Equality of arms principle. A fair trial and a fair tournament.

Ref: Here. Is there a parallel between this legal principle and a fair tournament?

As I go around the Country, I see there is still a buzz around the idea of getting Malaysia's first GM. But I wonder if there have been deeper ponderings of this principle. Let me try to explain. Without a fair tournament for selection of our top players where would the energy come from for our players to learn and train in chess? What would be the purpose of improving your chess if you don't get a fair shake at selection?

Question, do we have ambushes in our tournaments where certain people have unfair access to games of other players etc? Do we have a selection process where the strongest players get selected or are our selection criteria biased towards those with higher ratings?

Which risk profile would get us that GM? The "investor" mentality where a return of x percentage would suffice or the mentality of the entrepreneur, the CEO, who takes on a higher risk profile and innovate to take on the market?

Look at this another way. Which type of mentality, strategy will get us that GM title. The one who tries to go for the win whenever possible or the one who plays to preserve his rating? Ergo, the investor versus the businessman.

For this answer I would encourage you to study what a GM run looks like. And then we model our methods with that end in mind. Isn't that the way?