Yeah, just a re-poll again to distract everyone from the truthful matter at hand with my lies, slander, belligerence, ugliness, dengkiness and oh, just read a damn thesaurus already.
Please remember if I lose this vote, mind you, it's because the poll could have been possibly fixed, as my expert hacker connection told me when consulted.
-Jimmy Liew a.k.a. The Chess Ninja/Rationality/Thought
Well, sarcasm aside, please vote. Thanks!
Sunday, 13 February 2011
Thursday, 10 February 2011
How it all began
The fact that Raymond doesn't even know how this "war" developed is pathetic, so I offer my version, with actual references.
Here's how it started:
Raymond criticized Mas' draw against Michael Adams in R1 of the Olympiad, which was not taken too well by many. This strained his relations with the internet chess community. Then, a few posts later he somehow got people to dislike him further, and I have no recollection of how he managed to do that.
After(?) the Olympiad, Jimmy Liew made an attempt at a humourous post, parodying the bloggers in the internet chess community. Then Raymond went on to attempt an emulation, but his re-parody was done poorly; he was only attempting to portray the bloggers involved as bad people, with Raymond as the righteous man refuting their flawed claims (which he put into their mouths), a-la 20th century propaganda films. This further strained the issue.
Following which, Raymond confused himself between "throwing a game" and "losing by default" in a post which criticized the Olympiad Team, after which he was smashed, figuratively speaking. Instead of admitting that he made a minor error, he made things worse by saying that everyone else was at fault for not being able to understand him. At this point, his relations went from very strained to hostile.
Then came Malaysia-Singapore, where Raymond heroically shouted at Peter Long for having the nerve to express himself. He proceeded to talk about this on his blog, and further address the previous affairs. Rationality responded with a lengthy post, calling him a hypocrite [rather true; his latest post as of now, UTC+8 9:54pm 10th February 2011, is titled "Freedom of expression" when his dream is to see some people shut up and rot in hell for talking too much] and useless, also citing the ASEAN affair in one paragraph. It was written just like any of the other points in the post, but he went on to single out this paragraph in due time.
Then Raymond gave up the game and made a leap, threatening to make a police report and file a lawsuit against Jimmy Liew, Rationality, and The Chess Ninja for libel, with a 2 day ultimatum for them to reveal themselves and kiss his ass. Raymond cited an allegedly slanderous short-lived post made by Rationality late last year regarding the ASEAN affair, which was deleted hours after it was posted.
Rationality responded by removing parts of his post which may have been considered slanderous. I would say that it was a peace offering by Rationality; he had deleted (albeit tongue-in-cheek-ly) the slanderous sentences on his latest post, and the ASEAN post was deleted only hours after it was posted, i.e. months ago, but anyway that is only how I interpret his actions. Meanwhile, the Chess Ninja chose the less compromising choice of challenging Raymond's allegations and getting public opinion on the situation, and Jimmy stayed relatively silent and inactive throughout the duration of the ultimatum, besides a post questioning the validity of Raymond's case.
Raymond took Rationality's concession as an admission of guilt (I presume he believed that he had "won"), and continued to hammer the bloggers. 2 days and no police report later, he continued to claim that he was "winning", and, to paraphrase, he decided to "let the [accussed] bloggers off".
Then there were the polls, one by the Chess Ninja, and the other by me. These didn't have much impact on the situation; it just made Raymond go through the trouble to consult an IT guy to confirm that it is possible that the polls were just the same guy voting multiple times, something which everyone already knows.
Shortly afterwards, Raymond addressed the ASEAN issue again, prompting many to ask what was the post that was on Rationality's blog, requests which were swiftly deleted by the dear blog admin. This is where I come in; I had saved that post, and I decided to share it to satisfy everyone's curiosity, and add some gasoline to the fire, because why the hell not?
Raymond addressed it further, changing the story as he went along, and now, this is where we are.
Up to this day, Rationality has made no further posts, but yet somehow he's still the second biggest target of Raymond, after Jimmy. Maybe you did win, Raymond. It seems you managed to silence one blogger. Unless, of course, you want to claim that I'm him too. In that case, whatever effort you made to shut him (me?) up was just futile.
Notice how he had so many opportunities to put an end to this just by not talking about it anymore. But his compulsion to tell everyone that he is never wrong did not allow it.
The current issue is the ASEAN affair, and Raymond's continued assault on Jimmy for "promoting slanderous blogs", i.e. blogs that Raymond doesn't like.
I can't end without giving my further opinion on the current discussion, but what I can say is that:
A simpler solution would have been to just have been honest from the start and say that it was an enterprise, which made a loss due to the lack of response. Everyone would have been fine with that. But saying that this and that was sponsored, and yet somehow money having to be paid here and there only muddies the water. Over what? An attempt to make it sound like FGM was also sponsoring is a dishonest attempt to receive credit. Now there's the perspective argument, but unfortunately it has already been rebutted before this argument even started.
Yes, it would have been completely understandable, considering that Raymond is currently unemployed, and as shocking as it sounds, he makes a living off running chess programs.
He also believes that the many people against him are the same few people; he thinks that only one or two person in the whole of Malaysia does not share his ideology. Similar to how the rejected American Idol singers think that Simon Cowell and Randy Jackson are the only guys on Earth who think his/her singing is disastrous. In further analogy, Raymond seems to have met his Paula Abdul, too. Notice how there's only one of them. Furthermore, with him withholding the identity of his only cited supporter, how is that any better than the many equally anonymous people who cannot stand him?
His attempt to say that MCF and AirAsia are also being slandered (too many citations on this; here's just one) as far as this matter is concerned is pathetic; MCF was just the official body (in fact, if my memory serves me well, he was unhappy about them too for not covering the cost for your flag ceremony. Which side is he on?), and AirAsia, mind you, sponsored the tickets (unless you're saying they didn't, but that's besides the point). Unless he's the one saying that they had a hand in this. Then that's Raymond slandering them.
"To" Raymond:
Even if they were affected, it's up to them to file a lawsuit. Since when did you represent MCF and AirAsia? If you want to press charges, file them under FGM. You have no say over MCF or AirAsia's action. You're not as big boss as you think.
You keep talking about the truth, and yet you hide so many things. It used to be "sponsored by AirAsia and FGM", and suddenly it's now, "a win-win situation for FGM and the players". Then, with some of your favourite words; you spin the illusion of transparency by publishing your letter to AirAsia, but not the further correspondence. Furthermore, why did you truncate the part of the letter with the proposal? That's the most important part. Are you hiding something?
It's also nice to see you introducing a word from another language into your writing to describe others. I have one too, to describe your writings: гавно.
Fight your own war. You got yourself into this. Your struggle to diffract the accusations onto others in hope of their support is miserable.
P/S: I still find hilarity in your attempts at analogies from chess.
PP/S: Hypocrisy in action.
PPP/S: My prediction of Raymond's response, if any:
"Lies. Poisonous lies from a person who uses belligerence and ugly language in his postings."
Followed by no concrete evidence to tell his side of the story.
Here's how it started:
Raymond criticized Mas' draw against Michael Adams in R1 of the Olympiad, which was not taken too well by many. This strained his relations with the internet chess community. Then, a few posts later he somehow got people to dislike him further, and I have no recollection of how he managed to do that.
After(?) the Olympiad, Jimmy Liew made an attempt at a humourous post, parodying the bloggers in the internet chess community. Then Raymond went on to attempt an emulation, but his re-parody was done poorly; he was only attempting to portray the bloggers involved as bad people, with Raymond as the righteous man refuting their flawed claims (which he put into their mouths), a-la 20th century propaganda films. This further strained the issue.
Following which, Raymond confused himself between "throwing a game" and "losing by default" in a post which criticized the Olympiad Team, after which he was smashed, figuratively speaking. Instead of admitting that he made a minor error, he made things worse by saying that everyone else was at fault for not being able to understand him. At this point, his relations went from very strained to hostile.
Then came Malaysia-Singapore, where Raymond heroically shouted at Peter Long for having the nerve to express himself. He proceeded to talk about this on his blog, and further address the previous affairs. Rationality responded with a lengthy post, calling him a hypocrite [rather true; his latest post as of now, UTC+8 9:54pm 10th February 2011, is titled "Freedom of expression" when his dream is to see some people shut up and rot in hell for talking too much] and useless, also citing the ASEAN affair in one paragraph. It was written just like any of the other points in the post, but he went on to single out this paragraph in due time.
Then Raymond gave up the game and made a leap, threatening to make a police report and file a lawsuit against Jimmy Liew, Rationality, and The Chess Ninja for libel, with a 2 day ultimatum for them to reveal themselves and kiss his ass. Raymond cited an allegedly slanderous short-lived post made by Rationality late last year regarding the ASEAN affair, which was deleted hours after it was posted.
Rationality responded by removing parts of his post which may have been considered slanderous. I would say that it was a peace offering by Rationality; he had deleted (albeit tongue-in-cheek-ly) the slanderous sentences on his latest post, and the ASEAN post was deleted only hours after it was posted, i.e. months ago, but anyway that is only how I interpret his actions. Meanwhile, the Chess Ninja chose the less compromising choice of challenging Raymond's allegations and getting public opinion on the situation, and Jimmy stayed relatively silent and inactive throughout the duration of the ultimatum, besides a post questioning the validity of Raymond's case.
Raymond took Rationality's concession as an admission of guilt (I presume he believed that he had "won"), and continued to hammer the bloggers. 2 days and no police report later, he continued to claim that he was "winning", and, to paraphrase, he decided to "let the [accussed] bloggers off".
Then there were the polls, one by the Chess Ninja, and the other by me. These didn't have much impact on the situation; it just made Raymond go through the trouble to consult an IT guy to confirm that it is possible that the polls were just the same guy voting multiple times, something which everyone already knows.
Shortly afterwards, Raymond addressed the ASEAN issue again, prompting many to ask what was the post that was on Rationality's blog, requests which were swiftly deleted by the dear blog admin. This is where I come in; I had saved that post, and I decided to share it to satisfy everyone's curiosity, and add some gasoline to the fire, because why the hell not?
Raymond addressed it further, changing the story as he went along, and now, this is where we are.
Up to this day, Rationality has made no further posts, but yet somehow he's still the second biggest target of Raymond, after Jimmy. Maybe you did win, Raymond. It seems you managed to silence one blogger. Unless, of course, you want to claim that I'm him too. In that case, whatever effort you made to shut him (me?) up was just futile.
Notice how he had so many opportunities to put an end to this just by not talking about it anymore. But his compulsion to tell everyone that he is never wrong did not allow it.
The current issue is the ASEAN affair, and Raymond's continued assault on Jimmy for "promoting slanderous blogs", i.e. blogs that Raymond doesn't like.
I can't end without giving my further opinion on the current discussion, but what I can say is that:
A simpler solution would have been to just have been honest from the start and say that it was an enterprise, which made a loss due to the lack of response. Everyone would have been fine with that. But saying that this and that was sponsored, and yet somehow money having to be paid here and there only muddies the water. Over what? An attempt to make it sound like FGM was also sponsoring is a dishonest attempt to receive credit. Now there's the perspective argument, but unfortunately it has already been rebutted before this argument even started.
Yes, it would have been completely understandable, considering that Raymond is currently unemployed, and as shocking as it sounds, he makes a living off running chess programs.
He also believes that the many people against him are the same few people; he thinks that only one or two person in the whole of Malaysia does not share his ideology. Similar to how the rejected American Idol singers think that Simon Cowell and Randy Jackson are the only guys on Earth who think his/her singing is disastrous. In further analogy, Raymond seems to have met his Paula Abdul, too. Notice how there's only one of them. Furthermore, with him withholding the identity of his only cited supporter, how is that any better than the many equally anonymous people who cannot stand him?
His attempt to say that MCF and AirAsia are also being slandered (too many citations on this; here's just one) as far as this matter is concerned is pathetic; MCF was just the official body (in fact, if my memory serves me well, he was unhappy about them too for not covering the cost for your flag ceremony. Which side is he on?), and AirAsia, mind you, sponsored the tickets (unless you're saying they didn't, but that's besides the point). Unless he's the one saying that they had a hand in this. Then that's Raymond slandering them.
"To" Raymond:
Even if they were affected, it's up to them to file a lawsuit. Since when did you represent MCF and AirAsia? If you want to press charges, file them under FGM. You have no say over MCF or AirAsia's action. You're not as big boss as you think.
You keep talking about the truth, and yet you hide so many things. It used to be "sponsored by AirAsia and FGM", and suddenly it's now, "a win-win situation for FGM and the players". Then, with some of your favourite words; you spin the illusion of transparency by publishing your letter to AirAsia, but not the further correspondence. Furthermore, why did you truncate the part of the letter with the proposal? That's the most important part. Are you hiding something?
It's also nice to see you introducing a word from another language into your writing to describe others. I have one too, to describe your writings: гавно.
Fight your own war. You got yourself into this. Your struggle to diffract the accusations onto others in hope of their support is miserable.
P/S: I still find hilarity in your attempts at analogies from chess.
PP/S: Hypocrisy in action.
PPP/S: My prediction of Raymond's response, if any:
"Lies. Poisonous lies from a person who uses belligerence and ugly language in his postings."
Followed by no concrete evidence to tell his side of the story.
Wednesday, 9 February 2011
Just sayin'
Does anyone notice that there's a certain blogger out there that tells people to keep their "poisonous opinions" (OK, maybe some paraphrasing here) within the "confines" of their own blog, but yet he himself attempts to spread his ideology at every given chance in the blogs of others?
I'm just saying. I won't disclose any names, because it's not a nice thing to do. Besides, he's like, the only blogger I've been writing about since I started this blog.
Oh wait. Shit...
P/S: Onto less personal agenda, namely the ASEAN...gate(?):
It's interesting how the aforementioned blogger, whose identity I shall withhold, is beginning to embrace a half-Glasnost policy by showing the correspondence between his party and AirAsia on his blog, assuming that "correspondence" means "just one letter from one party without a reply from the other party".
Initially I was pretty sure that the request for sponsorship from AirAsia was said to be simply air tickets for the entire contingent. I guess everyone was just listening wrongly. Then again, this can't be proven right or wrong since the exact request to AirAsia was truncated from the published letter. Now it seems to be that the request has been changed, namely for AirAsia to sponsor chess training (w.t.f.?) to the participants as well as the air ticket. Yet somehow it costs money to the participants too. The most baffling part to me is how AirAsia had the ability to train chess players. I don't know. This stuff is too complicated for my poisoned brain to process.
I also find it incredible how this affair can be led by Jimmy Liew when there is no record of him mentioning this, ever.
Also, could someone tell me how AirAsia's name is threatened to be "sullied"?
Damn, the postscript was longer than the main body.
I'm just saying. I won't disclose any names, because it's not a nice thing to do. Besides, he's like, the only blogger I've been writing about since I started this blog.
Oh wait. Shit...
P/S: Onto less personal agenda, namely the ASEAN...gate(?):
It's interesting how the aforementioned blogger, whose identity I shall withhold, is beginning to embrace a half-Glasnost policy by showing the correspondence between his party and AirAsia on his blog, assuming that "correspondence" means "just one letter from one party without a reply from the other party".
Initially I was pretty sure that the request for sponsorship from AirAsia was said to be simply air tickets for the entire contingent. I guess everyone was just listening wrongly. Then again, this can't be proven right or wrong since the exact request to AirAsia was truncated from the published letter. Now it seems to be that the request has been changed, namely for AirAsia to sponsor chess training (w.t.f.?) to the participants as well as the air ticket. Yet somehow it costs money to the participants too. The most baffling part to me is how AirAsia had the ability to train chess players. I don't know. This stuff is too complicated for my poisoned brain to process.
I also find it incredible how this affair can be led by Jimmy Liew when there is no record of him mentioning this, ever.
Also, could someone tell me how AirAsia's name is threatened to be "sullied"?
Damn, the postscript was longer than the main body.
Sunday, 6 February 2011
Qh5
Well, I would like to clarify something first:
I am not trying to send a message to Raymond Siew. It has been proven that this is impossible.
For one, notice that Raymond responds to everything said against him by calling the allegations "lies", and redundantly similar words (presumably chosen to demonstrate his extensive vocabulary) without questioning, or even referring to the evidence on which the allegations are based on.
In fact, ask yourself: What was the last idea that Raymond believed in that was not conceived by himself? While it is true that those who are successful are due to the conception of their own ideas, it is obvious that Raymond is not one of them. I would just describe him as a model example of someone with a god complex who also suffers from paranoia.
"Paranoia is a thought process thought to be heavily influenced by anxiety or fear, often to the point of irrationality and delusion. Paranoid thinking typically includes persecutory beliefs concerning a perceived threat towards oneself."
--Wikipedia.
Replace "Bono" with "Raymond Siew". At least I spread my lies in thousand-word form.
So in that case, why am I still writing?
Simple. I only ridicule Raymond's insanity for the entertainment of you, the reader :-)
With that aside, onto my topic:
Gong Xi Fa Cai to all; having come back from wherever I've been for CNY, I see that Raymond had no intention of taking a break and took a shit all over his blog for the past week without stopping.
Being a person who is aware that he is spending his time rather unproductively by writing this post, I shall pick just one of Raymond's posts to "reply" to:
The real reason Jimmy and party is attacking FGM?
Before I start quoting, notice that firstly, the title is just pure paranoia. "Jimmy and party" are only interested in attacking stupid ideas and views; proven by pre-FGM content/drama. For one, Jimmy used to be in partial support of Raymond, before his ideas became increasingly delusional and insane. Secondly, most of what Raymond writes is totally irrelevant to the title of his post. Frankly, I don't see any part of his post referring to its title, so I'll just assume that the title of the post is just a method of identification, something like a serial number.
"I said that after 12 or when the players have been given the right tools to learn for themselves, technical begins to recede in importance ie technical trainers become more and more redundant and a coach becomes more important."
Notice how he used the word "coach" instead of "mind coach". It implies that to him, a "coach" primarily refers to a "mind coach". I think the number of people in the world who share this idea can be counted.
Back to his point: I suppose Anand/Topalov/Kramnik/[insert strong player/WC contender here]'s seconds are to provide him with psychological motivation? Also, that would really put more trainers out of business. You like to reference Singapore's Goh Weiming so much, now let's look at Singaporean "technical trainer" Ashot Nadanian's former students:
Timothy Chan, Tan Weiliang, Dominic Lo, Christer Aplin, Jeslin Tay, Liu Yang, Jonathan Koh, Edward Lee, Ryan Ow, Najwa Rujok, Timothy Wee, Chen Hoay, Andrew Ong Lay Teng, Zhong Kemin, Esther Huang, Wang Yining, Frederick Goh
--Ashot Nadanian leaves Singapore
I'm pretty sure a significant number of them are older than 12. Edward Lee is a strong Malaysian junior. Notice that he's in that list. Also notice that "strong Malaysian junior" means that he's stronger than most Malaysian juniors. And "most Malaysian juniors" are not in that list.
So you're suggesting that they would have been better off spending their time learning under the likes of Raymond Siew? Maybe they'd turn out stronger that way?
If there is any truth to your statement, it's the complete opposite. Why don't you observe 2 kids playing, and how often the game ends within minutes. Why? Because one player plays fast, and the other wants to keep up. Or one player bluffing the other by pretending to make a mistake. These are results of an attitude problem. The fact that you cannot even pinpoint the time when mind coaching is important only highlights your idiocy.
"The fight across the board is between 2 players. It is about their ability to think on the board, strategise, prepare and train, despite their fears."
Thanks, Captain Obvious. We chess players never knew that.
"Technical today can largely be found in books, videos and online programs etc."
This is where your lack of common sense comes in. Those are lectures. Did you not have recitations and tutorials while you were in university, if you've been to one?
A crucial part of the learning curve is inquiry. Non-interactive methods of teaching often fail to satisfy questions, unless the student's questions are so predictable that they can be answered before they are even asked.
All the technical Mark had via a face to face with a "technical coach" was a 2 hour private session with GM Ziaur Rahman and the 3 days training sponsored by Air Asia and FGM for Asean 2010. The rest is about me nurturing his desire to learn, nurturing his curiousity, teaching him to think for himself. In that 2 hour session, what we asked Ziaur for is the roadmap. What to do and what not to do. That was all.
First off, FGM did not sponsor the training. Or rather, let me ask: What was the RM1000 from each participant for then?
Now let's assume that what you said is true, and you influenced his success. You've counted the hits. What about the misses? He did not exactly have a star-studded performance in the ASEAN tournament, and he lost the last round of the 2010 National Juniors, short of becoming champion. And before that he finished 4th in the National Age Group. Why was he not first in either case? Do you honestly think that was the case because the lacked the mind power, rather than the technical expertise? Are you saying that getting him a "technical trainer" would have had no impact? And even so, then you are contradicting yourself. If technical training is so insignificant, why in God's name did you even have a session with Ziaur Rahman? And what was the point of the 3-day ASEAN training then? I'd speculate that it was a way to make money, but I'll just stop here and not say it. Oh wait, I already did.
So now you begin to see why my approach threatens some people. But they have no way of refuting my arguments. So they attack my partners, my sponsors, my son, my integrity and my dignity.
Your arguments were refuted countless times. You just refused to read or comment about it. Rather, you accuse people of personally attacking you, and calling their refutations "diversions".
So far, the only person being affected is you. Your integrity and dignity is non-existent, and even if they exist, it's part of you. Of course it's affected when people ridicule you.
Your son? No. You present him as evidence of your "success". Any argument has to start from the evidence. If you stop referencing him in your posts, the "attacks", at least that's how you perceive it, will go away. You have brought this upon yourself. You are the one hiding, using your son as a shield.
With Gufeld's words (albeit in a different context), "It's like a soldier going to war, with a machine gun in one hand and a baby in the other". If the baby gets hurt, is it because the enemy was taking cheap shots? I don't think so.
Notice how Jimmy makes no reference to Yeoh Li Tian when arguing with you. Having brought it up, why don't you tell us how Li Tian manages to draw GMs and IMs. Because of mind coaching? I don't think so. As far as I can tell, his antics while playing show that while he has extraordinary technical knowledge, he is like any kid his age otherwise.
"I will only give you rest if you say that technical is king". I say prove it.
I say beat Rybka 3 with the power of your mental stability.
I say that by hidding in the dark and then saying I am scared is proof of the contrary. You only hide when you are scared.
"hidding in the dark" allows people to truly express their opinion. Doing that under a true identity is either foolish, or insane bravery. Look at Julian Assange. Don't mistake insanity for bravery.
I say that attacking everything except the challenge I have given you will not distract me.
I say you can't read. You perceive every attack against the challenge as an attack against you. At least now, in this post, I am primarily focusing my attack against you. Anything I say against your challenge is simply to ridicule your ideology.
I say more anonymous sites may only swamp you with a lot of work but also prove nothing.
Swamp who with a lot of work? You're the one posting on your blog, attacking others every day, even during the New Year, hoping that they will be too busy to retaliate. Either that, or you really have nothing better to do during the festive season. Having said that, it really does consume time for me when I argue with you, knowing that the only people that I am trying to reach now is everyone besides you.
I say that only by teaching your students to think on the board will you prove something.
Yes. We don't expect players to prove anything by thinking off the board.
At least you have used the words "I say". You should keep it that way, because frankly speaking that is only your opinion and nobody else's.
You take away their confidence from your own insecurities and fears and then you ask them to fight in the light of day. But they wont be able to do that. Why? Because they have become like you.
BLUUUURGHWHATTHEHELLAREYOUSAYING
So stop hiding behind your title Jimmy...
Again, it's pretty hilarious that Jimmy's IM title has anything to do with this. Diversive cheap trick, anyone?
...and stop your support of venomous anonymous blogs.
Yes, support only the truth! FirstGM!!
Be proud of your name, be proud of who you are. Own your words and thoughts. Dont hide behind anonymous bloggers and voices to say what you really want to say. They are but shadows. Forget the cheap tricks.
You have yet to specify the "cheap tricks". Hint: Use quotation marks.
I am not trying to send a message to Raymond Siew. It has been proven that this is impossible.
For one, notice that Raymond responds to everything said against him by calling the allegations "lies", and redundantly similar words (presumably chosen to demonstrate his extensive vocabulary) without questioning, or even referring to the evidence on which the allegations are based on.
In fact, ask yourself: What was the last idea that Raymond believed in that was not conceived by himself? While it is true that those who are successful are due to the conception of their own ideas, it is obvious that Raymond is not one of them. I would just describe him as a model example of someone with a god complex who also suffers from paranoia.
"Paranoia is a thought process thought to be heavily influenced by anxiety or fear, often to the point of irrationality and delusion. Paranoid thinking typically includes persecutory beliefs concerning a perceived threat towards oneself."
--Wikipedia.
Replace "Bono" with "Raymond Siew". At least I spread my lies in thousand-word form.So in that case, why am I still writing?
Simple. I only ridicule Raymond's insanity for the entertainment of you, the reader :-)
With that aside, onto my topic:
Gong Xi Fa Cai to all; having come back from wherever I've been for CNY, I see that Raymond had no intention of taking a break and took a shit all over his blog for the past week without stopping.
Being a person who is aware that he is spending his time rather unproductively by writing this post, I shall pick just one of Raymond's posts to "reply" to:
The real reason Jimmy and party is attacking FGM?
Before I start quoting, notice that firstly, the title is just pure paranoia. "Jimmy and party" are only interested in attacking stupid ideas and views; proven by pre-FGM content/drama. For one, Jimmy used to be in partial support of Raymond, before his ideas became increasingly delusional and insane. Secondly, most of what Raymond writes is totally irrelevant to the title of his post. Frankly, I don't see any part of his post referring to its title, so I'll just assume that the title of the post is just a method of identification, something like a serial number.
"I said that after 12 or when the players have been given the right tools to learn for themselves, technical begins to recede in importance ie technical trainers become more and more redundant and a coach becomes more important."
Notice how he used the word "coach" instead of "mind coach". It implies that to him, a "coach" primarily refers to a "mind coach". I think the number of people in the world who share this idea can be counted.
Back to his point: I suppose Anand/Topalov/Kramnik/[insert strong player/WC contender here]'s seconds are to provide him with psychological motivation? Also, that would really put more trainers out of business. You like to reference Singapore's Goh Weiming so much, now let's look at Singaporean "technical trainer" Ashot Nadanian's former students:
Timothy Chan, Tan Weiliang, Dominic Lo, Christer Aplin, Jeslin Tay, Liu Yang, Jonathan Koh, Edward Lee, Ryan Ow, Najwa Rujok, Timothy Wee, Chen Hoay, Andrew Ong Lay Teng, Zhong Kemin, Esther Huang, Wang Yining, Frederick Goh
--Ashot Nadanian leaves Singapore
I'm pretty sure a significant number of them are older than 12. Edward Lee is a strong Malaysian junior. Notice that he's in that list. Also notice that "strong Malaysian junior" means that he's stronger than most Malaysian juniors. And "most Malaysian juniors" are not in that list.
So you're suggesting that they would have been better off spending their time learning under the likes of Raymond Siew? Maybe they'd turn out stronger that way?
If there is any truth to your statement, it's the complete opposite. Why don't you observe 2 kids playing, and how often the game ends within minutes. Why? Because one player plays fast, and the other wants to keep up. Or one player bluffing the other by pretending to make a mistake. These are results of an attitude problem. The fact that you cannot even pinpoint the time when mind coaching is important only highlights your idiocy.
"The fight across the board is between 2 players. It is about their ability to think on the board, strategise, prepare and train, despite their fears."
Thanks, Captain Obvious. We chess players never knew that.
"Technical today can largely be found in books, videos and online programs etc."
This is where your lack of common sense comes in. Those are lectures. Did you not have recitations and tutorials while you were in university, if you've been to one?
A crucial part of the learning curve is inquiry. Non-interactive methods of teaching often fail to satisfy questions, unless the student's questions are so predictable that they can be answered before they are even asked.
All the technical Mark had via a face to face with a "technical coach" was a 2 hour private session with GM Ziaur Rahman and the 3 days training sponsored by Air Asia and FGM for Asean 2010. The rest is about me nurturing his desire to learn, nurturing his curiousity, teaching him to think for himself. In that 2 hour session, what we asked Ziaur for is the roadmap. What to do and what not to do. That was all.
First off, FGM did not sponsor the training. Or rather, let me ask: What was the RM1000 from each participant for then?
Now let's assume that what you said is true, and you influenced his success. You've counted the hits. What about the misses? He did not exactly have a star-studded performance in the ASEAN tournament, and he lost the last round of the 2010 National Juniors, short of becoming champion. And before that he finished 4th in the National Age Group. Why was he not first in either case? Do you honestly think that was the case because the lacked the mind power, rather than the technical expertise? Are you saying that getting him a "technical trainer" would have had no impact? And even so, then you are contradicting yourself. If technical training is so insignificant, why in God's name did you even have a session with Ziaur Rahman? And what was the point of the 3-day ASEAN training then? I'd speculate that it was a way to make money, but I'll just stop here and not say it. Oh wait, I already did.
So now you begin to see why my approach threatens some people. But they have no way of refuting my arguments. So they attack my partners, my sponsors, my son, my integrity and my dignity.
Your arguments were refuted countless times. You just refused to read or comment about it. Rather, you accuse people of personally attacking you, and calling their refutations "diversions".
So far, the only person being affected is you. Your integrity and dignity is non-existent, and even if they exist, it's part of you. Of course it's affected when people ridicule you.
Your son? No. You present him as evidence of your "success". Any argument has to start from the evidence. If you stop referencing him in your posts, the "attacks", at least that's how you perceive it, will go away. You have brought this upon yourself. You are the one hiding, using your son as a shield.
With Gufeld's words (albeit in a different context), "It's like a soldier going to war, with a machine gun in one hand and a baby in the other". If the baby gets hurt, is it because the enemy was taking cheap shots? I don't think so.
Notice how Jimmy makes no reference to Yeoh Li Tian when arguing with you. Having brought it up, why don't you tell us how Li Tian manages to draw GMs and IMs. Because of mind coaching? I don't think so. As far as I can tell, his antics while playing show that while he has extraordinary technical knowledge, he is like any kid his age otherwise.
"I will only give you rest if you say that technical is king". I say prove it.
I say beat Rybka 3 with the power of your mental stability.
I say that by hidding in the dark and then saying I am scared is proof of the contrary. You only hide when you are scared.
"hidding in the dark" allows people to truly express their opinion. Doing that under a true identity is either foolish, or insane bravery. Look at Julian Assange. Don't mistake insanity for bravery.
I say that attacking everything except the challenge I have given you will not distract me.
I say you can't read. You perceive every attack against the challenge as an attack against you. At least now, in this post, I am primarily focusing my attack against you. Anything I say against your challenge is simply to ridicule your ideology.
I say more anonymous sites may only swamp you with a lot of work but also prove nothing.
Swamp who with a lot of work? You're the one posting on your blog, attacking others every day, even during the New Year, hoping that they will be too busy to retaliate. Either that, or you really have nothing better to do during the festive season. Having said that, it really does consume time for me when I argue with you, knowing that the only people that I am trying to reach now is everyone besides you.
I say that only by teaching your students to think on the board will you prove something.
Yes. We don't expect players to prove anything by thinking off the board.
At least you have used the words "I say". You should keep it that way, because frankly speaking that is only your opinion and nobody else's.
You take away their confidence from your own insecurities and fears and then you ask them to fight in the light of day. But they wont be able to do that. Why? Because they have become like you.
BLUUUURGHWHATTHEHELLAREYOUSAYING
So stop hiding behind your title Jimmy...
Again, it's pretty hilarious that Jimmy's IM title has anything to do with this. Diversive cheap trick, anyone?
...and stop your support of venomous anonymous blogs.
Yes, support only the truth! FirstGM!!
Be proud of your name, be proud of who you are. Own your words and thoughts. Dont hide behind anonymous bloggers and voices to say what you really want to say. They are but shadows. Forget the cheap tricks.
A truly low blow
Here
I was rather disgusted when I saw this post. It is one of those posts, which rather than being stuff to poke fun at, angered me. You really can't give your bullshit a break, can you?
All Jimmy did was share an inspirational video, a post which finally did not involve you. A ceasefire over the Chinese New Year. And what did you do? You try to start a fire by involving yourself, and condescendingly say that "[you] hope this means that Jimmy has turned a corner". Thankfully there were no visible responses (unless they've already been deleted), but since you're asking for trouble, I'll give you a response.
You are a disgrace to the spirit of the festive season. You have no respect for a holiday that even you celebrate.
Seriously Raymond, go fuck yourself.
I was rather disgusted when I saw this post. It is one of those posts, which rather than being stuff to poke fun at, angered me. You really can't give your bullshit a break, can you?
All Jimmy did was share an inspirational video, a post which finally did not involve you. A ceasefire over the Chinese New Year. And what did you do? You try to start a fire by involving yourself, and condescendingly say that "[you] hope this means that Jimmy has turned a corner". Thankfully there were no visible responses (unless they've already been deleted), but since you're asking for trouble, I'll give you a response.
You are a disgrace to the spirit of the festive season. You have no respect for a holiday that even you celebrate.
Seriously Raymond, go fuck yourself.
Sampling Errors
"In statistics, sampling error or estimation error is the error caused by observing a sample instead of the whole population."
--Copy-pasted from Wikipedia
Or we could say, "counting the hits but not the misses".
In the real world, sampling errors are common. One that we observe daily, albeit unconsciously, normally in the media, is one that I would call a forced sampling error. For example, a biased news report may cite "many people disliking [insert topic here]", followed by quotes from respondents. Unfortunately, it is not an obligation that ALL respondents are quoted; it might even be the case that only those who are known to be in favour of the bias are interviewed, i.e. it is possible that the opinion of an entire population is wrongly portrayed by a (possibly) erroneous sample, due to the fact that a sample is only a part of the entire population.
You might want to note that this is a very powerful tool of propaganda; in WWII, Nazi advertisements of inmates in concentration camps were portrayed as well-fed, enticing the Aryan population to expose Jews without guilt. Or when a Jew commits a crime, the media does not fail to ensure that it is known nationwide so that "Jew" was synonymous to "criminal".
In North Korea today, visiting journalists and tourists are brought to model cities, farms, etc., portraying the economy as being well-off and developed, despite defector testimony strongly suggesting otherwise.
So, how is this related to Malaysian chess? Frankly speaking, not much. But lately, there is one example.
If you manage to reach the third paragraph without your head exploding, you will see that the sample in this case was one parent. Statistically, this is an impossible sample to work with.
Ilham, have you been tricked?
--Copy-pasted from Wikipedia
Or we could say, "counting the hits but not the misses".
In the real world, sampling errors are common. One that we observe daily, albeit unconsciously, normally in the media, is one that I would call a forced sampling error. For example, a biased news report may cite "many people disliking [insert topic here]", followed by quotes from respondents. Unfortunately, it is not an obligation that ALL respondents are quoted; it might even be the case that only those who are known to be in favour of the bias are interviewed, i.e. it is possible that the opinion of an entire population is wrongly portrayed by a (possibly) erroneous sample, due to the fact that a sample is only a part of the entire population.
You might want to note that this is a very powerful tool of propaganda; in WWII, Nazi advertisements of inmates in concentration camps were portrayed as well-fed, enticing the Aryan population to expose Jews without guilt. Or when a Jew commits a crime, the media does not fail to ensure that it is known nationwide so that "Jew" was synonymous to "criminal".
In North Korea today, visiting journalists and tourists are brought to model cities, farms, etc., portraying the economy as being well-off and developed, despite defector testimony strongly suggesting otherwise.
So, how is this related to Malaysian chess? Frankly speaking, not much. But lately, there is one example.
If you manage to reach the third paragraph without your head exploding, you will see that the sample in this case was one parent. Statistically, this is an impossible sample to work with.
Ilham, have you been tricked?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)