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.)

Re: Food For Thought For "Malaysianchessaffairs"

So, someone has reacted to this blog already. OK, it's just a personal attack made on impulse, but it's a reaction anyway, and I'm obliged to respectfully respond since he made an effort to get his point across (but failed, as you will soon see). Well, I guess just this time I'll have to do some copy-pasting:

Blunder 1 : "Norazlin Juarih, went so far to call the idea of prearranging a game cheating."

My Answer: Prearranged draw is considered a form of cheat according to wikipedia., I just commenting on that lah ...so.. your definition that is not a cheat is based on what? If you have problem with the definition.. sue Wikipedia lah...:) Refer WIKIPEDIA

Already you have failed to understand what I was saying. You have to give reasons for why you think you are right. Elaborate on why the pre-arranged draw is a cheat. Pointing me to another sentence (which, by the way, is from a site which anyone can edit) that calls it cheating is not a form of elaboration. In addition, in case you do not know, Wikipedia is filled with mistakes, usually due to misinformation or vandalism since it is edited by the public. Hence, it is unreliable except to those who need to find the definition of a word in an encyclopedia (Question: What is a dictionary for?). In addition to that, I'm not a lawyer, but I'm very sure that Wikipedia is not liable to be sued for wrong information.

My definition of cheating does not matter because I'm not calling a fixed draw a cheat. Anyway, just to satisfy you, I'll give you a simple, non-wiki definition of a cheat: Someone who breaks rules or the law, usually for personal gain. Now it's far from perfect if you look at it from a lawyer's point of view, but it's clear cut and understood by the average person with average intelligence. And I repeat, do not respond to my efforts of typing out an article myself by replying with copy-pasted references to something that everyone has access to.

Blunder 2: "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."

My Answer: It was not me who went whining as a victim of such cheating... can you prove it? which line in my POST indicated that I once a victim of this cheating? Maybe you have brain damage. that you are unable to read things properly and suffers from delusional.. pity you...:). After all, the blogger who claimed he was cheated not me la.... other person la... go figure.....:)

You edited your post. Anyone who saw it before then would not suddenly forget about it now. But alright, that's good. Nice to see that I'm already having influence on other bloggers to take back their words.....:)?

Blunder 3 : "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."

My Answer: I think you better learn to read and understand English.. Actually, in my my criticism was more towards the organizer instead of Azman himself....:)

Your English sucks. You can't even understand what you said. Read the second and last article of your own post. And please don't edit it after this and pretend you said nothing of the sort.

My Advice To This BLOGGER

1. You maybe a strong player but seriously you just show how low you are....

I'm giving my opinion. I'm entitled to it, just like you. Only difference is that mine makes sense. And is relatively original. I'm not any lower than you are.

2. Pre arranged draw / pre arranged match in any sports is a cheat no matter how you try to justify it.. The end does not justify the mean....

You're not giving your reasons to why. I'd like to repeat that people pay to enter tournaments, so they can do what they want to get a placing, and as long as they don't break any rules, that's not cheating. Unsporting at the very most. Yeah, and don't jump the gun by sarcastically suggesting 'accidentally' killing your opponent. You know what I meant.

3. Please check your facts before criticizing others...

I did.

4. Take a break from chess.. as your brain is badly damaged by it.....:)

You also need to find something to call me other than brain damaged. Did you not read my welcome note? Or do you not understand the implication of 'occasionally'?

P/S: I know who you are...:)

That's great. Why don't you tell everyone then? Post it on your blog. I'm sure many people are dying to find out. Alright, I know you won't. Because you're afraid that you're wrong, and all hell will break loose if you're wrong, and I'm sure you know it. I'm just insulted that you really thought I didn't. That was a pathetic bluff. You do not want to go to war with me. You will lose. Go figure.

I did say, I expect substance in any feedback I receive. Alright, maybe I didn't. But I implied it.

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?