Part 1. Here.
I postulated a question in Part 1. I asked what happens if a half baked trainer was to also control a State Association? MCF is only as strong as the sum of its parts ie the State Affiliates. Lets go back to the constitution again. Here. It is very clearly stated here that MCF is the governing body of Chess in Malaysia. What is not so explicitly stated is that the State Affiliates are the governing bodies for the States. In fact the States has a similar structure to MCF. They are in turn populated by chess clubs.
So lets now use an extreme example of what happens to a State Affiliate when it is controlled by a half baked trainer. Lets use KLCA as that extreme example to illustrate this. KLCA is supposed to develop chess in KL. So they should be looking at age group events for KL, KL Championship etc. But what does it do? It runs a once a year private International event that caters primarily to foreigners and with very little local participation. And Peter runs a "Chess University".
So let me relate an event that happened in 2011. There was an initiative by the PT of KL (MSSM) to send a team of KL players to Asian City in Indonesia. Upon arrival in Indonesia they were told that they needed a letter from the State Affiliate to enter the team. I am informed that Peter rejected this and finally the team had to be registered under Putra Jaya.
Let us study the implication of this action. This is a private initiative and the team was already in Indonesia. What is the actual job of KLCA? Isn't it to develop chess in KL? But they haven't done anything. No KL team because no KL age group or KL Championship tournaments. Who's fault is that? So what moral or indeed legal justification can Peter have not to support this private initiative?
And then there is the famous incident of him trying to ban Mark, a national player, without any grounds from his KL Open.
How did this come about? To see this clearer lets go back to the National Junior again. Ref : Here. Yes, Mark did play with both Jimmy's and Peter's players. And he beat them both. So what am I saying? If you add their combined experience in chess they have 60 plus years to my 2, according to them. Does this say that I am a good coach? No it doesn't. I am sure there are much better coaches than me and I am still learning. But I think this very conclusively proves what lousy trainers they are. Truly lousy beyond words.
So how did they get so lousy? This is what I think. The lousy trainers hide behind State Affiliates because they fear competition. So they ban players better than what they can produce and they sabotage any private initiatives from other trainers, coaches or organisers.
So this is a very real and present danger to the development of chess in Malaysia. KL is left without the support of its State Affiliate. The only way to progress as a chess player in KL is via Peter and his "University" it seems. And if you don't want the results his players get you are pretty much sunk.
That is another reason why Peter writes his desperate letters to train National Juniors after they have already been developed by others. That is also why he tries to claim their success as his own. And that is to camouflage his own failure as a trainer.
So how did he get so bad? I believe this is because that instead of improving his skills he relies on the abuse of the State Associations by using the methods mentioned above to try to succeed. So this is bad for him as a trainer and it is bad for KL. Lose/lose. So he started out half baked and he remains half baked today because of that.
But it is interesting to note that MCF did not censure him for subverting an entire State Association or the banning of a National Junior without grounds. MCF is supposed to develop chess in Malaysia and so they need to use the disciplinary powers vested in them for the right reasons. But what do they do with it instead?
This is a problem isn't it? The whole of KL knocked out. And they are a vital component of MCF. Iron sharpen iron. That is how our GM will come. Not via back doors as the results from Penang showed us. Ref: Here.
So what are the lessons we can learn from this? In part 3 coming up.