I Disrespectfully Disagree

First, as a disclaimer, I hate politics and politicians. Almost as much as I hate liars, but they are not mutually exclusive. What I cannot stand is another potshot from the light (as opposed to the dark). Whether it is a potshot from the dark or a potshot from the light is still a potshot. Just like it doesn't matter if a cat is black or white. A cat that catches mice is a good cat.

When I first read about the UMNO blogger, it felt like they took a page from Raymond Siew's playbook. Why? Let me highlight the similarities:

1. Use of the strawman
They use fake pictures just like Raymond creates false images of people he want to attack and then attack it. Then claim that they have defeated the strawman.


2. Defiant and refusal to apologize
Despite being caught with their pants down for using fake pictures, they still claim victory. Raymond has been caught with his pants down lying about the supposed deal struck with Zhuo Ren. Yet, no apology from him. Not even an admission that he was wrong.

3. Using children (juniors) as tools
This is self-explanatory. Creating stories about Zhuo Ren and the non-existent attacks. (Molesting?)

4. Stories of deal-making
The blogger alleged that Guan Eng offered a deal to the principal to cover up the story. Just like Raymond Siew alleged that the IMs offered Zhuo Ren a deal.


5. Lies exposed
The principal has come out to deny the lie, just like Zhuo Ren has come out to deny the lie. Yet, the Fuhrer has pretended that nothing of this sort has happened. Not a single mention.


So, is this UMNO blogging ordeal more similar to Raymond Siew, or more similar to Jimmy and friends (whoever they are)? Anyone who can add any more similarities to the list is welcome to do it :) Feel free to disagree with me, and support Raymond Siew. You can also do it anonymously in the comments section. I am a strong advocate of free speech.


P/S: I most certainly hope that Raymond has tried to offer some apology in private of some sort. I can't speak for the chess community, but I think the public deserves the truth. As for me, I can safely assume that the truth is more or less out.

Mind Coaching

I feel like I need to start taking this selection for "Mind Coach" for MCF more seriously. After all, I am a self-proclaimed master of mind games. I am a self-proclaimed manipulator, qualified logician, educated scientist with a broad knowledge base, an analyst, a strategist, and most importantly, a real chess player. I think all this makes me more qualified to be a mind coach than certain other mind coaches in Malaysia. Perhaps MCF should have a written selection criteria for that.

In any case, just read this article in the Star today. Yeah, it is not about chess, but about badminton. Rexy Mainaky is one of the better mind coaches of the game if I ever saw one. His comments about the players very often refers to the mindsets and attitudes of the players rather than their playing styles. This is not to say he does not focus on the technical skills. All of us should know who Rexy Mainaky is. World Champion, Olympic gold medalist, All-England Champion, need I say more?

What caught my attention, or at least, what I hope caught your attention was the following comment that he made about Mohd Zakry and Thien How's lost at the World Championships yesterday:

"Yes, I was disappointed with the way we lost.

“There were mistakes which should not have happened. They just did not want it as much as the coach, I guess,” said Rexy.

Yeah, that's right. The first criteria of being a champion. How badly do you want it?

Distortion Of Facts

The Elo system is one of the most accurate systems for ranking players across any kind of sport in the world. However, what it is not good for, just like ANY other system, is in its usage only at one particular point in time. Looking at someone's rating today, and then forget the past or close our eyes to the future will never show us the true picture of one's playing strength. To accurately gauge someone's playing strength, one has to observe his rating changes through a considerable amount of games played.

This is just like trying to gauge a player's strength based on ONE tournament alone. Winning the National Junior does not make you the strongest junior. So, being number two in National Junior does not make you the 2nd strongest junior in Malaysia. This is precisely because it is only one tournament.

This is like saying Greece winning the Euro 2004 shows that Greece is the best team in Europe.

Imagine looking at the performance of a company. Let's say the company had declining profits for 2 consecutive years. Would you say that the company is lousy without doing proper research? What if the company's profits were declining for 2 consecutive years because it was investing more in R&D. This would then increase its expenses which would then lower its profits. The R&D could pay off handsomely in 5 years time. Without looking at the details but only at results shows that you are a coffee shop speculator rather than a real investor.

This is the same in chess. Just looking at results to judge playing strength is for "coffee shop speculators". When you don't know how to play chess, this is the best you can do. Any strong chess observer knows that while IM Mok may not be at his peak in the last two years, he still has one of the deepest understandings on the board in Malaysia. Jimmy may often criticize Mok for his opening choice, but I think he will agree with what I said. Mok's playing strength comes from his positional understanding.

But anyhow, let us just verify some of the "facts" that were presented:

In the SEA games selection we saw an IM fall to almost all if not all the juniors. So FIDE ratings don't mean much.

What do the results show?

Granted, Mok had one of the worst tournaments since he was 17 (maybe). But did he fall to almost all the juniors? He did lose to Yit San and Sumant. The other juniors who were playing were Zhuo Ren, Jun Feng, an Yit Ho. Well, Mok did not beat any of them, but he most certainly did not fall to MOST of them. Losing to two out of five is not MOST by any standards.

But this is not the point. The point is, one tournament does not show anything. Strong consistent performance across many major tournaments will show playing strength. In due time, it will be recognized in the form of FIDE rating. But that requires a time lag and sufficient number of games before a player reaches his "true rating". Imagine a player who can play at 2400-2500 strength but currently has a rating of 2100. It will probably take about one to two years before that player can achieve his "true rating". However, in the mean time, you can probably start seeing his rating performance showing 2400+ in most of the tournaments. That is why I say consistent results will reflect a "truer" picture of playing strength. But over the longer term, the rating performance will eventually translate into actual ratings. It's just something we should all bear in mind and not become like some "coffee shop uncle" speculating on the stock market chess players' strengths.

P/S: Nobody has said that ratings should be used for selection. At least not this time around. Not yet. Don't let anyone Jedi Ass-Trick you into thinking so.

PP/S: I believe Mark has not beaten me before as well. That is a game I would like to see.

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.

On Kasparov

Just saw this quote on Kasparov. Awesome.

I thought I was playing the World Champion - not some 27-eyed monster who sees everything.  -  (on losing May 1986 match 5-1/2 - 1/2)  -  Tony Miles

More False Analogies - Simply Poor Logic

Najib has spoken.

In a particular paragraph, Najib asked:

Of course, the issue can be extended further - if the grudge is against the parents, why bar the children? If the the disagreement is against the tutor, why disallow the students?

I agree with the point in principle. However, the Romeo and Juliet example that Najib gave only weakened his argument: 

As the story goes, we all know that neither Romeo nor Juliet did anything wrong but because of the warring families, the children is branded the same as the family. And although Juliet father may have nothing against Romeo as a person, to him the family and Romeo are the same. So, if a parent saying that my child should not be banned because the issue is with me, then remember Romeo and Juliet....

Because of this poor example, it allowed You-Know-Who, who always has a ready "false analogy" in hand to counter back with his very own, well, false analogy:

However I disagree that the child should be punished for the parents "transgressions", perceived or otherwise. That goes against natural justice. In the good old days in China they used to kill off whole families and relatives. But eventually some sense of justice prevailed. Surely you wont agree to someone arresting your child for a crime you committed? I am talking about todays world of course.

First of all, the context in good old China is different. In the cultural context in good old China, killing the whole family is "okay". Maybe not in today's society, but it was an acceptable norm back then. So you are actually using two DIFFERENT "senses of justice". Even in today's world, "sense of justice" varies according to culture. Who gets to say who is right and who is wrong? If I want to stretch the example into insanely far-fetched analogies, I can ask: Do you know that in the US, you can make a right turn (because of left-hand drive) when the traffic light is red but if there are no cars around? But why can't you make a left turn (right-hand drive) when the traffic light is red in Malaysia? This is to show that laws are man-made and so is "sense of justice". Even in today's world, capital punishment is still a debated topic. So what you deem as "natural justice" may not be so natural to other people.

Secondly, we are not even talking about criminal offence. Likening a ban to a private event to a criminal offence should be blasphemy. Najib's party example has hit home this point. If it his party, he has the right to invite anyone he wants. Let us take another party example. Assume our Prime Minister Najib (what a coincidence) has an "OPEN" house. By "OPEN" it should mean that everyone is invited. However, it is the general understanding that known trouble-makers are not invited to the open house. Will you then argue with Najib (the PM) that he actually said "OPEN" house, and not "Invitational"?

And back to the Najib (the arbiter) example on Romeo and Juliet. I think no analogy is necessary. It is not only that birds of a feather flock together. But everyone knows a father has a very strong influence on his child and the child tends to inherit his ways of thinking. The "preventive measure" argument is sufficient.

As for the ban on the girl in Perak, if it is indeed true, then it is unfortunate. While the organizer does indeed have the right to ban any participant, the players also have a right to boycott the tournament and organizer. No need for further elaboration.

Doing All The Talking

“To do all the talking and not be willing to listen is a form of greed.”

Democritus of Abdera, 5th – 4th century BC

More Logical Fallacies - The Straw Man

Forgive me, Chin Seng. This is another non-chess-related post. Today, we get to discuss the Straw Man fallacy. This is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone misrepresents his opponent's position and attacks that without having to refute the original position.

"The straw man is one of the best-named fallacies, because it is memorable and vividly illustrates the nature of the fallacy. Imagine a fight in which one of the combatants sets up a man of straw, attacks it, then proclaims victory. All the while, the real opponent stands by untouched."

Let us take a look here:

I think we can see clearer now why he (Jimmy Liew) conducted the attacks on FGM's training for our National Juniors via anonymous bloggers. The first training of its kind for our Juniors.

First of all, just to point out a factual error. Definitely not the first training of its kind for our juniors. The straw man here is the "person" who allegedly conducted an attack on the FGM training. Now, that you know who the straw man is, let us pile on the attack on him:

This may also explain why there were attempts to boycott the Thematics despite its benefits to our stronger players.

The straw man is also responsible for the boycott of the thematics.

Does this also explain why Lim Zhuo Ren was attacked until he broke down and wrote that email when his only "offence" was to have a look see if the training we were providing is beneficial or not? And he made the fatal mistake of signing up with us.

This part is super tricky. First of all, there has never been proof of any attack on Zhuo Ren. Only "some people" said this and that. That's why the above statement is in the form of a question. This is really tricky. When you have no proof of something, just phrase the statement in the form of the question to mislead the reader. Insinuate the idea. Pile on the attack on the straw man. Remember, the straw man is the one who allegedly conducting all forms of attacks.

There was also the flurry of activity on his allied blogs to counter the attempts of us asking MCF to have written selection criteria. But MCF stood firm and acknowledged our requests.

I have not seen any blog that tried to counter any attempt for a written selection criteria. The MCF had a written selection criteria all along. Oh wait, someone made a request to the MCF. Does this mean that he is telling the MCF what to do? Hmm... is a request the same as a suggestion? I wonder...

So, when other people make suggestions to the MCF, it is telling the MCF what to do. But when people make requests to the MCF, it is not. The straw man is now also credited with having allies that have tried to counter any form of written selection criteria. Now the straw man has friends. Wow, now he is fighting against many straw men who are attacking him. I wonder who is the blogger who is against written selection criteria. Straw man, anyone?

And now again there is another very "strong" attempt to stop MCF from looking at the abuse of authority from certain organisers. They are again telling MCF what they should or should not do.

Is he talking about the comments here? The closest mention to MCF I see is this:

In no where in the handbook does it say that FIDE does not allow organizers to ban certain participants from taking part. I guess if the MCF does not have a specific rule that says players cannot be banned from certain tournaments, MCF is off the hook again. No need to do anything with Raymond's whining.

Forget that he misinterpreted the MCF constitution. Who is the one telling MCF what to do? The one calling the MCF to do something about an alleged "abuse"? Strange... I wonder how it feels to smack oneself in the face.

Isnt it getting clearer now? What does this signify if not tyranny? What is it that Jimmy and friends are so afraid of? So really, who are the trouble makers? Who is putting up the roadblocks to improvements.

Oooh... more questions. Let me have a go at answering them. Is it really getting clearer? I think it either signifies delusion, or an ultimate showdown with straw men. I don't know what Jimmy and his friends are afraid of. But they should definitely be afraid of the straw men, because they can sure do a lot of things for straw men. Oh wait... I think they should be afraid of the person who defeats the straw men. I think he is more powerful. Who is putting up the roadblocks? I think the straw men are. Otherwise, I can't think of anyone.

So, can one small attack on some training by the straw man can lead to such huge consequences? (Remember, this is a question). It's OK. Let us just attack the straw man anyway. But wait, let us name it Jimmy Liew. This should be fun.

False Analogies - Poor Arguments

Today, we have the opportunity to learn another fallacy. Previously, I shared in a comment in Najib's blog about another fallacy called "Poisoning the well". It involves discrediting someone's character in hopes of discrediting that person's argument WITHOUT actually debating the argument itself. For example, if I tell you that "Every one has the right to be stupid", then you say, "The Chess Ninja is a liar and you should never believe anything he says". This is what poisoning the well is. You did not debate the argument about how every one has the right to be stupid or not. Basically, you just claim I am a liar and hence, everything I say must be untrue. Hence, you would be able to claim that NOT every one has the right to be stupid.

So today, we have another opportunity, as I said, to learn a new fallacy. It is called, "False Analogies". While it is not a formal logical fallacy, it is one that is very commonly made by many people, including myself. We often drag in unrelated examples to prove a point. For example, I can argue that "Engineers, researchers, lawyers, accountants are allowed to refer to manuals, researches, law statutes, and accounting standards in their work. Therefore students should be allowed to refer to their books during exams." This is a form of false analogy because the purpose of a student taking an exam is to measure the student's aptitude and the amount he/she has learnt. This is quite different from the objectives of what an engineer, researcher, lawyer or accountant does.

To examine another example, take this statement, "In Physics, work is measured by effort followed by movement. If there is no movement, no work was done."  Then we proceed to argue that we need milestones to show that there is effort and so on and so forth. Let us break it down in parts.

For starters, I am not disagreeing with the statement in any way. I am just trying to show how sometimes, we use fake examples to justify our statements. While they can appear related, they are actually distracting you to make an argument stronger than it actually is.

So the first sentence:

In Physics, work is measured by effort followed by movement.

This is easy enough. Every one knows work done ON an object is the NET FORCE (effort) applied on the object over a distance. Or for those of you who are more mathematically inclined, W = F x d (very simplified version, but it is actually the integral of F.d (since both force and displacement are both vectors)). But let us not complicate things. So the second sentence clearly follows:

If d=0, then W MUST = 0, i.e. if there is no movement, then there is no work done. Like I said, I am not trying to argue against the statement, but showing why this is a poor analogy.

But is the above relationship REALLY true?

WARNING: This part is for those of you who have some further training in Physics, as opposed to some people who try to use Physics without fully understanding it.

Now, you should have caught on that I used the term NET FORCE. The reason is this. If there are two equal forces pushing against each other, the net force is zero. When the net force is zero, it actually implies there is no acceleration. It does not mean that there is no movement. For example, an object moving at constant velocity (no acceleration), has no NET FORCE applied on it, but it is still moving. But because there is NO NET FORCE, i.e. F = 0, the work done is zero (W = F x d = 0 x d = 0).

So, if we use this analogy in "real life", we can claim that, if we are progressing on our own at constant velocity, and our own effort (FORCE), but moving against an equal but opposing resistance (opposing FORCE), NO WORK IS DONE!! This shows that even if we have milestones and meeting them, it is possible that no work is done. Yes, I have managed to twist this into something that is totally destructive, but I guess I can't help myself for having critical thinking. Perhaps next time, when you want to choose an example, use a real one. Or else, you will just sound stupid, but then again, you have the right to do so.

It Happens Everywhere?

Who is Tyler Cowen?

When Tyler Cowen was 15, he became the New Jersey Open Chess Champion, at the time the youngest ever. At around the same age, he began reading seriously in the social sciences; he preferred philosophy. By 16 he had reached a chess rating of 2350, which today would put him close to the top 100 in the U.S. Shortly thereafter he gave up chess and philosophy for the same reason: little stability and poor benefits.

He’d been reading economics, though. He figured that economists were supposed to publish, and by age 19 he had placed two papers in respected journals. As a PhD candidate at Harvard, he published in the “Journal of Political Economy” and the “American Economic Review.”

“They were weird, strange pieces,” he says, “but still in good journals, top journals. That cemented my view that I could, you know, somehow fit in somewhere.” I ask him what he was like, what made him doubt he could fit in.

“I was like I am now.”

“You’ve always been like that?”

“Always. Age 3. Whatever.”

“What did you do at age 3?”

“Read a lot of books.”

Who is Tyler Cowen? Well, the point of this  post is not to share with you who Tyler Cowen really is, but just to point out that quitting chess not only happens in Malaysia, but also in the US due to the same reasons, as given by Tyler:

Shortly thereafter he gave up chess and philosophy for the same reason: little stability and poor benefits.

For the full story, read here. Oh, by the way, if you are still wondering who Tyler Cowen is, he is an economist by profession and shares the blog known as Marginal Revolution, the blog that directed about 3,000 visitors to Ilhamuddin's post on Dominic Strauss-Kahn.

P/S: In case all of you have not noticed, I am trying to get you all to quit chess as soon as possible in my two recent posts so that I will stand a chance in local events.

Quit Chess, Play Poker

WGM and IM Almira Skripchenko

All this bickering about sponsors and what not makes me dizzy. If you want to play a lucrative mindsport, try poker. Low entry fee, high prize money, unlimited sponsors.

Here is proof that chess players do fare well in poker consistently.

"If there is a group of people more prepared for success at the 2011 World Series of Poker than chess players, PokerListings hasn’t found it."

Full article here.

P/S: If you have no sense of humor, please do not come back to visit this site.

The Tourists

Nothing really to add apart from what has already been said everywhere, except this:

P/S: This is not an attempt to humiliate. But I guess it is a good opportunity to see who had the chance to go visit Jakarta. I heard it's nice this time of the year.

Nothing Else Better to Do - Deja Vu?

(edited with video :) )

What do you do when you have nothing to talk about? Keep talking about the same old stuff again and again and again I guess? No more new ideas? Give up on thinking? Nothing left to contribute?

Here's a list of things a wannabe blogger can talk about to keep your number of visitors up:

1. Pretend that there is an issue to talk about. Better still, pretend that someone is attacking you and then you are fighting back. This way, you can pretend to be the knight in shining armor to save the realm against the forces of evil and capture the holy grail and so on and so forth. Or maybe you are "Spaceman Spiff" from the Calvin and Hobbes comic fame.

2. If you find yourself imagining too many enemies? Fighting against overwhelming odds? Never fear! Just pretend that all your attackers are actually just one fool. If you imagine hard enough, it will be so. You can also imagine that your backup has arrived. Pretend that your allies have arrived and now you are able to fight back the imaginary demon.

"You shall not pass!!" - Gandalf the Grey, Lord of the Rings, the Fellowship of the Ring

3. Once you begin to believe that you allies have formed a large enough group, you can then pretend that you are winning the imaginary battle that you create in your head. Then crush your "enemies" to satisfy your bloodlust. "You insignificant little insects!!" Everybody loves a good show.

4. When you really run out of ideas? Why not google up some random quotes? Then post it. Then ask your readers to think on it. That should buy you some time to invent your next story.

5. When you're really bored and can't find a way to increase your visitor count, pick on someone innocent and drag his face through the mud for the world to see, Gladiator style. That should entertain them. Even if they are not entertained, at least they will pay attention to you.

"Are you not entertained?" - Maximus Decimus Meridius, the Gladiator

6. Looks like I am running dry. Never mind. I shall post a link of someone who links someone else.

7. Repeat steps 1 through 6 every single day. You are bound to increase your hit rate significantly.

I am a frequent reader of the New York Times online (don't ask me why I read the New York Times), and I frequently visit the blog written by Nobel Prize-winning economist, Paul Krugman. He averages 3.5 posts in one day.

He discusses economic issues around the world and very often suggests policy measures for his blog readers to discuss. Some of us might think that he is wasting his time. After all, he is just a professor and has no hand in actually implementing any policy in the US or the Eurozone. But he does them anyway. I guess when you're that good at something, you should probably keep on doing what you do best.

Only a delusional real estate agent would try to give advice on the stock market.

The reason I brought up Paul Krugman was because despite his busy schedule, he manages an average of 3.5 posts in one day. What I was shocked to discover was that, some Malaysian "chess" blogger is averaging 5.2 posts a day, more than Paul Krugman.

So in awe, and admiration, I went deep undercover to decipher the secrets of coming up with new ideas to blog about, and the above seven points is most definitely the easy (and probably the best) way that I have managed to come up with to increase your hit counter.

Oh wait, my IT-specialist just informed be that you can fix the hit counter to show whatever number you want. So actually, you can pretend that you have readers. Arghh... all this research for nothing.

Disclaimer: The above research is copyrighted material and all of its intellectual property rights are protected. The examples used above may or may not be fictional, but are used for illustrative purposes anyway. I trust that my sources have done their due diligence as I am no expert in their fields of work. Any reference to a real person or entity could be purely intentional, but quite likely to be coincidental.

Jokes of 2011

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

Click here.