Saturday, April 13, 2013
The game of bridge vs chess.
I love both games but I play bridge and my son plays chess. Both are strategy mind games but both comes from different paradigms. And both paradigms has real life application in differing scenarios. We just need to differentiate them. Let me try to explain further and I hope we can think a little about it this weekend.
The game of bridge is about partnership and chess is about me against all opponents that sits opposite me. So the perspective of a bridge player will be not to mislead their partners. If there is a problem the bridge player will say, "partner, there is a problem with our system and if we don't get it fixed, we will not win against the other partnerships".
And so bridge players will view MCF, the State Affiliates, parents, players, organisers and coaches/trainers as partners that need to work together so that we can win against the other team; and the other team is the chess players from other Federations, in healthy competition.
I think that is the better perspective for where we are right now. Many of us are now trying to talk to our partners and say, partner, there is a problem with our system. Can we get it fixed so we can become a winning team?
But the question remains unanswered. How we can bridge this divide will determine whether Malaysia can emerge as a chess powerhouse or NOT. We have the talent and the resources but we need to learn to work together to unleash our potential. Not fight each other to a standstill.
And so I think the very first step is that we must communicate better. Lets think about it this weekend.
Note: The chess players perspective of "I am white and he is black" or vice versa will not solve the current issues. This is not a black and white problem. We need to constantly remember that we are Team Malaysia.