By that slogan, I'm assuming that you also become a smart young adult and then a successful and even smarter adult. I mean the slogan doesn't fly for me if you then become dimmer from fear instilled by our own people as a young adult and even dimmer still as an adult right? If that is the case, why play chess?
That was just my musing. After this I am going to do some speculating. Lets look at the field first. Here.
Now lets see a question raised on one of the blogs. Here.
So lets try to fix a few things now that we do know. It is known that FGM was partly instrumental in bringing in the first written selection for SEA games. This is a simple matter of evidence from the blogs and timelines. Both mine and others. The other main party was Greg.
I have told you in my past postings of the many hours I spent with Greg discussing this. The phone calls into the early mornings and the many face to face meetings. I have also said that while our objective was the same at that time, I suspected that our motives were different.
Lets now see how the Olympiad selection was conducted up to the players meeting last night. No written selection criteria despite the many appeals on this blog which was also emailed to the committee members of MCF. I have argued that selection was the key in releasing new energy into Malaysian chess.
Now from just what I have said so far, does it raise any questions in your mind? If so then why is it that there was no announcement of the criteria and no questions from the floor at the players meeting according to my feedback? I called a MCF committee member to enquire and even that person doesn't know. I called another parent of a National Junior and he says he heard "rumours" that it is like the SEA games selection but he is not sure. Does this sound right to you?
The picture in my head is that the decision making process is more akin to North Korea than a democracy. Was there a danger that anyone would have been brought in front of a firing squad without trial at the players meeting? Then why no questions?
Is this how we are making our kids smart?
My personal observation is that I see the fire dimming in our kids year by year. So now I ask you to observe for yourself. Look at the kids now. See the fire. What will they become when they grow up? What will their experience in chess teach them? What would be your conclusion if you were present at this players meeting? Would the kids still be the same/better/worse after a few years of chess under this leadership?
This is what we should be teaching. Here. This is what they may become under the MCF/Jimmy method. Here.
Isn't it obvious? How much more evidence would we need before we ask the right questions? This is chess. How do you think we will fare at the Olympiads if this is how we do things?