Friday, January 28, 2011

Beyond 64 blog

Another chess blog spawned in response to FGM blog. Read here. This is the third after Rationality and Chess Ninja.


The Chess Ninja said...

Haha.. perhaps you are double counting. Maybe he is Rationality? :P

Jimmy Liew said...

We never know now will we? Its still counted as a blog right?

siew fai said...

Goodness gracious, you guys are still going at each other throat...looks like I still need to offer some neutral points for you to ponder.

GENTLEMEN! I had written that I had become “an interested party”; I did not mean taking sides on your conflict. I am merely taking side of the “chess and the chess people” “that needed sponsorship” for their chess activities in their immediate and future undertakings. If this feud is indeed of the “irreparable damage” type, the future with regards to sponsorship on chess will be bleak...

Please do not practice “The Gorge Bush Syndrome”; “you are either with me or against me!” That set the tone that if you are not with me, you must be against me! I have undertaken to post all that I have written on the 3 blogs (looks like 4 now!) so as to take a neutral line; delete it at your own liberty even though I maintain it is neither for you nor against you. My hope is that the readers would continue to have an insight on how to take the “right conduct” and how not to take the “wrong conduct” with potential and realised sponsors/partners of chess. Many chess players are screaming for help to realise their dreams and yet nobody had given them the inkling on “how to go about getting that elusive sponsorship”...

(Bear in mind, by writing these postings in the midst of a feuding battle is also exposing myself in the open and could compromise the sponsorship I am currently negotiating; I may have to pull the plug if it had “started to impair/dilute the image of the sponsor”. Ethical behaviour is that the sponsor must be informed of this “Moral Hazard” and I had already done that last OCT10 during the first meeting! Chess players are great forward thinkers and without naming any names, the sponsor was already “briefed on the conflicts and potential damaging conflicts within our chess community!”)

siew fai said...

Today, I shall follow through with writing about sponsorship and will stay very focus on the following:
A) Time and tide waits for no one
B) A bird in hand is worth two in the bush
C) Of Public interest domain
D) “Inclusive” versus “Exclusive”
E) Where are the friends and counsels?
Before I proceed further, I will highlight a certain “co-incidence” of “a mentioned RM2 Million sponsorship and FGM’s current sponsorship endeavour”. There is just so much co-incidence that I will have to make a clear statement before my current involvement in getting sponsorship for chess gets impaired and dragged into the whirlpool of deceit and misrepresentation (or being accused of “dipping my fingers into Raymond’s pie”; “perhaps” that of “having a bite of the cherry too” )
1) RM 2 million seems to be such a common denomination and very few companies in Malaysia is capable of putting out this kind of money for chess (My first mention was payout of RM1.6 million and “if you plus another RM400K for logistics expenses”, it come into a tidy sum of RM2 million)
2) I too have called out for peace in Perak chess before I can move in that “silver state without that silver lining in the chess scene” (I envisage the time, for the first time, come face-to-face with PICA and Raymond in Perak, when I have to share a common stage with them! I will have to keep my fingers crossed that both parties will practice and respect bloggings etiquette; that is, “what is said in the net remains in the net”.)
3) As Raymond said it, his sponsor is waiting out until the feud in Perak is resolved. So too am I waiting anxiously on this and other simmering conflicts to settle and hope against hope, all is just a storm in a tea cup! The timing of this “awaiting to resolve” dilemma, his action of deleting my post and the uncanny revelation of the intended sponsor’s identity openly “seems to have implied” that I am “a third party” in trying “to grab the sponsorship” he is working on (deleting my post is his liberty and I am not taking it as a hostile act; just a factually true statement without animosity when the post was indeed deleted)
4) Before the chess community “jump into conclusion” and dilute my effort thus far, I have to make it very clear – I have nothing to do PICA and Raymond; and nothing what-so-ever with his intended sponsor thus far revealed by him (very unconventional as it is a “Moral Hazard” to the sponsor when one is “in the midst of a drawn out war”)
5) A resolved “PICA and Raymond” over their disagreement is certainly welcomed and help my cause tremendously. Similarly, an amicable settlement of all differences between the current four adults going at each other throat is a blessing to our chess community.

siew fai said...

However, life must persist, regardless! Let’s get down to business and delve deeper and readers should not fall fouls into MOANS Symptoms (Mother Of All Non-Sensible Symptoms: anything said, depicted, implied, featured, perceived and in any forms that appears non-sensible to me or disadvantaged me in any way or form is absolutely wrong, wrong, wrong and cannot be the truth even though it is the truth in all sensible and humanly understandable norms. Period)
A) Time and tide waits for no one – As one whom experience in “talking up sponsorship” had shown, Raymond’s mentioned that the RM2 million is “available” and is “waiting out for” the (Raymond and PICA) issue to be resolved seems out of place.
Vital question: Is Raymond trying to use the “2 million Ringgit” sponsorship to steam roll influence in his fight with PICA and make him seen as the aggrieved party? Mixing these two “merits” is indeed confusing! If the ability to deliver neutrality is not possible, shouldn’t the chance to have the sponsor “commence spending some money” on chess a better option? I am sure the highly respected Penang Chess Association can be roped in to start off some chess programs on the chess community’s behalf! A sponsor that can set out RM2 million will have no difficulties in reconciling chess onto a national level instead of “spending just for Perak”. Why is “chess made to suffer” on the wait while the clock is ticking? Make the correct move now and let us chess players have a bite at that cherry!

siew fai said...

B) That too explains the statement “a bird in hand is worth two in the bush!” Just get our priorities correct; the time to get chess going is NOW and not sometime in the future when things get resolved or when we have a national coach whose decision on selection on team players and individual players are to be respected and go unquestioned... (The question of Senior versus Junior is plainly irrelevant if we go along the line of “the coach” calls the shot! Will we ever move towards this level of professionalism? Or are we to be mired in the argument on an elusive “perfect selection methodology”)
Raymond rightly pointed out that chess in the past 30 years have much to be desired and what we are doing now is also going down the same path. The underlying fault in the past 30 years is that we have not respected our own chess fraternity regardless on which side of the divide we were on and we are exactly doing the same now. We are also sowing the seed of disrespect among our own chess players and their parents! We have to start working towards having “respected organisers, arbiters, trainers, coaches, players and supporters of chess”. Then there will come the time any selected chess players to any tournament be it individual or team events will be respected unconditionally even if that selection decision rest on one person or a committee of selectors by whatever means or criteria they have decided upon without fear or favour. Think about it or you have missed that out when you rested at home on an unexpected public holiday when our national soccer coach unilaterally took players he decided fit to bring back a bit of glory to Malaysia soccer. The Coach had called the shot! (A journey of a thousand miles starts on a single positive and unhindered forward step; where is that first Malaysian step?)
C) Of public interest domain – for people whom have worked in private outfits and for people whom had for the first time do something for the society, there is a very steep learning curve in adapting to the ”needs of the public”, public governance and matter of public interest. Learn and work hard towards fulfilling these needs before taking on the largess of “trial by public opinions” and our chess community shall have a better chance to achieve excellence.
(I may be wrong here but I believed nobody written that Raymond’s sponsor and MCF “had colluded to cheat the chess public”. He was the one kept dragging MCF and the sponsor’s name together into his name as “a package” of being accused by certain parties for “a mishandled case of sponsorship went astray”. Can somebody clarify on this important point? Forensic display of the trail of blogging messages shall be able to give the timeline and when exactly the accusation “of conspired to cheat” starts and from whom it had started... even the re-posted blog at beyond 64 squares does not indicate a collusion had taken place. Benefit of the doubt to Raymond if it “had happened on a F2F with certain parties”, then it is a different story. But then, if we are not privy to this F2F encounter, why drag everybody in?)

siew fai said...

D) “Inclusive” versus “Exclusive” – in the private sector, the ability to bundle and unbundle services is deemed the competitive edge where else the past practice of “transfer pricing” and “caveat emptor” are considered unethical behaviour. Sadly, these two classes of business practices are treading on very thin and blurred line; very easy for even the expert to get it wrong! Similarly, when sponsorships (or partnerships) to a particular event is announced, the thin and blurred line of “inclusiveness” or “exclusiveness” is at times confused and made to be seen as one. Conflicting views will always arise and entanglement will be the end result. Just relook and revisit all those conflicts that had occurred and taken onto a trial by public opinions in the blogs thus far and you will be able “to seer” the lines that has been crossed many folds even the blind will avoid
Inclusive example: Selection to represent the country is open to all players above Fide rtgs 2200 (Inclusive; participation criteria “defined as fit” even when the below Fide rtg 2200 are excluded)
Exclusive example: You (name specified) are invited to play in a selection tournament for the selection to represent the country (exclusive; invitation criteria “deemed as fit” without the necessity of reason or criteria revealed for the invitation to be extended)
Of course there is the Conditional Example: Top four finishers of this tournament shall be selected to represent the country.
E) Therefore, the question on “where are the friends or responsive counsels” whom one can depend on to give the correct views before “things got out of hand” needed serious consideration. Could we have these friends of chess stand up to make the mark of distinctions for our chess community?

siew fai said...

GENTLEMEN, I say it again; with a mind set on “giving the benefit of the doubt” and “a heart filled with generosity” to overlook other people’s flaws should always be the spirit we must embrace for a better chess scene of tomorrow. I came with olive branches, plots to bury the hatchets, smoking peace pipes, avenues to share the positives, and even mirrors for you to reflect upon yourself; we must have the truce when yesterday is the past, today is racing out of reach and tomorrow needed our collective efforts to grasp its many opportunities.
Vital statement: Don’t be the problem or contribute to the problem, think solution and be the solution.
Powerful question 1: Why is it that I had started off negotiating a sponsorship of RM2 million with the intended “inclusive approach whereby all capable (defined) chess players can participate” and now had it watered down to RM1 million with a “most likely outcome” of shifting to a partnership (pending) whereby it is reserved “exclusively for capable (deemed) chess players being invited into the event”?
Powerful question 2: Does the current feud have anything to do with this subtle change from “sponsorship to partnership” and “inclusive event to an exclusive occasion?

PS: As for the talk about SM having RM 1 million sponsorship on hand, he had mentioned that to me too. As a courtesy, I congratulated him for this wonderful piece of news (no reason to challenge him for validity or being a doubting Thomas-time will tell whether it is true or false). I looked into his eyes and could not really see the reason why he had let me into the “informed” circle. Is he looking for my support to his activities? Is he eliciting ideas on how best to use this huge funding? Is he seeking my help to use the money? Is he trying to secure my confidence in him? Or he already has everything well planned out and goads me into waiting for the good news to be revealed...

Post a Comment