To Rule or To Plunder?

Many people in chess can't make sense of the policies and decisions of our Associations. We cannot make sense of why some of our IM's do the unsavoury things they do. We cannot understand why even an arbiter or two have joined in the fray to defend this type of behaviour. We cannot understand why some parents, players and organisers support this craziness.

Why is it that after all these years, we still don't have a proper selection criteria for the senior team? Why can't they show the project accounts? Why is MCF's AGM such a top secret affair that it will put the communist party of Korea to shame? Why do we only support Asean events for age group and almost nothing else? Why is the Olympiad the private property of  a few? Why do they keep harping on rating when it is so transparent that the way it is gained is flawed? Ref: Here. Why tell our kids they are all washed out by 15? Why do they need a PR campaign to promote Li Tian?

Because we can't figure this out, we keep shouting Malaysia Boleh. We keep hoping.

I think the confusion lies in our assumption. We assume they are here to rule; to help chess in Malaysia prosper. To put in the framework and policies to make us thrive. To enable us to compete with our neighbours. And we become confused because the dots don't join and so there are many debates and discussions on this matter.

So lets try this. Lets reframe the perspective. Let us change the assumption. I think if we do that, everything will make much more sense. Let us assume they are here to plunder. 


Now relook at everything I mentioned above again. I think you will now see the logic with much greater clarity. I will leave you with this exercise for the weekend. 


A tip, what would they need if the intent is to plunder, what kind of climate, what tools and what type of alliances?

Note: Circumstantial evidence can be described as this. It is the initially seen as a strand of "evidence" taken from a situation that seems out of the norm, that over time begins to form a pattern. If there are enough strands then it begins to form a rope strong enough to convict. This is well established in law. In law this is also proof.

In science we use what is called a working hypothesis. We build a model based on certain assumptions. Then we test that model. When it can predict outcomes, we call it a theory. In science we say the theory is now proven. Qed.

Both of the above are thinking tools that have been established over centuries. And whole Civilisations have been built on it's use. It is the science and art of reasoning. Logic. And we need these tools to understand competitor analysis properly.

For that will be the bedrock on which you will begin your higher journey into chess.

So do the exercise I have given you. I will write more on this after the weekend. Then I hope to show you that Malaysia has been sabotaged.

Simply put, chess is the thinking man's game. What happens when the thinking, the reasoning is taken out of the game?


ps: All the circumstantial evidence have been presented to you on the blogs and on facebook. Counterpose that with what you already know from your own knowledge of and personal experiences with our Associations. Look carefully at the people associated with particular views and the possible motives.