Saturday, January 29, 2011

So Much Hot Air

If you guys have not seen Siew Fai's comment on Jimmy's blog, you probably managed to save about 15 minutes of your life, depending on how fast you can read.

For those of you who are lazy or who are too busy to care what Siew Fai is talking about, let me try to summarize it in a few sentences.

1. Siew Fai does not know how to spell "George Bush".

2. Siew Fai's favorite past time is to sit on the fence (regardless of how painful that is).

3. Siew Fai thinks that he is doing "god's work" (with no offence to any religion) because he has a RM2 million sponsorship just waiting to be splashed upon all chess players like holy water (Read: All of you should listen to Siew Fai because if not, you will never see that RM2 million sponsorship). "Take heed or you shall perish in the name of chess!"

4. Siew Fai thinks he is better than anyone of us because of his negotiations with an arbitrary amount of sponsorship with several zeroes behind it. He has the audacity to insinuate that the Stonemaster may or may not have the RM1 million sponsorship that the Stonemaster is bragging about, using phrases like "no reason to challenge him for validity or being a doubting Thomas-time will tell whether it is true or false".

Whether or not the Stonemaster has a sponsor ready and waiting is the Stonemaster's business to shout about. There was absolutely no reason to bring it in unless you wanted "create doubt". You don't have to be so pretentious in your self-promoting and self-advertizing. We get it. Siew Fai is the chess saviour.

Siew Fai, you have done nothing more than promote yourself and riding along the comment page of chess blogs. At least Raymond has his own blog. I have several suggestions of ways to promote yourself.

1. Create YOUR OWN blog
2. Make a giant billboard with Jackie Chan's face on it and put it beside yours like for Kaspersky
3. Take out a full-page newspaper advertisement (you can include Jackie Chan or Lee Chong Wei as well)
4. Make a TV advertisement
5. Make a radio advertisement

If you need more advice, I suggest you contact a professional PR firm because currently, you have done nothing but paint a very ugly picture of yourself. All we have been hearing is you blowing hot air and more hot air about how much sponsorship you are getting. It's already getting really hot with global warming and all.

If you are truly doing this for the good of chess, why not go ahead and just do it because you don't need to create a name for yourself while you're at it. Report back once everything has been signed, then you will AUTOMATICALLY be a hero.

Otherwise, you have officially lowered yourself to the level of the Stonemaster. Because honestly, only time will tell whether what you say is true or not. We have no reason to question the validity of your statements.

P/S: Try to learn how to write in a clear and concise manner in neat paragraphs. No one likes to read a lengthy, incoherent, poorly paragraphed post. Clearly you have demonstrated your ability to use line breaks in your romantic poem to Raymond Siew. How about you promote yourself in your own blog?

Thursday, January 27, 2011

More Noise and Gibberish

The issue of a fair selection has been dwelled upon ever since I started playing chess more than 20 years ago.

Who is fighting against a fair selection? I wrote a proposal for a fair selection here.

I then repeated it here.

The vile and poisonous snake that Raymond Siew is trying to sway you into believing that the people who are against his stupidity is actually against fair selection. We have always proposed a fair selection. Even Rationality has always been in full support of a fair selection. His criticism of the current way of the MCF selection is here.

This all started when Raymond proposed a Junior vs Senior event (or some other parent proposed to him) which serves no purpose at all except to prove a useless point. Then when he realized that no one really cares for that, he switched camps and started shouting about a fair selection  and discarded the "Junior vs Senior" shout when that was what Rationality and I were talking about. He just decided to start shouting so that he would be counted, or thought to be relevant. Who is detracting from the real issue?

Raymond is fighting an imaginary invisble demon. Good luck with that. I hope that he wins. No one has spoken against a fair selection. He created this imaginary demon who is against fair selection and has started to throw stones at it. Oh wait, the MCF is against fair selection (for now). No one is even detracting from the real issue but Raymond himself. Do you see his cheap tricks? He tries to discredit every other person not in agreement with him and then tries to steal their ideas.

The best part is, he is very sneaky. He quotes an imaginary IT guy (OK, maybe he is real), and says that the poll CAN be fixed. But of course, he is so sneaky that he doesn't specifically spell it out that I have fixed the poll. Do you notice that?

He just suggests and implies and twists and twists so that you THINK I fixed the poll. So you see, he doesn't specifically claim that I am cheating, or else he may be liable for libel. Because in this way, he does not have to prove that I have cheated. Just to let you think that I did. Wow... you cannot believe the vile of this poisonous snake.

Wait, he does not stop there. Now, he wants you to believe that because polls can be fixed, I am against fair selections. Did you just do a double-take there? Yes!! He tried to make you believe that because the poll has the possibility of being rigged, therefore I am against fair selection.

The poll asked if Raymond had a case against some group of bloggers. It had nothing to do with the selection at all. This is how powerful Raymond's uncanny ability of "joining the dots". He can join the dots from the possibility of rigging a poll to other people trying to distract you from a fair selection.

Yes, we all know you want to feel special, Raymond. I am sorry for you. There is no "one person" who is so free to pretend that he is many people and trying to go against you.

In actual fact, it really is the case that the whole world is out to get you. Because you and your deviousness know it. One person can sign up for many fake accounts with names and start making comments. Will that be your next excuse when people start to comment with their real names?

Stop being so conceited and wake up. The world is out to get you.

Is the World Out to Get You?

Read here.

Maybe the world is really out to get you.

The Whole World is Out to Get You

Ever get that feeling that the whole world is out to get you? Is it really happening to you? Or are you imagining it? How conceited does one have to be to believe that the more the world is out to get you, the more correct you are?

Wednesday, January 26, 2011

Jokes of 2011

I am fairly certain that this will go down as one of the better jokes of 2011.

Click here.

Tuesday, January 25, 2011

What is the Real Issue?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monday, January 24, 2011

Poll Results

Here are the final results for the poll. This will probably be the final thing I have to say on the matter. I seriously doubt there is any rigging in the polls, considering most people do not clear their caches these days. That would be the only way of voting multiple times (I think). Or if you have multiple computers.

Nonetheless, the results are clear. 'Nuff said.

A Chess Federation That Does Its Job

Read here.

Here is a national chess federation that openly accuses its players (including a GM and an IM) of cheating during the Olympiad. I sure hope they have proof on such matters, or else they may be slapped with a case of libel. Oh, in that case, I might even be implicated for "promoting" this story.

On another note, I was just curious about some accusations with regards to PICA and match-fixing. I wonder if PICA is able to sue someone for blatantly accusing them for match-fixing when he is unable to prove it, given there is no crosstable.

Yet, he is allowed to accuse people openly without proof. I believe it is the accuser that has to furnish the proof of guilt, rather than the accused to show proof of innocence. Perhaps this could be slander/libel as well?

Food for thought.

Sunday, January 23, 2011

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.

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. 

Thursday, January 20, 2011

He Who Must Have the Last Word

He Who Must Have the Last Word must think he was very clever in linking watchdogs to rabid. For starters, it has been repeated for about 2,543 times that no emotions have been involved since I started this blog. I write with proof, and logical argument. On many occassions, I even painstakingly collect data to prove my point. Unlike He Who Must Have the Last Word's blog, there is no data. Plain rhetoric with no proof of argument, and only stops short of guaranteeing that the idea would work. 

Personally, I resent such statements as:

"If you compare the seniors to their peers then we can see that the gap is very large. I do not see the possibility of them ever closing that gap. In fact the gap is widening further as time go by. The window of opportunity is now closed for them. So lets move on."
No doubt the gap is widening. It is not and has never been the fact that the seniors lack the ability or drive to perform. As He Who Must Have the Last Word has mentioned before, ANYONE can find the drive and motivation within them. The only problem I see is that the senior players have grown lethargic of the system. Many of these people have fought the system and some have come close to succeeding. So much time and effort have been spent to fight this unmeritocratic system. So little time have been spent on chess. By the time they realize it, their best years are behind them. Or are they?

Let me just share an example with you. For those of you who were more active back in the day, you would remember GM Praveen Thipsay. When I met him in 1993, he was only an IM. Back then, he was already aged 34. Some would even consider him being past his prime. When he was a junior, he was just as promising as any other junior. In 1993, India only had 2 GMs. The first is of course Anand (obtained in 1987), and the second, Dibyendu Barua (obtained in 1991).

Against all odds, Praveen Thipsay took a sabbatical from his job and focused entirely on chess. He subsequently achieved his third GM norm at the end of 1997 to become India's third Grandmaster at the relatively ripe age of 38. By the way, he also did not have the kind of sponsorship that was offered to certain parties as if it was their birth right.

So, to hear someone say that the window of opportunity has closed on "senior" players is most definitely jumping the gun. What we need is a system that promotes success and recognizes effort and talent. There is no need to divide chess players by age. If I could, I would even venture to divide chess players by "hardworking" and "lazy". But that is another story for another day.

On another note, connecting too many dots too fast has always been the habit of He Who Must Have the Last Word. Labelling other people is also one of his favorite past times. Name calling is also second nature to him. First, it is poisonous snakes. Then, vigilantes. I can't wait for what's next.

Everyone hates to be made to look weak. Everyone hates to have their mistakes pointed out to them. Yes, I do that a lot. But is that THE ONLY thing I do just like He Who Must Have the Last Word claims? I would care to venture that without my sharing of IM Goh Weiming's articles, he would not even know it existed. Do I not praise Weiming's work and efforts?

Does He Who Must Have the Last Word know of my working efforts with other juniors in the chess arena? It is because of that, I MUST remain anonymous. It is still too early to expose the juniors I work with to the dirty politics that exists in chess.

Calling out mistakes is not what the Chess Ninja is about. It is about calling a spade, a spade. Some people, for some strange reason, cannot see a spade for what it really is. That is why I need to show them with brutal honesty. It has never EVER been emotional for me. Some people just take it too personally when they can't stand the heat. If you can't take the heat, don't play with fire. It has never ever been personal for me either. It is when He Who Must Have the Last Word begins his name-calling to dismiss other people's ideas that I would have to defend myself. If He Who Must Have the Last Word can show some respect for others without calling them names, maybe more people would actually listen to him.

Wednesday, January 19, 2011

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?

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.

Tuesday, January 18, 2011

For the Record

Not that this does anything much, but since I saved the evidence in anticipation of what actually did happen, I am just going to post this anyway.

Initially, Raymond Siew made an accusation that I had lied with this paragraph:

"Rationality, Chess Ninja and IM Jimmy Liew. You now have to back your accusations with proof. Don't try to twist this around. Your lies are going to be exposed. Deleting your postings is not going to help."

I replied to his comment. You can still see that in his post. Now, view the picture below for his reply and my counter-reply.

He has deleted my counter-reply as you can clearly see from the post right now.

He has added the following three sentences to twist the context:

"Rather it is an admission of guilt. By now huddling together this further shows complicity. Check with your lawyers." 
Plus, my request for evidence was merely out of good faith. If possible, I would not take this to the next level. If he can prove that I have lied, I will gladly admit it. But then again, if he could do it, he would already have done so. Now, he is twisting his words to say that I have promoted Rationality's "lies".

I am going to repeat my post here so that you can be the judge on whether I have done what he claims I did.

No "Like" Button

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

Raymond has now twisted his words to say that I have to furnish evidence on the "accusations that I promoted". Now, leaving Rationality aside, I want to see Raymond prove that I have promoted any accusation or lies. AT BEST, I have encouraged more people to read what Rationality wrote.

Now, does that mean that I have to verify the truth in every single article that I read before I can share them? Or else, I would be promoting lies. How scary is that? This act of stupidity has completely destroyed whatever remnants of reputation Raymond thinks he has left. You think you can bully other people into bending over backwards for you?

And you guys, beware. Those of you who have clicked the "Yes" button below Rationality's posts are also vulnerable now. You are next! Because you are also promoting his lies by showing support. You lend credibility to his argument by "Agreeing". In fact, I am not even sure if you don't click "No", maybe you are all also guilty of supporting Rationality. Global disaster is looming.

Of course, this post appears to be only defending me. I guess you can even consider that if I tried to defend either Jimmy or Rationality, Raymond will then accuse us of "huddling together" and "showing complicity". So of course at the moment, it would appear that I have tried to dissociate myself with Rationality and what not. You are free to make your own assumptions.

If you are devious enough, you may even deduce that this is all part of Raymond's evil strategy. He could be intentionally accusing all three of us in a lame attempt to "divide and conquer". Maybe he even hopes that Jimmy and I dump Rationality and discredit him to distance ourselves from his "lies". Well, all I can say is that, initially, I had shared the article so that more people can read what he wrote. Currently, Raymond is doing the job for me. He is directing all the attention to what Rationality wrote. Oh no, does that mean you are also promoting his "lies"? Oh... this is getting too complicated. I am getting a headache.

Now, we all know who to thank for destroying Malaysian chess. Until then, please keep the votes coming in.

P/S: I don't care how many calls you received from chess lovers to get rid of Rationality. At the time of posting this, 20 out of 24 people think you have no case. Does that even mean anything? If it means nothing to you, then clearly, the number of calls you receive mean nothing. Stop blowing air into the wind.

Case Poll - Please Vote

The time of reckoning has come. Raymond Siew has finally resorted to threats. I have posted a poll on the right side of my blog. To allow everyone the chance to participate in this huge drama that Raymond is going to make it out to be, I am going to allow everyone until the end of this week (11.59 p.m. Sunday, 23 Jan 2011) to vote on whether Raymond has a case against any of the accused.

Comments from lawyers are more than welcome. My apologies in advance because I am unable to pay for your services. These days, ninjas do not get paid a lot. I hope you understand.

I feel so confused now because I don't know if I should really feel scared, or maybe I should imagine that I am scared. I can't decide. Perhaps your polls can help me.

I suppose I should add that either Raymond thinks that you readers are stupid, because you will believe anything you read, or he is trying to shut anyone who is against him up. If he is sure of his own explanation in handling his business, then there is no need to worry if any other viewpoint may "damage" his non-existent reputation.

Anyhow, I look forward to your votes!! Please remember to exercize your right to vote!

Monday, January 17, 2011

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."

No "Like" Button

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:


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