Sunday, February 20, 2011

Caoili: The Philippines' Prodigal Daughter

This current spat between WIM Arianne Caoili and the Australian Chess Federation ought to serve as ample opportunity for the ACF's opposite number in the Philippines, the NCFP, to snag back their prodigal daughter. In case we need reminding, Caoili actually began her Olympiad career in RP colours, appearing for that country in 2000 and 2002, before switching allegiance to Australia from 2004 onwards.

If Caoili does return to the RP fold, I see it only as a win-win, albeit obviously a loss for Australia. The WIM gets to play in a stronger zone (plus a fair few other Asian events if she makes herself available for those), while the Philippines' women squad receives the services of a reliable point-scorer.

The only question really here is: just how serious is WIM Arianne Caoili? Or was all that just an empty rant?

I hereby challenge her to switch!

While many in Aussie chess will no doubt greet such a move with a derisive, "good riddance", the NCFP and Pinoy fans will surely greet Caoili with a heart-warming embrace.


Unknown said...

TCG, I am going to comment briefly because I’ve had enough of the criticisms that have come out of some simple rant. It’s pathetic and a waste of time.

Firstly, this rant that Alex asked for IS NOT directed at anyone in particular. I’ve just come back from a bike ride around the lake to discover something called ‘Chess Chat’ and the pathetic narrow-minded arguments put forth there. People like Kevin Bonham should realize that it’s Sunday and it’s sunny (a rare occasion in Canberra) – why waste it behind the key board defending/attacking molecular details in my rant? My musings are on the big picture, on the entire system of women’s chess tournaments as a market and analyzing its characteristics. It seems that nobody has even attempted to offer commentary or criticisms of this have they? Just shows that people are more interested in self-defense rather than seeing the point of the argument and trying to understand the theory put forth.

I welcome criticism and it is essential for progress – but I am not interested in people zoning in on sections that suit them (i.e. the zonals – who cares? It’s over, and I am not concerned about it, and I am not that important to go into frivolous discussions over it).

About the Philippines – it has my heart, indeed. However, I love Australia and I owe a lot to this country. But this isn’t the point, can’t believe you wasted a whole blog post about it.

Kevin Bonham said...

Copy of my response from Alex's blog (much as I doubt that musings over the respective daily weathers of Hobart and Canberra are really worth posting three times, but anyway ...)
Arianne, there's an extremely obvious double standard here. You say your comments are only a RANT on a blog and therefore those criticising should get over it, but you've "had enough" of the criticisms in response, and we should "get over ourselves". But surely our counter-criticisms are themselves only comments (RANTs or otherwise) on blogs, and if you don't like the counter-criticism then by your own logic you should get over it too instead of complaining about the response.

It's up to you how you spend your time and whether you choose to respond now or not. If the sun being out in Canberra is a reason for not responding today, just don't respond. Save it for a rainy day or just don't bother. You're not obliged to respond to counter-criticisms of your RANT. They're only comments on a blog, after all. Anyway, lucky for some. I intended going out in the field today but every time the sun came out and I threatened to do so another layer of Gloop accompanied by very strong winds swept down off Mt Wellington and told me that if I would be some risk of having a tree fall on me should I persist with such a dubious plan.

Big-picture musings are fine, and I actually agree with a fair bit of what you said about the way female players are treated by the media including parts of the chess media. But on my reading your incorporation of complaints about the Zonal and the ACF's performance relevant to it just completely contradicts the big picture you're putting forward.

If the zonals are a who-cares matter that is over, then why on earth did you still complain about them in the first place? And if the counter-criticisms about your comments about the Zonal are bugging you then why not just acknowledge that your attacks on the ACF and others concerning the Zonal were just incorrect in the first place?

I also have several other comments on CC and Doubleroo. By the way despite the stoush in this instance, Alex Wohl's blog is good fun, a lively read, well recommended. said...


I fully agree with you. You have learned a lesson some of us learned a few years ago:

Namely, do not be critical in any way, shape, or form, of the ACF or ACF officers.

Penalty for disobeying this directive is character assassination.

If it makes you feel any better, even Ian Rogers had his toes stepped on when he suggested a new way of doing things for the ACF.

Peter Long said...

–verb (used without object)

to speak or declaim extravagantly or violently; talk in a wild or vehement way