In reading what Raymond Siew says, I find it either incredibly frustrating or amusing, depending on whether I'm the second or third party.
Notice how he talks like the stereotypical bad-guy politician in old movies. He uses the words "cleanse", "win", "true/truth", "focus", "ideas", "victimised", "reasoning", "anger" for himself, and "poison/venom", "illusion", "lies", "tricks", "noise", "divert/diversion", "ploy", "tantrum", "threat/intimidate", "belligerence", "childish", "break", "hate", "cowardice" in describing others. I wonder whether these words come naturally from him, or he's reading off a propaganda textbook he got hold of while he was studying psychology. Or maybe he really is copying the movies and hoping to emulate their success, while avoiding the ending.
In any case, I think Raymond Siew was born into the wrong country, in the wrong era. He would have put Joseph Goebbels out of his job had he been born just two generations earlier.
With reference to Jimmy Liew's post, I found the "conversation" pretty amusing as the third party. Do you remember how, as a child, when arguing with another child, if he runs out of counterarguments, he either 1)covers his ears, and scream, "blah blah blah" at you to annoy you, 2)he sways the topic by asking a barely relevant 'question'("I bet you don't know the square root of 4!"), or 3)call you short/fat/skinny/etc? It's amusing to watch that happen when it comes out as the last line of defense. This looks very much like that, only a slightly more sophisticated version.
And do IM title holders receive diplomatic immunity? Or does hiding behind an IM title mean holding a shield with the letters "IM"?
I just hope our friend here has always been like this, as opposed to becoming like this because of a brain tumour. Now that's a low (or high?) blow :)
Friday, 28 January 2011
Thursday, 27 January 2011
A deleted post from malaysianchessaffairs.blogspot.com
As requested, I'm reuploading a post made by Rationality last year, which got taken down a short time after.
An Intricacy in Malaysian Chess This Year
Well, apparently some people could not comprehend an example I gave about something fishy that happened in Malaysian chess, so I'll have to elaborate. Minus the sarcasm.
An Intricacy in Malaysian Chess This Year
Well, apparently some people could not comprehend an example I gave about something fishy that happened in Malaysian chess, so I'll have to elaborate. Minus the sarcasm.
OK, I lied. Reading Chess Ninja's post just reminded me of something which I wanted to write about months ago, except that I didn't have the time and eventually forgot. So I want to elaborate on this regardless of whether you understood what I said or not.
Anyway, here's the story that I will start from:
This year, 2010, the First GM Academy had secured sponsorship from AirAsia, who will sponsor the air tickets (so we're told) to the ASEAN Age-Group tournament. This implies that one had to pay for everything else if they were interested, i.e. accommodation, entry fees, etc. However, there was a catch: You must attend a 3-day training program conducted by the First GM Academy, and pay for it. The cost? RM1000.
Later on at the last minute, participation to this training was opened to outsiders, i.e. people not playing in the ASEAN, at the cost of RM300.
We can draw up this argument:
It's agreeable the air ticket was a significantly expensive item: It would cost somewhere within the RM1000-1500 range, and having that taken off a package which normally costs around RM4000 would be like getting a 30% discount. But then, you have to pay an extra RM1000 anyway. Mathematically, that meant you'd be saving up to RM500 compared to not following FGM. And you can't possibly be paying more than you would. To the player, the better deal definitely lies in following FGM.
Now let me tell you what's wrong with this picture:
FGM got the air tickets sponsored for them. Yes, the players might see the better deal in going through FGM. However, remember that they were supposed to be saving somewhere between RM1000 and RM1500. But now, it's somewhere between nothing and RM500. Now, let me clarify that these numbers are only my rough estimates; their magnitudes don't matter. What matters is that there is a difference of RM1000 in what they were supposed to save, and what they really will be saving.
Well, there is no 12th dimensional portal for money to disappear through that I know of (OK, I promise, there will be no more sarcasm after this), so that RM1000 per person has to go somewhere. And that somewhere is into the First GM Academy's bank account.
Then after that, the program is opened to outsiders for RM300.
There are a few things wrong with this:
1. It shows that FGM is willing to run the program for RM300 per head. That means the people who had to pay RM1000 were victims of price discrimination. For those unfamiliar with the term, it meant FGM charged the ASEAN players RM1000 only because they were willing to pay that amount.
2. It dilutes the pool of students. It gives the coaches more people to focus on, and hence the students will not manage to receive as much training as they would, had there been a small number of students in the training session. This is non-negotiable. Training works better with less people. That's why there's a market for one-to-one tuition in everything. Perhaps training in small numbers can arguably be more effective than training a single one, but beyond that "small number" training loses its effectiveness. And this theory would only be applicable if the players are of the same standard. Would training a 2000 player together with 5 people who are just starting to learn how to capture en passant increase its effectiveness compared to training them separately? Of course not! And, the only time when having more people may have only a negligible effect on the benefit of whatever they're trying to enjoy is when that something is non-interactive, e.g. fireworks.
3. Can we take a step back? There are people paying RM1000 and RM300 for the exact same thing. How would you feel if you go to your local Mamak, and your Mee Goreng costs you RM10, and the guy sitting on the table next to you pays RM3 for the same thing?
Now, let's do some math. If I'm not mistaken, GM Ziaur trains for RM150, give or take, per 2-hour session. How long is the training under FGM? Let's say 8 hours times 3 days. RM150*8*3=RM3600. There are many things wrong with this figure. I will just stop at the fact that FGM received RM8000 from the ASEAN players alone, and let you figure out the rest.
Actually, this would all be fine if FGM themselves sponsored the air tickets. It's just business then. The problem is, this is not the case. It was sponsored by a third party. Let me illustrate with numbers. Assume that each ticket costs RM1500, and 8 were sponsored, and we're only looking at the players and not their parents. Each person had to pay RM1000 extra to First GM. What it is for is not important; it was a forced payment. Anyway, each person effectively saves RM500.
AirAsia sponsors RM12000
Players save RM4000
That missing RM8000 is the problem. When someone sponsors something, all of it should go to where it is meant to go. And AirAsia sponsored the tickets for the players. The players should be saving very close to RM12000. Any significant leakage of value on the way to them is due to corruption. And I find 66.7% to be a significant portion.
Whether or not the training managed to cover its expenses of hiring its coaches (it probably did, though), or that it had served a purpose or whatnot is irrelevant. At the end of the day, the players had to attend that training whether they liked it or not (i.e. they had no choice), and had RM8000 taken from them.
Now, I'm not exactly a lawyer (Yee Weng, you must be feeling safe now!), but technically what FGM did seems legal. They offered players the choice of going to ASEAN through them, despite them knowing the fact that they will siphon some of their money, which was cleverly placed in the form of "training" instead of "air ticket", so the players technically weren't paying for something that they should not be paying for. Call it a profit-making legal loophole, if you must. I still call it unethical, among other things.
The exact problem is that the costs were engineered so that the better deal still lay in FGM. Yes, players had the choice between going themselves and paying, say, RM4500 or through FGM and paying RM4000 only. Of course any sane person would pick FGM. However, FGM had exploited the sponsorship granted by AirAsia; they could still get an extra RM1000 from anyone who wanted to follow them.
I dare say that, had the cost of going been RM1000 cheaper as it should have been, there would have been a higher participation rate. Which means that the extra RM1000 charged by FGM has contradicted with a certain sub-goal of a certain academy: To get players to play in an international event.
I'm sorry. I just can't write about these donkey-obvious things without sarcasm.
Tuesday, 25 January 2011
Cheap Tricks in Chess?
I think it's pathetic that my first post on this blog is with regard to Raymond Siew (i.e. stuff that other bloggers have shot down countless times), but it seems like this is going to be the trending topic for the next few weeks, and hey, we all have to start somewhere, don't we?
Just so we're clear, the following is copy-pasted from the so-called First GM blog, with what I have to say in bold:
Remember the question raised below. That is the issue.
I guess this is the question you're referring to:
One party asks a question where the opposition has no answer ie winning on the board. The other party throws all sorts of distractions hoping to divert from answering that question.
It's nice to see you using another analogy from a game you can't play. But the problem here is, what do you mean by winning on the board? By itself, it is a disgusting analogy, but you can be forgiven for that.
A good piece of advice: If you want to get your point across, stop using analogies to chess. How do you expect to be understood through an analogy of a game which you don't understand yourself?
Now if you go to any tournament, speak to most players and parents, they will agree. So we have the winning argument. We are winning on the board. So now how?
That's nice. Have you been to a social event before? You would find that those who truly agree with you will continue the conversation in detail, and most likely criticize some flaws in your point, because they truly see your point. Those who don't would just agree and change the topic of conversation, or just avoid you. Only very few people would actually disagree with you in such small talk.
You know, if you keep citing support from outside the online chess community, then perhaps you should consider publishing a weekly journal and distributing it, because your blog in the online world is obviously not garnering much support from the online community.
Now if we can stay focussed and not sabotage ourselves then we can win.
The question is should players who have not played competitively for a period be automatically selected for representation of the Country?
No. In agreement with you at this point.
If not, then what is the solution? We have SEA games this year. Dont you think we need to at least debate this question now?
The solution is already half the way there. Players are selected through the Malaysian Masters tournament. The flaw is that the eligibility is tough, starting with the fact that this tournament is a knockout with 8 players. One way to qualify is by finishing in the top 2 in the National Championship.
But it's not a perfect world. If the Malaysian Masters was a Swiss tournament, players' strategies change. The solid "draw with black and win with white strategy" only works in matches. What if it was a round-robin? Then there exists the possibility of match-fixing (which has happened before in Olympiad selections, but having no proof of this, let's say that it's only a possibility) which could be exercised if the Malaysian Masters was a round-robin. So we're back to square one: a knockout match-based system. But having a knockout tournament does hold a major flaw, in that it only finds the best player in the field.
Perhaps an improvement is not to be made in the tournament structure, but in the choice of players for the tournament itself. Maybe Mas, Nicholas, Mok, Edward, Evan, Tariq, Yee Weng and Chern Ee don't deserve to play in the Malaysian Masters. Picking players based on their overall performance seems like a good option. Maybe even better is basing the participants of the Malaysian Championship on their overall performance. But in practice, not everyone takes chess as their first priority. Having said so, that does not mean that they do not deserve to play for the country. The fact of the matter is, it's just a matter of chance. Almost nobody makes chess their first priority. Who in their right mind, given that nobody here is above 2400 except Mas and probably Mok, chooses chess over work? Or SPM/PMR/UPSR?
Furthermore, "good performance" is very subjective. Does a player who wins 2 tournaments but plays crap in 10 others perform better than one who wins the only tournament(of the same standard as the other guy) that he plays that year?
Having said so, the system is definitely far from perfect, e.g. since qualifying in the Olympiad by winning the National Championship is somewhat easier than winning the Malaysian Masters.
MCF did make a sad call last year to put Peter Long into the team. However, in their defence, it was a last resort. They had little time, and MCF being MCF, who could they pick in such a short period of time, and with what criteria?
This is an ever persistent problem; no system is perfect. Magnus Carlsen pulled out of the FIDE WC cycle in protest of the system. The point is that even the world championship is flawed. It's not practical to expect a perfect selection system for the national team. Having said that, it can be improved, and this is one thing which I can agree with you.
So what do you propose? And be specific. We need a detailed solution. A vague one is useless, anybody can come up with that.
Here comes the cheap tricks. First they distort the the point of the parents having heartache when they hear about the stories of what happened in the Olympiad. Of course the investigation should now be if the stories are true or not, isnt it?
What happened in the Olympiad? Fixed games?
What investigation do you want? It's easy to establish if it was true or not.
Then they add a little slander. Go to the poll, its on chess ninja's blog. The poll is about whether I have a case to sue? Another misdirection. Who said sue? Go back to what I said.
Nice to see that you were hiding your cards on this one. When you make a threat, alleging libel, 99.999999% of the time, there is a lawsuit involved, with the plaintiff intending to sue for damages. Well, it's nice of you are part of the 0.000001% prepared to go through all the trouble; making a police report, writing a letter to MCMC and spend some money, just to expose 2 people and getting them and a third guy to "apologize".
Now that I think of it, you declare that you never intended to press charges. What does this mean? Did you have nothing better to do with your time and money and decided to "haiyah, give you guys chance la", or were you just bluffing all along?
Now if the poll is about the point I raised which is who is Chess Ninja and who is Rationality?
Does your brain work? By starting a poll on who is who, I'm assuming you mean to poll: Is Chess Ninja A)Mas Hafizul B) Mok Tze-Meng C,D,E,F, etc. Well, that is a pretty stupid thing to do. You can only have so many choices on a poll. A poll has a small, finite number of choices.
What do you think the outcome would now be? Do you want to know who they are? That was the issue.
Is this a rhetorical question? Because I sure as hell don't know the answer.
[OK, now I see what you mean. You're asking to poll if people want to know who the Chess Ninja and Rationality is. You really need to work on your written communication skills. Well, of course they do. Everyone wants to know the identity of an anonymous person. Superman/Batman, you name it. But what does this have to do with anything? It's not even relevant to your point. A realistic poll would be to ask whether people think that the Chess Ninja and Rationality are talking nonsense, which in turn means that they should be closed, and you have so kindly cited that the majority want this without reference in your posts.
There's a poll for this. It doesn't mean that they want Rationality and the Chess Ninja gone, but it sure as hell means that they want you gone more than them.]
So a few members have now fallen for the cheap tricks. The numbers are whittled down.
You're being vague again. What are you talking about?
Remember the issue still is do we want players to represent the Country after a long time out of competitive play.
If they fulfill the selection criteria and prove that they are able to, then why not? And I make the assumption (because of your vagueness) that you are referring to Peter Long and Gregory Lau only , because as far as I know every other player who represented Malaysia has been active in tournaments. Well, Greg is not someone which could be removed from the team for irrelevant reasons. Peter Long...well, he was a last resort. Who else could have been picked?
Also, given the scenario, this has only happened once. Not that I'm saying this should happen again, but you talk like this is an ongoing problem.
So they bring up the PICA issue. Let us distract even more people.
The PICA issue was only cited, once or twice. And then it was never made part of the argument. There was no elaboration. If someone did mention it and make a fuss out of it, do point it out.
The PICA issue has been brought before MCF. They are the highest Authority in Malaysian Chess. Would I bring it up to them if I have something to hide?
You bring things upon yourself. The PICA issue is unrelated. Yet, why are you telling us more about it?
A few other minor cheap tricks were tried. I wont insult your intelligence by going through them all. You are chess players. You can work things out.
Sadly, chess players are not mind readers, contrary to what many may think. What minor cheap tricks are you referring to? And if they were minor, why do you even bother to mention them?
So who are these people? Why do they need to use this tactics?
What tactic(s)?
Why use threats and intimidation if they have the winning argument and the winning number?
Isn't this you? Aren't you the blogger that is threatening to expose their identities? And intimidating them by threatening to lodge a police report?
Think on this. Who would object to this case? Who is affected and what is their true number?
Now you are learning to see past the cheap tricks. If you can see past these ruses, I promise you will be a stronger chess player. You have the winning game. Now convert.
Blah blah blah. More improvement advice from you.
ps: I've just been told by an IT guy that the poll can be fixed. What a waste of time.
You show even more of your technological incompetence. Of course the poll can be fixed. Just clear your cookies and refresh the page. But who is so jobless to do that? What's the point? We don't need to tell the online chess community that you're full of shit. We know that. The poll was to tell you that you're full of shit.
Your citations of support are no better. Perhaps you can argue that you need not say who gave you their kind words of support, since they only matter to you. In a way, the poll only matters to us. That the online chess community wants you gone. By the way, the guys who vote on the online poll are likely to be chess players who actually have an idea on what's going on. What about your supporters?
P/S: Jimmy Liew's votes went from 4 to 15 within a half hour in the shut-up poll. Go figure what that means. And just in case you're wondering, I started that poll.
Do you know what your problem is? The thing is, sometimes you are capable of coming up with a valid point. But every time you do or say something stupid (which, sadly, happens very often), you lose credibility. Your posts are already boring walls of text (Here's a fact: We don't have the time to read through your average of 4 posts in a day. We have lives.), and many of them are just irrelevant, some of them quotes, which is fine for personal blogs. But if you wish to be heard and taken seriously, you need to keep to the point. Nobody cares about your quote of the day or whatever . And when you say things that destroy your credibility, nobody is going to bother looking through your valid points when you do come up with one, because people are just to think, "Oh, just another word of crap coming from the guy who keeps talking shit."
And you need to be clear in what you say. Withholding elaborations to your point does not help the issue. Maybe you can spend more of your time elaborating the topic than talking about things off-topic.
It's nice to be an active blogger. But if you intend to propagate what you have to say through other people's minds, you need to cut the crap, and keep it short and simple. For example, I can't find your proposed solution to this problem of representing the country. Or rather, I'm not willing to wade through your last 100 posts, and hopefully find it somewhere there.
I have quoted your entire post, and answered every part of it. If you tell me that I'm trying to make the diversion, then I think it's clear that the problem lies in you.
And to sign off, it's safe to say that I'm definitely not going to get a warm reaction from you. After everything you have to say to me, I only ask you to remember:
Propose your solution the the current problem. And don't be vague.
Just so we're clear, the following is copy-pasted from the so-called First GM blog, with what I have to say in bold:
Remember the question raised below. That is the issue.
I guess this is the question you're referring to:
One party asks a question where the opposition has no answer ie winning on the board. The other party throws all sorts of distractions hoping to divert from answering that question.
It's nice to see you using another analogy from a game you can't play. But the problem here is, what do you mean by winning on the board? By itself, it is a disgusting analogy, but you can be forgiven for that.
A good piece of advice: If you want to get your point across, stop using analogies to chess. How do you expect to be understood through an analogy of a game which you don't understand yourself?
Now if you go to any tournament, speak to most players and parents, they will agree. So we have the winning argument. We are winning on the board. So now how?
That's nice. Have you been to a social event before? You would find that those who truly agree with you will continue the conversation in detail, and most likely criticize some flaws in your point, because they truly see your point. Those who don't would just agree and change the topic of conversation, or just avoid you. Only very few people would actually disagree with you in such small talk.
You know, if you keep citing support from outside the online chess community, then perhaps you should consider publishing a weekly journal and distributing it, because your blog in the online world is obviously not garnering much support from the online community.
Now if we can stay focussed and not sabotage ourselves then we can win.
The question is should players who have not played competitively for a period be automatically selected for representation of the Country?
No. In agreement with you at this point.
If not, then what is the solution? We have SEA games this year. Dont you think we need to at least debate this question now?
The solution is already half the way there. Players are selected through the Malaysian Masters tournament. The flaw is that the eligibility is tough, starting with the fact that this tournament is a knockout with 8 players. One way to qualify is by finishing in the top 2 in the National Championship.
But it's not a perfect world. If the Malaysian Masters was a Swiss tournament, players' strategies change. The solid "draw with black and win with white strategy" only works in matches. What if it was a round-robin? Then there exists the possibility of match-fixing (which has happened before in Olympiad selections, but having no proof of this, let's say that it's only a possibility) which could be exercised if the Malaysian Masters was a round-robin. So we're back to square one: a knockout match-based system. But having a knockout tournament does hold a major flaw, in that it only finds the best player in the field.
Perhaps an improvement is not to be made in the tournament structure, but in the choice of players for the tournament itself. Maybe Mas, Nicholas, Mok, Edward, Evan, Tariq, Yee Weng and Chern Ee don't deserve to play in the Malaysian Masters. Picking players based on their overall performance seems like a good option. Maybe even better is basing the participants of the Malaysian Championship on their overall performance. But in practice, not everyone takes chess as their first priority. Having said so, that does not mean that they do not deserve to play for the country. The fact of the matter is, it's just a matter of chance. Almost nobody makes chess their first priority. Who in their right mind, given that nobody here is above 2400 except Mas and probably Mok, chooses chess over work? Or SPM/PMR/UPSR?
Furthermore, "good performance" is very subjective. Does a player who wins 2 tournaments but plays crap in 10 others perform better than one who wins the only tournament(of the same standard as the other guy) that he plays that year?
Having said so, the system is definitely far from perfect, e.g. since qualifying in the Olympiad by winning the National Championship is somewhat easier than winning the Malaysian Masters.
MCF did make a sad call last year to put Peter Long into the team. However, in their defence, it was a last resort. They had little time, and MCF being MCF, who could they pick in such a short period of time, and with what criteria?
This is an ever persistent problem; no system is perfect. Magnus Carlsen pulled out of the FIDE WC cycle in protest of the system. The point is that even the world championship is flawed. It's not practical to expect a perfect selection system for the national team. Having said that, it can be improved, and this is one thing which I can agree with you.
So what do you propose? And be specific. We need a detailed solution. A vague one is useless, anybody can come up with that.
Here comes the cheap tricks. First they distort the the point of the parents having heartache when they hear about the stories of what happened in the Olympiad. Of course the investigation should now be if the stories are true or not, isnt it?
What happened in the Olympiad? Fixed games?
What investigation do you want? It's easy to establish if it was true or not.
Then they add a little slander. Go to the poll, its on chess ninja's blog. The poll is about whether I have a case to sue? Another misdirection. Who said sue? Go back to what I said.
Nice to see that you were hiding your cards on this one. When you make a threat, alleging libel, 99.999999% of the time, there is a lawsuit involved, with the plaintiff intending to sue for damages. Well, it's nice of you are part of the 0.000001% prepared to go through all the trouble; making a police report, writing a letter to MCMC and spend some money, just to expose 2 people and getting them and a third guy to "apologize".
Now that I think of it, you declare that you never intended to press charges. What does this mean? Did you have nothing better to do with your time and money and decided to "haiyah, give you guys chance la", or were you just bluffing all along?
Now if the poll is about the point I raised which is who is Chess Ninja and who is Rationality?
Does your brain work? By starting a poll on who is who, I'm assuming you mean to poll: Is Chess Ninja A)Mas Hafizul B) Mok Tze-Meng C,D,E,F, etc. Well, that is a pretty stupid thing to do. You can only have so many choices on a poll. A poll has a small, finite number of choices.
What do you think the outcome would now be? Do you want to know who they are? That was the issue.
Is this a rhetorical question? Because I sure as hell don't know the answer.
[OK, now I see what you mean. You're asking to poll if people want to know who the Chess Ninja and Rationality is. You really need to work on your written communication skills. Well, of course they do. Everyone wants to know the identity of an anonymous person. Superman/Batman, you name it. But what does this have to do with anything? It's not even relevant to your point. A realistic poll would be to ask whether people think that the Chess Ninja and Rationality are talking nonsense, which in turn means that they should be closed, and you have so kindly cited that the majority want this without reference in your posts.
There's a poll for this. It doesn't mean that they want Rationality and the Chess Ninja gone, but it sure as hell means that they want you gone more than them.]
So a few members have now fallen for the cheap tricks. The numbers are whittled down.
You're being vague again. What are you talking about?
Remember the issue still is do we want players to represent the Country after a long time out of competitive play.
If they fulfill the selection criteria and prove that they are able to, then why not? And I make the assumption (because of your vagueness) that you are referring to Peter Long and Gregory Lau only , because as far as I know every other player who represented Malaysia has been active in tournaments. Well, Greg is not someone which could be removed from the team for irrelevant reasons. Peter Long...well, he was a last resort. Who else could have been picked?
Also, given the scenario, this has only happened once. Not that I'm saying this should happen again, but you talk like this is an ongoing problem.
So they bring up the PICA issue. Let us distract even more people.
The PICA issue was only cited, once or twice. And then it was never made part of the argument. There was no elaboration. If someone did mention it and make a fuss out of it, do point it out.
The PICA issue has been brought before MCF. They are the highest Authority in Malaysian Chess. Would I bring it up to them if I have something to hide?
You bring things upon yourself. The PICA issue is unrelated. Yet, why are you telling us more about it?
A few other minor cheap tricks were tried. I wont insult your intelligence by going through them all. You are chess players. You can work things out.
Sadly, chess players are not mind readers, contrary to what many may think. What minor cheap tricks are you referring to? And if they were minor, why do you even bother to mention them?
So who are these people? Why do they need to use this tactics?
What tactic(s)?
Why use threats and intimidation if they have the winning argument and the winning number?
Isn't this you? Aren't you the blogger that is threatening to expose their identities? And intimidating them by threatening to lodge a police report?
Think on this. Who would object to this case? Who is affected and what is their true number?
Now you are learning to see past the cheap tricks. If you can see past these ruses, I promise you will be a stronger chess player. You have the winning game. Now convert.
Blah blah blah. More improvement advice from you.
ps: I've just been told by an IT guy that the poll can be fixed. What a waste of time.
You show even more of your technological incompetence. Of course the poll can be fixed. Just clear your cookies and refresh the page. But who is so jobless to do that? What's the point? We don't need to tell the online chess community that you're full of shit. We know that. The poll was to tell you that you're full of shit.
Your citations of support are no better. Perhaps you can argue that you need not say who gave you their kind words of support, since they only matter to you. In a way, the poll only matters to us. That the online chess community wants you gone. By the way, the guys who vote on the online poll are likely to be chess players who actually have an idea on what's going on. What about your supporters?
P/S: Jimmy Liew's votes went from 4 to 15 within a half hour in the shut-up poll. Go figure what that means. And just in case you're wondering, I started that poll.
Do you know what your problem is? The thing is, sometimes you are capable of coming up with a valid point. But every time you do or say something stupid (which, sadly, happens very often), you lose credibility. Your posts are already boring walls of text (Here's a fact: We don't have the time to read through your average of 4 posts in a day. We have lives.), and many of them are just irrelevant, some of them quotes, which is fine for personal blogs. But if you wish to be heard and taken seriously, you need to keep to the point. Nobody cares about your quote of the day or whatever . And when you say things that destroy your credibility, nobody is going to bother looking through your valid points when you do come up with one, because people are just to think, "Oh, just another word of crap coming from the guy who keeps talking shit."
And you need to be clear in what you say. Withholding elaborations to your point does not help the issue. Maybe you can spend more of your time elaborating the topic than talking about things off-topic.
It's nice to be an active blogger. But if you intend to propagate what you have to say through other people's minds, you need to cut the crap, and keep it short and simple. For example, I can't find your proposed solution to this problem of representing the country. Or rather, I'm not willing to wade through your last 100 posts, and hopefully find it somewhere there.
I have quoted your entire post, and answered every part of it. If you tell me that I'm trying to make the diversion, then I think it's clear that the problem lies in you.
And to sign off, it's safe to say that I'm definitely not going to get a warm reaction from you. After everything you have to say to me, I only ask you to remember:
Propose your solution the the current problem. And don't be vague.
Hello
Well, I don't feel like introducing myself.
But welcome to another blog that focuses on Malaysian chess, outside the confinement of the 64 squares!
But welcome to another blog that focuses on Malaysian chess, outside the confinement of the 64 squares!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)