We need training

It was not a very pleasant Christmas for Malaysian chess. Across the causeway where Singapore was hosting last year’s annual match between the two countries, Malaysia was once again bleeding.

Despite not fielding their best line-ups, our host proved that they were once again the better of the two sides.

This year, the score stood at 89.5-50.5. The match was played over two matches with 70 boards per match, encompassing the full spectrum of ages from veterans to under-eight-year-olds.

I cannot recall the last time that Malaysia had beaten Singapore in this annually arranged chess match that is hosted on alternative years by the Malaysian Chess Federation and the Singapore Chess Federation.

But I do remember writing here five years ago, when we were still regularly on top of the Singaporeans, that we were getting much too smug with our successes. Based on the results in several junior-level chess events in the Asean region, I could see that we were slowly but surely being overtaken by the Singaporean junior players.

The main reason for the Singaporean success with their juniors is their decision to commercialise their chess training. Treat it like a business and bring in chess trainers to train the young. Not just any chess trainer, but strong competent ones who play chess competitively and professionally.

That is why you see registered business units like the Singapore Chess Academy which employed and brought into Singapore grandmasters and international masters from neighbouring Philippines, Vietnam and elsewhere.

Once parents saw that this business of chess coaching was being done seriously and with the results to show, they did not mind paying to provide their children with the best chess coaches.

Are we prepared to be serious with our training? Are we prepared to bring in the professional trainers from overseas? Are we prepared to pay good money for good results? In short, are we prepared to emulate the Singaporeans?

If we are prepared to take the first step to commercialise the chess training process, this must be done outside the Malaysian Chess Federation by people who are into chess training full-time and possess the business acumen and determination to succeed.

Separating chess admini-stration which is voluntary and commercialised chess training, I believe, is the right way to move forward for Malaysian chess.

As usual, after this latest debacle, there was a lot of soul-searching on our part. A lot was said in the chess-malaysia mailing list but unfortunately, I saw no one grasping the root of the problem. But there was a particular e-mail commenting on the quality of our local coaches that caught my eye and it would seem appropriate to produce it here.

In Anthony Liong’s view, there are six groups of local chess trainers. Firstly, those rated less than 1975 whom he deemed as amateurs. Secondly, those rated 1976 to 2050 are also not good enough as coaches because some are giving the wrong advice.

Thirdly, those rated 2051 to 2299 are able to give lessons but do not have enough coaching experience. Next, those with ratings of above 2300 are qualified to coach players but they charge a fee equivalent to their standard.

Then there are the unrated players who play like rated players. They can coach young children well but that is the extent of their abilities. Some would just give tactical positions for the kids to ponder over for half an hour. “Pity the kid,” he wrote, adding that they could just as easily learn from any chess software more than 20,000 positions.

Finally, there are the unrated players who play like unrated players and yet are coaching. This group, he said, was just like crabs teaching baby crabs to walk straight.

This entry was posted in Chess. Bookmark the permalink.