Monday, March 5, 2012

Democratisation of chess.

Almost every nation in the world have chosen one variety or another of democracy. The common wisdom is that with democracy positive energy is released. Stakeholder interests are protected. There are measures of accountability and transparency. Questions can be asked by the people and leaders elected.

Everywhere except Malaysian chess it seems. Somehow they missed us. Here in one of the last bastions of tyranny anyone can be sacked without rhyme or reason, no questions can be asked, parents are tricked year after year into volunteering their services and then dumped like disposable tissue.

Players chess history can be rewritten, players banned without reason, funny people writing national policies, officials that seem to have life tenure and unlimited power to change rules as and when they want etc etc etc etc.

And all this is done without any resistance. Nobody dares to question. WHY? WHY? WHY?

Chess is our strongest mind sport. When I said that chess can teach you all these things, few seem to be even aware of the lessons. Here.

When I talked about competitor analysis, a veteran senior player started to attack the idea. When we tried to train the juniors, the attacks were so venomous that the training had to stop.

Now how can a mind sport progress when it is ruled with tyranny? Where certain officials can do anything they want and all the other stakeholders have zero say.

Question. How are we to have a GM when all they want are pliant parents who can be used, pliant players who jump when you say boo?

Note: They repeat this mantra that there is no money in chess and so you do it for free and then they rob us blind right in front of our noses. Why do you think there are no accounts from MCF? Why did they have to zero their books?

Think about it. Chess players need to think. This is also part of your training. This is really really important. What conditions will bring us that GM. What type of character does a GM have? Is he one that will trust his own decisions? One that cannot be intimidated no matter who he faces across the table? One that has discipline and is accorded proper support and training? Etc etc.

Now isnt it obvious? We are sending broken people out to play against tough people. Of course they cannot compete. They are already broken here.

So how can we change things? I have suggested that we change the very top. We need to do this if we continue to want to have a GM. Without doing this we have no hope in hell.

We need to get the self delusional people, the tyrants with zero ideas on how to bring progress, to accountability. Otherwise we give up that hope. 30 years have already shown us that tyranny does not work. So let democratise chess.

Don't you think that's a reasonable suggestion? Is it a wonder why we are falling further and further behind?

1 comment: