Tuesday, September 14, 2010

"Chess people are wierd"

I was playing bridge online last night and reading the comments on this blog when a penny dropped. Bridge and Chess are actually quite different although both are thinking sports. In bridge we are always looking for clues to test our assumptions since the hands are closed. So we are always trying to get the big picture. Chess on the other hand is about operational thinking. The facts are known. The pieces are on the board and so its about developing judgement and then executing solutions on the board.

I then recalled a friend in London when I was doing my A levels there. He was a brilliant mathematician. He aced his maths and went on to do special maths etc. But he always failed his physics. I always wondered why?

I now think that maths is operational thinking. The assumptions are fixed. But in physics the assumptions are not. We once thought that light do not bend but Einstein says otherwise. We once thought that space and time are two distinct variables but now we think that spacetime is a continuum. The assumptions are constantly challenged.

I suppose thats why theoretical physicists are considered to be amongst the highest level of thinkers.

Now operational thinking may be right to answer the questions on the board but they may not be the way to answer questions outside the board. Questions like what are the characteristics of a GM? What is the best way forward for chess? Too many variables are unknown. And too many assumptions untested. So to chess ninja, dont be afraid to question your assumptions. Look for the bigger picture. There is a saying. From great disorder comes great order. Afterall the questions only exist in your mind. Read my postings on imagined fears.

2 comments:

  1. Thank you for your lessons. I took your advice and read all your posts on imaginary fears. As an ardent chess enthusiast, I am fully aware of the notion, albeit I did not formally conceptualize it as you did.

    Please do not mistake my zeal and stubbornness for fear. I am and will always be the first person to admit my own mistakes. My line of work deals with problems and solutions every day and very often requires questioning assumptions and out-of-the-box thinking. Very often, I have to "intentionally" make a mistake just to find out the "correct" solution. I am not shutting out new ideas and variables. I am not saying that my idea is the only right idea.

    While my experience with Malaysian chess is not as extensive as yours or our IMs, FMs, and NMs, and is usually limited to the sidelines, I stood witness to the era of the plethora of juniors that came and went. I remember our first (and sometimes forgotten) WIM Audrey Wong, Ooi Chern Ee, Mas etc. to name a few of the bigger names.

    But I also remember the could-have-beens, like Christy Chia, Lim Chin Lee, Ng Ee Vern, Lim Cheng Teik (who beat then-already-IM Mas to win the 1997 MSSM U-18 Gold), Deon Moh, Jonathan Chuah, Aaron Yee, just to name a few. Of course, this is not a testimony to their playing strength, as they are all much better chess players than I ever will be.

    My point is, many of us stood by, watching these top players, of national level events, no less, come and go, without much merit, perhaps representing Malaysia in the annual Malaysia vs Singapore Chess Challenge at the most.

    It saddens me, that this is still going on today. My seemingly overenthusiastic push for meritocracy extends far beyond the realms of chess, but I have abstained from straying from the topic of chess to abide by the rules of your blog. I only wish to put out there, the motivation for such stubbornness and dedication towards performance-based criteria. Being a witness to the detriments of subjectivity in the selection process, I am, in some sense, desperate to see how meritocracy will play out in the chess arena in Malaysia. Again, it is not my intention to shut out other ideas.

    ReplyDelete
  2. There is much you say that I agree with. I too think that meritocracy is the way to go. Sometimes I dont state my views on criteria because I feel that is just my view. The answer cannot come from me. We need concensus from the chess fraternity. If you go the the chess academy blog you can see our vision and philosophy. I strongly believe that it is not proven that one race is smarter than any other. That was just one mans opinion but it seems to have infected the whole nation. In chess I see the possibilities of a united nation. In chess we see that all can excel. But we need trust to move forward in partnership. But the structure of our Associations do not support change. Too many dirty tricks and unsavoury characters. Read my postings on COS. You can see there that they have locked themselves in the bastion. But we the other stakeholders are talking. Thats a good sign.

    ReplyDelete