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.