The Olympiad selection fiasco last year was a clear indicator that the selection process was not followed but, why follow it now? If important event like Olympiad can be over ruled, surely MCF can over rule over a "less important" event? After all, MCF is not forking out a single cent for these players to go, so what is the fuss in stopping players from playing?
Some cited that in 2017, when Pahang hosted the Asean+ Age Group Championship, there were many local players taking part but we must look at this event in a different perspective. For me, the logic to have many local players taking part is because Malaysia is the host hence, the support of local players is crticial to make the tournament a success. I believe this is a common stand made by many countries as well - if a country hosted an event, they can and will allow as many players from their country to take part in order to make the crowd. But Thailand is our neighbor, and as a good neighbor, why not we send as many players as we can? One person mentioned that when Bangladesh organized a Regional event, many players from India came over and take part but, one thing that we need to look at is that the standard of chess in India (of its youngsters) is high because India is already producing IM and even GMs at such a very young age. We in Malaysia? Most of our youngsters can't even pass the 2000 ELO rating points. So flooding players from India in an event hosted by Bangladesh may elevate its standard but the same may not work for Malaysian players.
Some cited that in 2017, when Pahang hosted the Asean+ Age Group Championship, there were many local players taking part but we must look at this event in a different perspective. For me, the logic to have many local players taking part is because Malaysia is the host hence, the support of local players is crticial to make the tournament a success. I believe this is a common stand made by many countries as well - if a country hosted an event, they can and will allow as many players from their country to take part in order to make the crowd. But Thailand is our neighbor, and as a good neighbor, why not we send as many players as we can? One person mentioned that when Bangladesh organized a Regional event, many players from India came over and take part but, one thing that we need to look at is that the standard of chess in India (of its youngsters) is high because India is already producing IM and even GMs at such a very young age. We in Malaysia? Most of our youngsters can't even pass the 2000 ELO rating points. So flooding players from India in an event hosted by Bangladesh may elevate its standard but the same may not work for Malaysian players.
I can understand the logic behind limiting the number of players to don the National jersey at International level events - be it a Regional tournament or a Global one. To me, those who represent our Jalur Gemilang should have a certain level of competency. After all, how you perform at the event, will reflect the capabality of a nation as a whole. I remembered in the 50's when our badminton players were winning the All England Badminton Championship, and whenever we introduce ourselves as Malaysian, many British expect that we can play badminton well. Reflecting on chess, while having many of our chess players not finishing at the top of the table does not reflect that Malaysians do not know how to play chess, it does however create an impression that we have a poor "selection process" or poor "development program" as we are not able to send those who are worthy enough for the event.
For one thing, I agree that MCF - as the governing body for chess in Malaysia, should exercise some means of quality control when identifying children who are keen to participate in regional events outside of Malaysia. But let us make one thing clear as well - having a child to play in the event is for the child's glory, or for the parents? Maybe it is for the children but, we cannot deny that for some parents, it would be more for their own ego as parents, for their own bragging rights to family members, neighbors, colleagues and friends, that my child is "a National Chess player". Of course, not all parents are like that. And on the same, how many of those young players who have played in these International events have actually pursue chess as their sports of choice, or for improvement? I never counted but it would be interesting to know
For one thing, I agree that MCF - as the governing body for chess in Malaysia, should exercise some means of quality control when identifying children who are keen to participate in regional events outside of Malaysia. But let us make one thing clear as well - having a child to play in the event is for the child's glory, or for the parents? Maybe it is for the children but, we cannot deny that for some parents, it would be more for their own ego as parents, for their own bragging rights to family members, neighbors, colleagues and friends, that my child is "a National Chess player". Of course, not all parents are like that. And on the same, how many of those young players who have played in these International events have actually pursue chess as their sports of choice, or for improvement? I never counted but it would be interesting to know
But of course, there is a need to be fair and just. And the exposure may be good for the players and parents. As kids, let them have the moment in time, and as parents, they need to experience and feel if chess is the right activity for their kids. And in terms of money, MCF is not responsible for it so.... Put all these things together and we may have the answer.
In managing the situation better, perhaps we can take a middle ground by segmenting the event to World Level (only the champions can go), ASIAN Level (Only the podium finishers can go) or the ASEAN Level (now everyone can go!!). Or perhaps, we can allow for more event winners to be considered instead of using only the National Age Group as the qualifying event. Why not we add the Scholastic, the National Junior or even the best finishers who plays in the MCC or National Rapid events to be considered? For that matter, we can even use their FIDE rating and their standings in the local ranking as a selection criteria as well, or allow those who are very active in the local chess circuits to play becuase being active means they are serious about playing chess. On top of that, we should also have some kind of limitation i.e. only 5 players per category or something along that line to strike a balance between "quality, numbers and control". And different players for different events to open the opportunity. But for World and Asian Level events, let's keep it to those worthy only - money being the least important criteria.
In managing the situation better, perhaps we can take a middle ground by segmenting the event to World Level (only the champions can go), ASIAN Level (Only the podium finishers can go) or the ASEAN Level (now everyone can go!!). Or perhaps, we can allow for more event winners to be considered instead of using only the National Age Group as the qualifying event. Why not we add the Scholastic, the National Junior or even the best finishers who plays in the MCC or National Rapid events to be considered? For that matter, we can even use their FIDE rating and their standings in the local ranking as a selection criteria as well, or allow those who are very active in the local chess circuits to play becuase being active means they are serious about playing chess. On top of that, we should also have some kind of limitation i.e. only 5 players per category or something along that line to strike a balance between "quality, numbers and control". And different players for different events to open the opportunity. But for World and Asian Level events, let's keep it to those worthy only - money being the least important criteria.
No comments:
Post a Comment