Focused or aimless?

If some of us are still feeling smug two weeks after the Malaysian side had beaten their Singapore counterparts in the annual chess match between the two countries, my advice is just this: stop. It’s over; let’s not waste further time with it. We should move on, because chess-wise there is a lot to do.

My own general sense of euphoria ended right after I had written last week’s article. I don’t gloat over the results because in reality, this isn’t much of an achievement. I know the Malaysian team badly wanted to win but what do the results really mean? Don’t read too much into it.

We went into the match with a senior team that lacked our best players. We missed out on several key players until the Malaysian Chess Federation were forced to field our better junior players for the senior side. Not that I am complaining about this, though. I’ve always been an advocate of the move to bleed in new talent. Our national chess body as well as our state chess associations must always allow talented juniors to come forward and show their mettle.

It’s the only way forward. If junior players are cloistered and shielded behind their age group events, we are simply limiting them. How on earth can they develop and blossom if not given the chance? So what the Malaysian Chess Federation did was right. In the absence of the usual senior regulars, the boys were asked to play like men. 

Budding players like Edward Lee, Evan Capel (yes, there are even former national champions who are no older than 20), Lim Zhuo Ren, Sumant Subramaniam and Yeap Eng Chiam … yes, they all stepped up admirably to fill the senior shoes. 

But this positive aside, what had also been at the back of my mind was whether or not the Singapore side had fielded their best players against us. 

I do acknowledge that their players like Daniel Chan, Jarred Neubronner and Tan Weiliang are at least among the top 15 active home-grown players in Singapore today, but their senior line-up was never near the best they could assemble either.

Despite this, there was still about a 100 rating-point gap that separated the two senior sides. With the strength of their senior side far out-weighing ours, it wasn’t any surprise than we lost out on these boards. We were not good enough, period. 

But at least, we redeemed ourselves with far better results in the age-group encounters. It’s almost impossible to determine for sure which side was the stronger on paper as many of the players were young and without official ratings. Nevertheless, based on the results, we were better in the age groups.

However, one thing became clear looking deeper at the results. Regardless of whether we talk about Singapore or Malaysia, the future of the game will always have to come through from the younger ranks. We shall have to continue nurturing and training them from small. There is no other way for succession planning.

The important question that needs be asked is how well are we moving forward today? What is the big picture? Are we focused or are we simply moving aimlessly? How are our young chess players here being trained? If you ask me, I’d say the road ahead is bumpy. It is not going along smoothly. Not at all.

Since November, we have lost our one and only big-name foreign chess trainer. The Bangladeshi grandmaster, Ziaur Rahman, has finished his stay here in Kuala Lumpur and returned to his home country. He was on contract for a year but he asked to be released early.

From what I heard, it was an amicable separation for both him and his private chess employers. And since his departure, all that we have left are the same old local chess coaches. We continue to be so dependent on them to impart chess knowledge to the young. 

In the last decade or so, chess coaching clinics have sprung up in the bigger chess centres around the Klang Valley and elsewhere in the country but sad to say, coaching techniques and quality are far from being uniform or consistent. 

So how can we determine whether one coach is better than another? Just because a local coach may have been successful as a player does not necessarily mean that they are competent enough to teach. On the other hand, a local coach who is just an average-level player can turn out to be a good teacher that inspires his students. I suppose that at the end of the day, the only measure of a coach in Malaysia is his track record, that is, how successful his students are when they play competitively. 

From my point of view, it looks unlikely that anyone will be bringing in more foreign chess coaches at anytime soon. Malaysia is spread too wide as a country, compared to a compact place like Singapore, and there is not enough spending power to support the presence of foreign coaches. It’s the vicious law of supply and demand.

To my mind, Ziaur Rahman was under-utilised during his short stay here. But for better coordination with all the state chess associations, more could have been achieved with him. But then also, chess exists in this country as a result of parents and volunteers pitching in their time or money for the game. The state chess associations are not exactly rich, so that leaves the parents to fork out the dough.

When I was in Singapore a fortnight ago, I had noticed that there are quite a number of foreign trainers – players with acceptable credentials – around to provide chess tuition to the children there. Fees are not cheap, but the parents are prepared to pay good money to make their children play better than the next kid.

One parent there claimed to have spent SGD20,000 over the years on foreign chess trainers for her children. Are our parents here capable of spending RM20,000 on their children’s chess and if so, how many such parents are there?

(Unfortunately, spending so much also puts the children under immense parental pressure to perform well in competitions and not all children can deal with it. However, this is not a topic I would want to raise here.)

Nevertheless to answer my own question, I doubt that there are many parents in Malaysia who are able to spend that amount of money on foreign chess tutors. And without these parents spending on foreign coaches, all we have left are the local ones. How far they can bring their students forward will depend on their local expertise. No more and no less. 

At the end of the day, some will say that we get what we pay for. We reap what we sow. I suppose its true, after all. 

Up next

USM chess festival

The 17th Universiti Sains Malaysia chess festival kicks off this weekend with an eight-round individual event on Saturday and Sunday, and a seven-round team event on Jan 22-23. For both events, 40-minute time control games. Entry fees for the individual tournament are RM17 (under-12 players), RM19 (under-18 players), RM21 (university and college players) and RM27 (others). Members of the Penang Chess Association will be charged at RM15, RM17, RM19 and RM22 respectively. For the team event, entry fees are RM70 (under-12 teams), RM90 (university, college and school teams) and RM110 (all other teams). Details are available from Lee Youn Hock (014.9445491), Sia Chye Ching (012.7258828) or Lee Chiew Seng (016.5152312). 

DATCC renegade chess

The Datuk Arthur Tan Chess Centre will organize the DATCC renegade rapid chess weekend at their Wilayah Complex premises in Kuala Lumpur on Jan 30. Seven rounds, 25-minute time control games. Entry fees are RM15 (players under 12 years old) and RM25 (all other players). Please register before Jan 28. For inquiries, contact Najib Wahab (016.3382542 or najib.wahab@chess-malaysia.com.)

Cerdik chess

The Cerdik Catur Enterprise will organize their second Cerdik Catur tournament at the Datuk Arthur Tan Chess Centre, Wilayah Complex, Kuala Lumpur on Feb 5. Seven rounds, 25-minute time control games. Entry fees are RM25 (adults) and RM20 (school children). To register, contact Fadli Zakaria (014.2312370 or cerdikcatur@yahoo.com.)