Follow pictorial reports on events posted in this blog via Facebook. Click HERE

Tuesday, July 26, 2011

Of Organizing and Managing Events

As an organizer, the need to "exempt" or "disallow" certain group of players from playing in an event is not something strange nor new. This clause is widely used by organizers and host of any events, clubs, business houses, companies, etc. If you look at the movie stub for GSC or TGV, you can find the same clause printed on the ticket. And of course, if you have the time to look around at any clubhouse or read through an association constitution, you will probably find the same clause being displayed or printed for all to see. So, what is so strange about chess organizers including the same conditions for its event? In fact, for events organized at DATCC including the FIDE Seminar and National Closed event, the same clause was included but of course, there was no need to enforce the clause but given the right (or wrong situation), if it needs to be enforced, it will then be enforced.

It is very clear that the "barring" clause is primarily used to protect the organizer's interest, direction and most importantly, the organizer's or arbiter's "sanity". Whilst I would not go to the extent of branding these group of people as "trouble makers" - although some of them really are, I would probably refer them more as "those with different point of view which is usually unfavorable towards the organizer". So, does this clause actually "victimize" certain players or people from participating in an event? If the idea is seen as victimizing the player (or players), what about the organizers? Who is protecting their interest from being "victimized" by unwanted players, or players who have been known to cause trouble. I have seen organizers being the victim of complaints from the littlest of things and of the stupidest of nature. Some players are just looking to cause trouble and usually when the player is losing, the troubled caused become doubled and tripled. So, whilst it is easy to point players as seen to be victimized, what about the organizer that is being "victimized' by absurd and unnecessary complaints and issues? It is nice to see things from one perspective but what about the perspective of the other party?

Of course, the issue can be extended further - if the grudge is against the parents, why bar the children? If the the disagreement is against the tutor, why disallow the students? Maybe the phrase "birds of a feather flock together" comes into affect - if they are together, maybe they have the same idea. So, if we go by the simple rule of "prevention is better than cure", then most people would understand the need to ensure that a potential risk does not become an actual risk. Worse still is when the situation involves a chess player because a chess player train of thoughts is developed as such that the need to address a certain known risk is crucial before it worsen. We all know the classic Shakespearean tale of Romeo and Juliet where their parents (the Montague and the Capulet) are bitter sworn enemies. As the story goes, we all know that neither Romeo nor Juliet did anything wrong but because of the warring families, the children is branded the same as the family. And although Juliet father may have nothing against Romeo as a person, to him the family and Romeo are the same. So, if a parent saying that my child should not be banned because the issue is with me, then remember Romeo and Juliet....

Whilst it is indeed a shame having to disallow someone from playing in an event due to no mistake of his (or her), the rights of the organizers should not be questioned at all. No one should be forced to take in someone who is not wanted - for whatever reason the person may have. The way I see it, organizers are like host or house owners, and as the house owner, I have the right to invite or allow the persons that I like to my house, and disallow those whom I do not like. So, if your next door neighbor organize a "party of the decade" and welcome everyone from the same street except you to his party, do you want to cry foul and "insist" that you are allowed to join in the party? Unfair you may say? But as the host, I decide what is fair or unfair based on my condition and my prerogative. And if you do not like it, go find your own party. It sounds harsh and blunt but this is reality.

It is also like going traveling to a certain country and whilst you may not have the face of a terrorist, or even if you look like Brad Pitt, but the immigration person who handles your application for entry is "suspicious" of you, your application to enter the country can get rejected for the stupidest of reason - the immigration person "does not like your face". And there you are with you application to enter the country being rejected. And to make things worse, almost nothing in the world you can do that will make the immigration officer change his/her mind and allow you to enter the country. Of course you can appeal to the higher authority but if the higher authority concurs with the immigration person, there is zilch that you can do.

As an organizer, I would like to run "trouble free" events. Sometimes when you have an array and a variety of players coming from all corners of the world, it is difficult to know the trouble makers from the trouble free players. But if you do know them, the right to exercise the clause can be used as to minimize unwanted issues to surface during the course of the tournament. I have seen organizers rejecting international participants (but very minimal) because they are known to be "trouble makers". But of course, the gracious host that we are, we can tolerate these "international" trouble makers because they are not permanently here in the country - they come, stay here for about 10 days and then they left. So, even if they have issues, it usually lingers for about 10 days and after that, it usually ends amicably. Even if it stretches for more than 10 days, the "heat" is not so hot because the players are far far away in another country. But imagine having to deal with a local player who is just a few hours drive away from you (at most) and someone that have the potential to haunt you for the next 365 days a year - in person, using the phone, via email, via SMS, via blog, and popping into your office and stalking you in your next event, and the next, and the next, etc.

In one event that I had arbitrated some time ago, the organizer asked me as to who should be invited for the event and I started to throw some names. Whilst there were no violent rejection towards most of the names, some names caused raised eyebrow. "I do not want controversies to shroud my event" was the automatic response that I got. Whilst no one was eventually "axed", I was advised to keep some of the identifiable "trouble makers" at bay and strap them on a very tight leash. Lucky me, the event went smoothly

On the other hand, sometimes a person just need to "understand" when and where he/she is not needed. The Malay saying "hidung tak mancung, pipi tersorong-sorong" - literally translated as "nose not pointy, cheek push push" comes into play which means, if you know you are not needed, then understand the situation by not pushing your luck

But all is not lost - one man's poison can be another man's cure and with that, a person maybe banned from one organizer but not necessarily from all organizers. But if more and more organizers are banning the same person, then it is very clear that there is something wrong with the player - or the group or people that the player is associated with. Of course, there is nothing wrong with the the organizers right? Like someone mentioned to me, if many people start to throw mud at someone, some mud is bound to stick e.g. when so many persons talk about the bad things that someone does, then some of it is bound to be true.... I have seen some players being banned by some associations but in most cases, different associations or organizations have their own set of names contained in their own "secret black book". Unless the black books become one giant black book, then something must be wrong somewhere - for the players of course!


  1. "stalking you in your next event". LOL.
    How come someone can selectively choose to display or delete other's comments on their blogs. Then tell everyone it is his right. But raise hell when he is not allowed into other people's tournament? Double standards. Isnt' the principle the same?

  2. Najib, how would you answer to the case where a girl was asked to leave a tournament because she beat the organisers daughter to the post of President in the school chess club? Everyone has rights but it should be circumscribed in some way. That is why I believe MCF should lay down some broad principles. Personal vendettas should not be a reason for banning.

    However I disagree that the child should be punished for the parents "transgressions", perceived or otherwise. That goes against natural justice. In the good old days in China they used to kill off whole families and relatives. But eventually some sense of justice prevailed. Surely you wont agree to someone arresting your child for a crime you committed? I am talking about todays world of course.

  3. Another point. ref here. http://firstgm.blogspot.com/2011/07/is-it-kl-open-or-kl-invitational.html

    We also need to make a distinction between Associations and private organisers. FGM and Datcc are private organisers. PICA and KLCA are associations. Associations come under the purview of MCF directly. Private organisers indirectly. So we need to be clear here. The question here as raised in my article above is whether KL Open is an association event or a private event? Incidentally the girl I mentioned in my post above was asked to leave from an Association event. I think there is something wrong here.

  4. Dear chess connections
    1. agree with your points
    2. but disagree that u need to write a long article to explain a simple, obvious, easily understood situation.
    3. must think of your readers time too

  5. Dear Yeoh,

    I disagree with your disagree...
    Not all readers so intelligent like you, so has to be explained thoroughly :)

  6. Jimmy
    A trouble maker can still create "trouble" without having to be personally involve in a tournament/event. So, the next best thing to do is to stalk and jump on the next "hot issue" that may surface.... *grin*

    Chin Seng
    My apologies if I took 20 minutes of your valuable "office time" to read my article. Maybe next time, I should "ban" you from visiting my website. And because you beat me that day, maybe I should ban you from coming to DATCC... *LOL*

    Although an association maybe under the purview of MCF, MCF cannot simply dictate how an association manages its own internal affair. MCF can advice but not enforce rules. They have to respect each other's space. As I had mentioned earlier, to a certain extent, if someone does not like you, how can you force someone to do otherwise? It maybe unfair or unjust, but each and everyone of us have the right to protect our own interest no matter how absurd the issue can be. I agree with you that these conditions maybe use to "victimize" or "single out" someone or a group of people but, what is there to be jumping about? We just have to live with the fact that there are people out there who likes us for what we are, and there are others who don't.

    Similarly, associations have the right to "select" - a softer way of paraphrasing the word "ban" or "bar" - who they want in their team and who they do not want in their team. Having a harmonious team is crucial in order to make sure that a "house" is properly ruled. The best advice MCF can give to the association is "Please reconsider" and for the individual involved, the best advice MCF can give is "If this association don't like you, then go to someone else la".

    I for one thing agree with you that a child should not be punished for the sins of their parents but, again, different people manages each situation differently. I may not do that but I can't stop someone else from practicing it.

    Everyone has their own rights on how they manages their own affairs - affairs that can effect them or those who they are responsible for either directly or indirectly. Its just how they manage the people within their "circle of life" and for those outside of the circle, just understand that when you are not wanted, then just stay away. No point barking at a mountain....

  7. dear Chess Connections & Jimmy

    1. I wondor if there is anyone who cannot appreciate the situation
    2. Even if there is, i wondor whether this article is good enough for that purpose
    3. but never "mind", find him an accredited mind coach. I trust that will help.

  8. Najib, thank you for clarifying that you personally do not believe in punishing a child for the "sins" of the parents. So in that point we are in agreement.

    However we are not in agreement of the role of MCF. If we want to progress as a chess nation, we need a policing arm to make sure that we do not lose players for arbitrary reasons. It takes an incredible amount of time and resources to build a National Junior and so I dont think we can fritter it away like that. It is my view that it is abuses of this nature that has kept Malaysia from its first GM.

    Over the last few days people have been talking to me about our past players. Names I havent even heard of and names of people I do know but who have disappeared from the chess scene for abuses just made known to me. A terrible loss to Malaysian chess.

    Looking at the constitution of MCF, I see that they do have the power to regulate. Maybe you should get yourself a copy. I will be glad to copy one for you if you want. Then we can discuss this again.

    Thank you for raising this issue. I do think it is important for us to see where the trouble is really coming from.

  9. Raymond....
    "Regulate" does not equate to "Dictate"

    Whilst MCF can REGULATE conditions and terms, they are in no position to DICTATE that certain terms must be included as there are other criteria, situations and circumstances that need to be taken into account and considered. You cant simply blanket it as such and claim it to be correct.

    So, if MCF enforce a ruling that all associations must allow "all chess players regardless if they are known trouble makers" to play in an event, and if the association decided not too comply, will the association and its members be banned from MCF events? If these trouble makers are allowed and they caused trouble in an event, what then?

    You did mentioned that associations (like PICA and KLCA) are different than that of private entity (like DATCC and FGM). Are you saying that it is OK for private entity like DATCC and FGM to enforce such a ruling (to ban someone from playing in an event) but not the associations? Are you saying that FGM and DATCC are allowed because we are safe guarding our "private interest" but associations are "public" in nature and therefore are not allowed to do so?

    The whole idea is to maintain and preserve harmony and avoid unnecessary situations from happening - be it from a private or public perspective.

  10. Najib...Why are you saying what MCF can or cannot do without any point of reference?

    I think its best left to the constitution dont you think? That is why we have it. and there are new regulations under the COS.

    In the past even sackings were not referred to the constitution etc. I also think if we use the constitutions things wont be so bad. At least there are some ground rules. MCF also answers to OCM and the Commisioner of Sports. So there are check and balances.

    Using your own arguments, lets say if there are many cases of abuse by an organiser ie "trouble maker" and it can be documented and presented; who do we go to? Right now there is no mechanism. Fyi, Associations come directly under MCF and so my interpretation is that they can dictate. But that is only my opinion. Why dont we try this out? Do you have a copy of the constitution?

  11. Raymond
    If KLCA were to organize it but assign it to a person or consultant to manage the event, and the sponsors agree to that condition (which may include the right to bar a person from playing), does MCF still has the right to "regulate" the event under its purview?

    Also, you did not answer my question which was "if FGM or DATCC were to organize an event (and since we are not under MCF purview per se), do we have the right to "ban" players from our event?"

  12. Another point Najib. If private entities ie for profit, were to act arbitrarily, the end result is that they will close down eventually. Their survival is based on them bringing additional value that are beyond the means of Associations. So their reason for existence is different. Even then they still fall within the influence of MCF if they apply for FIDE registration for their event. Under those conditions MCF have a say. ie
    Call it KL invitational and you can select who you want to play but call it KL Open then registration and payment details need to be published. And if you reject any player you must state your grounds. Again that is only my opinion. So I look to MCF to rule on this. There is no point for this debate really if it becomes a coffee shop, I say, you say thing.

  13. Interesting to note that, Article 8 (APPLICATION FOR MEMBERSHIP) of the MCF Constitution states:
    "All application for membership must be made in writing by filling in the form and submit to the Secretary. The Main Committee has the right to accept or reject any application without any explanation"

    The second line should be of interest to you. And as you have cited without fail, this is approved by COS.

    With that Raymond, I rest my case.

  14. Context, Najib, Context. Application for membership to MCF is not what is in discussion now.

  15. read, raymond, read. The sentence "...has the right to accept or reject any application without any explanation" is is similarly worded in most entry forms.

  16. Raymond
    Sorry la.... my English is not as excellent as yours. Ok la... Context. One is about applying to be a member and in your case, applying to play in an event.

    But Raymond, let us talk about "concept" - I am sure your English is able to translate this word better. So my RM1 question is "What is the concept of having this particulate clause mentioned in the MCF constitution?"

  17. The word is "particular".... apologies for the wrong spelling.

  18. Apology accepted. Ok. Lets talk about concepts. But first let us acknowledge that we have never had proper rulings before. It was more ad hoc in those days. So we saw arbitrary sackings etc etc.

    So this is new to us. Even selection criteria is new to us. I dont even think the one that we have now is the best. There is still room for improvement. But it is a start.

    But lets start here from the constitution of MCF. I believe it says that they can lay down conditions for the associations to follow. Now if that is right, then what the associations write is ultra vires if they controvene rulings from MCF. The associations perceived powers are illusory. The Associations have to answer to MCF or risk expulsion. And that is what I believe is the situation in MCF's constitution as pertains to Associations.

    Now private enterprises obey the laws of commerce. And so they can ban anyone they want. MCF have no say. If you make bad business decisions then you will just fall from the weight of private competition.

    But if that private enterprise wants to work with MCF for say a FIDE tournament, then they also become subject to MCF rulings. MCF can now say call it an invitational or call it an Open. But these are the conditions. Invitational you chose etc.

    Also the structure is important. If the tournament falls under an association first which then sublets it to private enterprise, then MCF has its original say again. This is as opposed to a purely private matter.

    On another matter. As a private enterprise engaged in chess we also need to be able to conduct our business in peace so long as we have not infringed upon the rules. So if we are unreasonably attacked we can also go to MCF to make a ruling. And MCF has to refer again to its constitution for they in turn are subject to OCM and COS. The overall objectives is of course the promotion of the sport. That is why that is Article number 1. So there are procedures as laid out by the constitutions. Then we have "harmony" in chess. We have ground rules. Rules of engagement.

    But we have a very contentious history in chess. Was reading about the fights Kasparov had with Karpov outside the chess board. :) But at least there were some rules to fight over. Otherwise there would not even have been a Kasparov.

  19. Have to be careful now. Hari Raya open house must now be changed to Hari Raya Invitational. Otherwise, known trouble makers will turn up.

    The "right" to ban is known as a disclaimer. It is used to protect the organizer as mentioned by Najib.

    So now, based on your claim, arbitrary bans should not be allowed. First of all, the MCF constitution does not provide for this. They CAN amend it to prevent such bans, but it is not yet there.

    But mainly, the ban is not arbitrary. The justification that you have demanded for, is that the ban is on "known trouble-makers". That is the justification. Now, if you want a ruling on what the definition of a "known trouble-maker" is, I think simple civic-mindedness will tell you that shouting at other people is considered making trouble. Why take the chance of having that particular "shouter" lose his temper again in a tournament, and an international tournament no less. Isn't past behaviour the only possible indication of future behaviour? So, whether or not the justification is sound, it has already been provided.

    But you can choose to argue that shouting at other people is not making trouble.

    Imagine another situation. Let's say you stole RM100 from me. You were caught and punished by law. Now, do you think I would trust you to keep my wallet for me in the future? Of course it is only wise to be more wary of people who have stolen my money before.

    And don't try to change the topic by bringing up the Perak girl again. That is a separate matter and is in the past. The fact of the matter now is, the justification was provided to you. Whether you are satisfied or not, is a separate question.

  20. Raymond

    I am not in agreement when you say that "we have never had a ruling before..." because the MCF constitution has been there since 1974 so the ruling must have been there but was never contested. Perhaps everyone (since this matter never cropped up before) understand that any organizer has ALL THE RIGHTS to disallow players from playing until of course, you come along. But we have had players who have been barred from events before and I am sure these players know the rights of the organizer hence, they play in other events that do not ban them from playing. I like what Chess Ninja has written which was "... the justification was provided to you. Whether you are satisfied or not, is a separate question". As I have probably mentioned, in a different way and being blunt, the organizer simply don't like to have you in the tournament so, what is there to complaint? Its like when we were kids and our friends suddenly due to some disagreement (or just being moody) do not want to friend us anymore.

    Anyway, thanks for the "long comments" but when I read it again, you never answered my question: what is the concept behind having the clause provided in Article 8? You "talk" about the concept but never actually address the situation or the reason. So, why is the clause included in the constitution? Why does MCF wants the right to "select" who they want and who they do not want to be associated with MCF? and without giving explanation?

  21. Nice posting Najib. Balance, well thought and not emotional!
    "Cheek push push" LOL :)
    makes me shy shy cat!

  22. Najib, I see you still have not got it. Let me try to be clearer. In the normal course of business, MCF does not need to explain why they reject an application for membership from an association. They are the final arbiter. They only need to answer to COS and OCM if there is a query from them. But the Associations need to answer to MCF since MCF holds the power of expulsion.

    You also miss the point to the KL Open. We are not kids playing marbles and then you say I dont friend you etc. and you are not welcome.

    We are developing Malaysia's players and so we have a fiduciary interest in the matter. Therefore we can bring the matter up to the proper authorities.

    The associations cannot ban a player without good grounds. Particularly a National player. So the reasons of banning you because you left my chess school, I dont like your father, I dont like your trainer is working against MCF's first article. And to repeat it here again, that is to develop Malaysian chess.

    Yes, you are right that those rights of MCF has not been properly exercised before. Just like in the selection criteria. We are just beginning to have some order from this process.

    As I recall Datcc benefited from the call for written selection. We saw many more players returning to play. Your company were also a beneficiary from the FGM training for the Asean players. So weigh this out.

    Was it better before there were some rules? This is just the continuation of the process to improve. Arbitrary powers do not build. Why need arbitrary powers if everything is above board?

  23. Hmmm, maybe I need to make it even more basic. OCM and COS are the equivalent of the board of directors of a large company. The board sets the policy. They do not do the day to day. MCF is the management of these policies. So long as MCF follows those policies their word is final. But to even take this one step further just to illustrate, even OCM and COS is answerable to the Minister of Sports. And the Minister of sports is......

    And finally, and here comes the cracker. They are all answerable to the voters. Funny how things work in a democracy isnt it? What you are asking for with arbitrary powers doesnt exist in a democracy. Those powers belong in a dictatorship. But I dont think that is what you really want is it? So sometimes the word used is cowboys or even less savoury, "little Napoleons" or Jimmy has even said, Hitler. Except maybe the term was used to disguise something else. :)

    So the Associations need to answer to MCF. Associations do not have that power unless it is given by MCF and then MCF can also take it away.

    I do hope this explanation is sufficient.

  24. Sorry Raymond
    You still fail to answer my question....

    MCF holds the power of expulsion because in part, due to the clause mentioned in Article 8. So, you still have not answered the question "why the clause was put into the MCF constitution?". You kept moving around the issue but never actually answered the question. If MCF, the body that governs chess has the clause, there must be a reason to it. Can you enlighten me please? If they have such a clause, then I do not see why other associations should not have the same clause, be it for membership purposes or event purposes.

  25. Hi Ilham

    Thanks for the thumbs up. It is important to look at things from different perspective.

  26. Najib, its a simple case of hierachical rights. I suggest you try harder to understand the issues. There is a tenet in law. Ignorance is no excuse. What this means is that if you break the law, you cannot plead ignorance. That is why you need to learn the powers and the limits of power when you take public office. And in your case, private organisers rights as well as ngo's rights and its limits. Tomorrow I will be writing on fiduciary rights. I hope it will be less confusing to you. I will have to leave this topic now. It has been sufficiently explained.

  27. Have a look at this Najib. I am curious what your response would be.


    Try to look outside the narrow confines of organisers rights. FGM is also an organiser and we dont see it your way.

  28. Actually, it appears that you have changed your stance. Yes, you are right. You have EVERY right to appeal. Just like organizers have EVERY right to ban known trouble-makers.

    No one has said that appealing is equivalent to creating trouble. As I pointed out earlier, shouting at other people can be considered making trouble. Simple civic-mindedness can tell you that. The justification has been provided to you. And as you said, ignorance is not an excuse. Don't avoid the issue.

    The appeal is not against an arbitrary ban, but against the validity of the "reason", which is the ban on "known trouble-makers". If the organizer can provide sufficiently satisfactory evidence that a particular party is a known trouble-maker, are you saying that the organizer still has "no right" to ban that party? What about a suspected terrorist? Can there be a ban on that?

    Also, in a world where there is only ONE trouble-maker, the KL Open MUST be renamed KL Invitational, and the invitations sent to everyone in the world except that ONE person? Doesn't that sound ridiculous? It is simply sufficient to include a disclaimer that "known trouble-makers" (which could include suspected terrorists, criminals, rapists, kidnappers, illegal immigrants, cheaters, hooligans (who are known to shout at other people to intimidate them), etc.). Why is this not allowed?

  29. Actually Chess Ninja, in any civil discourse, it is normal courtesy to introduce yourself first. Anonymous (pseudonyms) comments are given no recognition. That is also what I said to the people who have spoken to me about Peter this and Peter that. Even a petition needs signatures. So I have dignified your comments from the dark this time. Go look at yourself Ninja? Go back to your own posting history and see who you really are.

  30. Dear Najib,

    Further comments are irrelevant. No use trying to describe art to one who is blind. No matter how many ways you can come up with, the result is the same. Worse, you will be condemned for frustrating the blind by introducing them to something they can't see. Then you will be a trouble-maker in their 'blind' eyes and end up in flames in their blogs.
    We should leave it as it is..those who see clearly need no further proof. Those who can't will always be blind and you can't change that, till they remove what's blocking their vision.

  31. Jimmy,

    Maybe Chess Ninja, yourself,me and Najib should all go play in an FGM tournament and propose draws at every move in our games.

    Can FGM send us entry forms? :-)

  32. Allow me to add an analogy to join you all (since analogies are common in explaining): Suppose I bring loads of people to patronise a sports bar and order only coke, does the bar owner have the right to refuse my business? Of course he has. Can I not claim my fiduciary rights to stay as I have ordered a drink? Of course not.It is obvious that I will be deemed a trouble-maker by pretending to go by the rules and yet cause the detriment of the business. Therefore the owner can technically call the police to evict me. Does the bar owner need to spell his rights of business on his entrance?

    Of course I can rant about it by writing in my blog, but conventional wisdom in people will understand that my ranting is nothing but an emotional outburst and MOVE ON.

  33. Joke of the year. Again, sidestepping the issue. It doesn't matter who said it. My points are still perfectly valid. You are letting your emotions cloud your judgement.

    By the way, all my questions are rhetorical. The issue still stands. Ignoring my points does not mean they do not exist. Do you feel comfortable hiding your head in the ground?

    I am not posting for your benefit. I don't need you to dignify my comments. Who do you think you are? The points I make clearly demonstrate the legitimacy of a ban on known trouble makers. Any person with a reading vocabulary of a 12 year-old (or less) can see that.

    Take your own advice. Stick to the issues. I don't even know who you are, other than your name is Raymond Siew. That is just a name for convenience. For all I care, you could be called, Lord Voldemort, but that would only be just a name. Knowing someone's name doesn't mean you know who they are.

  34. My dearest and old friend John Wong

    I concur with you. I think I can equate it to the likes of walking in a tunnel (not sure if the CONTEXT is correct here but I am sure you can understand the CONCEPT) where all you see is not only a limited vision, but also the only vision. And as the person moves forward in the tunnel, he saw a light and said... "Thank God there is a light at the end of the tunnel" not realizing that it is the headlight from an incoming train.... LOL

    But John, did you not read his earlier posting... My understanding from his comment is that since FGM is not under the purview of MCF, he CAN ban us from his events... LMAO

  35. John/Ninja,

    Why do we bother to argue? Only one person does not see the logic and keep going round and round the bush. even bringing in all kinds of complicated terms that have nothing to do with the issue. I never heard of "fiduciary right" only "fiduciary duties". even his "fiduciary right" argument is flawed, but I am not going to waste more time pointing it out.

    Lets wait for the decision from MCF (if there is going to be one).

  36. Hi Raymond

    You wrote "Try to look outside the narrow confines of organisers rights" which means you agree that the organizers have a "narrow confinement" as such, they have the rights to set their own narrow confinement and work within that confinement. And since you have a "wider area" of confinement, you too will have your border somewhere but of course, your have a more liberal approach because, that is how you define your area of confinement because it is within YOUR rights. So you AGREE that the organizers define their area on a narrower scale compare to your wider scale. Are they not within their rights to "confine these area" and state their conditions?

    Again Raymond, you did not answer my question as to why the clause was put in as per Article 8?

    But, I think its irrelevant now whether you answer the question or not. Its quite clear to all of us here, except you, that you are trying to "stiffen a wet string" - the Malay saying for "menegakkan benang yang basah".

  37. It's OK Najib, I rest my case too. You asked for concepts and I gave you concepts. No, organisers do not have carte blanche if MCF is involved in any way. A totally private event, then you fall under other rules. Like I said, coffee shop talk is pointless. This can go on for another 30 years.

  38. Jimmy

    It must be a big bush otherwise, he would have stop beating.... LOL

  39. Hi Chess connections

    1. if u do not tell your name, what u said is not true even it is true
    2. if i tell my name, what i said is true even it is not.
    3. so,... this is malaysia...

  40. Jimmy,

    thanks for pointing out another malpropism in FGM's vocab. Looks like I have to consult Wikipedia everytime I come across a new term used by FGM. No more comic relief reading the blog then, its becoming too much work

  41. yeoh, in two sentences you simplify many things a lot of people have been trying to explain. although you say ur English is poor. For that, *respect*

    John, LOL

    Najib, this particular post must hold the record for having the highest number of comments for any Malaysian chess blog (41 including this)!

  42. Sad but Najib's blog is now fresh battleground..