk. They talk like they are MCF when they are not. So the focus should be on step 1. Get something written first. Then step 2. Improve on it. In that order of move.

This brings us back to the part where I talked about specialization and comparative advantage. You are right. We must know our role. What I do best is to discuss ideas and to provide a space to everyone to express their views and opinions. I do not believe in censorship because I respect my readers' intelligence. They have the responsibility and intellect to discern right from wrong. Why belittle their intelligence?

Plus, if you read the newspaper, especially financial newspapers like the Financial Times or the Wall Street Journal, you will see numerous economists giving their opinions and ideas on what policies to implement to curb the financial crisis. You might as well say the same thing about them. Why are these economists pretending to be lawmakers? They have no power to implement any policies. So are they wasting their time? Do they spend their time writing in to the government about every single small idea that they have? My role is to share ideas and to provide whatever little insight I have from my experience in chess.

Once again, I have my share of ideas and I am more than willing to contribute them. But I am not the least bit interested in the politics of chess. I have had my share of dealings with the MCF and I think it is safe to say that I am more than happy to let someone else who has the energy to deal with them to actually do it. I would rather focus my energy on what I am good at. I am exercizing my comparative advantage.

If you claim to be so great at finding sponsors, then continue exercizing your comparative advantage. What you suck at, is obviously communicating your ideas. It is always easy to blame the whole world when everyone disagrees with you. Perhaps you can find it within you to examine yourself for just one second. What if the problem really lies with you? I guess you will never allow yourself to think that way, because you would consider that imagining your fears. Practice what you preach. Be self-aware.

I leave you with some hopefully inspiring quotes:

"If you are standing upright, then you do not have to worry that your shadow might be crooked"

"If you think you are too big for small things, then you are too small for big things"

"Effort is not how much you speak for your work, but how much your work speaks for you"

My Formal Offer - Be A Man

Raymond Siew, I know you will read this.

Let me be the "bigger man" and offer this to you.

If you stop writing about things you don't even begin to comprehend, such as the motives of other bloggers and stop referring to other blogs and accusing them of untrue things (fear and what not) and keep on writing about what you think are ideas to help improve chess, then there will be no need for me to demonstrate the absurdity of your comments.

As you said, your motivation is not to compare yourself with other bloggers and as such, you should not have to comment on the bloggers themselves. Stick to commenting on ideas. At least that is what you claim to do best.

I am more than happy to fight ideas with ideas as I have shown time and again. I have no reason to make this a personal battle. So, if you have any great concrete ideas, bring it on! If you keep trying to fan the hate by targeting the personalities of others, you will only stand to lose out in the long run.

Be a man.

Full (Almost) Analysis of Senior vs Junior

(Edit: moved this post up to the top, since some fools have been complaining about the lack of counter proposals. Everything mentioned below is based on reasoning and argued with logic. There is no personal attack here. There is no personal vendetta. There are no threats of police report. There are and have been no slanderous remarks. This is pure logical argument that is not taken out of context by some idiots who love to focus on name-calling and labelling others to shoot down their ideas. There is no bullying in the Chess Ninja's website. Everyone is free to post comments here. Everyone even has the right to vote!!)

Since it is the in-thing these days to weigh in on the senior vs junior issue for a place in the Olympiad, I will attempt to apply an ounce of my critical ability to explain why such an idea is not useful.

1. In an already very divided chess environment, categorizing players as "juniors" and "seniors" are extremely divisive. There will be questions that need to be answered, such as, when does a player stop becoming a junior and move on to be a senior? Who gets to determine who are the junior players and who are qualified to be considered senior players? It is a fact that chess is not a game where seniority determines ones abilities. This is clearly seen with the World No. 1 being Magnus Carlsen, aged 20, and the World Champion, Vishy Anand, aged 41, more than double Carlsen's age. Vassily Ivanchuk, turning 42 this March, is easily one of the most active chess players in the World Top 10. His "old age" does not seem to be slowing him down.

So why divide our players into 2 camps? This would be akin to establishing a caste system which appears to be granting special privileges to elite groups. It would give the impression that "junior" players will stay as "junior" players for many years to come. How does one move from a beginner to "junior" player status? Can a player move into "senior" player status without ever being a "junior"? The question of social mobility then comes up.

2. This brings me to the second point. Such an event is at best, like a Gladiator fight in the Colosseum. Extremely exciting to watch, great entertainment, but serves almost no purpose otherwise. It totally takes away the spirit of meritocracy, especially when used for a selection. Organizing such an event to "prove a point", albeit a non-existent one, does not help chess at all, but divides the chess scene. Chess playing abilities are exhibited by consistent results, NOT one's fighting ability.

Just like football winners are determined by the team that scores the most goals. You can have a hardworking team that chases the ball all over the whole field without any real coordination and skill, but clearly that is a poor reflection of what competitiveness means. Competitiveness is much more than just fighting spirit on the board. It is just as much a fight off the board. What the juniors lack these days is the hard work off the board. Without consistent hard work, regardless of whatever system you use to select players, ANYONE will always be inferior. To bring the Gladiator analogy a little further, it would be like rounding up a group of peasants, throwing them into the Colosseum against an organized Roman army. Having a 3-5 day training camp isn't going to turn peasants into soldiers. Every player who wants to become strong has to hone his/her skills on a consistent basis.

3. I have and will always be against using one tournament as a basis for selection. In the past, I have already suggested the use of the National Closed, KL Open, Selangor Open, Penang Open, Malaysia Open etc as tournaments for selection. This would be an equivalent of the badminton's Super Series. The finer details would be the criteria to use. One suggestion would be to take the average score of players who play in at least 3 of the listed tournaments. Anyone who plays less than 3 of those tournaments automatically disqualifies himself from selection.

In ANY competition (or selection), there are 3 things that must be very clear.

(A) The Reward. This is easy enough. The reward is a place to represent Malaysia in the Olympiad.

(B) Rules. The selection criteria has to be very clear and transparent. What I suggested above is such a criteria. Of course I have yet to add in tie-breakers, but that can be arranged and be made clear. EVERY participant who wishes to represent Malaysia must have a clear idea on what behavior is "rewarded" and what behavior is "punished". Until today, I don't even know what is the actual selection criteria after playing chess for more than 20 years. One of my favorite descriptions is Ilham's comments on the 3-2-1 criteria (3 juniors, 2 seniors, 1 tourist).

(C) Referee. This is by far the most important requirement in ANY competition. Without an objective referee, the contest would fail. We need referees (and selection committees) who enforce the set rules and not change them every year or as and when they please. Any football fan can tell you the frustration of watching a football match with a biased referee. There should be minimal discretion in such matters UNTIL the MCF has regained its credibility. Then maybe we can consider something else.

The simple question I have is, why can't we use a merit-based system? What is wrong with using a circuit of tournaments to select players based on results and consistency?

Kasparov on Carlsen

Below is an excerpt of an interview with Kasparov on Magnus Carlsen. Earlier, I criticized Seng Sun for distorting Magnus' comments on quitting the World Championship Cycle. But I disagreed with Magnus' choice to quit it.

I suppose, my take on the issue may not have a lot of weight, but it would be safe to say Kasparov's take on the matter does count for something. He has more or less said the same thing that I did about Magnus' poor attitude. Of course, he has greater insights on Magnus' poor work ethics considering that he did work with him very closely.

Once again, I wish to stress that attitude is one of the most important factors to chess improvement. Even Magnus needs to work hard. What more our juniors? In fact, they would probably have to work twice or three times as hard just to catch up. So when I hear this talk about getting seniors to coach juniors and what not, it is again the entitlement attitude. The juniors must first demonstrate that they are hardworking enough just to keep up with the level of the senior players. Not just by the fact that they have "fighting spirit". Chess is more than just fighting spirit. Merely the evidence that despite all that fight in the juniors, they find it hard to keep up in terms of level of play shows that the foundation that they have is lacking. This is mainly caused by the lack of hardwork that was found in what some people call "seniors".

Granted, the seniors may not be fighting as hard as they should, but they did at one point in their lives worked their asses off just to get to where they are. I don't even see that in most of the juniors today. What good is fighting spirit without effort in preparation and training?

Anyhow, here is the interview:

Kasparov says that Magnus Carlsen's decision not to participate in the current World Championship cycle is the wrong decision. "At his age and with his development he should fight – on the board." When asked whether he understood the motives of his former charge Kasparov said:

    "He is right to criticize the system as unfair. FIDE has created chaos in the whole cycle. I myself do not like the way the Candidates matches are going to be played, without a pause between the quarter-finals, the semi-finals and the finals. Magnus would still be the favourite, but there will be greater physical and psychological aspects that play a role, a certain element of luck. But I think his criticism of the system is an excuse. He seems to feel uncomfortable taking on such a serious challenge."

So what did Kasparov think when he first heard that Magnus was withdrawing?

    "I wasn't surprised. Already at our training camp in Marrakech a year ago he sidestepped the subject when I discussed his lack of experience in match play. I advised him to play a training match against a world class grandmaster who is not amongst the world championship candidates."

When he led the world rankings Kasparov used to lose an average of one game per year, the newspaper says. In the last three months Carlsen lost seven. What is the reason for that?

    "He does not work as hard as he should. That is my only explanation. Working means to be constantly occupied by a subject, to keep your wits sharp and active. The way he lost against Anand in London was terrible. He should also have lost against Kramnik. The fact that he won the tournament in spite of this shows that he can do better. He is phenomenal at the board. And if he can work hard enough he will dominate chess."

Kasparov says he cannot imagine coaching Carlsen again.

    "He is his own master, he is in the process of becoming an adult. He needs time to think about his future. Everything seems to go his way, but the competition is not sleeping. A year ago he dominated chess, but that is no longer the case. If he had worked hard he could have broken my record of 2851 Elo points. That would have produced great headlines for chess and for him. A player of his talent and medial attraction – the first western player to reach the top of the world rankings since Fischer – would be great for chess. For that he has to prove his dominance incessantly. But he is no longer succeeding in that, and that is not enough to stay in the headlines and to catch the interest of people who are normally not involved in chess. Magnus is twenty. At that age one has to fight. It strengthens character to absorb set-backs and take on difficult challenges. Avoiding them is self-defeating."

More Chess Training - by IM Goh Weiming

I hope that all of you will take this rare opportunity to "look into" how an IM thinks. This may just be one of many possible ways but it most certainly offers some insights to what kind of level of thinking is required of an IM. This is the kind of thing that I hope the Malaysian IMs (or FMs and such) can and will share with the rest of us (patzers). It would be most insightful and I can say for sure that it would be greatly appreciated.

Read here for the insightful article.

How to Train in Chess?

Read here.VERY CAREFULLY.

Above is an exceptionally interesting link that logs one of the training session that IM Goh Weiming from Singapore had with his teammate, IM-elect Timothy Chan. This interestingly coincides with the rubbish that I have read from First GM who kept talking about preparation like he knows how to play chess. If you are sick of going round and round in circles in First GM's site, please visit some other more productive sites. I highly recommend www.singaporechessnews.com for chess players of all standards.

Anyhow, I hope to highlight a few points about their training even though the IM-level players from Singapore did mention that even they themselves were not sure if the training method that they used was effective or not. The two most important elements that I noticed about their training is their attitude and mindset. First, they did not sit back and hope to obtain coaching or help from "superior" players. Granted, they are IM-level players. But this is the kind of mindset that they had since they were young (I suppose we can still consider Timothy young). They were willing to work on their own games through spending time on the chess board instead of waiting for chess officials to spoon feed the players. This is called determination. This is the fightting spirit that Malaysians lack. This is what allows battles to be won even before they are fought.

Second, they were willing to work together without fear of letting the other person know about their own strengths and weaknesses. This is in contrast with the attitudes that many Malaysian chess players have who dare not share their ideas and thoughts with their peers so that they can stay ahead of the other players. This is very shameful because it impedes the players' own growths. They do not realize that if their opponents get better, it will automatically push themselves to work harder and become better chess players. Weiming and Timothy were willing to cooperate to come up with stronger ideas together. I am willing to bet that both of them learnt far more than what Weiming could express in words on the site. In all my encounters with Weiming, I've always felt that he is a gracious person who is willing to share as long as you are also willing to do your fair share of work. The fact that he wrote his thoughts on the training session is another evidence of this fact.

Garry Kasparov @ Google

One of the main reasons I like Kasparov is that he is always so frank when he offers his opinions on simply any issue. He does not feel the need to hide his thoughts and says it like it is. The video below offers some very fresh and deep insights on how a chess player can think, which is why I am sharing it with all of you. A fair warning to all of you but the video is more than one hour long. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did.

Teamwork Cultivation

Replying to Anonymous.

You have pretty much hit it spot on. No doubt about it. The competitive spirit was what kept Penang chess strong. However, it was lost when the MSSM was taken away. The rivalry between CLHS and PFS lost a bit of meaning then, added on with the possible conflict of interest arising from Jonathan Chuah being in PFS while his father was the teacher adviser for CLHS.

When I say lack of structure, what it really means is that, although there was a strong culture of senior-junior mentorship, it was not a formal program as it basically relied on the seniors' prerogative to train the juniors. This culture was great back in the early 1990s when the seniors took the initiative to pass on their "knowledge" so to speak, but at some point, this competitive spirit moved to the individual level. PFS players stopped sharing with other PFS players, CLHS players stopped working together for fear of losing out to their own teammates. That was why there were no real strong chess players after Jonathan Chuah, until much later when Victor Hong and Evan Capel came along. Even then, these are just lone players who were not products of the mentorship culture, so they could not pass that along.

This was a unique culture in Penang but its lack of organization led to its demise. It is one thing to reminisce about the good old days, but we must also be open to why Penang is being overtaken by the Klang Valley. I, for one, do not agree that it is the amount of chess coaches or GMs that the KL people can pull in. You are most certainly right that the teamwork can create the synergy needed to achieve more as a group, be it among peers or rivals. But how do we achieve that once again?

The Culture of Success

Anonymous asked about what success would entail.

From the choices you listed, the answer would be all of them, and none of them. As strange as it may seem to you, Malaysia as a country has always committed the mistakes of having "absolute" goals. When you set targets like, having a GM, becoming a top ASEAN country, having X number of chilren play chess, etc., you are making a mistake of being myopic. Why? Simple, because once you achieve them, the question is, what next? Everything will stop there. You have to create new goals and so on and so forth. You may ask, what is wrong with that? The problem with these goals is that, they are very superficial and can be attained through artificial means. We do not just want to achieve quantitative achievements, but quality ones as well. Let me explain.

If your target is to get a GM, it can be obtained through many ways, some good and some bad. For example, in some way, Malaysia has made this mistake. They threw a lot of money on just one player in hopes that he becomes a GM, which he failed. This means that all the resources have been wasted. Compare this to implementing an incentive-based system where every player who reaches 2400 in rating is given RM2,000 travel allowance for each tournament, and players with 2500 in rating will get full sponsorships in tournaments. This kind of system creates a more competitive environment to fish out a GM. This is not to say, I agree with you that getting a GM can be considered a success. My point is this: You can set goals, but how you get there is at least as important as where you want to go. The quality of success is important. Compare the 2 methods above. The first method, if that chosen player fails to get his GM, then all the money would have been wasted. In the second method, the incentive-based sponsorship will at least create a chess environment that is full of strong players even if we fail to find a GM.

That's why to me, I consider Malaysian chess a success when we can implement a system that encourages sustainable improvement. So the goals that we set should be goals on periodical improvements, rather than absolute goals. For example, the target is to add fifty 2200 rated players a year, twenty 2300 rated players a year, and five 2400 rated players a year. This way, when we can achieve these goals we provide a strong sustainable base for success. If you can add more and more strong players every year, the pyramid will build itself. You will keep pushing the strongest players upwards. Of course, this has to be combined with a merit-based system where the best player is rewarded the most. There is no room for cronyism. This is the kind of system that can ensure long term and sustainable success. All the other goals like being the best in ASEAN, getting a first GM, etc etc etc will come automatically. You don't even have to worry about it.

However, the caveat is this. It is not what I think that matters. What I proposed above is just one idea. The important takeaway from this is that our goals must build on the quality of our success.

That is why, if you look at the Singapore Budget 2010, the Singaporean government has targeted a productivity growth of 1.5% per year for the next 10 years. Then you compare with Malaysia's Budget 2011. Malaysia only knows how to target an income per capita level of USD16,000 by 2020. The important way to get there is to through productivity gains, but Malaysia is on its way down the downward spiral by trying to implement mega-projects all over again. This difference will be even more distinct in the next 5-10 years. Singapore's ingenious leaders have long understood the importance in the quality of its economic growth. Malaysia is only interested in the quantity of growth. If you want to increase GDP by RM12 billion, it is easy. Just build a crooked bridge to Jawa, no matter how useless the bridge is.

Remember, it is the quality of your growth that counts.