Sunday, 6 February 2011


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."


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.


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.


  1. That first pic was hilarious. And this statement "I say beat Rybka 3 with the power of your mental stability." really cracked me up :)

  2. I believe he thinks that Jimmy is actually Rationality, the Chess Ninja, you and all the other Anonymous people who post in the shoutboxes.

    That's why he said:

    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.

    But then again, I could just be speculating. I have not know Jimmy to say things other than what he wanted to say.

  3. Yes, it is likely that he meant that, but it would be a mistake to ridicule him for that, because he has taken the precaution not to explicitly mention his suspicion.

    In doing so, he trying to have his cake and eat it too, i.e. when he is proven wrong, he just says we have misinterpreted him, and somehow he was right all along.

    To describe his writing style in a single word? Vague.

    What he fails to realise is that walking within the grey area is a foolish move, because then nobody can really understand what he is saying.

    The ambiguity of his writing is either intentional, or just a result of a pathetic attempt to write like a literary genius. What do I mean?

    Look at just that paragraph you quoted; the first sentence has the literary device of repetition. The next one treats the abstract noun "thoughts" and "words" as concrete nouns. The following is just another figure of speech. The remainder? Metaphors.

    He might as well just blog in the form of poetry.

    Having said so, if what you said is really true, then it is just another manifestation of his god complex; he believes that only one person in the entire Malaysian chess community is against him.

    But does nobody really notice the humour in this? His every reaction to allegations is just calling them liars and cowards, and slanderers. Red herring, anyone?

  4. Good analysis. I too am unsure he is being vague deliberately or unintentionally.

  5. He also thinks highly of his linguistic skills. He says that the language we use in our writings is "ugly". Doesn't take a genius to tell you that it implies that he thinks his is "beautiful".

    Looks like this is really turning into personal attacks. Ah, what the hell anyway.

    Floats my boat if people find what I say to be entertaining :D