Thursday, May 24, 2012

Proposal to MCF.

I hope this proposal will be considered objectively.

I believe it is still possible to continue the forward momentum that we now have. This is what I propose. Still use the top 8 or 10 from the National Close for a round robin with the top rated players in Malaysia. Presumably the IM's. Say top 4 from ratings?

This round robin is important. The players from National Close would have to determine the right strategy for an Open competition. And then they have to learn how to prepare for known opponents in the round robin. This is also practice for the Olympiad.

No one from outside these group should be allowed parachute in. The top 4 or top 6 from the round robin gets to go to the Olympiad. No additional inclusions like we saw in SEA games.

This will send a powerful message to our players. Stay current and stay sharp or you are out. Lets keep our focus towards the future. Then we will see Malaysian magic.

In today's internet world there is no place you can run from the chess fans. Wherever you play there will be chess fans following. And the game does show the level of the players maturity and thinking. Our results also reflect on the level of support and training; the effectiveness of the Federation. All this will show up at the Olympiad.

So for now, lets learn from Chong Wei and Nichol David. When they play they carry the hopes and aspirations of the Country. So they have to accept that. If we send mentally toughened players out to play eventually we too may be able to contribute to Malaysian Sport by showing them the winning mindset. Afterall we are the most popular mind sport in Malaysia.

So we should be in front of the curve. Not lagging far behind.

For that to happen, we also need to properly train our players before they go. I am assuming that we still have the big surplus from Asian Amateur and Melaka. So use the money wisely. Use it for Malaysian Chess. There should be enough not only for the training but also to sponsor or heavily subsidise the trip.

Better late than never. There is still time to put up a forward thinking written selection criteria.

Do this and you can go up that podium in your finery and make all your proclamations with pride and dignity.

All my best


  1. I wonder what you propose is a feasible solution. All in all, to be able to participate in the Olympiad, any player must be free for 3 long periods in a year. People have to take leave during National Closed, during the Round Robin event, which is considerably long, given the number of players, (presumably not held only on weekends because it will take too many weekends and this will greatly disadvantage outstation players who have to travel in just to play), and finally, another 2 weeks or so leave to play in the Olympiad.

    While you may say, if those players are not ready for this kind of commitment, then they should not be representing the country. That is not solving the problem at all. Imagine a school student who has to skip school for about 4-5 weeks in a year. Or an adult who has to get annual leave 4-5 weeks a year. How many people can have that luxury? How many parents do you think will be OK with a child skipping school for that long a period. I know Chin Seng will be OK with it. Who else? You'd probably have to be unemployed. Granted, these things can be organized during school holidays, but don't you think that penalizing adults just because they have to feed their families is a bit unfair?

  2. Thank you for your comment. However please speak for yourself and not anyone else. I agree that there are difficulties to my proposal. Nevertheless the principle is correct. Do not use the Olympiad as a holiday. You do a disservice to the Malaysian chess community, to the sponsors.

    A possible solution could be internet training. But the round robin is a must. But there are ways to solve other problems. So we must be creative in finding solutions.

    Afterall as I keep saying. We are a mind sport. So lets show why chess makes us smart.

    But not sending the best and not trying our best is just not the way.

  3. I am just trying to discuss the issue. You wish to submit a proposal to MCF, perhaps it would be good if you have considered the possible problems and some possible solutions to it. Otherwise, I don't think it can be considered a well thought out proposal. Maybe you think it is the job of the MCF to think of the problems and solutions, but as you said, let us be smart and creative.

    As with any business proposal, we must of course consider all possible problems that may arise and have contingency plans and solutions. What would you think of a half-baked proposal in the business world?

    Please don't get me wrong. I definitely agree that selection is the way to go. I am just raising some concerns to see if you had any ideas. After all, if any party were to write a proposal to MCF, MCF can ask those exact questions that I posed. It would be good if the proposal writer had some answers, don't you think?

  4. Perhaps you have also missed an implied point. My proposal is in broad strokes. The details will need to be trashed out by the MCF committee. We need other inputs, from experienced organisers, from trainers, from coaches, from managers and from the players.

    We are speculating what the problems are but we wont know exactly till we do. And then we need problem solvers. For that we need a functioning committee. We should move away from decisions by one man.

    Just like we should move away from sending just one player out at a time without support. Look at Indonesia and the dream girls for an example. See what they have achieved by working as a team.

  5. I think you also mistake my policy proposal with a technical business proposal. I am not asking for a deal. The technical and operational decisions will be made by MCF. So there is no need for me to come up with the details. I hope you can appreciate the difference.

    Policy vs technical detailing. Clearer?

  6. For the general reader. The first step to problem solving is to first reach a general agreement. That means we must first agree that selection is the way to go. And we are far from that agreement for all the reasons I have given on this blog.

    After agreement we have to draw the parameters that we agree on and what we disagree on. That now begins the basis of a useful dialogue.

    Now going quickly into a detailed discussion like the one suggested Chee Seng is actually a trap. Why? We will be just speculating on what the problems may be. Imagined problems. When we do, we will have concrete problems. Those are solvable. Imagined problems are not.