Perspective.

When you go to a chess tournament, what do you experience? In the main there is a lot of bonhomie, back slapping, tea tarik sessions and dialogues. Everything that is discussed on the blogs are talked about in groups there.

In real life the malevolence we see on the blogs are not visible. Najib did raise a concern and a valid one in my opinion. If someone were to visit the blogs would what they see be a true representation of who we are?

I have been getting some feedback from friends who are following the debate. We strongly suspect that it is a very few people who are writing again and again. Congratulating themselves, talking to themselves, issuing threats etc. There are a few of them, no doubt about that, but they are not many.

When I asked for feedback about who is asking people not to support FGM, I was consoled that it was not the officials in MCF. This is important. MCF should not be partial. They need to weigh the issues and give a ruling. And they are guided by the constitution.

So who are these MCF wannabe's? And why dont we feel their presence in tournaments? Why do they need to try and inflate their numbers under a myriad pseudonyms and anonymous comments. What is their objective and what are their motives?

They do not represent the majority. That is obvious. But they have had small successes in influencing a few more people. I think the blogs should represent who we are. I think it's a problem that a few can affect the culture on the blogs simply because they appear everywhere and are belligerent.

Think on this. If they have the numbers and the influence they claim to have, we would feel their presence in real life. The environment will reflect their true numbers. And they will not need to hide. The space they have on the blogs are a distortion. And in my opinion, a distortion that needs to be corrected.

Rebalancing.

You may have noticed that I keep bringing up Mal/Sing. Does that mean that I don't like Singapore? Rubbing salt into their wounds? Actually no, I have good friends there. They understand that I say this in good spirit. It is to remind us of our achievement internationally. For those are rare in Malaysian chess.

In an International tournament the Malaysian players will band together to help one another. They need to do this or be outclassed. I have seen this with the Juniors. In Asean and Asian Youth (I hear it's not the same with the senior squad). But the end result is usually quite predictable.

Let us look at FGM's vision again. Here.

I stated this when we formed FGM and I have not moved from this. It is not an empty slogan. That culture is the culture that will take us global.

I wish I could package the spirit on that train ride back from Singapore and let you experience it. It was a powerful moment. The parents and the players forgot all the divides on that train. We were all one. And we celebrated that success.

So we need victory to rekindle that spirit. Or was it that spirit that gave us the victory? Or both.

If you want to beat Singapore......

Tell them to play chess. :)

On Jan 1, 2011 the Malaysian Tigers took the Singaporean Lions in chess for the first time in 10 years. And we can do it again on our home ground at the next outing if we remember this.


If your sunshine wants far outstrip your cold morning desire, have a talk with yourself. Then have a lot more talks with yourself. Convince number one that you can succeed--and you will succeed. If you don't believe in you, why should anyone else?

-- Tom Hopkins

The trouble FGM caused.

Let us count the ways.

1. FGM conducted a training program for our Juniors going to Asean in 2010. This is arguably the first sponsored and heavily subsidised training for the Juniors before an International Tournament.

2. FGM and its allied blogs made a call requesting MCF to have written selection criteria. The call was based on hearsay that our players did not perform well at the Olympiads. Stories of them not wanting to play but wanting to make business contacts, sell books and of course the now famous case of a game lost because of a handphone ringing. FGM's argument was that if there were any basis to this hearsay and also assuming that MCF has the inside track then we are justified in asking to open up the selection to hungrier players that want a shot. This call succeeded. No more handpicked players.

3. FGM compounded its trouble making by training another Junior who qualified for the SEA games selection. This Junior made it into the Senior squad and will now represent Malaysia.

4. FGM organised Thematic tournaments which is designed to help our stronger players. The Thematics work around the concepts of competitor analysis which FGM argue needs to be the basis and cornerstone of a good training program. And this again was sponsored by new corporate players in chess.

5. FGM sponsored the coverage of the Asian Youth.

Each activity of FGM was followed by virulent attacks on the blogs. Supporters of FGM were warned not to support.

Note: The feedback I have received is that these people are not in MCF.

So what is the method? These people are aware that corporate sponsors get into the game to enhance their reputation and not have their company drawn into controversy. And so a new lie is born everyday. Why would they want to do that? We are crying out for sponsors. The burden the parents have been carrying to develop our National players have been begging for some relief.

What could be the motive? I got my first clue the day Mark was Champion in MSSPK for the U12. Suddenly he made so many enemies. Every year there were new impediments, new traps to knock him out. But he surmounted each hurdle. And now he is National number 2 for U18 and U20.

I am now convinced that there are forces that back certain players to win. And if you are not under that umbrella then watch out. Within this context the attacks start to make sense.

Yes, Chin Seng, it is now quite transparent. It took me a long time to see. But now that I do, I also see I have no choice but to find my own umbrella. But not to worry too much. All I want is a fair shot. Lets just meet at the table and play chess. Lets keep the competition healthy and with fair rules.

In all our years of competition, we have never broken the rules. Many of you know Mark. I think you would be hard pressed to find a boy or girl who conducts himself/herself with more decorum.

And so they need to bring out that one incident in Singapore, where I had a public disagreement with Peter. But I feel that was justified. We finally won against Singapore. And they are trying to use this incident to "ban" Mark.

Actually nothing official out yet. Just no replies to many emails. So I too am curious how this drama will play out. But again my point is this. What does my tete-a-tete with Peter have to do with Mark??

So really, where is the real problem and who are the real trouble makers? Why are they so afraid of healthy competition? This is chess. It is about competition! Sure, back you own horse. No problems there but surely sabotaging and undermining with lies and slander is not in the spirit of the game.

They say that I am causing trouble. Maybe. But the real question is trouble for whom? But trying to use the Peter incident is really scrapping the bottom of the barrel.

Dear Chin Seng

Yes, I agree it is getting more transparent. In the jungle you need an umbrella. Otherwise it's hard to survive. I remember a time when many parents were up in arms over Li Tian's sponsorship by Dato Tan. Many were saying it was unfair. At that time I defended Li Tian's right to private sponsorship.

That is just the way things are at the moment. Each parent tries to get the sponsorship they can get. And if you work harder and smarter or have more contacts then you get more sponsorship. And it is also up to the sponsors who they want to sponsor. That is their right too.

Perhaps there were grounds for objection in the way it was presented but in the main I saw nothing wrong.

But I think we always had an unspoken understanding among the parents of National Juniors. Whatever it is we let the boys/girls fight it out on the table without intervention from "political" forces. Fair and healthy competition.

Has FGM's training for the Asean Juniors and the Thematics offended you in anyway? Or could it be my spoutings of competitor analysis? I am curious. What could it be that has caused you offence?

Fiduciary rights.

The debate continues. Ref: Here.

Amazing. Everything is reduced to friend, friend.

Lets talk about fiduciary rights today. In any venture many people contribute to its success. And everyone has rights. But it is not easy to quantify. One measure that is used to throw some light is called fiduciary rights ie the quantum of financial outlay in any venture.

Lets take the case of developing a National Player. Who are involved? Arguably the Associations, sponsors, organisers, trainers, coaches, parents and the players themselves. Each have rights. So lets use this fiduciary measure to try to quantify.

The law is not very lenient to businesses since they are deemed to have measured their sponsorship vs their returns before sponsoring. We can also roughly say the trainers, coaches, organisers have been paid for services rendered.

So where does the money come from to develop our National players? Who pays for the overseas tournaments, the trainers, coaches etc? Sponsors and parents thats who. Now if the case was that the Associations brought in the sponsorships, the weightage shifts. But there are still rights apportioned in each case.

In the Malaysian scenario, the vast bulk of the money comes from the parents. Some have more sponsorship than others. But in the main, it is also the parents that go out to get the sponsorship. So again the weightage remains with the parents. Actually many parents pay out of their own pockets.

So we can argue that the major investor is in fact the parents.

Let us use an example here. Lets take the last Mal/Sing. The sponsor came up with RM1,500 worth of incentives to be shared by all the players. In this case this was arranged by the Federation. How much do you think each parent spent? I am not saying that the sponsors have no rights. I am just saying things must be looked at in a measured and balanced way.

Throw in Asean, Asian youth, Asian Junior, World Youth and World Junior and the picture changes again. Who pays for the trips, the training? Who puts their heart into the training to represent the Country?

So I submit that Organisers do not have carte blanche. And I believe this should be put to the test. An appeal should be submitted to MCF. I trust that MCF will stay true to its first article. It is our right to appeal. Why is that equated to being a trouble maker? Trouble for whom? This is a just and legal due process.

We are not playing marbles here. There is a heavy financial outlay which needs to be respected too. So do follow the argument in the debate. Dont allow yourself to be side tracked by the misdirection and belligerence etc etc.

ps: If a case involves a Perak player, it is also our right to bring the case up to our Regent.

A good debate.

Here.

2 Schools of thought.

It seems to me that there are 2 major schools of thought regarding the development of our chess players. Some will point to the singular focus and genius of the tortured souls of the great chess masters and say that is the way. And so the system works. You just have to survive the jungle.

I on the other hand think that the intense pressure generated by chess tournaments is in itself sufficient. There is no need to add to this. So the direction should be for healthy competition. Fair rules.

So how would we know if healthy competition works or not if every time this subject or anything related is brought up it is attacked in a hundred twisted ways? What does our past evidence show us? No need to look outside of Malaysia, I think. Different conditions. Interesting isn't it?

How to avoid blunders.

Visualisation. Here.

Call by the Regent of Perak.

Here.