A Crash Course on How To Argue Better

This post is dedicated to people who have no idea on how to argue their viewpoints properly. Needless to say, this is in reference to the mass "dumbass comments" (as Eddy calls them) that were left on his blog.

I generally agree with Eddy's views on discourse. To have a proper debate, we must first have respect. Use logical and sound arguments to make your point. If you start asking rhetorical questions like FGM, then it is no longer an argument. It is political spin. Also, it makes no sense to just simply assert your own viewpoint and then fold your arms and say "I am entitled to my own opinion". Yeah OK, last I checked, it's a relatively free country. But assertion without justification is the fastest way to prove that you are not very smart.

So here is the Idiot's Guide on How to Make Better Arguments:

1. State your assumptions and assertion

2. Explain your assertions based on your assumptions

3. Give examples to support your assertions

4. State conclusion

5. Check whether your arguments make sense


Of all the steps above, No. 5 is the hardest to do. Steps 1 to 4 are probably taught to you when you were in primary school. Of course you do not have to do it in numerical order, but these are the bare necessities of any cogent argument. But often, we get lazy and just jump from assertion to conclusion, without even checking whether it makes sense. I must admit that I am one of those people sometimes, but I try very hard to avoid it.

The most useful way that I found to check whether your arguments make sense is the "5 Whys". This is one of the underlying techniques of Toyota's kaizen philosophy, which brought it to great heights. As an aside, Toyota seems to have lost its way, but that is not the focus of today's topic.

Let me use Ronnie's arguments as an example:

Assertion:

In fact, I would claim that despite the fact that an 11-year old Yeap Eng Chiam or an 11-year old Fong Yit San is likely to beat an 11-year old Yee Weng, Zi Jing, Ee Vern or Jonathan, the tables are turned as they are older.

Explanation:

Yes, I do believe that a 15-year-old Yee Weng (already two-time national champion), Zi Jing, Ee Vern or Jonathan (already a national champion at 13) is probably able to beat a 15-year-old Eng Chiam or Yit San. And even more surely, an 18-year old Yee Weng, Zi Jing, Ee Vern, Jonathan, Nicholas or Tze Han (all already national champions by then except Zi Jing who only won it at 20 years old) would in all likelihood win an 18-year old Eng Chiam or Yit San. Even an 18-year-old Anas might not stand a chance.

Examples to justify:

To go further, the 20-year old Yee Weng, Zi Jing, Jonathan, Nicholas, Marcus and Tze Han were National Champions (except Marcus who won it at 21), mostly rated around 2200 plus, performed strongly in local tournaments, represented Malaysia internationally (with some good perfomances) and have beaten FMs and IMs internationally. Some of course improved further, getting their IM titles in their twenties while some basically stopped playing.

Conclusion:

I hope you get my point. What I'm trying to say is that the OVERALL achievements of these players before they reached 20 were unparalleled by juniors in the years after (I'm pretty sure in the years before too).

The point here is not to discuss whether Ronnie's arguments are true or not. But this is just to show how a good, strong, logical argument is made. Hopefully, future discussions will be more productive and that some idiots would also have learnt a thing or two in making logical arguments. 

Stupid People

Being The Best

Here is the Best on making mistakes:

The Beginning Of The End

My apologies to those of you who are getting sick of this strawman issue. I am going to settle this once and for all. Ever wonder where this assertion of everyone trying to attack FGM's ASEAN initiative comes from?

"They attack anything new. Even a training program for our Junior's before International Tournament."

Let us take a step back in time. It all began with Rationality's allegedly "slanderous" post:

Read here:


And then a few days later, Jimmy had a post that shared the link to Rationality's post:

I pretty much resolved that I will no longer respond to Mr Siew's postings - unless he starts to malign me again or attacking those things that I care about. One of this was when he said that there was a thrown game by one of the Malaysians in the last olympiad.

Rationality beat me to it here. He pretty much said all I wanted to say - its uncanny how my thoughts and feelings match up with him. I do wondor if he is my Jekyll. Come to think of it, I did go to bed very early last night...

Read carefully. It says "pretty much", not "everything". So, first of all, Jimmy agrees with MOST of what Rationality had to say, but not ALL. So there is no real reference to the ASEAN initiative. Secondly, Jimmy made an initial reference to the "thrown game" in his first paragraph, which was what he was actually probably referencing to in Rationality's post:

It's so nice of you to only implicitly make a reference to me in your post with your attempt of (humourous? I hope not) irony attached to it, but anyway, the only thing I have to add is; it's not my fault that you used the wrong word. "Throwing a game" implies a deliberate action. The miscommunication caused is not due to an incorrect interpretation on my part, but by your use of such condemning phrases, ironically, "out of context". But fine. Let's forget this. Maybe it is my fault that you didn't know what it meant to "throw a game", since you obviously don't. So okay, maybe I'm sorry.

Now, then on the same day, I shared the post:

There are two things that are missing on Rationality's blog currently. First, there has to be a "Like" button on your blog. How else are readers going to "Like" it when you write something that makes sense?

Secondly, you should also enable sharing so that users can also "repost" and share your posts.

Since I am unable to do both of the above, I suppose the best I can do is to link it:

PLEASE READ THIS !!!

P/S: You should probably allow comments as well.

Yeah, all I did was recommend a link. I did not even say if I agree or disagree with what he said. I did not even say that what he said was true or not. So where is the attack on the ASEAN initiative by Jimmy and me?

Now, for the BIG FINALE.

Check out this post. In case he deletes it, I am going to quote him here:

Good video by Jimmy
Here.

............ blablabla...... the rest you can read it from his link. Not important. So I won't waste your time with it.

Yes! He does the same type of recommendation. He even said "Good video by Jimmy". Then he gives you the link. So, by his standards, does he mean to say that EVERYTHING in the video is true? If you have not watched the video, then you really should. Because Raymond condones it, that means everything inside the video is true. It means he supports every single message in the video. Because that is exactly what he thinks when Jimmy and I recommended a link on our blogs.

Now, do you TRULY see where the "attack" BY JIMMY AND FRIENDS on the ASEAN Initiative and Air Asia and whoever the heck else is from? Who is the BIG FAT STRAWMAN here?

Oh by the way, in the first place, it is on the onus of the accuser to prove guilt. Never the onus of the defendent to prove innocence. So, stop calling for frivolous investigations unless you have even a single shred of evidence. Using coffee shop talk as a basis for investigation is time-wasting, inefficient, and plain STUPID.

If you hear "stories" from parents, it is your initiative to question the parent on WHERE DID THEY GET THEIR STORY FROM? Not cry to your daddy (MCF/Greg) every time someone says something is amiss. Oh by the way, the only person who is telling the MCF to do anything, is Raymond Siew:

"Investigate this, investigate that"

He doesn't think it is telling the MCF to do anything. It is only a request. A request is UNLIKE many of the suggestions that I make. Because suggestions are equivalent to asking MCF to do something.

"For some reason Jimmy and friends think that they own chess and they also own MCF. So they keep telling MCF what they should do or not do."

Show one instance that anyone has asked MCF to do anything. Also, if Jimmy and friends OWN MCF, they DON'T need to tell MCF what they SHOULD do. If I own something, I will just make it do what I want. I don't actually need to make suggestions. If I own my car, I will drive it wherever I please. If I own my house, I can rent it to whoever I want. So anyone with half a pea brain will know that Jimmy and friends do not own MCF and has never thought so. What is wrong with making a few suggestions? Is it so different from your requests? How about, think of those suggestions as "requests to try an idea". What does it sound like now?

Raymond Siew, go back and learn some humility and live by your own standards.

By the way, I don't care if you dignify this or not. I write this FOR YOUR BENEFIT. If you choose not to listen, it is simply your loss.

Rating Inflation?

WARNING: Headache-inducing Math involved

For those of you who are ignoring the warning, read here.

Basically, it is a paper where two guys analyzed a large database of chess games move by move to determine chess players' "intrinsic rating" and see if the "strength of their moves" have improved compared to rating levels in the past. In simple terms, they are testing to see if a 2700 player today is playing the same quality moves as a 2700 player 20 years ago. If the move qualities are the same, it shows that there is no rating inflation.

So what did they find?

A smooth correspondence is shown between statistical results and the century points on the Elo scale, and ratings are shown to have stayed quite constant over time. That is, there has been little or no ‘rating inflation’.

........

In the 1970’s there were only two players with ratings over 2700, namely Bobby Fischer and Anatoly Karpov, and there were years as late as 1981 when no one had a rating over 2700. In the past decade there have usually been thirty or more players with such ratings. Thus lack of inflation implies that those players are better than all but Fischer and Karpov were.

Note that they are using the strength of the moves of the chess players and not just results, which is probably a much more accurate measure of playing strength. I sincerely believe the study can be extended to using rating to predict playing strength. But as in all statistical studies, higher ratings will only increase the chances of winning. Playing strength is not absolute. As they say, "you win some, you lose some".

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.

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.

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"

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.

Imagined Imagined Fears - Redux

I suppose that only numbskulls would keep thinking in the same line of thought despite being told over and over again otherwise. That is why they will never progress. Only an idiot will assume that there is only one reason why anyone would use a pseudonym. It is because of fear. Or is it? Why should I be scared of anything? Am I scared of being wrong? Everything I have said is in public space. If I am so scared of being wrong, I might as well not share my ideas at all.

If anyone of you can prove that I am wrong with sound logic and reason, you have always been free to post comments in my blog. I pride myself in NOT DELETING any comments on this blog. That is more than what I can say for some people.

I will only censor vulgarities to maintain the civility and suitability for public consumption. If anyone of you have a valid point, you have always been welcome to post it here. As I have offered before, this space is just as much yours as it is mine. Unlike some closed-minded idiots who can't take criticisms and delete almost any other comment that has a valid argument against his, this space is always open for comments and ideas. 

Back to the point. Is fear the only reason for anonymity? Is your creativity so limited that you cannot think of any other reason? Why don't you try to use some of that highly publicized cognitive ability of yours to try to think of other possible reasons why some people prefer to remain anonymous? This is not a hate site. This is a calling a spade, a spade site. 

I am curious as to how can a non-chess player insist on "the right way" to improve one's chess skills. As I have asked before, would you ask your stock broker about real estate investment? Yes, you have courage. You can even have all the courage in the world by sticking your balls out to the public. But without demonstrating the ability to accept other ideas and by repeating what other people have said before, and even daring to make it sound like it is one of your own, well, the mere act of sticking your balls in public would only make you a flasher. 

Courage without substance would only make you look stupid. Think on that.

P/S: Only a few more hours to vote. 

Technical Demonstration

IM Goh Weiming strikes again with a great instructive game. What I like about Weiming is that regardless of whether he won or lost the game, he is always able to take an honest and objective look about the lessons to pick up. A true IM indeed.

Weiming's game against Richard shows the difference in understanding, as admitted by Weiming himself, and has nothing to do with "imagined fears". As I have said before, sometimes, "imagined fears" are merely imagined, resulting in "imagined imagined fears".

If you read the analysis and annotations of the game by Weiming, you may be able to gain some insight into some ideas of what understanding the position means. This is a purely technical concept. I would hardly expect a 12 year-old to even consider 5. ... Bxc3. The move is totally counter-intuitive superficially, but it nevertheless does not stray too far away from true hard principles of the opening.

Prophylactic Chess

Prophylactic thinking

Prophylactic chess is most certainly my favorite kind of chess. I simply enjoy containing the opponent and squeeze out a win in a most agonizingly painful process for the opponent. Weiming annotated the game in the link which has some really interesting ideas on what you can do if you "can't find a plan". All you need to do is to make it difficult for your opponent to execute his plan. This is especially useful in rapid games, but of course, applicable in any kind of chess.

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.

The Secret to Chess

In the spirit of sharing and reform, I have decided to work to add positive value to all readers and since I found something interesting, I will also put it here just in case some of you may have missed it. Below is a video which describes and exhibits a simple way of thinking in chess which I love to employ. Simple but effective. But since people may not consider someone with a name like The Chess Ninja to be a credible source, let me allow GM Maurice Ashley to share his invaluable opinion with you.

Openings: Theory and Practice

Although I first saw this article on FireyRook's site, I shall link the primary source to all of you in case you missed it. The article on openings was written by WGM Natalia Pogonina. She may not be the best female player around (we all know who that is), but she is still a WGM. If you wish to know more about Natalia, here is the wikipedia link.

This is how a professional thinks about an opening, as opposed to a mind coach who does not play chess.

In the article, you will find tips on how to study openings, what is the purpose of preparing openings and what are the factors that should influence one's choice of openings.

Hopefully, some of us can find this information more useful than others. Click here to check it out.

Of Real Estate and Chess

What does real estate have to do with chess? Almost nothing. In one of the books written by real estate investment guru, Robert Kiyosaki, it asked the blunt and rhetorical question, "Would you consult your stock broker when you want to invest in real estate?".

What does your stock broker really know about real estate? True, they can both be seen as investment vehicles, but they are totally different in nature and in form. Even the philosophy and analysis involved is completely different. Without going too far astray, I suppose many of you can already guess the point I am trying to make. While chess is a game that applies the mind, I would not consult a mind coach on chess. Just like I would NEVER consult a stock broker on real estate.

The mind coach sees that the only reason anyone disagrees with him is that they are scared. He speaks like God, the all-knowing, the omniscient, because he can see all the facts, and everyone else can't. Many readers have pointed out that I often criticize negatively without pointing out any positive contribution towards chess. I do not make suggestions to help people improve. As I have explained umpteen times, my purpose is to expose the frauds that exist in the chess arena. By hook or by crook, the evil forces shall perish. That is the only way chess can move forward in Malaysia. That is the way of the Ninja.

Nonetheless, in my effort to reform, I shall give my two cents worth about thinking in chess, just to satisfy my feeling of insecurity. Just in case people are starting to think that I do not talk about chess because I play less chess than Raymond Siew and an anteater combined. Maybe I am just imagining my fears.

John Wong has already dealt with what technical evaluation is and what not, so I will not go into further detail in that. He does have some really good book recommendations and if you're interested, do visit his site.

The mind coach suggests looking at the chess board with a still mind. What this means is to shut out emotion because it supposedly clouds your judgement. Is this really true? I am a huge advocate of winning via external forces. Of course, it is already a given that one's technical must first be strong. Using external forces include using things other than pure chess skills to gain the edge. I talked about this before. One can even use the playing hall environment to win. In a tight battle, every single bit of edge counts. Just like Sun Tzu would choose to fight a battle with the glare in his enemy's eyes.

But besides that, one can also use emotions to win the game. Even the mind coach himself has talked about this before. He talked about the importance of confidence. Is that not an emotion? A sure sign of someone who does not know what he is talking about is the high frequency of his contradictions. Confidence allows one to trust his judgement, which consequently allows one to follow through with his plans, even though he cannot see the end of his calculation. Some people attribute this to intuition.

Remember the Kasparov-Anand match in 1995? After Kasparov lost Game 9, he went berserk and channelled his "frustration/anger/revenge mode" into his chess and unleashed a novelty in Game 10 that shocked Anand to the core. Kasparov was even slamming the doors of the playing hall after making every move in a few seconds without thinking, just to mess with Anand's head. In fact, this affected Anand so badly that he did not recover in the match. Anand went on to lose Games 10, 11, 13, and 14. The match was over by then. In this case, Kasparov used emotions to his advantage. This goes on to show that whether you like it or not, emotions exist in the game of chess (among humans of course). It is up to us to use them to our advantage.

If you remove the emotional component from chess, then it is just like two computers playing. In fact, I can even argue that, if one can play his best chess by removing emotions, then chess must be dominated by computers. How then, can humans defeat computers? Some claim it is the human judgement. But where does this judgement come from? Most certainly, humans cannot outcalculate computers. Positional judgement arises from a human's ability to "feel" how good a particular position is. It is not something that one "sees" on the board. Maybe this is the antithesis to "imagined fears". It is "imagined courage". Seeing something that is not really there?

So, the takeaway from this post is that, emotions are very much a part of chess. Use it to your advantage. The Great Kasparov has shown that you can even control your opponent's emotions. That is a mark of a true strategist, something Sun Tzu would have been proud of.

P/S: Do not consult your stock broker about real estate. Also, it would be unwise to consult your real estate agent about stock investment.

A Good Joke

The greatest insult

Do you know that the greatest insult you can give someone is to tell them what to think? What is the underlying assumption? Why dont you just give them the facts and let them decide for themselves? Why do you need half truths, lies, rejection, innuendos etc? What does that say about you? 

What does that say about you, indeed. The greatest insult you can give out, is when you insult yourself. Expounding thoughts and ideas but refusing to accept criticism. Then call the critics liars. Then commit the very same crimes you so willingly accuse your critics of. Hypocrisy is the greatest insult to your own intelligence. Here is one example:

Chess is a game of immense beauty

And the beauty comes from its paradoxical nature. From the very fact that it has few variables it can display the tremendous creativity of its exponents. Some breath taking games are breath taking simply because of the ingenious solutions within those constraints (A fact? Half-truth? Innuendo? A battle of two personalities in a game of infinite possibilities has few variables?).

Chess is also a game of change because it very clearly demonstrates that the decision you make in the moment can have an astounding impact on the end result.

So the essence of the game itself refutes the arguments of the people who argues on the wrong side of nature vs nurture. The proponents of nature is blind to change (A fact? Half-truth? Innuendo? Nature doesn't change? Why must we only choose one? Why not part nature, part nurture? Best of both worlds?).

The beauty of chess is revealed when you can understand paradox; when you understand that its true nature is that it reveals who you are. There is not much technical and so the immense battle for the higher levels is the battle for the control of your mind (A fact? Half-truth? Innuendo? You must believe this, or else you are blind! Because it is a fact).

And so the real battle for excellence is the struggle not to be trumatised by the struggle itself. And so the need for clean competitions. And so the need for correct preparation.

The people who can only understand contradictions cannot see that. They cannot accept change and so they will deny the evidence even when it is presented directly in front of their eyes. And in doing so they will condemn themselves to staying stagnant and playing a low level of the game (You must think like this, or else you will always be blindfolded. This is what I am telling you to think).

This is self evident. This is demonstrated by chess. Look with a still mind and you will see (A fact? Half-truth? Innuendo?).

In case you all fail to notice, the two articles quoted above are from the same author. In one article, he condemns people for telling others what to think. Then in another, he tells people exactly what to think.

Why am I doing this? Well, as the title of the post suggests, it is purely for entertainment. You should not expect your chess to improve from reading this post. On the other hand, you MAY not worsen your chess skills by being selective with your reading. I suppose that is an improvement.