Mamak Hunting - Stupid or Lazy?

My apologies for the dramatic title. Just to be clear, I am not using this term in a derogatory nature, nor am I defending Mamakchess's arguments. I have been out of action for many weeks and my fingers are just itchy after seeing another brainless "argument":

If you guys have not been listening to my advice and have kept on visiting a certain blog, then you would have known that this whole issue resulted from a stupid question:

"But since the topic is brought up, can I ask the blogger in Mamak Chess if it is true that Greg just gave Kelantan a sum of money to do a "chess tournament"? This money has not been cleared by MCF committee. Not tabled and so the money could be haram."

I just can't believe that FGM has the gall to associate "Mamak Gang" with Kelantan Chess and then later in the post, ask who is Mamak Chess? If you don't know who it is, how can you say they are associated?

Never mind, let us pretend that in this world, such nonsense is possible. Anyone with any idea how to browse the Mamak Chess blog will know that the following are considered players that are typically classified in the "Mamak Gang":

Yes, I took the picture from the Mamak Chess blog. If you were a regular chess player, you would easily know who these guys are. In fact, with a bit more homework, you can also look at the "Mamak Gang" team at last year's Astro Rapid:

Of course, there are others who are not in the picture and also not listed above. I can think of Abdullah Che Hassan.  How many of these players are actually from Kelantan? I would say almost all of the above players are NOT from Kelantan. So how can FGM claim that:

"As far as I know Mamak gang is part of the Kelantan group..."

when the only player that is probably remotely closely associated to Kelantan is Abdullah. And if I am not mistaken, Abdullah used to play for Johor.

How do I prove that the above players are not from Kelantan? Fortunately, thanks to "Sicilian-Najdorf", I could get my hands on the list of players from Kelantan. This is from the Jan 2012 National Rating list:

2271 Mas Hafizulhelmi

2112 Ahmad Maliki Mohamed

2101 Azahari Mohd Noor

1877 Abdul Haq Mohamed

1870 Abdullah Che Hassan

1849 Nik Ahmad Farouqi

1800 Mohd Musa Al-Ashaari

1782 Mohd Irman Ibrahim

1749 Nasrul Humaimi Mahmood

1746 Mohd Azizul Mat Daud

1741 Syed Azizi Abdul Rahman

1706 Mohd Ezmi Mahmood

1701 Mohd Amin Mohd Noor

1663 Nik Mohd Nazri Nik Hasan

1658 Izuddin Ahayat

1655 Marzuki Yaacob

1628 Muhd Bakri Jusoh

1621 Wan Mahadzir Wan Sulaiman

1597 Shahril Sulaiman

1591 Siti Nur Afiqah Mohd Haslam

1588 Rosmizal Ibrahim

1586 Mohd Bukhari Yahya

1582 Noor Hisyam Ahayat

1574 Baharuddin Hamzah

1572 Ghazali Che Cob

1563 Laila Husna Sahadi

1562 Mohd Rezal Che Man

1559 Mohd Fauzan Ahayat

1540 Muhd Nor Khairullah

1539 Muhd Ariez Azman

1537 Anuar Ahayat

1527 Sanusi Muhamad

1527 Azmizi Abdullah

1519 Sahadi Ismail

1519 Muhammad Ali Asghar

1509 Khairul Aznan Mohd Kamal

1506 Mohd Hafidz Mat Daud

I stopped at above 1500. If you want to see beyond this, go to the website that I linked. Where is Saprin? Where is Kamaluddin? Where is Fairin? Where is Kamal Ariffin? So how can the Mamak Gang be associated with Kelantan Chess? So when FGM says "As far as I know..." actually, he doesn't know very far. He is just tying the Mamak Gang with Kelantan, then attack Kelantan + Greg, and then discredit the Mamak Gang. If this sounds confusing, then just look at the illustration below:

Disclaimer: The picture above is merely for illustration purposes. Any negative implication on the parties involved is purely coincidental

If an idiot like me can figure out that the Mamak Gang and Kelantan are totally different entities, then it just means that it is either utter LAZINESS or STUPIDITY on FGM's part for his failure determine whether Kelantan and Mamak Gang is related or not.

Of course now, he won't even apologize. He will just say, I reserve the right to pose questions. Blah blah blah... we have all heard the story before.

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.

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.