Can we emulate IntChess success ?
If you were part of the Malaysia vs Singapore 2005 contingent, you would have visited IntChess Asia ’school of chess’.
They are a success as they have produced many strong young juniors. This was clearly shown in how Singapore junior players outclassed Malaysian junior players in that ‘friendly’ match. What’s more is that S’pore didn’t even field their strongest juniors as it was X’mas time. Two success stories of IntChess is IM Jason Goh and FM Dominic Lo. In addition, IntChess is expanding and shifting to a new and bigger building this November.
The question is:
Can we as Malaysians emulate the same degree of success that Singapore IntChess has achieved?
We know that their fees are high as they employ foreign coaches. Many are of the opinion that Malaysian parents are not willing to fork up that sort of $$$. If we had a school like IntChess here in Malaysia, will that be our salvation ? Is that one way to push our juniors past that tall barrier that many promising Malaysian junior never seem to get over ?
Popularity: 11% [?]
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically to your feed reader.
Related posts:-
- Intchess success?
- Intchess officially opens
- IntChess comes to Malaysia
- KL vs Singapore match
- Finally got to IntChess!
Comments
Discipline by others is important if one cannot discipline oneself. Strong coaches are a must. By, the way, how much do they charge?
That will 100% will not succeed in Malaysia? Just take example, I don really think that any federation or club in Malaysia that focus on kids, they are more focus in senior player especially National Master. Just think that last time Ian Roger or Gufeld was here to teach, but who are those who benefited? Are they the Kids?? or Senior?? Or if really can just think that Mas was good enough for kids? why need GM?? GM is only need for senior? try go to Penang see how many kids are play in tournament? I was surprise by them!! All like Loo Swee Leong and other was their coaches>?? But why not in whole malaysia or even in Selangor?? or Johor>?? If I’m not mistaken Leong Mun Wan also did so? They are working hard for Malaysia’s chess future but why not MCF?? try to think??
Well, I guess chess will become part of their school syllabus. In fact, in my school classroom, compared to IntChess, the rules aren’t even as strict as the ones set by IntChess. In other words, chess is not really going to be fun while youre learning it.
Ok. But don’t worry, my feeling is that if anything like this ever gets implemented in Malaysia, the ’stricknest’ factor will never be up the level of the Singaporeans. Malaysians students will see to that it, that fun is always part of the syllabus 
As regards to fees, I’ve heard the private lessons from a titled player can be up to S$100 per hour.
It’s not only the high fees involved but whenever there are international tournaments, the children participating MUST be accompanied by their coach(es). The flight ticket and hotel bills must be covered by the parents too.
I think, Ignatius Leong has hit on the right formula - making this chess business model work in Singapore. I guess that’s what Malaysia is lacking. An entrepreneur with the keen and sharp business sense, not to mention the correct business connections etc.
One disadvantage: it looks like only the rich can afford the benefits that IntChess has to offer. 
Is there a better model to emulate?
i propose that MCF hire several professional coaches and build a ’school of chess’ with both short & long-term goals to achieve.
If that costs too much, a good idea is to invite GMs throughout the calendar year to hold 2 week-long chess camps for our promising juniors. I’m sure we could get GMs from Philippines or Indonesia. We won’t want talents like Yeap Eng Chiam going to waste, would we?
Oh yes, having a monthly magazine issue would be a great idea. Not sure tho who would be up for the job.
Yeah, the strictness part is for sure. However, in my opinion, there is no real need to be strict. Juniors like Yeap Eng Chiam do not show too much discipline when learning, but still absorb what is being thought anyway. But the main reason why we definitely can’t have IntChess here is because the Malaysian Ringgit is not strong…most of us won’t be able to pay the fees to internationals GMs and IMs. RM200+ per hour is plain ridiculous. Academic tuition fees are about 16 times cheaper than that.
Maybe some interest should be harnessed, people? More coverage by the press, maybe set-up a Malaysian Chess Magazine (if there is one, i can’t see it)…
The majority of the public still regards chess as merely a game. Of course the fees would seem ridiculous. Unlike Russia and some european countries where Chess is a major ’sport’, it’d be like paying fees to learn how to play marbles well.
Actually, young players are lucky in Malaysia. At one time there were so many age group tournaments and very few opens… so much so that it was difficult for more mature players to get a tournament game. This could be the cause for stagnation in adult games.
Whatever is said, our best players must play abroad to improve further. Look ay Wesley So, John Lopez and Dimakiling who are presently playing 2500 players overseas, right after DATMO and the Olympiads. Our players? Still hybernating or self practice?
errrr..many of my own students and students that I met know nothing about chess. Can’t there be anything to be done to promote the game?
The teacher must be very interested and committed. Preferable he/she plays a decent game as well and knows how to contact the right people, then the door is open to the students as well.
A local chess magazine will not sell well here because we don’t have a chess culture here like in eg. the Philippines which translates to thousands of members = readers. Furthermore, GilaChess’ coverage on events is now almost up-to-date and we always welcome any players/reader to write/sent to GilaChess on any chess event updates, pictures, analyses, blogs etc they want to share with other readers.
All the best to IntChess (M) Sdn Bhd where they will focus chess education and training for children between ages 4 to 16. Remembering also their predessesors like ChessPro, Chess Connection, etc. P/s: Hope that GilaChess will do some coverage of it if there’s any Opening Ceremony of the KL branch next month
In M vs S 2006, Singapore did not even field Wu Shao Bin, Wong Meng Kong, Jason Goh and Goh Wei Ming inthe Men’s section. They only lost 5.5 vs 6.5. Dominic Lo took a point off Tan Khai Boon. Out of their 6 players, 2 qualified to play U14 and 1 came from U16. This renewal process is working.
Teams selected are always on the basis of available players and the players actually selected will have to carry the team during play. So no point talking of players who are unavailable or otherwise did not play for whatever reason. No whining or excuses. Manager and other persons with powers over team selection, together with the players, carry their share of responsibility and accountability.
Singapore won the overall match and my congratulations on that. Malaysia won the blue riband Senior Men’s category and I just say well done to the Malaysia senior men’s team.
You are missing my point. I had not sought to take any credit from the Malaysian Men’s Team for their victory nor excuse the Singapore Team from a loss. The fact that a number of stronger Singapore players were absent is interesting but irrelevant.
I wanted to point out the youthfulness of the Singapore Men’s Team. It is a testament of their rejuvention process which Malaysia should emulate. The slim margin of loss is already a victory of sorts in itself.
In fact, a very large number of Singapore players played above their age group. This makes their victory all the more emphatic.
Hopefully, a more professional approach to chess training may help to redress this gulf which had really developed over the past 4 to 5 years.
For the sake of chess in both countries, continued improvement in the playing strength of the juniors is a great thing. Singapore’s edge in the 10-16 years range is most likely the product of a commitment to quality and focussed training. Much as one would like, chess development will take more than a year to bear fruit. Patience is required. But it is the right path.
Having high aspirations is a good thing. However, the choice of “overrun” and the resultant pressures on the young ones may have detrimental effects. Bear in mind, Singaporeans are not going to stay stagnant while Malaysians train. It is a relative game after all!
MCF should look into the possibility of professional chess training under its auspicies. Status quo means no consistency of standards i.e. quality of coaches can vary greatly. Ceding the task of training to a multinational entity can also raise issues. Where should one deploy one’s best coaches? Will dollars and cents be the criteria? These are questions for which there are no easy answers.
Frankly, Singapore is not a strong chess-playing nation by any means. Even with all the touted training centres, compared with a country like Vietnam, it still has much to do.
If you set Singapore as a target, you will surely be disappointed in time to come.
Historically, Singapore has always been somewhat stronger than Malaysia in Chess. You can see that from the Olympiad results.That has lasted for some half a decade but somehow both countries have been left far behind by other late comers like China and India. Even a long-suffering country like Vietnam plays much better chess. What is the secret behind their success?
If Singapore is the sole target for chess in this country, it will be tragic. Why doesn’t and shouldn’t this country target China, India and the other Eastern European countries!
Try the low-lying fruits first. Get past Singapore, then talk about taking on Vietnam and then the rest of the world. Learn to walk before running.
I sense that the phrase “all the touted training centres” had been used with some cynicism. I just hope that it is healthy. Given the limited pool of genetic material, it is unlikely that Singapore will prove to be a world chess power. Malaysia with a much larger population should on paper do better than Singapore. Shouldn’t questions be raised as to why this is not already happening? If “all the touted training centres” can move Singapore ahead of Malaysia, they add value.
[...] asked the question whether we can emulate the success of Intchess Singapore exactly a year ago. Right after Intchess Malaysia opened shop and it was received with much [...]
I saw it. I don’t really like the rules…they’re just too……strict. They had a list of rules on the wall. I couldn’t remember what it was but it basically implied that you have to sit tight and make no noise and only answer when you are sure. That way, I think people are rather overdisciplined before they even reach 10 years old. When I went for my game, some of the Singaporean juniors were playing at the board before the game starts. It kinda shows that they’re rather deprived and haven’t had enough time to entertain themselves pre-game, which is just not right when you’re something like 10 years old.