Short/Pre-Arranged Draws in Malaysian Chess

As any avid follower of chess is aware of, short draws between players are frowned upon by many others. So much that ChessBase had tons of coverage on the subject last year and 2 years ago, ranging from the tournaments adopting the Bilbao system, the Sofia rule and suggestions from contributors, all of which were meant to deter players from making short draws.

Before we proceed, please be aware that the topic does NOT include the scenario of collusion, i.e. the strategy allegedly used by Soviet players while chess was still dominated by the Soviets around the 1940-1964 World Championship. That adds up to conspiracy for a single nation to be glorious at the end of the road or whatever terms you want to use to call it. Instead, this article covers mainly the subject matter of pre-arranged games in tournaments that do not bear any significant privileges or special title for the winner, where those involved act strictly for the sake of personal (usually monetary) gain and benefit.

Now, let's ask ourselves a simple rhetorical but important question:

Why do the players agree to short/prearranged games?

There are many answers to this, all valid and easy to deduce logically, but I'll give the 2 which are most relevant to the topic I will be discussing:

1. They are tired/unmotivated.
2. It's all that is necessary to become the champion.

Now, another simple one, which is neglected to be asked by the average person who does not understand the situation:

Why is it bad?

Alright, this boils down to 1 simple reason: It kills the entertainment. People expect to see a fighting game, only to find that the game ends prematurely with 1/2-1/2 as the final score.

So alright, now comes the cold question:

Why should the players care?

Now the answer here is that because they have been fully sponsored to fly from their respective country, stay in a luxury hotel and are even given appearance fees! I'd be damned if I were the organizer, only to find the participants of the tournament, which I paid through the nose for, agreeing to almost instantaneous draws! In addition to that, they lose support from fans. It's a more familiar scenario to those who follow other sports involving teams that throw the game. Therefore, they are expected to perform and show some fighting spirit in their game.

Alright, so now it doesn't take any hindsight to know where I'm heading on the matter of this subject.

So let's play spot the difference. What do you think is the difference between draws in world class chess and Malaysian chess? Well, again, I'll answer that for you: Participants are paid at world level; Participants pay at the local scene. Yes, there are sometimes sponsors for the prizes. But at the end of the day, the players still had to fork out the entrance fee which ranges anywhere from RM20 to RM800 (think Malaysian Open), while very few others might have had to spend some money to stay at a hotel. So, anyway, having paid the entrance fee, it's their choice of what they intend to do next to extract the most out of their 'investment', sometimes going to lengths of ending the game decisively with the intention of pooling a larger sum of money to be split when a draw yields less. That, to some, looks unsporting. At a certain level, when a title is concerned perhaps, maybe it would be considered so. But this kind of thing usually occurs only in weekend rapid events so in reality, it's just business. And another thing is that many players just can't play well under pressure in the final round, especially when they are very close to winning first place.

In fact, this is sometimes demonstrated by Malaysian chess bloggers themselves! I have seen blog posts of personally annotated games in non-crucial rounds of small-time tournaments ending in draws when there is plenty of play left in the position, with reasons such as the 'position is about level', 'we were tired/exhausted', etc. I will not specifically mention who because I will definitely miss out a few by accident, and I do not want to label them as hypocrites when I do not even know their stance on short draws. Just to clarify (though unnecessarily), I have nothing against this. Unless those bloggers happen to object to short draws themselves.

Did you know that in poker tournaments at the final table, when the game is down to the last 2 or 3 players, the said players sometimes agree to split the final winnings in proportion to their current chip count? One Malaysian blogger, Norazlin Juarih, went so far to call the idea of prearranging a game cheating. I'd draw the line at lack of sportmanship as a point of debate because a prearranged game is NOT anywhere within the domain of cheating. He goes on to whine that he was once a victim of such 'cheating', how he would have gotten a better placing if the game ended decisively.
Well boo hoo sir, maybe you should try improving your chess next time so you don't have to pin your hopes for a good placing on other players. On a slightly off-topic note, lagging by a day in the topic of my discussion, I found that you condemned Norazman in the Titiwangsa event, and then went on to urge others to read Norazman's side of the story. Make up your mind. Hypocrite.

Sometimes, rating is at stake too. Consider the 2009 Malaysian Masters between Lim Yee Weng and Edward Lee. The first two rounds were draws and the third was a loss for Edward when he blundered. Edward, trailing 1-2 needed to win the last game to force a tiebreak. To the surprise of many, the game was agreed to be a draw after some 10 moves! Personally, I don't think this was a smart decision of risk evaluation by Edward because a loss would only result in a small deficit of rating. But we have to consider the dynamics of the situation: Edward had just lost by a blunder earlier that day. He was lacking the morale to win, and could pocket a few rating points, free of charge, if he took the draw. Furthermore, even if he won the game, he would only force a tiebreak. Forcing a tiebreak and winning the match are 2 different stages of a match. As such, lacking motivation to win 3 games (tiebreak games included) as the underdog, he decided that he should just throw in the towel and take the rating points. In my opinion, I think he should have just played to win, but Edward's decision was not without reason. Please note that this is purely speculation and as far as I know, Edward has not made any statement that I know of regarding this matter. By the way, the discussion of this scenario may seem to contradict my note at the beginning, but this game was not fixed. It's a short draw. Fought out...though for only a short 10 moves or so. But not fixed.

Finally, unlike football teams and world-level chess, 99.9% of Malaysian chess players do not have fans to disappoint, although even if they did it's really up to them. This point is rather irrelevant.

As for myself, I have been involved in, and have also been a 'victim' of such arrangements. I do not enjoy being the losing third party as the result of a pre-arranged game, but I accept it. In life, there is always give and take. It's called karma by some. What goes around comes around. But even things that don't go around sometimes do come around. It's simply the way the world works. Many strong local rapid players play chess as a source of supplementary income, some even as their main source of income (Ian Udani for instance, and yes, I know he's a Filipino but that's besides the point).

Anyway, regardless of whether chess is something a player may consider as a hobby, supplementary or main source of income, the fact of the matter is that we, as human beings, are greedy people, which is what helps us to survive. We do what we can to get the most out of everything. Without breaking the law, of course. Most of us anyway. And as far as I know, a fixed game does not involve the breaking of any laws inside or outside of chess. Those who don't fix their crucial games simply for the sake of sportsmanship or gamesmanship will lose out, if their only aim is to satisfy the spectators. But it's good for them if they do anyway, it's something to enjoy watching!

At the end of the day, the players who reach the top of the tournament rankings get to decide what to do. You can discourage and condemn their actions, but it still stands that they are the ones who are in control. You want to make a change? You be that person at the top. Perhaps you might even change your stance on short draws once you realize that you have made a huge effort to get there, only to risk a lot to get a little.

My apologies if this post goes against the grain of the conventional line of thought regarding the subject in Malaysian chess. If you think I'm wrong, I respect your opinion. Just read the third last paragraph of my welcome note if you don't believe me.

P/S: I think that it's necessary that I point out again that most of the game fixing practiced in Malaysia is done purely for monetary gain, as opposed to the alleged game fixing by the Soviets during the Soviet era, so we can avoid some unnecessary debate. In fact, I do not recall any major events in Malaysia with fixed games. Here the reason people fix games is to yield more money from the prize fund (which is really what everyone plays for. Nobody enters a tournament with zero hopes of winning any prize) , and the hindering of others from winning better prizes is just collateral damage. Sorry people [who have gotten far enough in tournaments to be 'cheated' like this], you were just petty damage. The prizewinners weren't conspiring to stop you from winning a prize.

Now, I understand that this is something that is hotly debated, and I think I am the first Malaysian to admit that there is nothing wrong with this practice as far as it goes in Malaysia, so for just this article, I will entertain arguments. The conditions are simple:

1. Post it on your blog.
2. It has to be based on reasoning. Your own reasoning. Not 'because wikipedia says so'. Include possible scenarios. And your reasoning has to mean something. Do not post references to the Bible/Quran/Rukun Negara/Whatever. With due respect, they are invalid points of reasoning in this topic especially since not everyone shares the same religion. Secondly, it's not necessary to play the religion card unless it's the only one you have left. In fact, don't post references to ANYTHING except examples. If I need to refer to something, I'll do it myself. The only thing you need to talk about is your reasoning.

Heads up though, to those who want to take on the challenge; think about what you want to say, rather than to act on impulse just because I contradict your beliefs. For example, you don't need to mention that I seem like an idiot for grouping the Rukun Negara together with the Quran and Bible. That was just a joke. If your points are worthless and/or off-topic, you will look stupid.

That being said, I will be happy to entertain a logical/reasonable objection to my opinion. Maybe you might even change the way I look at this practice.

Cheating and Ethics in Chess

Recently, as most people would know, there were allegations of cheating in the Titiwangsa tournament 2 Sundays ago. The accused was Norazman Ismail. He was accused of 2 wrongdoings, the first was that he allegedly reduced the time on the clock of his opponent, Rizal Ahmad Kamal during the course of the game. I don't think I need to give an opinion on this, as Jimmy Liew has said everything that I wanted to say. I should add though, Rizal based his entire story (the position he showed was completely irrelevant actually, as most people would realize) on a statement by Subramaniam Sivanesan, a boy who was looking at the analog clock from an angle, as pointed out by Norazman himself. Besides that, I think Norazman, being an experienced blitz player knows that 5 minutes in a position like that is more than enough to win! I could win that position with 2! He's not stupid; he has never cheated before, why would he make his first attempt at a low-key event, and cheat to bring down his opponent's time to a point where it was still sufficient to win?

Then Rizal goes on to talk about it from the perspective of religion after exhausting his other slightly more relevant points (this player has cheated before, because other people said so, yada yada yada), ending with, "The truth shall prevail" in large font. OK let's be frank, again, the whole purpose of that post was because he was unsatisfied with Norazman and he wanted everyone to take his side of a matter that he made known by opening his mouth (well, I don't really know what its called when you do it in writing...), which otherwise would remain unknown. My friend, you already won first place by disqualification of the real winner. Do you need to further de-glorify him and let the world know that you won (as you had so relevantly pointed out in that same post, entitled 'Controversies')?

The second offense he committed was that he participated in a tournament that was meant for players rated below 1600. A bit of background on this situation before I continue: Norazman and the organizer, Latiff, were having a strained relationship due to some business outside of chess several years ago. Anyway, back to the story; Norazman was told to 'play first' despite informing the organizer that he was outside the rating restraints. Upon conclusion of the tournament, his 1st place win was negated and the prize was awarded to Rizal instead.

There is simply no justice in this. If someone wants to play in your tournament despite being unqualified, you have to deny him entry. If you let him play, you damn well better let him play up to the end and win a prize! The organizer generally has the right (though there are no written rules in this case) to deny entry at will, but denying the winnings despite allowing entry is downright absurd. The pathetic refund given to Norazman is worthless. First of all, he wasted his time in the tournament throughout the day. Secondly, in economic terms, Norazman's entry is worth RM500 after winning first place, not RM25.

In addition to that, at the time of writing, the tournament details on the organizer's blog are misleading. There is only a single line that vaguely mentions that there is a rating restraint for non-bloggers. My Malay is also not that good, but the word 'Terbuka' roughly translates to 'Open' as far as I know. You do not get to call a tournament 'open' if only a certain group of people can join! Imagine the government informing the nation that "Income Tax will be completely refunded for all Malaysians!" only to write down later in fine print at some point, "Only Malaysians who earn less than RM20 annually qualify for this.". You'd be pissed, wouldn't you?

Another thing I need to add is how sickeningly hypocritical I find it that these people do not dare to state the accused's name. Everyone knows that his name will be found out eventually, so, unless you're mentally challenged, if you really wanted to "protect the guilty", you'd just shut up and not talk about it. But let's be frank. I don't think you (bloggers who do this kind of thing) are stupid, nor do you consciously think that everyone else is (let me tell you though, unconsciously, you do think others are gullible enough to think they are brilliant gossip followers when their names are 'accidentally' divulged). Here's a star example from Rizal's blog. So we see blah blah and blah, then we reach the point where he says, "(I shall refrain myself from stating his name)", followed by "this particular player emerged as the champion" and then just underneath is a picture of the results. No need for me to mention who was the champion...I need to protect his privacy! You could have made it look more authentic if you let some other chess blog post the final standings. But seriously Rizal, do you really think we have the IQ of a dead frog? We know we didn't find out who you were talking about through our brilliant skills of observance and investigation.

Another blogger, Azizul, posted his sad story of being "cheated" on his blog to add some gasoline to the flames of the current affair. His first story demonstrates his poor knowledge of the laws of chess, regarding the procedure to claim a draw by threefold repetition. Similar to Rizal, he drops slightly less obvious clues to who his opponent was (I know who he is though - and so do many others. The hints he gave were obviously designed for that, even though he might not consciously know it). Again, Jimmy Liew's blog post, which I gave the link to above is a good summation of his foolhardiness complete with an appropriate analogy.

Moving onto his second story. Apparently, he got up from his table 2 minutes away from claiming a walkover...after sitting at the table for 23 minutes (He said over 20 minutes, but I'll do the proper and simple math for you). Who the hell does that?! If you were seriously that foolish and he really cheated you like that, you don't deserve any sympathy. On a less important (but far more embarrassing) note, you lost with a 25 to 5 minute advantage. My guess is that you were trying to win on time, which, by the way, by your logic, is not what a "sporting and gentleman player" would do.

One thing I find to my sickening and amusing at the same time is that both bloggers were aware that it was partially their fault at the very least in all the cases. Rizal knew for a fact that if he was going to make a claim, he should have made it on the spot. He didn't for an obvious reason: He wasn't sure! And maybe he did think he could win with less time if he really was cheated. But that's besides the point. He said it himself, and I quote:"I failed to comply with the requirement to lodge a proper complain.". His reason was because he was "in a state of confusion". Alright, he either can't differentiate between confusion and lack of confidence or he's suffering from a mental condition. Anyone who becomes confused when they realize their opponent cheated them of a small amount of time needs to go for a brain scan. People get confused over complicated matters. This, by my logic, has 2 simple sides to the coin: Norazman either cheated or he didn't.

Azizul, on his case, implies that he didn't know how to claim a draw. He asks that, "somebody with knowledge of the chess rule confirm [that he can claim a draw in the manner that he did]". Well, the answer is no, as he admitted and acknowledged later in his shoutbox. Then in the shoutbox, he starts drifting from the topic, talking about how he was bullied because he didn't know the elementary laws of competitive chess. Buddy, if say, you played the a4 variation of the Najdorf and advanced your pawn to a5, and your opponent played b5, only for you to play axb6 and leave him in confusion, that, by your logic, would be bullying too! On his second story, if his opponent had really cheated him on time, he should have called the arbiter. Though personally I think that its possible that he left the board for 3 minutes when his opponent had 5 minutes of time, but I won't muddy the waters by speculation; I don't want to give any of that. Second point, as I had pointed out earlier...is it so difficult to continue sitting at your board for the final 2 minutes after being there for the other 23?

Welcome

Welcome to my blog regarding the current affairs in Malaysian chess, most of it being off the board. The type that people like to read. And argue about. Uh...before anything, I apologize if the blog title sounds too familiar to you. You've probably seen it before, but I couldn't resist plagiarizing it.

First, let me introduce myself. I'm obviously not going to divulge my identity to keep in line with the trend of shoutbox wars. But I will tell you, I'm a Malaysian and have been around since the early 90s. I have been a representative of Malaysia several times. I still play competitively, occasionally, today. My rating is, let's say higher than 1900, though I'm not going to mention the value of my FIDE rating for obvious anonymity reasons. I'm not trying to show off my chess prowess (OK maybe I am, but I can't really benefit from that can I?); in fact I think I'm a weak player, at least on a level outside of Malaysia. Instead, it's to let you know that my opinions are based on my experience and skill in chess, of which I know have much more than the average blogger (and definitely almost all anonymous commenters). In short, I know more about what I'm talking about than most people do. Call me arrogant, but that's the truth.

This blog is focused on nothing except my opinion on the crap that people throw around in the Malaysian chess scene today, tomorrow, the day after and so on. Regarding blog posts/comments posted by many Malaysian chess bloggers (which make up 90% of the aforementioned crap), I find that a lot of it is hastily put up, sometimes even copy-pasted from Wikipedia or a similar website, with little substance or logic behind their point, sometimes for the sake of a personal attack due to a grudge or just on impulse, abusing their popularity as a chess blogger. A common flaw is that all of them fail to look at the matter from another point of view. This blog is not going to contain much constructive criticism or ideas. Rather, you can expect to find "destructive criticism", and hopefully that missing point of view here. There is only my opinion, most of which will probably be negative and critical. You will notice that this blog has no shoutbox, and comments are disabled. The reason is simple: Your opinion doesn't matter! Especially if you're an insignificant face in the chess scene. If it's feedback, thank you but I already know what you want to say.

Now some of these posts may seem like personal attacks, but in a way they are not. I do not care who the person I comment about is. All I care about is what he says.

Alright, welcoming post aside, I hope you have an enjoyable time reading my blog!