It seems to me that there are 2 major schools of thought regarding the development of our chess players. Some will point to the singular focus and genius of the tortured souls of the great chess masters and say that is the way. And so the system works. You just have to survive the jungle.
I on the other hand think that the intense pressure generated by chess tournaments is in itself sufficient. There is no need to add to this. So the direction should be for healthy competition. Fair rules.
So how would we know if healthy competition works or not if every time this subject or anything related is brought up it is attacked in a hundred twisted ways? What does our past evidence show us? No need to look outside of Malaysia, I think. Different conditions. Interesting isn't it?