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.

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?

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.

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!

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.

Imagined Imagined Fears

If the concept of imagined fears is not confusing enough for you, try to think about imagined imagined fears. This means that you worry to much about your imagined fears that perhaps, you are imagining the fact that you have imagined fears. So, does this mean that your fears are real?

Anyhow, I feel obligated to say something about Raymond's latest post, especially since he pointed out to my blog suggestively about throwing around half-truths and what not. Let me just start out by saying that I have posted 3 comments on his blog requesting for clarification on his accusations of slander. Since he said that there is a law against slander, then I want to be on the right side of the law. If you are accussing me of slander, I deserve the right to know. But he deleted all 3 comments seeking clarification.

Why am I being so defensive? Let me pick out a few suggestive examples which I completely resent:

However in our Chess blog culture today we have many people hiding under the guise of pseudonyms or are simply anonymous. And under these guises they purport to be experts or have inside knowledge and then they cast aspersions on other peoples dignity and reputation.

While this statement may be true, the statement in itself is an accusation. Let me be clear about this. The Chess Ninja was not established as a means to hide myself. It is a means to represent the "voiceless" people in chess. It gives people the avenue to speak in a culture where speaking out is punished and not rewarded. Until that culture has changed, the Chess Ninja will always exist. Think of it as a club or association to speak out for the rights of chess players. This entity does not just belong to me. It belongs to all of us. The Chess Ninja is not a guise and I am not purporting to be an expert. I also do not want to hold the responsibility of having inside knowledge. What I do know is that I have had experience fighting for the victim before, and I am currently sharing that information to everyone so that this information is no longer "inside knowledge". It isn't inside knowledge anymore if everyone knows it, right?

I know that if anyone were to approach the MCF with such issues, their first and main stance would be to appear defensive and try to cover up their tracks. The Chess Ninja blog is meant to report facts as they are. It will not report anything if there is no evidence to back it up. It is on the onus of the MCF and other parties to show that they can run a clean and good business with the whole world watching them.

I have nothing to gain from exposing the wrongdoers and "casting aspersions" on their dignity and reputation. In fact, I feel obligated and responsible to tell the truth about the misdemeanors of the wrongdoers.

How can I sit back and let them get away with what they have done?

Here is another quote that seems to be directed at "some people" and no one in particular:

I think its about time this nonsense stops. All the lies, half truths and innuendos shot from the dark.

If you want to accuse someone of lying, then you come out and say it like a man. Point them out specifically. Raymond called for a stop of innuendos and that statement itself is a very suggestive innuendo and seemed to target at no one in particular. If you want to call someone a liar, you better be ready to prove it. Don't just lump a general group of people together.

So, Raymond, do not be afraid to let people speak out about you. You are truly afraid. Do not imagine your imagined fears. If you are on the right side of the law, then you have nothing to worry about. On the other hand, throwing cheap shots at my blog or any other blog is not going to get you anywhere. You have come to realize that less and less people are listening to you because you are afraid of being exposed for the fraud that you are. You are afraid that when it comes down to crunch time, you actually have so many gaps that you have left out, simply by connecting all the wrong dots.

This is what happens when you try to join too many dots too fast. Lashing out at other chess observers by deleting all their criticisms is just an expression of your inner child. Try to grow up a little bit. Don't just learn how to read and reason, but to accept criticism. It makes you stronger. Only when you see beyond your anger, you can grow. These are your very own preachings. Practice what you preach. Try to be a cook that eats his own cooking. Open your mind just as you wish others to open theirs.