I HAVE been in the thick of this country’s chess movement since the early 1970s and yet when it comes to understanding the mind of local chess players, I am still perplexed.
For instance, I have been hearing and reading comments from various people asking how we can improve the level of chess in this country.
To me, the answer is simple: there must be a multi-pronged approach. At its most basic, take the game down to the grassroots level. Organise more one-day events. Involve the community. Do away with cash prizes. Instead, offer prizes in kind.
I know many will disagree with me, especially the part on doing away with cash prizes. But why should we offer cash prizes when the participants are mere starters in the game?
At a higher level, involve the schools, colleges and universities. Help them organise events and allow outsiders to take part. Have them run their events but seasoned organisers should be in the background to help them in case of problems.
To achieve these two suggestions, it is imperative that defunct state chess associations be revived. From what I know, there are a number of deregistered or dormant chess associations in the country.
Chess players in those states must take it upon themselves to regroup because unless they do it themselves, I do not see anyone else who will do it for them. Help must come from within.
Organise state-level chess events and offer incentives to the winners, such as selection to national-level tournaments. There are several national-level events that are held regularly, such as the national age-group tournaments and national closed championships. I believe many players will be quite proud of the fact that they are selected to represent their states. Take advantage of this.
When organising state-level tournaments, where possible, encourage players from other states to play. The interaction between players can only lift the performance of home players.
The state chess associations must be prepared to organise national-level tournaments. For example, the Malaysian Chess Federation (MCF) need not run the national closed championship every year. The MCF has been organising this event year in and year out simply because none of the associations have stepped forth to volunteer running this event. It will be a good learning experience for the state chess associations to take up this challenge.
Organise international-level chess tournaments. By international-level events, I mean Fide-rated events and even title events. Running international events is not the prerogative of only the MCF. Even the more experienced state associations can run them.
Lastly, the players themselves must rise up to meet the challenges. The MCF and the state chess associations can only do so much.
Players have a role to play in improving the level of chess in the country too. Chess organisers are mainly volunteers who have given their time to the game they love. Pay them back by supporting the events they hold.
Finally, here’s one question to set you thinking: do you think there are enough opportunities presently for our chess players to progress in the game at the international level? I would like to invite readers to think about this and share your thoughts with me. We shall return to this topic sometime in the future.
(The article was originally published in The Star’s Lifestyle section on 15 Sep 2006.)
Pingback:
Dear Mr Quah,
It is with great interest I read your article and arguments above and I totally agree with your opinions especially regaring the doing away tournaments with cash prizes. We have been living for money in almost every aspects of our lives now. It won’t help educating anyone if everything is done just for the pecuniary motives. We might still need to provide money prizes for big tournaments, but for a weekly or even monthly tournaments, that is not a necessity. In the US for example, people don’t mind paying 5 dollars every week to play in a small Sunday tournament just to gain more experience and some rating (USCF) points.
Regarding the state organized tournaments, i think some states associations have stepped forward and did a well job in organizing tournaments. They should be applauded. At the same time, we also need to involve private companies that may have interest in sponsoring chess events. In this way, they will also help doing the promotion for us (read: chess).
Not just that, I wish that one day, the state government itself will be involved actively in chess events. We have seen how in other countries, the ministers or even the prime ministers always showed up to commence a chess tournament and such. Mr Kirsan and recently Wolfgang Schüssel are some names I can mention. Chess can also increase Malaysian tourism if the government get more involved in organizing an international chess tournament in Malaysia. I’ve been astounded when some people says, ”Malaysia have a chess tournaments? Really?” especially when the person who uttered that is also a Malaysian.
Lastly, I think Malaysian chess players did not and still do not have enough opportunities to play international level chess. Even though a chess set might cost a person less than RM 20, joining a chess tournament especially the international level cost much more than that. That’s also one of the main reasons we need more international chess tournament in Malaysia.
Just about every suggestion you’ve made should be applicable with equal merit to the American chess environment. I’ve been playing tournament chess since 1970, and I’ve seen the American chess scene wax and wane with the rise and fall of Bobby. But chess shouldn’t only be popular because of a few super-stars of the game. I’m in complete agreement: the place to start appreciation of chess is at the local level, and it’s the local people who must step up to the challenge. But there is also a need for the higher organizations to do more.
I’ve organized and coached a youth chess club, I’ve tried to get the local schools to organize and run after-school clubs (not totally successfully), I’ve introduced my own kids to the wonders of the game. But at each level I’ve run into resistance of one form or another: parents or teachers who believe it’s a waste of time, state organizations that don’t wish to help support such activities, difficulties finding and getting places to hold chess activities. To counteract this, the national organization must do more to help publicize the benefits of the game, and could at least provide a national insurance plan to cover chess events (something that many halls require you have to be able to rent them).
But more than anything else, at whatever level the game is played at, it should remain something that is not only exciting and stimulating, but fun.
Mr. Quah,
Organise more one day tournaments? It is pathetic to think that these one day events can bring up the level of chess in the country. What good is it to organise so many of these rapid chess time controls? They don’t add value to the players and their standards. Local players won’t benefit from them much. Their standards will not improve by playing in them. Rapid chess was evolved to cater to the fact that chess needed to be shorten in order for easy TV coverage. But believe you me, Rapid chess should only be played by players who have already achieved a certain level of understanding in chess. Despite being in the chess scene for such a long time, you don’t understand that.
And look at some of our regular players on the scene, I remember in the recent Dato’ Arthur Tan Malaysian Open where there were so many grandmasters and international masters coming to play but yet these so called regular players (and winning regularly as well in the local arena) chose instead to play in the secondary event instead of playing in the open section to test out their skills with the masters. It is a definitely a very rare opportunity for them to get to spar with these masters, but they choose instead not to play in the premier arena. For what reason perhaps Mr. Quah you know better.
Malaysia’s chess story as far as I know might have seen its best days. Even when it was supported by a patron as big as Datuk Tan Chin Nam, it could not progress as far as to produce a lone IM (Jimmy Liew initially, and then of course only much later Mas and now Wong Zi Jing). I shudder to think what would be in store when the time comes for Datuk Tan to leave the scene (permanently that is). He has been such a big supporter of chess for such a long time now. But that is probably the whole problem, for so long it has more or less been him alone. We relied on him for far too long, we didn’t use the time afforded to us to see if we could get more permanent big people or sponsors in. (Other than perhaps the continuous sponsorship of Royal Selangor, courtesy of Datin Chen MK)for events such as the Selangor Open.