Some comparative questions we should be asking.

Here. The table of medals is right at the bottom.

We see Vietnam with 70plus golds, Singapore with 7. And then we have Malaysia...

As I have said many times, healthy competition is about raising our own standards and not about putting the other down. Remember this is primarily an age group event where we used to do quite well. So our neighbours must be doing something right and better than us. And so aren't they deserving of those results from finding the correct solutions to raising their game.

Some questions we could ask is that as far as organisational structure and support services goes, Singapore is ahead. I understand that in Vietnam their structure is more decentralised. Vietnam is also Johnny come lately. And yet they have pulled ahead of even Singapore.

Don't you think these are some of the things we should be looking at?

But what are we doing instead? We have conversations like this. Ref: Here. This type of conversations is actively encouraged. There is nothing wrong it seems by the people who holds the reigns and guide Malaysian chess. In fact it seems, the more you talk like that the better the reward.

Is that denial, escapism or something else? Or all of it?

And so I wonder what our senior team will produce at the Olympiad. What do you think the results will show?

When do you think we can ask questions about our weaknesses? When you go to school and your teacher writes in your report card that you are talented but you lack discipline, is that a personal attack? Or is it because you have an issue to address before you can move forward? Which is it? Is closing your ears any good for you?

I think we need to first acknowledge that we have a problem. For only after that can we talk about what the possible solutions can be. Don't blame anyone. Look at what we haven't done. Look at what we should be doing. Lets take a hard look at ourselves. Where has MCF been taking us all these years? Don't we have a lot more talent and resources than many Countries with GM's?


Remember, once we were teaching China how to play chess.


Note: Some may argue about the size of contingent. If you are one of those let me use the example of NAG in Perak recently. Perak had the largest contingent by far. But very few players of calibre and so very few medals. It may even be possible that China and Iran sent one player and got one gold each. Not too sure but I am told we sent 21 players. So it is not size but quality of contingent. Quality of training etc. You think?

Do you still think the Malaysian chess solution will work in the International arena? Can we ban Vietnam? Maybe set up new blogs to do some more character assasination. Lets see in the Olympiad if this method works. Then we can market this solution world wide.