Commitment Fees?

The guys at MCF have really outdone themselves this time. Rather than overcharging us with ridiculous exchange rates, they've taken the next step and called the recent RM100-per-participant in the 2010 MAS-SIN match a "commitment fee". I could argue it's a step in the other direction as they could just call it a "management fee", but I guess they think it looks less like a scam if it was a "commitment fee".

Really, guys? You must think we are a nation of idiots (Sadly, we have been proven to be exploitable, with 101 people taking part. That's RM10,100). What warrants this ridiculous fee? At the last MAS-SIN we had in Singapore, in 2007, seriously, how many did not show up? If I recall correctly, maybe a few. 5, perhaps? Does this justify taking RM10k off a hundred people?

Now, one (just MCF) might argue that it is to deter people from signing up but not showing up. I call bullshit. There are two reasons for this:

First off, MCF made it crystal clear that nobody will be getting their RM100 back. If that was the case, it would be called a deposit, and MCF being MCF, would only give refunds if they grossly implied it. Here, it's the opposite. Being called a fee, we're obviously not going to see our RM100 again. It's like "paying" bail (which is the case in some countries, but you and I both know that I don't mean them). If the point of the RM100 is to make sure we lose RM100 for nothing if we don't come, then the RM100 should be refunded if we do show up. That is non-negotiable.

The second point is the punchline: Players are allowed to pay the commitment fee on the day of departure, i.e. when they're already quite obviously committed. I can only imagine someone arriving in KL Sentral with all his luggage at 7:00a.m. on the 30th of December, paying the fee, and then changing his mind and deciding to go back home at 7:15a.m...or maybe get on the train, go to Singapore and decide not to partake, and ride the next train home. That image cracks me up.

I think you guys should have just called it a management fee. At least that way you're only insulting our ability to estimate the cost of "management".

It's on!

So the Malay "Open" is on!

A tournament meant exclusively for the race that makes up more than half of the chess playing community anyway!

Malaysian chess is now at reaching a peak!

Maybe I'm just repeating myself. Whatever. Good day!

P/S: What a high level, prestigious event! They encourage strong participation by waiving the entrance fee for IMs/WIMs/FMs! Also known as Mas Hafizulhelmi.

Just a thought

I wonder whether it is possible to appreciate something without truly understanding the nature of it. Hypothetically, if someone with no knowledge of astrophysics said that he was fascinated by the appearance of a constellation, nebulae, comets and whatnot in the night sky, and called the universe a beautiful, majestic creation of God, does he understand what he is saying? Would he still say the same if he knew what it was like to be near a black hole? Or that you would likely be vaporized if you came within 100 million km of any living sun without protection? Or that outside the planet, without a multi-million dollar suit, your lungs would almost instantaneously collapse, and at the same time you would turn to ice due to the nearly 300 degrees of temperature difference? These are the not-so-heavenly characteristics of the place in the universe that some of us may refer to as "the heavens".

My question is: Is it actually possible for anyone to truly appreciate anything, considering that by "backward extension", it is unlikely that we fully understand anything? History has shown that the second part is quite true: we have had evolution, or advancements in knowledge, but a more humble way to say it is, "Oops; looks like the previous school of thought was wrong". Examples are abundant: mercury was proven to be deadly to life--a few thousand years after some ancient civilizations treated it like a freaking fountain of youth. Earth was believed to be flat; it was also believed to be the center of the universe; but again, centuries later, it was shown that Earth is just another planet in the vast universe. Newton's laws of physics, which completely revolutionized the world of physics, were proven to be inaccurate only almost 300 years after their introduction. There are very few, if any, "permanent postulates". Even today, there exist branches of mathematics where -1 is not considered to be less than 0.

It even shows up in chess; look at the classical, romantic schools--and then the hyper-modern school, both of which are polar opposites of the other. The ultra-ultramodern in the future might even show that the best opening does exist, and it's called 1.d3; in an even more distant future, if humans still exist, and somehow miraculously figure out a way to solve chess, the conclusion might be that a forced win exists for white if he plays 1.a3 on the first move, while black wins in other cases.

To say that this is not possible only demonstrates ignorance. What is so special about us, that our theories and ideology are exempt from being corrected in the future? Our technological advancements are about as good as the introduction of electricity: a big milestone of the century, but that doesn't bring absolute perfection to human knowledge.

However, one thing is that old, outdated knowledge, logically, has almost never prevailed over its modern, updated counterpart. That means, our knowledge does advance. It is still far from absolute accuracy, but it is closer than what we had previously thought to be true.

So I wonder, if all this is true (and to me, it does look so), it would imply that nobody can say that they truly understand what they are talking about; in fact, they can only claim to understand something better than others, but to say that they truly understand something is impossible. The sad thing is that it is so often that I see people talking as if they are in the latter case. The manifestation of pride and ego...

Just a thought. Not trying to polarize your thinking(not directly at least), but just propagating a thought that I(and maybe some others too) have had for as long as I can remember.

It's slightly quiet in the Malaysian chess scene right now, at least as far as I know, so I'm sorry if I disappointed you with another not-so-chess-relevant article. Just kidding, I'm not. If you didn't like this article, let me know what you think in the comments section.

A parody of chess blogs

Rationality: Well, it looks like it's a new fad in Malaysian chess blogs to poke fun at other blogs, so I'm gonna do one because I'm probably better at it than most of you.

First GM: I think Mas should have played on against that 2700 English GM. He has to break through that psychological fear. The mind plays an important role in chess.

First GM: That's a lousy parody of me. Here's how it should be done:

First GM: Hey guys, I have an idea, I think I know why we are still in the same spot after 30 years. I think we have damaged our spirit. I think that may be a clue to why we dont do well after U12. It's about imagined fears. It's about the inner child. It's about us neglecting the other 3 parts of the components of chess.

Jimmy: We have covered this over 10 years ago.

First GM: Really? Sheesh, I only finished this work a few years ago. Even the American war veterans Association wrote in to learn more about it. Wah! you really advanced man. Sorry about that. But can I still write about it so others can also learn? They may not have the same resource as you have.

Jimmy: Stick to what you know. This is Malaysian chess. Here we only look at technical.

First GM: But hey, NJ just said maybe even all of his loses not due to technical.

Rationality: Let me demonstrate how we strong chess players think. Let me analyse Mas's, draw.

First GM: Great! But what about Qe3?......(Confusion, some back peddling).

Chess Ninja: Hey guys, you are missing the point. It's about Hamid. He is a grandmaster you know. I know even though I am blind folded....(In case you missed that, that means I can play blind folded chess).

First GM: Did anyone of you even read before you threw out what I am saying?

Jimmy, Rationality and chess ninja: Cannot read lah. Read means must acknowledge you are on to something.

Jimmy: Dubai our best Olympiad.

First GM: We have nothing to lose. Any of you guys got a suggestion? None of you are engaging the information.

Jimmy, Rationality: No. Dont want to listen. We are closing our ears. We like complaining. Who wants solutions? Besides if anyone listens to you, we wont look "terror" anymore.

Jimmy: Damn it! Did anyone check out Dubai?

First GM: What is the point? That is in the past. We are looking for solutions in the here and now.

Terminator: Raymond Siew is a liar. Listen to me. I know even though I am hiding behind a pseudonym. Please believe me. I may be a crook, a criminal but ignore that. I am working with someone in MCF and PICA. See, I can say these things. So I must be in the know.

First GM: Hey man. Show yourself. I am sure you are a credible source of information. It is tough on this blog. Even when the evidence is shown people are still slow to engage. These are chess people. They are thinkers. So show yourself. Present your credentials and the evidence. I wish you luck. Do a good job. Then you will be the best terminator you can be.

Jimmy and Rationality: We have had enough. We are going to strike you off our blog roll.

Chess Ninja: I'm telling you guys its Hamid. Blame it on Hamid.

Terminator: Lets attack the women and children guys. We know that Raymond gets upset when we attack the children. We saw it in Perak. That is his weak chink. His Achilles heel. Why dont you guys do that and I'll take it to the next level. I'll attack the women. Trust me guys. This will work. We need to shut him up. He is making us look bad.

Ilham: We are the champions, my friend. And we'll keep on fighting to the end.....

First GM: Sheesh, and all I said was examine the evidence. You have tried technical only and you have not got far. In fact you are still in the same spot. Hasnt anyone noticed that?

The unknown: Hey guys try NLP. They are the experts not this Raymond Siew guy. I dont know how to read. This is the "penultimate" opinion. But believe me. I too need to hide because otherwise you will know that I dont know anything.

First GM: The noise level going up. Now someone who can just about identify the letters NLP has joined the fray.

Chess Ninja: It's Hamid I tell you. He is a grandmaster, he can do funny things. I saw that through my blind fold.

First GM: Hey this is starting to sound like what went on inside my mind while I was writing my inner child work. Why my mind resisted me and tried to prevent me from growing up. Thanks guys, you are the best. Thank you for helping me see this. So if you are right, this work can also be applied to the chess community. All this noise is because you guys dont want to grow up. Hmmmmmm

Ninja, look at the tricks applied over these years, if it was Hamid that is. There are no new ideas. It is the same trick over and over again. No accounts, use your fears against you, smear their good name etc. If Hamid was all that smart, he would have brought us to the next level. Stop fighting this demon. Let it go. A GM has many many ideas. So go out and find some more ideas. Stop this stuck tape. He is no grandmaster. We have been stupid. And there is a world of difference between the 2 conclusions.

Think about it. If we can be fooled by the same tricks again and again by a not so clever guy, then where are we really?

Jimmy: Hey check out Dubai please....I'll give you a clue. See who was on the team.

Ilham: We will we will rock you.........

First GM: Chess is a mind sport. Check out the mind. If you make a dumb mistake because of the chatter, technical wont help. If you stop fighting because of a failure in courage, technical wont help. Look at the evidence. Our strongest chess minds are even afraid to engage in new information. That is where we have gone wrong. The mind is often called the last frontier. Some even argue it holds more complexity than outer space. It is much much much much bigger than the 64 square puzzle. Still the mind and those puzzles will reveal itself. Stop running away. Focus on the problem.

First GM:[Propaganda tone, enacted by Rationality] I hope you also realize that I did not include GilaChess, Hairulov, Ilham because they are not among the blogs which I intend to attack. I just gave Ilham one line so that it won't be so obvious that the whole point of my parody was just to attack 3 people, and sort of halfway attack a 4th. [End of propaganda tone. Reset to impersonation tone]. Now, having said that, I sincerely hope that the situation that we are facing now in Malaysian chess is crystal clear to every one of you now. You see, when bloggers who have a rather high tendency to speak negatively, such as Jimmy and Rationality, our minds will narrow. We will become pessimistic. Then we also have people like Terminator, who are the cancer within our minds, whom must be eliminated from Malaysian chess. Please read all of my previous posts. Understand that all this is important to our development in chess. I'm going to tell you about my experience I've had as a mind coach, and tell you how it is fully applicable in chess. Focus on improving as a player. It is alright if not everyone knows about what is going on at the administrative level. What matters is that some 100 people know, and that's good enough. These people care, you care. Having said that, I'm going to write out a 3-part story about something that happened between me and PICA for everyone to read, because it is very important that everyone knows what happened. I was abused, and then fooled. Everyone should know the true story, and what really happened. Now, I'm planning to organize a trip to this year's ASEAN tournament. The air tickets will be sponsored by AirAsia, but you must pay an extra RM1000 to attend training to prepare you for the tournament. It is strongly recommended, although my previous sentence suggests that you don't really have a choice. It is no point going to a tournament completely unprepared, because it defeats its purpose. Back on topic, it is important to know that chess is more than just technicalities. It is about the mind. When playing, the body should stay completely still. Don't walk around or make unnecessary movements, because it is the mind that is at work. It does not matter if you have been sitting at the table for 3 hours, and blood has been pooling in your legs. [Propaganda tone again, despite that I've forgotten to include this phrase numerous times in this paragraph:] No, I do not realize that every 99.99% of the chess players in the world this, and the top players are not from that remaining 0.01%. [Back to impersonation tone:] As I was saying, you may notice that many people like to challenge my views. Just because I have zero technical knowledge on chess, it does not bar me from making in-depth suggestions regarding the game which are usually related to technicalities [Damn! That tone keeps coming out without being asked!]. Some people like to make these vicious attacks against me. These attacks come from a traumatised mind. One of the reasons I find it so difficult to counsel people like these is because they, the patient, fight back. It's also imperative that everybody understands that by this, I am implying that I know everything that I talk about, and have never been wrong in a single one of my 400 posts. Everyone who thinks otherwise is wrong.[Alright, you know what, I'm not giving any more 'propagandic' tone warnings]. Yes, I may contradict everything I say [I stress that this is actually true. Please challenge me if you feel like it, and I'll show you 5 contradictory posts (because I don't have the time to find the other 95+. I've wasted an hour of my life writing this post, and if there's anything I could wish for, it's that I could have it back)]. Back onto my subject of discussion, remember that when, given a situation, it is important to join the dots. In doing so, dsfbljbuwyrnjkh9632t472qfasfalkmdklaf sdgfbawlhr sdfblkjbaqiekaf465s6 65sdg5646s5g4sd te65sd4ge5t4 sdfgshihiushf9e89sdnf sdjfjksdfsagfagodasho jksjakjfhasukfidsfasudasdnklasdas;ldaskdwopriawf safasfuiwer7878asdjhdaskjnokthatsenough.

YOU ACTUALLY READ UP TO THIS POINT?! I'm disappointed in you, and probably myself for failing to get the point across.(Just so we're clear, the parody is itself the unnecessarily elaborate, dense wall of boring text which you're not supposed to be willing to read)

Message to all the bloggers whom I made fun of in this post: Stick to your serious tone. You sound funnier when you're not trying to crack jokes.

Olympiad 2010

It has been clearly proven this year that as far as the Olympiad is concerned, MCF does more harm than good. They could not afford to pay for Greg's accommodation, so they sent him as a reserve player to have it paid for. Correct me if I'm wrong (you probably can't, though), but the only reason Greg went was to vote for the next FIDE president.

Is it so difficult to just let someone else on the team make the vote? Is the secrecy of your vote so important that you are willing to fill a valuable slot in our team with someone only for the sole purpose of casting a single vote? Get your priorities straight, fools. What use is it to protect your international political stance, when your local image to the non-blind is like shit? And I stress: this one vote came at the cost of a player for our team. A player who might have contributed greatly to the team's progress. Allowing us to meet stronger teams, get better games. Let our players learn more by playing with good opposition. Look at this; we met good teams up to round 4. It went downhill from there on.

Next question: How did you people select our team?

Well, that question was obviously rhetorical; you took the 2 highest rated players in the country, the winner of this year's National Championship and the first strong player to raise his hand. I don't blame any of the players for this. Given the opportunity, who would pass the chance to qualify to play in the Olympiad with minimal effort?

Compare this to 2008. I forgot the primary selection criteria (probably because it never really existed), but there was a round-robin tournament between some players to pick a representative. At least that is more decent than this year. We might as well have selected our players with a dartboard.

Perhaps I'm wrong about the "2 highest rated players in the country" as selection criteria. Mas and Mok might have been chosen because of their result in the 2009 Malaysian Masters. But then again, playing in the Olympiad was not explicitly stated in the details of that tournament as far as I know. And, it was a knockout tournament. Anyone with a level of intelligence above borderline retardation can tell that a KO tournament only produces a first place. Everything below that cannot be ranked accurately.

The National Championship? Perhaps it is prestigious (though it does not have the country's top players participating), but if I'm not mistaken, in 2008 (and only 2008 if my memory serves me well), the winner still had to play in the round-robin. This year, Tan Khai Boon automatically qualified.

The fourth is by far the most ridiculous. Yes, maybe we had run out of strong players to pick from. Peter volunteered himself as a last resort. Apparently MCF skipped the hundred options before that and saw this as an instant resolution to the problem.

Just wondering, what happened to the juniors? No need to elaborate much on this; how are we going to progress if we keep sending a team fully composed of the 'experienced' elite to the Olympiad every time? We have some strong juniors, in particular, one who is still studying in primary school. Looks like the MCF "selection committee" have never heard of him.

Anyway, so we had our lineup:

1. Malaysian #1 rated

2. Malaysian #2 rated

3. Wildcard!

4. National Championship winner

5. Vote carrier

Does anyone notice that the players from boards 1/2, 3, 4 and 5 were chosen from totally different pools of players? To MCF's credit, at least I can tell with 100% certainty that they picked the right 5th board player. Greg is definitely better than Hamid...

Please, selecting people to represent Malaysia in the Olympiad is not like selecting countries that qualify to play in the FIFA World Cup. This team looks like the chess equivalent of Rojak. It may be an identity to our country, but we don't have to demonstrate it in the selection criteria. Besides, Rojak is foodstuff. Let's keep it that way.

Who am I?

Honestly, I don't know why some of you guys keep speculating about who I really am. Does it really matter? Well, maybe it's none of my business either. Actually, I'm rather flattered that people continue to talk about me despite the fact that I've only made like, at most, 10 posts with some substance over the last 6 months.

I find it rather incredible that some people think they know who I am, considering the fact that even I have problems answering that question myself sometimes. First it was just the small time lurkers and bloggers, then slightly more well-known people, e.g. Lim Tse Pin who implies that I'm Lim Yee Weng by dropping obvious "hints", and others who just make random guesses: Joseph Toh, Najib Wahab, Collin Madhavan, Christie Hon...I'll die of old age before I complete the list. Here's something to consider: there is a chance that one of you are right; the only question is, if that's the case, which one of you are?

Don't forget that your earlier guesses were Gregory Lau and Peter Long. I had to make a comment on Jimmy's blog while they were playing for everyone to be actually convinced that I'm not Peter or Greg. To add to that, may I remind you that a handful of you were so confident that I was Peter because of my writing style.

It's ridiculous; recently our famous Hairul claimed that he knows who I am (and that I am still playing chess), but will not say in fear that I still stop writing, and that's bad because he enjoys reading what I have to say. Well, to this, I can only ask you to stop insulting my ability to think, and tell you, that while you may enjoy my posts, you've obviously not fully understood what I've said (read the last paragraph). Bro, I have my own defense mechanism if I ever feel myself get exposed. Don't worry about me. Just think of your ego once you turn out to be wrong. Think about it too though; if I really thought that anyone knew who I am with 100% certainty (unlike the apparent 99% which is demonstrated by most), would I really continue to write? I would just stop, and build up my deniability. Don't try to say you're protecting me or something similar. I don't need it. Goddamn it too, it's like a freaking paradox. If you're really trying to protect me, don't tell anyone that you know who I am.

If you think you know who I am, spit it out, or shut the fuck up. It's like deciding what to do with your vomit. You either keep it in or let it out. Unless you enjoy gargling it.

And looking at that, let's make a small detour too; a message for most of you bloggers out there: your overconfidence just makes you look dumber than you really are. You post your analyses of your shitty games. You even have the ego to annotate a blitz game you played online. In other words, you spent more time annotating a game than playing it. And then you even post the dry crap that you played in a small-time local tournament. Maybe you thought it was a good game. Wake up call: It wasn't. It's nonsense that makes me shit bricks if I ever see people comment on it in the real world. Then to make your commentary more interesting (or rather, make any sense at all), your "analysis" is "assisted" by a chess engine. FYI, the inverted commas are to represent sarcasm; all of your "analysis" is taken straight from the engine's recommendation. Nobody takes interest in what your engine thinks, or Fritz/Rybka opening book says. The rest of us have a computer and access to pirated software too. In addition to that, your variations are unnecessarily long. I know what's going to happen to my queen when you put a rook between her and my king. You don't need to tell me that "white is winning" after showing the next 7 moves. And your commentary is stuff of Captain Obvious. I know that black is going to lose an exchange when white played Nxc7+.

Back on topic, here's some things I can bet that most of you guys have never considered:

1. Was I really giving you real information in my introductory post? Who knows, maybe I'm unrated, both on and off FIDE.

2. Am I only one person?

3. Am I still living in Malaysia? Am I still Malaysian? Was I even Malaysian at any point?

4. Do I even have a job? I seem to make posts at totally random times of the day, many of which are during working hours.

It's also incredibly intriguing that every single one of you make your "deduction" with such confidence, when all but one of your guesses from an endless list of names will be wrong. But one thing, honestly, boils the hell out of my curiosity: What are your guesses based on? My style of writing? Come on, that stuff doesn't work. Professionals do stuff like this for the FBI, and they almost never lead to breakthroughs. There are usually better things to go on. Besides, my writing style changes with every few posts, in case you didn't realize.

Here's some outside help for you guys. It's what your guesses about my identity are based on. And this will be too, though I still have infinite confidence of my anonymity thanks to your gullibility.

Yes, I am mocking your attempts to guess who I am.

P/S: Are you guys going to suggest that I'm Raymond Siew this time, based on the second last paragraph?

The problem with us

I find it stupid when people try to defend our team's overall disastrous performance in this year's Olympiad. Really people, stop trying to be nice. Our players played like shit. Stop sucking up to them by giving them excuses for losing. And if you want to defend them, at least blame it on the fact that we have no reserve players. I cannot stand people who try to be Mr. Nice Guy. Yes, maybe your dick-sucking words to our poor players will make them feel better. But you know what else it makes them feel? Adequate. You make them think that it was perfectly acceptable to lose. Guess what: it's not.

Someone blundered in time trouble. It's not their fault? Then whose is it? The clock, for not reminding our players to play faster? Open your eyes, my friends; did nobody tell you that time management was a skill in chess?

"Don't criticize each other's performance...", etc. Phrases like these make me want to kill someone. Why can't we criticize each other's performance? Are we only allowed to praise them? "Wow, Greg, nice comeback after a 8-year hiatus!" is willingly said by many, but yet, nobody wants to say, "Greg, what the hell were you doing in your second game in this tournament? Were you fatigued after your first?". Do you know what happens when you count the hits but not the misses? You believe in paranormal things. Psychics. Pseudoscience. Crap like that.

"They were doing their best"? Seriously, do you think about anything you say? In case you didn't click on it, we're ranked 106 with 1 round to go. That's 20 ranks below our initial seeding. If that's really our best, then it means we're overrated. Do you think we're overrated? No? Then they weren't doing their best.

We need to give them a break? Yeah, you know what a break is? Not playing. That's a break. There's competition for their places out there. It's also what drives them to perform.

And the worse thing about it is that our players probably know that they played badly. Your fucking excuses are not going to do anything, except make yourself feel like the angel of conscience. What your lame, unnecessary excuses will do is cause people to unconsciously think that it came from the players themselves. And you know what happens when someone gives you a lame excuse? You scold them more. So to the Mr.-Nice-Guy-political-assholes: Shut the fuck up. Your detrimental words of kindness are just going to cause our players more shit.

In case it's not apparent yet, I just want to highlight: The only reason why you're defending our team's performance is because you want to feel good. You never bring up the bad points because most people don't like the truth, and you want people to like you just as much as you don't want people to dislike you.

And you know what else? There's a 99.9% chance that you're just a fucking hypocrite if you talk like that. How much are you willing to bet that you are the type of person who never scolds his teammates in team tournaments if they underperform? That's a rhetorical question, mind you.

So now that I'm done beating (or smashing/blasting/f-bombing) around the bush: What's our problem (apart from these...)? It's the attitude. Plain and simple. We keep on making excuses for ourselves when we lose. And when we don't, some nice guy out there makes them for us. And in case it's not clear yet, excuses are bad.

Sheesh.

P/S: I care so much about what you think of "me". And I don't need to enable comments, Hairul. I already know what comments I'm going to get. Do none of you actually digest my posts? [Spoiler: read here]

P-P/S: You don't like my usage of vulgarities or not-so-nice words? Are you joking? This isn't fucking poetry. If you want to see beautiful language, go read Shakespeare.

Olympiad R10

For Round 10, we are paired with Wales. I still don't think Greg should be subbed in now. I would normally expect 3-1 with the team's strength. but given their current performance, I can only predict a 2.5-1.5 win for us, with Mas and Peter winning the point and Mok taking a half. Alternatively, we might get a draw since I'm not confident that Mas will be able to take the full point from his opponent.

But if Greg were to play...well, it depends on who is subbed out. If he does play, I am rather sure that Khai Boon will be rested, as I can safely speculate that his team is rather unhappy with his disastrous performance. My prediction would still remain the same in that case, unless Wales fields their 2009-rated 45-year old player.

All in all, I can safely say the chances are somewhat split 50-50 between a draw and a win. This match is going to depend on Mas' game.

So it was 2-2. I guess prediction is not one of my specialties. Greg played worse than I had expected, though it does not surprise me. As for Peter...I honestly don't know where he went wrong. His play looked somewhat innocent until his opponent had a forcing sequence coming out of nowhere, and then suddenly white had a strategically lost position. Mok and Mas simply outplayed their opponents.

Olympiad R9

Malaysia met Andorra this round. Well, it was rather unfortunate that we lost 1.5-2.5, but it's not shocking. Mas may be a strong player, but at the end of the day, his opponent is the one with the GM title, and it stands for something. Mok and Khai Boon again demonstrated the weakness of Malaysian players: openings. Mok played strangely in the Tarrasch, reaching a non-theoretical (if I'm not mistaken) position by the 10th move, and got into a position where I cannot say he has an advantage; in fact, he was probably worse because of his weak c5 pawn. Khai Boon erred when he violated opening principles, costing him a pawn and reaching a completely lost position by the 15th move. Peter did well to win his game.

I guess fatigue is demonstrating itself wholly in the Malaysian team now.

Olympiad R6-R8

R6: MAS-SMR

4-0. Good.


R7: MAS-ICSC

Well, our performance was overall mediocre, let's call it below par. It wasn't a disaster, but definitely not great either. We were more or less evenly matched on the first 2 boards, and had a rating advantage and disadvantage on the last 2. I had predicted a 1.5-2.5 loss, but we got 1-3. Not much difference in terms of match points anyway...

R8: SRI-MAS

I have one question for the Malaysian team:

Was Mas really THAT tired? Or have you guys really gone mad?

You must be kidding me, fielding a player who has not played a rated game in like, 7 years. The only chess he's been playing lately is blitz, and he's no good at it either. He has a peak rating of 1800 on playchess.com, or so I've heard.

Alright, so I was in the midst of writing this, and Greg just won. But that is not going to change what I think. First and foremost, just so we're clear, the fact of the matter is that Greg won just because he was lucky.

Honestly, how much time did you guys spend thinking of this? You fielded a player who has not played a serious game in over 7 years. Even Peter Long, who has been dormant for over a decade until just recently (2 years, which is not exactly 'recent') is not playing up to the standard that he used to have. How much more for Greg? Seriously, what winning chances did you think he had?

Seriously, is it so difficult for Mas to play? It's just a 2016 opponent; a lower rating than his 2085 Hong Kong counterpart. How much trouble did he have winning his R2 game? Yes, maybe it's arguable that his Sri Lankan opponent might be an underrated up-and-coming player, but based on what I see in his rating growth, the absolute maximum real strength I would ever possibly say he has is 2150, assuming his losses against players below 2000 never happened. How much energy do you need to beat a player more than 200 points below your not-inflated rating?

But then again, if we argue that the Sri Lankans are underrated, then it would be suicide to put Greg in anyway.

Now, I understand that it's incredibly tiring to play 8 games in a row; Humans who play proper chess come close to dropping dead at this point. But being experienced players who are playing a game associated with the question, "How many steps ahead can you see?", if you know this is coming, please plan ahead. Make this substitution in R2.

There is a rather high degree of batshit insanity involved when you have your first rated game in almost a decade against a person with a rating equal to yours. If you hope to win, that is.

Well, all this is based on the assumption that Mas was not sick or anything. If he really was sick, then sorry, ignore what I said. But otherwise, really, what were you guys thinking?

And now, for R9, we have Malaysia paired with Andorra. Their 4th and 5th board players are on a downward rating trend. If Greg plays this round, if he plays in the same way he did yesterday, I can only predict a draw for him at best. On the other hand though, neither of his potential opponents have won with black in the tournament...

Olympiad R3-R5

Well, I have things to do on weekends so I didn't really look at the games much, and I don't plan to give stale annotations 4 rounds late. But hey, there's always commentary on performance...

R3: LTU-MAS

Malaysia did great this round. Mas managed a black win against GM Rosentalis. Mok and Peter held their opponents to draws while Khai Boon lost. An incredible performance, considering that we were out-titled and out-rated, and yet, looking at the games, we would have actually won, had Mok seen the win against GM Sulskis. Really a great performance, one where the underdog is the one that was supposed to win!

R4: MAS-SUI

Well, we couldn't really have expected to win this round. On board 1, Mas managed to win a pawn in an endgame against GM Pelletier, but Pelletier proved that it was insufficient with his almost flawless endgame defence, when Mas again missed another win. Interestingly, the game ended in a not-so-well-known theoretical draw where black had only a bishop against a white rook and pawn. Peter held a draw without too much problem, and the other 2 boards lost.

R5: BOL-MAS

We lost 2.5-1.5 to an a team 30 seeds below us. Pathetic.

Well, at least we have a rest day to recover from such a traumatic stumble.

Olympiad R2 HKG-MAS

Well, this round had Malaysia paired with Hong Kong. Needless to say, Malaysia was expected to win. There's not much point annotating in detail since frankly, the Hong Kongers played rather weakly, and besides, it wasn't really my aim to talk about OTB chess when I decided to start this blog. And I don't think most of you guys come to this blog hoping to see tournament updates or read my annotations in the first place.

But anyway...

On B1, Mas' opponent played without a concrete plan; Rather aimless, and based on cheap tricks(9.Ng5, 11.Qb3...), I must say. Mas won this one quite simply.

B2 saw Mok playing some unusual chess, castling kingside earlier than necessary, followed by a h4-h5-h6 advance against an uncastled king. His opponent did not know how to react, and after some tactics(16.b4!,17.Nxb5) white set up a position to drum up an attack against the uncastled black king, eventually being a rook up in the final position. Very nice middlegame play by Mok, although I can't say the same about his opening plan. 0-0 was unnecessarily early, and the h-pawn advance is questionable.

B3 highlighted the main weakness of Malaysian players: the ability to play openings well with a concrete middlegame plan. Khai Boon, with little experience against players from outside Malaysia entered the Sicilian Dragon with a rather dubious move order (4...Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 gives white the option of 6.Nxc6 which is known to be bad for black) and picked a strange plan against the Classical setup:

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.Be3 Bg7 7.Be2 0-0 8.Nb3 d6 9.0-0 a6 10.a4 Na5?


This move does not go well with a6, because the pawn on a6 is pretty much useless here. Actually, it's probably better placed on a7 since it needs to cover the b6-square in case of Bb6 ideas. In fact, this tactical and positional possibility is one of the reasons why the Na5 variation of the Rossolimo is not good.

11.e5

What did I say? If 11...dxe5 then 12.Qxd8 Rxd8 13.Bb6 [Sorry. I mean 13.Nxa5]

11...Ne8 12.Nxa5 Qxa5 13.Nd5

In layman's terms (and mine), black is in deep shit.

13...Qd8 14.Bb6 Qd7 15.Be3 Qd8 16.Bb6 Qd7 17.Ba5 Rb8 18.Bb6 e6 19.Ba7 exd5 ½-½?

Incredible. Well, black isn't immediately lost but I think that after 20.Bxb8 dxe5 21.c4 d4 (opening files isn't a good idea when you opponent has more rooks than you) 22.Bf3 eying the d5 square, and a potential target on e5 as well as a queenside majority, white has a great position. Maybe white got cold feet here. It's hard to tell if he's a strong player since the only good move he made was 11.e5, which is somewhat obvious. Perhaps to him, squeezing a win out of this position is very difficult, and hence not worth it since they were the last game to finish, if I'm not mistaken. Who knows, maybe some people in the Hong Kong chess community is grilling him for his dubious call now. Eh, that sounds familiar...

On B4, Peter Long played the same setup as Mas, but with the white pieces. With a strong grip on the d5 square, he opened the position and had a strong pawn on d5, hampering the scope of black's light squared bishop and reducing black's mobility. White proceeded to infiltrate black's position, and emerged a pawn ahead with a continued attack against the black position on move 28. Black sportingly resigned in the final position. I liked this game; white played very simply but took apart his opponent nicely, though his opponent's poor defence contributed to this.

The team played genuinely well this round, but I can't say the same for Khai Boon; he played the opening badly and had no chance to demonstrate his strength in the middlegame. Well, there's still 9 rounds to go.

Olympiad R1 MAS-ENG

Well, let's not talk about the selection process and the fact that our men's team consists of only 4 real players. That can be covered after the dust settles, since I'm sure there will be more exciting things to add following the aftermath of this tournament.

I'm not going to give many evaluative comments; any patzer with Fritz/Rybka/Shredder/whatever can do that. In fact, I'm not going to use an engine to annotate.

B1

Mas,Hafizulhelmi (2422) - Adams,Michael (2728) [C28]

1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d3 Nc6 4.Nc3 Na5 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bh4 c6 7.a3 Nxc4 8.dxc4 d6 9.Qd3 Be6 10.Nge2 Be7

So it's more or less theory up to this point:



11.b3

Well, Mas' strongpoint never really was opening theory. This move cautiously, but unnecessarily overprotects c4 and makes queenside castling unfeasible. I think White could make a more productive move than this.

11...g5 12.Bg3 Qa5


13.f3

Not necessary either. Now there are points to attack on both flanks.

13...0-0-0

Reasonable. Black's pawn on c6 is not as bad as white's on f3; and it's obvious (at least with hindsight) that white's king will have to go to the kingside. (See next move)

14.0-0 Kb8 15.Rfb1 h5 16.Bf2

Improving the worst placed piece, and also prophylaxis against a consecutive h4-h3, since white has the option of replaying h4 with h3 himself.

Nd7 17.a4

White had to choose between the a- and b-pawn. I'm not too sure about the advance with the a-pawn: white wants to play a5-a6, since attacking with the b-pawn seems slow, as b5 can be met by c5 if necessary. But on the other hand, if this happened, d5 would be weak, d6 backward and the dark squared bishop would need to find something to do. Black would then have to rely heavily on his kingside attack.

17...Rc8 18.b4

a loss of 1 tempo!

18...Qd8 19.a5 g4


White is in trouble. The reason why f3 turns out to be weaker than c6 is apparent:if the f-pawn goes (and it probably will), white is saddled with the weak e4 pawn. The same can't be said about the c6 pawn. Black also may play f5, though it is unlikely to be necessary. Looking at the attack, black is also faster. White's pawn on f3 is already challenged, and it is very likely to be taken off. Then there are moves like Qg8 followed by f6 or f5, attacking the c4 pawn. The white queen will be overloaded by the defence of white's pawns. White on the other hand, is way too slow.

½-½

I'd presume Black offered the draw as he made the last move. Some Malaysians told me or their peers that Mas should have played on[Alright, I'm lying about the ambiguity; it was just Raymond Siew]. Like the rest who are of sound mind, I think otherwise. Come on, Michael Adams has 300 points on Mas. You don't play to win against a 2700 in a position where you are in deep shit. Don't forget the team has no real reserve players. Is it really a wise idea to "squeeze"(I don't think there is any jargon in chess to describe "pressing for a win when you stand worse") a position for a meaningless extra half point at the cost of your energy which will be needed for the next 10 rounds? Don't forget that the most likely outcome is a loss for white.

I'm sorry, I have nothing personal against you. But when people say incredibly stupid things and pass them off as words of wisdom, I feel an obligation to tell them how wrong they are.


B2

McShane,Luke J (2657) - Mok,Tze-Meng (2416) [A01]

1.b3

Well, it's only reasonable for one to assume that this was white's preparation. What a crude way to prevent the Modern!

1...e5 2.Bb2 d6 3.e3 Nf6 4.g3 Be7

I don't really like this move. It kind of looks like the way a beginner would place his bishop. I would have preferred adopting a KIA setup, with 4...g6 instead, having played d6.

5.Bg2 0-0 6.c4 Nc6

I don't know. Why not 6...c6? Now the position is starting to take the character of a reversed Closed Sicilian, but with the bishop badly placed on e7; Black has no Ne7 and a kingside pawn storm would be tantamount to suicide, as he white would own the a1-h8 diagonal then.

7.Nc3 d5

Well, it's hard to suggest a better move. 7...Be6 would be met by 8.Nd5 and black is slightly tangled up.

8.Nxd5 Nxd5 9.cxd5 Nb4 10.Qb1 Nxd5 11.Nf3

White was threatening 11...Nb4

11...f6 12.0-0 c5

It's hard to suggest a better move. The strategy to set up a Maroczy Bind fails instantly to the thematic break on the next move fails to...

13.d4


but white would have played this move anyway. After

13...exd4 14.exd4 Be6

Black manages to maintain some fight for the center, so perhaps 12...c5 was necessary

15.Qe4 Qb6 16.Rae1 Bf7 17.Nh4 Rfe8 18.Nf5

It's common principle that a knight on f5 is a strong attacker.

18...Bf8 19.Qg4 g6

preventing 20.Nh6

20.dxc5 Qxc5 21.Rc1 Qa5 22.Qh4!

A piece sacrifice which nets 3 pawns, and of course a possibly mating attack. I can't see an immediate win for white here though.

22...gxf5

I don't think black could reject the knight. His king is under heavy pressure, and his f6 pawn is loose.

23.Bxd5 Bxd5 24.Qxf6 Re6 25.Qh8+ Kf7 26.Qxh7+ Ke8 27.Qxf5 Rd8 28.Qh5+ Ke7 29.Qh7+


29...Kd6??

What?! 29...Ke8 leaves the king stuck in the centre, but there is no immediate (or obvious, at least) win for white. The text is complete suicide, and it doesn't get the king anywhere (except to the other half of the board). I have no idea what possessed Mok to make this move.

30.Ba3+ Ke5 31.f4+ 1-0

B3

Tan,Khai Boon (2160) - Howell,David W L (2616) [D85]

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nxc3 6.bxc3 Bg7 7.Ba3!?


It's not exactly a main line move. But it's good to see that Khai Boon made an effort to prepare something.

7...0-0 8.Rc1 b6 9.Nf3 c5 10.Bc4 Nc6 11.Bd5 Qc7 12.0-0 e6

Perhaps the point of Bd5: to provoke e6. But was it really worth 2 tempi?

13.Bc4 Bb7 14.Qe2 Rfd8 15.d5


Maybe it was: e6 is weak now. But unfortunately, the dark squared bishop is now badly placed on a3, biting on granite.

Na5 16.dxe6 Nxc4 17.Qxc4 fxe6 18.Ng5

Maintaining the tension first. The e6 pawn isn't going anywhere. But perhaps, with hindsight, white should have just taken immediately with 18.Qxe6+

18...Re8 19.f4 h6 20.Nxe6 Qf7

The point. Now the knight is pinned.

21.f5 Bc8 22.Bb2

The d4 pawn, having advanced, has left its compatriot isolated on c3 and in need of defence. But c3 remains to be a weakness, while seriously hampering the bishop. In view of this, I think it would have been better for white to jettison the pawn and play Rcd1 or Rce1 immediately.

22...Bxe6 23.fxe6 Qxe6 24.Qxe6+ Rxe6 25.Rcd1 Rxe4 26.Rd7 Rf8 27.Rxf8+ Kxf8 28.Kf2


How unfortunate! The need to play this move first takes away white's opportunity to restore material balance and any hope of saving the game.

Re7 29.Rd6 Kf7 30.h3 h5 31.g4 hxg4 32.hxg4 Be5 33.Rd8 Ke6 34.Rg8 Rh7 35.Re8+ Kd6 36.Kg1 Rh4 0-1


Jones,Gawain C B (2576) - Long,Peter (2302) [B11]

1.e4 c6 2.Nc3 d5 3.Nf3 Bg4 4.d4 Nf6 5.e5 Nfd7?!

The theoretical move here is 5...Ne4. But Peter wants to play a French structure without the problem child light-squared bishop. Looks like a sound, practical, albeit passive choice to me.

6.h3 Bxf3 7.Qxf3 e6 8.Bf4 a6 9.Be2 c5 10.dxc5 Nc6 11.Qg3 Nxc5 12.0-0 Nd4 13.Bd1 h5

The condition of the black position are highlighted by this move: It's solid enough to warrant this move, but at the same time passive enough that this is probably black's only "plan". He basically gains some space on the kingside, perhaps with the intention to fix the structure with h4 if it becomes feasible.

14.b4 Nf5 15.Qf3 Nd4 16.Qe3 Nf5 17.Qd2 Nd7 18.Nxd5?


Very dubious. White can't get enough for his piece.


18...exd5 19.Qxd5 Ne7?

Why? This only succeeds in shutting in the bishop. 19...Bxb4 was probably better, intending to castle if white doesn't do anything immediate.

20.Qxb7 Ng6 21.Qe4 Nxf4 22.Qxf4


Now the position is opened, with black's king stuck in the center. He is never going to be able to castle, since white always has e6 to open the f-file. Black will suffer.

Rb8 23.c3 Nb6 24.Bb3 Qc7 25.a4 g5

Suicide. But it's impossible to suggest a move that doesn't lose; white is going to infiltrate anyway, and black is only speeding up the process.

26.Qf5 Qd7 27.e6 fxe6 28.Qe5

Oops.

1-0

USD Exchange Rate

Well, I'll be quick with this one. It's about time someone mentioned this:

MCF needs to find another money changer. As far as I know, as of 2010(or several years before for that matter), RM3.80 for US$1 is a total rip off. I wish I could track down the culprit bank that is taking our dear federation's money, but unfortunately I haven't been able to find any banks that sell US$1 for more than RM3.50 since 2007. MCF seems oblivious to this con job, since I've seen that they've quoted US$1=RM3.80 in all of their cost tables/sheets(e.g. participation for a tournament through MCF)! Either that, or money has been leaking out through a fourth dimensional portal while payments were facilitated through MCF...I mean, where else could our money be going if we keep paying RM3.80 for something that costs RM3.20, right?

Deserving to Win

Well, I've pretty much had nothing to write about, since so far we've been lacking drama at the local scene (at least I haven't caught wind of any so far). I'd tell you first that this post more or less unrelated to what I expected to be writing about when I first started this 'blog'. I guess it does have a faint connection with why we tend to have problems advancing, since this subject can be related to our morale. But whatever. I'm only writing this because I'm bored to death right now, and it's been ages since my last post. My main policy still stands.

So, to start things off, I'd suppose that most people are familiar with this concept, and have their own taste of the experience of being on the receiving end and 'sending' end of a turn of the tables in a 'decided' game. And the feeling is, more or less, consciously, unconsciously or somewhere in between, "Why did this happen? I should have won! I was killing him and pressing to win! He didn't deserve shit!". Well, aside from citing the quote, "Your game is only as good as your worst move", or something like that, let me share my personal experience on this subject with you.

I was in a tournament some time back (sometime within the span of 3 days to 127 years ago). My opponent for the round had a much higher rating than me at the time, and I'm pretty sure I was playing either white or black. So anyway, the game starts, and my opponent plays relatively quickly. He misplays the opening by making a move-order inaccuracy on move 8, which I capitalized on. We reach a position where my opponent's position began to look troubled in many variations, despite the fact that the present position looked rather calm. I had 1:00 to his 1:20. He realized this, and started to spend a lot of time on each move he makes. He spends half an hour over the next 5 moves, and I spent 10 minutes. We've reached a position where I have a lot of potential for a sudden attack against his king. His position looked pretty defenseless, and he spends the next 40 minutes thinking. For a certain duration of this time I was wondering if he was disgusted and refused to simply resign because he was about to be destroyed by a player who he should statistically be scoring some 80% against.

Finally, with less than 10 minutes on his clock he makes a move that doesn't seem to change anything in the position, but he was threatening to win some material (albeit being irrelevant to the action that's going on). But as I looked at the position I started to doubt my attack. Maybe he can hold off the attack with only minimal loss of material, then I would have had a net loss of material, which would pressure me to attack even further, which is risky and such, considering that there was even the possibility of a counterattack. After thinking for half an hour, I didn't see an immediate win with my programmed move, so I decided to play a different move. He instantly replies with a move that parries the threat but fails to create one(the threat he created was pinned, so to speak). But then I looked at the position again. I had no way to continue my 'attack'. Let's skip the technical details of why, it's boring and irrelevant.

Soon it dawned upon me that his position had some sort of 'coil-spring effect' onto mine. He had threats of his own. The position finally simplified into a 3-piece endgame, and I continued to play badly, and since there was an increase in time, my opponent won. I was horrified at the end of the game. How could this happen? He was just defending, and at one point he even offered me a repetition of moves! I was doing all the work!

Then I analyzed the game. My handling of his slight error was great! I made all the best moves in the position. I was a genius! But then I took a second look. What would have a player slightly weaker than me done? Nothing different, I supposed. I realized that my moves were quite obvious for anyone familiar with the type of position that would arise. It was either that I make the moves I played, or allow my most valuable piece to be exchanged off. It was about as genius as not playing 5.Nxe5 in the exchange Ruy Lopez.

Fine. But what about the position where I was about to destroy him? It was only 10 moves after his error! Of these 10 moves, the first 4 were obvious; the next 3, I could say were good strategical moves that led to a lot of trouble for my opponent; the next 3 were obvious...and the final one was my mistake. What was worse was that I realized, I should have just gone to sleep during my 30 minutes of thought. I had given my opponent an extra tempo in my calculations for my 'programmed move'. No wonder why my opponent spent ages thinking in that position! He probably realized that he was completely lost! But even then I realized, I was still winning in the extra-tempo-variation I had calculated! In other words, I spent those 30 minutes calculating utter crap. I had no idea of what made me make that move I played. But even then, further analysis showed that my position was still marginally better. After which I was gradually outplayed and lost anyway.

So I realized, perhaps I could argue that my opponent did not deserve to win. All of his problems were self-inflicted, akin to playing with fire. But did I deserve to win? Absolutely not! I didn't make any great moves; he just made bad ones. And in the final position, when the killing blow was right under my nose, I failed to find it(to add to my embarrassment, I should add that I gave my opponent the extra tempo only 3 moves into the variation). And because of that, the game equalized. After this oversight, and another, the position was rather balanced. I guess one could say that karma finds its way even on the chessboard! After that, I was outplayed; he came up with a better plan than I did in the endgame.

It was at this point when I would figure out: I was only winning due to a series of opening inaccuracies by my opponent! I only managed to punish it because I knew he had made a wrong-looking move since I (apparently) understood the position better than he did, since I happen to study that opening! I wasn't playing better than my opponent (as the result evidently suggests). I was simply, in the words of what some players call their opponents when they lose, 'lucky'. After the position leveled off, I was duly outplayed. That means my opponent played better than I did. And outplaying me meant that he did not simply win because of some one or two mistakes on my part, unlike what was happening to him earlier. I did not deserve to win, contrary to what one might think!

In fact, this phenomenon of a weaker player losing to a stronger player in a position which he/she 'did not deserve to lose' was more or less testified by my performance in subsequent rounds in that tournaments. I lost to higher rated players. But looking at my games against weaker players, I noticed that in 3 of them, the game had been reduced into rather equal 2-piece endgames, and yet I won at the end of each of them. And I even had one game which I won a losing endgame! Similarly in this case, I noticed that in the drawing games, I had presented my opponents with no chances to go wrong in the middlegame. That's why they made it to the endgame, which they ended up playing poorly! As for the losing one, all I did was make 1 mistake while pressing to win; and I turned the tables at the end! So to summarize these 4 'fortunate'(but I beg to differ) games, I asked myself: Was I playing well? The answer was, of course, a flat out 'no'. But then comes the question: did my opponent deserve to win/draw? Double no! They had shown no effort to do/create anything in the position prior to the evaluation being 'very drawish' or 'winning' for them!

[Also, a piece of advice to most Malaysian players: The players I had beaten in that manner are stronger than most of you. So don't agree to a draw in 'drawish' endgames only because endgame textbooks say so. It's only drawn when it's obviously drawn to you AND your opponent. A psychological fact too: Those who agree to draw only because it 'should be drawn', but don't know why, are simply doing that because they are afraid to lose. So don't fool yourself. Play on. And if your opponent offers the draw, you can deduce something from that. The experience will do you good.]

So what can one say about 'deserving to win'? Well, to me, after that experience, such a 'phenomenon' does not exist, not over the board at least (e.g. if you were completely winning and the tournament venue caught fire and the game had to be restarted, then yes, you deserved to win. But that's off the board interference). Say, if you make an elementary blunder in a won position, that would just show you were overconfident. You don't deserve to win. Remember that when you argue that one side does not 'deserve to win', that does not automatically imply that the other side does. In fact, if the score was awarded for 'a well-deserved win', I think those 5 games I played in that tournament will end with a 0-0 score at the end.

So the next time your opponent/friend/some random person tells you that they "deserved to win", please, show them this article.

Malaysian Chess - Why we are what we are

Sometimes we, or at least I, may wonder why we don't advance in terms of chess. I have come up with a few theories of my own. Since this is a rather widely discussed and covered topic, I'll omit the points that are already on the table, and present you only with those that have not been put forward, or are not well-known.

Looking at the FIDE rating list, in fact, we are the highest ranked country that does not have a GM. But the subject matter is actually our rate of progress. A prime example would be Singapore. It's a country that refutes many reasons for Malaysia to be unable to compete at a world level.

We were ahead of Singapore in chess for decades after Singapore was separated from Malaysia. But then, the Singaporeans eventually ended up completely overtaking Malaysia at the turn of the millennium, going from being whitewashed by Malaysia in the early MAS-SIN days to almost calling off the said annual friendly match because it was starting to seem like a one-sided affair (in their favour!).

So the question to be asked, obviously, is why are we unable to compete at a world level?

Is it because Malaysia has a small population? Countries with large populations tend to have a higher likelihood of producing strong players; it's almost statistically proven: Look at China and India. Yet, Singapore, having a less than a fifth of Malaysia's population, has plenty of strong players and achievements compared to Malaysia. Don't forget countries in the Slavic region, i.e. Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, etc.

Could it be because Malaysia is not exactly a first-world country? The Singaporeans are mostly rich people. But then, third world countries, e.g. Bangladesh, Myanmar have produced GMs of their own.

Now, forget about all the GM training that is available to many top countries. These GMs came about without their own GM training, and those that did have GM training as a child, we can just go on to ask about the GM that trained him and so on. Besides that, Bobby Fischer (and probably many others) learned the game from books (some of which were in Russian!). Yes, he is just one person. Chess training from any strong player, FM, IM or GM does help a player to improve. But the point is that it is still possible to improve without a GM trainer. In fact, today it's easier with the age of computers and chess training software/videos. 50 years ago, in the days of Fischer, such things did not even exist! Now don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying that we don't need the help of proper trainers to improve; they do help a lot, but if someone were to ask me for a sincere answer to the question, "Why is Malaysian chess not advancing?", I'd would not be giving what would be the best answer in my opinion if I answered, 'the lack of proper training'

My theory for why we are what we are is mainly one thing: incentive and motivation. We have none of that. Think about it; who wants to pursue chess as a career? What would the failed ones do with their life if they cannot become a GM after sacrificing too much for the sake of chess? And for those who do make it, is a living guaranteed? The top 10 active Malaysians the FIDE rating lists are all either working or studying now, with the exception of Peter Long who does more or less work in the chess scene. Besides that, most Malaysians aren't willing to pay high prices for chess lessons, most probably because it is not viewed as a good investment of money compared to other things, e.g. other sports, music. The truth is, chess is not really given much respect in Malaysia. Singaporeans do have similarities to Malaysians in a sense that there aren't many professional chess players in Singapore. However the difference is that some of these players did devote most of their spare time to chess, taking it seriously, second only to their careers outside chess, whereas most Malaysians simply take it as a hobby, where the talented do rise to the top, but do not make any colossal leaps. Don't forget that Singaporeans also have a desire to be above everyone else, which is essential to stand out among the rest!

One thing I should point out as well: A good portion of a personal trainer's time is spent looking at the games of rivals to prepare some special opening for critical games, analyze playing style or to remind his student about the way to handle his opponent if/when they do get paired. Isn't this doable by the students themselves?

In addition to that, we are probably the only country where local events are hosted in which there are so many prizes in tournaments relative to the participating players; there are some events which award prizes to people below a certain rating, and certain events in which only players below a certain rating are allowed to participate! I would also include open events that include age-group prizes. While most of these events may be funded by a private sponsor, I find this to be rather counter-productive. Yes, it gives weaker players a chance to taste the experience of winning a prize, but at what cost? Some become satisfied by just winning this sort of prize. It would not motivate a player to break through the ceiling of their rating tier if it only means that they become unqualified to play in tournaments that cater only to the weak, which they have been winning all the while. An argument here, which is only applicable to the juniors in open tournaments, would be that some juniors would not be eager to participate in a tournament where the odds of winning a prize are very low.

My counter-argument would be that these type of players would not be the ones to give the standards in Malaysian chess a jump. Every player does intend to enter a tournament with the hope to win a prize. But it's only the players whom are really interested who enter anyway no matter how slim the chances are that show real enthusiasm for the game. Now I'm not condemning the players who don't participate simply because their chances of winning a prize is too slim; my point is that we need not worry over losing these players as they are not the potential frontrunners of Malaysian chess.

However, if players instead were forced to compete against the 'sharks' for prizes without consolation for those who fall behind, everyone will need to fight, regardless of rating, no mercy. There would be no players fixing games over mere second-tier prizes. The strongest players win the prizes. Let the cream rise and the crap settle. Players who cannot deal with this reality will not have the mental strength or stability to become a top player, as the strongest tournaments, where people get the most experience. A chess tournament is just a competition over a game. Not welfare. Give the prizes only to those who work for it and deserve it. That's how people rise to the top in the real world.

Also, an interesting thing I noticed during the recent KL Open is that there were several senior players, whom some may consider to be 'past their prime'. It's slightly obvious who they are, but I won't specifically name them simply because it would be rather disrespectful to imply that someone has gone past his 'time', especially when it is not always the case. Anyhow, these players are willing to play because they take the game as a hobby, or have a great (or newly restored) enthusiasm for the game, where they have great interest to play, regardless of the fact that they are very prone to losing their rating to the new generation. They do under-perform. But they do deserve some respect for not being afraid of losing their rating points.

However, there were very few seniors from Malaysia participating. Some of those who didn't participate provoked rhetorical questions as to why not, with the supposed answer of pride-related issues. Now this may or may not be the case, as I would suppose the actual reason is due to the lack of free time, but frankly I don't care. What I do notice is that sadly, these guys just don't get a break. If they did participate, they would probably have been hung out to dry if they underperformed. I find it rather sad, since I do like to see Malaysia's best play in tournaments, but when they don't, partially due to the fear of losing (which is due to what the public would say if that happened), it's rather pitiful to know that it could have been avoided. It's also incredibly ironic that those who condemn people who didn't play did not take part in the tournament themselves, and those who make fun of the poor performance of those who did participate, probably have a rating that is lower than the performance of the said person.

Take Jimmy Liew's 1977 performance in the KL Open. I'd agree it's pretty bad, but to his defense, although he did not beat any higher rated players, he only got upset in 2 games, those of which were against grossly underrated players (one of which performed at 2436!). But anyhow, my point is that I don't think those who criticized him even have a rating close to that number (most are likely to posses a FIDE rating 1977 points below his performance). How do you criticize someone when you do not know what it's like to be him? But an important point to me is really: Why bother? It's just the performance of an individual who entered the tournament as one. Even if he lost all 9 rounds, so what? Unless there is a connection between natural disasters and individual chess performance disasters (like say, a volcano erupting because a 2600 player lost to a 1700 player), I don't think anyone else should be hurt, 'embarrassed' or give negative comments of any sort due to the performance of an irrelevant individual. The latter of which I would like to point out is really said by most people just for the fun of it. Anyone who honestly believes he is making a contribution by 'destructively' criticizing the performance of others obviously suffers from severe mental retardation. There is a wide gap between constructive criticism, good/bad suggestions, and plain insults, the latter of which is the most useless.

However, all in all, we should remember that the methods to improve the standard of Malaysian chess involve some change in the personal schedule and the mindset of players. In the end, it is up to the players themselves, to make the change. We can encourage them to improve, but forcing them to is not the way. We cannot force someone to the top. It is their enthusiasm and self-motivation that drives them the extra mile. It is easy to tell someone to study chess for 8 hours a day, but actually doing it is a completely different matter. Perhaps, given the current circumstances, e.g. chess struggling to gain popularity in Malaysia (i.e. the general population knowing about and taking interest in the local chess scene), the laziness (as one might say) of most players etc, it might not yet be our time to move forward in chess as a whole. Nobody knows for sure. At the end of the day, it is mainly in the hands of the active players to decide, and the most anyone can do to contribute is to support and help them if they want it. An important point is that we cannot move forward by force, and 90% of Malaysia's likelihood to succeed depends on the mindset of the players themselves. Nobody can be forced. Everyone is born with their own free will and has absolute control of their actions. If one has talent in chess, for example, that does not mean that he/she is bound to dedicate all his spare time to chess in favour of other things that he/she elects to pursue instead. Only time will tell where we stand in the future. Just remember that if we don't succeed, fingers should not be pointed at one another. Those who fail either just weren't meant to be, or lacked the time/incentive for chess. Don't forget that they are no different from us; we can be the chess players too. Sometimes we expect them to produce results that we have failed to produce ourselves (and there's no excuse!).

P/S: The AmBank Chess Challenge during Merdeka is offering prizes for players below 1600, starting from RM800. Talk about spoiling the weak.

The Last Word

I definitely need to stop copy pasting...

From Norazlin

Well, Rationality (Really?) has thrown a baseless accusation that I have edited my post which I DID NOT.. Where is his evidence? he should save the original screen and make comparison before accusing me like that.... This accusation actually confirms one thing which somebody (my chess friend) has told me earlier...:) Ironically, according to Jimmy - The Analyst, this is very logic and rational.

OK. Very well. I have no screenshot evidence (but just so you know, a screenshot is editable), so I'll give you the benefit of the 'doubt' and assume you never edited your post and never said that (Other people do know though; and so do you. But fine).

Well, I do not wish to further dragged into this debate..If you believe that pre arranged draw is not a cheat for whateva reasons you think fits then be it... but simply accusing someone edited the post to defend yourself is a very low effort... well what to expect from a blogger who has no balls to identify himself... :)

If you didn't wish to be further dragged into this 'debate', you would have never made a reply. You want this to happen. Whether you know it or not. Yeah sure, I'll give you that point. Still have the other 2 points that you ignored though. Nice to see you using metaphors with your emotions. Makes your post look more....firey.
,

To end this debate on wheter Pre Arranged Draw is a cheat or not, here are my opinions...:-

1. When pre arranged match lead to directly / indirectly DENYING / AFFECTING other player chances from winning or securing certain post or prize then it is unethical...

OK, let's use your analogy from down there. If smoking is a pre-arranged draw, tournaments would be smoking areas (There are no laws against smoking, nor is there against prearranging a draw). The negative effect would be second-hand smoking. Don't want to be affected? Don't enter the smoking area.

2. Fatigue or money reason can't justify to fix a match... how about the other players that possibly affected by the decision? Is it right? If you think you are unfit to finish all rounds or have no money to compete.. dont compete at all....or just resign...

Fatigue leads to short draws. Not fixed ones. In fact, I stand corrected about short draws in Malaysia; there is absolutely nothing wrong with short draws at all. If both players are tired, then that's an even better reason to just draw and call it a day. No reason to get a headache over something that is, in the end, just a game right? So what you're saying is, if someone does not have the money to compete (you mean compete but risk a good placing in the name of so-called 'sportsmanship'), don't? i.e. poor people should not play in chess tournaments? Now that's a nice one. 'Just resigning' is even worse. First of all, it's stupid to resign if you have the option of drawing. Did you know that a decisive game instead of (let's assume it would have been a) draw would lead to a drop of 1 place for one of a player's close rivals for a placing? That would affect the result, which to me, doesn't matter, but would lead to people like you writing about a blog post on resigning a game without a fight.

I left you with an anology... Smoking is bad for you and other people's health ... many people smoke does not make smoking is good... eventhough you might say that you buy cigarette with your own money does not make smoking is good also...if you say you smoke because it makes you feel macho or handsome also does not change the fact that smoking is bad for health....:)

You just proved my point. I never said a pre-arranged draw is good. What I am saying is that it's definitely not bad. I said it's up to the players themselves. I do admit, you have seem to have another point; Players cannot justify the negative affects of a fixed game onto other players with the positive effects on themselves. Unfortunately, you are missing the point, yet again. It's not welfare. We don't care how our games affect the results of others, frankly speaking. The reasons I gave were simply the motives/reasons behind fixing a game. If I'm trying to justify anything, it's that players have their reasons to make such draws, to which they can rightfully do at their will. They're not criminals. I stress again that the negative effects onto other people are just collateral damage.

Here's my analogy. Do people go to war (analogous to a chess tournament) with the intention of killing innocent civilians (analogous to other players chasing for a prize)? The answer, is of course, in case you haven't figured out, no. The reasons to go to war is over other things. But then alright, going to war is bad; practically the entire world agrees. Why? Because of the collateral damage, i.e. the mass casualties of innocent civilians which cannot justify whatever reason a country has to go to war. So maybe now you're thinking,"So that makes me right!". Wrong. The difference between this scenario and a chess tournament is that in the war scenario, civilians don't have a choice. They're stuck living in the war. They were forced into it. Chess players, on the other hand, voluntarily enter their war zone.

Conclusion

Regardless my opinion on Pre arranged draw, i believe that it will remain status quo... it's a matter of personal integrity and preferences... I personally have agreed to draw with a friend to secure a top 5 place in a chess tourney before.. but I will never say pre arranged match is good as it actually affects other players' chances unfairly..... For those who do not agree.. then.. be it... it's your choice...:)

You're contradicting yourself. You do not say "regardless of my opinion" and follow it up immediately with "i believe". And that personal experience of yours makes you a hypocrite. That was probably the only time in your life where you came close to such a good position, and you couldn't bear to risk it, could you? So you probably know what it's like for the people who go through such a scenario, especially those who go through it in almost every tournament they play.

Now, again, to me, it doesn't matter what happens to the other players. I need to stress 1 more time that blaming a slip in position onto the performance of other players. It's like the 2nd place on solkoff with, say 6.5/7 blaming his previous opponents for blundering a mate in 4 in the final round, when instead, he could have improved himself by beating the champion. Here's a valuable lesson in life: It's people who blame their losses on other people that lose out. Why? Because they have the illusion that it's not their fault, and unconsciously (or even worse, consciously) think that they do not need any improvement on themselves.

Having said that, let me present you with a scenario anyway. Take a tournament, here's the pairing of 6 players and ranking prior to the final round, i.e. round 9.

Ranking after round 8

1. Player A 8 points 42 BH
2. Player B 7 points 39 BH
3. Player C 7 points 37 BH
4. Player D 6.5 points 38 BH
5. Player E 6.5 points 36 BH
6. Player F 6 points 40 BH

Round 9 Pairing

1.A-F
2.B-E
3.C-D

Trust me, this type of pairing is possible.
Let's consider this scenario, and also that the solkoff tiebreak relative positioning does not change:

A-F 0.5-0.5
B-E 0.5-0.5 fixed
C-D 0-1

Final Ranking:

1. Player A 8.5 points 42 BH
2. Player B 7.5 points 38 BH
3. Player D 7.5 points 39 BH
4. Player C 7.0 points 37 BH
5. Player E 7.0 points 36 BH
6. Player F 6.5 points 40 BH

Here, D would be cursing B and E for drawing because if B lost, D would be second. BUT, notice that if E won, the placing would be

1. Player A 8.5 points 42 BH
2. Player D 7.5 points 39 BH
3. Player E 7.5 points 36 BH
4. Player B 7.0 points 38 BH
5. Player C 7.0 points 37 BH
6. Player F 6.5 points 40 BH

Player C has slipped a place! But thanks to their actual fixed draw instead, he's placed 4th. So this means that as a result of the B-E fixed draw, instead of, say, a loss for B, player D has been negatively affected whereas C has gotten some benefit from their arrangement.

The conclusion? It's all about the point of view.

Alright, fine. It doesn't stop there. Nobody said that if B-E didn't fix their game, it would necessarily end in a loss for B. The game could still end in a draw (which is most common, after all, who would fix a draw with someone they can beat?), or a win for B. A crucial thing to understand about a fixed game is that it's done by mutual agreement (as you have once experienced). There is no gun to the head/threat to the family.

But anyhow, I'd like to point of that the title of this post is, of course, just a joke. It's not going to end here. I don't believe it will. You might figure out that the points I make here are not really directed toward Norazlin, because from my experience in arguments, it's not really possible for one side to concede, and I do not believe in dedicating my time to carefully write out a post in response to one that is hastily written on impulse with little substance. However, I am still obliged to answer. Instead, my points are written so that you, my faithful readers, can better understand the topics of discussion before you decide to take a side when your opinion is asked by, say, your friends. If I was going to make a foolish try to change a man's stance on his opinion which he has reinforced with his own reasoning, however flawed it might be, I would talk to him in private.

So yes, my dear readers, this blog is really for your reading/viewing pleasure. Enjoy!

A Burning Question

Alright, I guess I didn't think myself through before deciding to start this blog. 2 topics and I'm already running out of things to talk and give my opinion about. So I guess I'll have to ask a question this time.

Before I start, I would like to say that I think every decision made and/or action taken is for a reason. Nobody does something just because 'they want to' or 'they can'. I think there is a motive behind everything. Even the shooting sprees we read about in the West (and sometimes East) happen to be for a reason, i.e. grudge, depression, death wish. Even people with some form of insanity do things due to a sort of delusion that they have, i.e. schizophrenics. Given this property of the human mind, it is always possible to theorize why someone does something, regardless of what it is.

So let's begin. My question is: What is the goal of hosting the "Pertanding Catur Melayu Sahaja"? Alright, I'm pretty sure I'm not very accurate and it's called something else but I don't want to beat around the bush; a 4-word title, describing exactly what it is: A chess tournament in which only Malays are allowed to participate, initially hosted officially by PCMM, the Malays-only chess association, and now to be hosted by the so-called Jaffolea chess club under the sponsorship of Yahaya Ahmad if I'm not mistaken. I realize that there is exactly nothing wrong with this tournament legally, except for the small incidence that it goes against the spirit of racial unity in Malaysia, and it has this little part of it that makes it look like it's going against a minor concept known as 1Malaysia.

It's perfectly fine to host this tournament, no legal repercussions unless it can be somehow associated with attempting to disturb the inter-racial harmony in Malaysia (but it can't right? There's no way someone would host a tournament like this with an irrational reason like, a dislike toward the other races or to preserve/strive for Malay supremacy in Malaysian chess). But anyway, this question has been burning in me ever since this tournament was started, i.e. PCMM. And up to this day, the question has still been bugging me, so it's time I ask for the help of others to answer:

Why?

Among the reasons I was thinking of was, hm, maybe it's being held just like how similar tournaments in other sports are hosted, i.e. basketball/table tennis competitions for the non-Chinese or football tournaments for the non-Malays, which was also pointed out by Gilocatur. Question answered, I thought. But then I didn't stop there. I asked myself "why?" again (After all, it doesn't make sense to just 'follow a trend' which isn't even that popular). I got the answer: To encourage participants from other races to involve themselves in the said sport, which happens to be dominated by the barred race. Then I realized, there's an inconsistency! Basketball and table tennis were dominated by the Chinese and football by the Malays, and there was a very different turnout of the participants. Whereas, there is very little difference between the participants in the PCMM tournaments and the participants in say, the CAS allegros. I see the same faces, and almost the same number of participants except without the few Chinese, Indians and certain other races that would usually take part in normal tournaments. So I concluded: There has to be another reason for this!

And that's when the problem started for me. I couldn't figure it out! I could not think of a logical reason for this tournament to be held, and I've been having a chronic headache every time I see or think about this event.

And then came the saving grace. Gilocatur posted a poll regarding the event. Granted, it is not an accurate one because anyone could vote more than once if they wanted to, and not every chess player in Malaysia took the poll. But anyway, I noticed that the majority was against the event. But then, a third of the voters, 44 votes to be exact, though not necessarily different people, were in support of the event! At last, a gateway to the relief of my curiosity!

So now again, I ask the question to the organizer of this event, or those 44 voters, or those who are like these 44 but didn't vote:

Why host a chess tournament for Malays only?

I'd acknowledge that this question does not need to be answered if nobody wants to, but roughly 66% of Malaysian chess players are probably eager to get a response. So yeah.

(This is probably the most sarcastic blog post I have made and will ever make.)