Chowrasta market

Since I had already written about the origins of the Penang Bazaar building some time ago, I thought it was time for me to turn my sights on Chowrasta Market, which is another old Penang landmark a little further up Penang Road.

The building we see today is actually more than 60 years old. It was reopened in November 1964 after the old market (see picture) was replaced at a cost of $1.5 million. I do remember seeing the older market building when I was younger, although I can't remember ever going inside it. Maybe I did. Then one day that old building was gone and another had replaced it.

Chowrasta itself goes back much further than the present building. The area around Penang Road, Tamil Street and Chowrasta Road had long been associated with the Indian community in George Town. The early settlement here was closely connected with people from the Malabar coast of India, which explains the name Kampung Malabar. Malabar was then part of the Madras Presidency under British India and later became part of Kerala after Indian independence.

According to local accounts, Chowrasta Market was started by the Malabari people who had settled in this part of George Town during the early days of the settlement of Prince of Wales Island. As the community grew, so did the trading activities around the area. What eventually became Chowrasta Market started as a busy open-air trading area where people bought and sold everyday necessities. There were vegetables, fruits, fish, meat and other foodstuffs, with traders and customers coming and going throughout the day. By 1890, the municipal authorities had built a permanent market to serve the growing population of George Town.

The market eventually became known simply as Chowrasta, a name generally understood to come from the Indian subcontinent and associated with a crossroads or four-way junction. That certainly suited the place. Roads, people and businesses converged there, and over the years Chowrasta became one of those places where different communities rubbed shoulders with one another.

My mother's generation, however, had another name for the place. They referred to it as Kelinga Bansan. I should perhaps explain that, because I know some people outside Penang may immediately regard the word “Keling” as derogatory. That is not how I remember it being used in Penang, particularly by the older generation. It was simply a familiar term for people of South Indian origin and was used matter-of-factly in everyday speech. In fact, the old Penang Hokkien name for the Chowrasta area, Kelinga Bansan, is recorded as meaning “South Indian Market”.

There is plenty of historical evidence for this older usage. The word Keling appears in classical Malay literature and historical records going back centuries, where it was used to refer to India or people from South India without the derogatory meaning that it can carry today. Even in early Penang, Kapitan Keling was the title given to the leader of the South Indian community, and the name survives in the Kapitan Keling Mosque.

So, when my mother's generation called the place Kelinga Bansan, they weren't using the word as a racial insult. They were using an old Penang term that had been part of the local vocabulary for generations. Of course, words change with time and I recognise that Keling is regarded as offensive in many contexts today. But I don't think we should automatically impose today's meaning on an old Penang name without understanding the historical context in which it was used.

That brings back another memory for me. I once knew a fellow named Mohd Noor, a classmate from both our primary and secondary school days. He grew up in Tamil Street, right in the heart of that old neighbourhood. Later in life he went into the food business and built up a successful nasi kandar restaurant business. We lost touch over the years but reconnected in the decade before the Penang Free School Bicentenary in 2016. Sadly, he died an untimely death a year later. Another old friend and fellow chess player, Jimmy Liew, also has a Chowrasta connection. His parents used to run a Chinese medicinal hall in Chowrasta Road, so his family too was part of the community around the market. When I think about it, these are the sort of personal connections that make an old place come alive for me.

The market in those days was a very lively place. It was crowded and full of activity. Traditional markets were not merely places where people went to buy something and then hurried home. They were meeting places as much as shopping places. People knew the traders, chatted with their neighbours, exchanged news and generally knew what was going on in the community.

Chowrasta eventually became well known for more than just its wet market. The market and the shops around it developed a reputation for preserved fruits, nutmeg products, dried goods, Chinese medicinal halls, traditional biscuits and various local food products. And then there were the second-hand bookshops that came later and which became something of an institution in their own right. Generations of students, book lovers and collectors have wandered through them looking for something interesting, useful or perhaps simply unexpected.

By the early 1960s, the old market had evidently seen better days and a new building was constructed to replace it. When the new Chowrasta Market was reopened in November 1964, it had cost $1.5 million to build. That was a considerable sum of money in those days, and the building we see today has therefore been part of the Penang landscape for more than six decades.

The market has changed again in more recent years. Like many traditional markets, it has faced competition from supermarkets, shopping malls and changing shopping habits. The building itself also needed upgrading. Renovation works were carried out between 2013 and 2017, with the intention of improving the facilities while keeping the market's traditional function alive.

Today, Chowrasta sits comfortably within George Town's UNESCO World Heritage Site. It remains a working market rather than a museum. We can still buy fresh food there, while outside the market there are stalls selling all sorts of things. The second-hand bookshops remain part of its identity too. Even today, Chowrasta continues to be described as a bustling market and an important part of George Town's living heritage.

But the atmosphere inside the market isn't quite what it used to be. It is still lively, particularly around the outside where goods and food are being sold, but inside it can feel relatively quiet compared with the old days when the whole place was crowded and bustling with people. That's because markets change as the city around them changes. The Penang of my mother's generation was very different from the Penang we have today. Yet Chowrasta has somehow managed to survive.

I suppose I have known Chowrasta all my life, even if I never really thought much about its history before. Having spent a lifetime watching Penang change, I sometimes find that places and pictures trigger memories I had almost forgotten. I remember the old building, although I can't remember ever going inside it. I remember hearing my mother and her generation call it Kelinga Bansan. I remember a schoolmate who grew up in Tamil Street and later built a successful nasi kandar business. And I remember that one particular Chinese medicinal hall in Chowrasta Road. All these little memories, from different periods of my life, somehow come together in this one small corner of Penang.

The day that changed the world

Time has really flown. It's hard to believe that it's already 25 years since the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre in New York City on 11 September 2001. What was I doing that day? Well, I was still working, although by then I was no longer in the banking industry but with JobStreet.com, based in the Hotel Equatorial building in Bukit Jambul, Penang.

Because of the 12-hour time difference, the attacks happened in New York during our evening on 11 September 2001. By the time I went to the office the following morning, the 12th of September, the full horror of what had happened was already becoming clearer. Word had come in that there had been a terrorist attack on US soil, and as more details emerged, we slowly realised that this was something on a scale none of us had known before. For the rest of the day, very little work was getting done in our office. My colleagues and I were glued to our computer terminals, reading the news, looking at the images and trying to figure out what was happening thousands of kilometres away in New York. We had no idea then that we were watching an event that would change the world, or that among the nearly 3,000 people who died would be three Malaysians who were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.

It was one of those days when the news seemed almost too unbelievable. Although we had become accustomed to seeing disasters and wars on television, this was different. The images coming out of New York were being shown again and again, and each time they looked unbelievable. First came the report of a plane crashing into the World Trade Centre, then another plane hitting the second tower. Before long, we knew that this was a coordinated terrorist attack.

There were four hijacked aircraft that morning. Two were flown into the Twin Towers, another crashed into the Pentagon and United Airlines Flight 93 came down in Pennsylvania after passengers attempted to take control of the aircraft. Nearly 3,000 people were killed, not counting the 19 hijackers. The Twin Towers collapsed within hours, taking with them office workers, visitors, firefighters, police officers and other first responders who had rushed towards the buildings when everyone else was trying to get away.

For those of us sitting in an office in Penang, we continued watching the events on our computers. Although the Internet was nowhere near what it is today, JobStreet.com by our very nature was very much connected through it to the outside world despite there being no smartphones delivering videos and notifications into our hands. So we sat at our computers, refreshing news websites and talking among ourselves as more details emerged.

I remember the feeling in the office. We were physically so far away from New York, yet somehow the events felt very close. Work continued, technically, but nobody was really concentrating on it. Every new piece of information seemed more shocking than the previous one. By the time we had spent hours following the unfolding events, we were not only distracted from work but mentally tired. And when the Twin Towers eventually collapsed, it was difficult to comprehend that the New York skyline had changed forever.

Twenty-five years later, the world has moved on in ways that would have been difficult to imagine that day. Airport security became much tighter, governments introduced new counter-terrorism measures and the United States went to war in Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden, the leader of al-Qaida, was eventually killed by US forces in Pakistan in 2011. But the consequences of 9/11 went far beyond the immediate response to the attacks and continue to influence the world today.

A whole generation has grown up since 9/11. In 2001, I was sitting in the office at Hotel Equatorial Bukit Jambul with my colleagues, staring at computer screens. This blog didn't even exist then, so there was no post for me to look back on and remind myself what I was thinking that day. Today, there are young people who were not even born when it happened. For them, 9/11 is not something they personally remember. It is something they learn about from history books, documentaries, photographs and the stories told by their parents and grandparents. So perhaps this is my belated 9/11 blog story, coming 25 years late.

Eruption!

Anak Krakatau has been much in the news over the past few days, erupting repeatedly since the fourth of September. The name itself is rather appropriate because Anak Krakatau means “Child of Krakatau”, having risen from the remains of the much larger volcano that erupted so spectacularly in 1883. In fact, Anak Krakatau only began emerging above the sea in 1927, eventually growing into the volcano we know today.

That 1883 eruption has a little story behind it for me. When I was in secondary school, our English language teacher told us about Krakatau and its enormous eruption in 1883. There were several huge explosions on the 27th of August that were heard thousands of kilometres away. The sound travelled so far that people on Rodrigues Island in the Indian Ocean, nearly 5,000 kilometres away, reportedly heard what they thought was cannon fire. The eruption also sent vast quantities of ash and volcanic material high into the atmosphere, producing unusually vivid sunsets around the world for months afterwards.

Our teacher then suggested that we ask our grandparents whether they had heard the explosions or seen those spectacular sunsets when they were young. It sounded like a perfectly reasonable suggestion at the time, except for one small flaw, at least in my case. None of my grandparents had been born before 1883! And even if they had been, they would have been far too young to remember an event that happened so far away. So I never got to ask them whether they had heard the great explosions or seen skies turning red, orange and yellow because of a volcano in the Dutch East Indies. But for some reason, that little classroom exercise stayed in my memory.

And now, more than half a century later, Krakatau has suddenly come back into my thoughts. Three days ago, I read about the temporary closure of the Soekarno-Hatta Airport in Jakarta, some 150 kilometres away, because of volcanic ash from Anak Krakatau. Then more reports began appearing about the scale of the eruptions. At one stage, ash plumes were reaching as high as 15,000 metres, or almost 50,000 feet, and the volcanic ash disrupted flights at eight airports. Almost 3,000 flights were reportedly affected, involving some 340,000 passengers. The airports have since reopened, although aviation authorities continue to monitor the situation because volcanic ash is obviously something aircraft operators do not take lightly.

The eruption itself has also been rather persistent. There was a continuous explosive phase from the fourth of September that lasted about 25 hours, followed by further eruptions over the next few days. These produced bursts of ash and lava, with some of the plumes drifting towards Sumatra and others towards Java. For the moment, the authorities have kept Anak Krakatau at a high alert level with people being advised to stay at least three kilometres from the crater. There has been no indication of an impending tsunami in the Sunda Strait, although the authorities are keeping a close watch on sea conditions because of what happened in 2018 when part of Anak Krakatau collapsed into the sea and generated a devastating tsunami.

Then I came across another interesting fact. Anak Krakatau isn't the only Indonesian volcano that has been erupting. Several others have been showing significant activity at around the same time, including Mount Semeru in East Java, Mount Ibu in North Maluku, Mount Ili Lewotolok and Mount Lewotobi Laki-laki in East Nusa Tenggara and Mount Sinabung in North Sumatra. Truly, Indonesia is one of the most volcanically active countries in the world, sitting along the Pacific Ring of Fire. So perhaps it shouldn't be too surprising to have several volcanoes erupting simultaneously. 

The six volcanoes are also at different levels of activity, so it would be misleading to suggest that all of them pose the same degree of danger. Some are producing regular ash plumes while others have more significant hazards for communities living nearby. Anak Krakatau has attracted the most international attention because of its famous name and the fact that its ash has affected aviation over such a wide area, while the others are mainly a concern for people living in their immediate surroundings.

All this has made me think again about that English lesson so many years ago. At the time, Krakatau was simply an interesting story in a school textbook and our teacher's suggestion to ask our grandparents seemed like an ordinary homework exercise. I couldn't do it because my grandparents were not even born yet! And I certainly never imagined that I would still remember that lesson more than half a century later.

Yet here I am, reading the news about Anak Krakatau erupting again, seeing reports about volcanic ash closing airports and wondering what it must have been like in 1883 when the original Krakatau exploded with such force that its sound travelled thousands of kilometres and its dust helped create strange sunsets around the world. I suppose some lessons from school stay with us for reasons that have nothing much to do with the lesson itself. I don't remember what else we studied in that particular English class, but I certainly remember Krakatau and the rather impossible homework assignment that came with it.

21st Malaysia chess festival

I've been back in Penang for several days now and am still trying to come to terms with my duties as the Fair Play Officer at the recent 21st Malaysian Chess Festival in Kuala Lumpur. There I was, spending nine full days at the playing venue, KL Gateway Mall. Originally, I intended to go down only to play in the Merdeka Rapid Chess Team Tournament as part of the PCA Penang Oldies team. But then Hamid invited me to lead the Fair Play team. 

I've known Hamid for ages, close to five decades if I'm not mistaken. He is an old hand at organising chess in the country and a vastly experienced international arbiter. He holds an A-licence from FIDE, the only Malaysian to do so, while I'm only a D-licence holder. Two years ago, he was even appointed Chief Arbiter for the Ding Liren-Gukesh World Chess Championship match in Singapore. 

So when Hamid asked me to take on the role of Fair Play Officer, it was an interesting proposition. Fair Play is still a relatively new development in chess, although efforts to eliminate cheating in chess competitions have been going on for a very long time. For several decades, FIDE has required organisers of FIDE-rated tournaments to prevent participants from bringing mobile phones into the playing hall. Over time, this was extended to cover all electronic devices, including smartwatches. 

These Fair Play checks were instituted only for the three FIDE-rated events at the Chess Festival: the Open Classical, Challengers Classical and Seniors Classical tournaments. These were played over nine rounds using the standard time control of 90 minutes, with an additional 30 seconds for every move. All the other events, which had faster time controls, were not FIDE-rated and the controls were therefore much less strict. My Fair Play duties did not extend to them, which meant I could take things a little easier on days when there were no Classical games.

And how does one enforce that? Organisers are required to provide a place for players to leave their devices before entering the playing hall. Players are also physically scanned to make sure that no hidden devices are being brought in or taken out.

Even something as mundane as going to the toilet has to be considered. Separate facilities have to be provided for players so that they do not wander into public toilets and start chatting with non-players, whether accidentally or deliberately.  For this Malaysian Chess Festival, we used a QR-code scanning app to scan the identification tags of players whenever they used the toilet. 

Of course, during the games themselves, I spent much of my time walking around the playing hall and observing the players. That became part of the job. Occasionally, an arbiter would come to me to discuss certain behaviour he had noticed, and we would then keep a closer eye on the players concerned to see whether anything was amiss. 

As I mentioned earlier, my initial objective for going to the chess festival was only to play for the PCA Penang Oldies team in the Merdeka team event. Initially confident, I found the going tough and it has become increasingly difficult to hold my own against the opposition. And no wonder, year after year, the standard of the Merdeka Rapid Chess Team Tournament seems to get increasingly competitive.  

Personally, I had four losses in four games on the first day. It was an ignominious record by any standard. Things didn't improve very much on the second day when I lost another three games in a row before finally managing to pull back a little dignity by winning my last two games. I don't know what my team-mates thought of me! 

On paper, my friends in the OFA Penang team were surprisingly the first seeds. But there was never any pretence that they were the strongest team in the competition. In the end, they were overshadowed by several foreign-constituted teams as well as a number of strong local sides. Still, they did well enough to finish as the third-best Malaysian team in the competition. Not bad at all.

Perhaps I should also say a word or two about the three Classical tournaments. Over the nine rounds, there were no dubious calls that required us to take action. There was none although on one occasion we did subject a player in the Challengers section to a rather more than thorough body scan after his game was over!

The reason was that this particular player appeared to be running away with the top prize despite being unrated in standard chess. This raised a few red flags among the arbiters. So he was immediately placed under a little more scrutiny. 

Later, I was particularly curious about where he had obtained his FIDE rapid rating. Before coming to this Chess Festival, he had played only 16 rated games in two FIDE-rated events this year. That didn't tell me very much. But then I started digging a little deeper. It turned out that in China, the player had been competing in their internal tournaments registered under his Chinese name since 2023. He had played in a number of rapid chess events there and, more recently, had been doing rather well, finishing first or second in several competitions. And that explained quite a lot to me. 

As far as I could tell, this Malaysian Chess Festival was simply his first attempt at obtaining a FIDE standard chess rating. And he did it in splendid fashion, which was a rather satisfying ending to my little investigation. Sometimes, a red flag is just something worth checking. And once I had checked it, I discovered that there was absolutely nothing sinister about it after all. He was just... a young man coming through the ranks.

Heritage walkabouts

I mentioned in my last story that I had gone exploring the old civic precinct in the George Town heritage core zone last July and August, but I never actually got around to dedicating a story in this blog to my walks. It wasn't just once, either. I think I made the rounds twice, perhaps even three times, taking my time to walk the streets and look around.

After all, I couldn't very well avoid the area when I had already visited the Penang State Museum and Fort Cornwallis three times each since their reopening. Call me obsessive about these heritage landmarks, but that's just me. So here are some pictures from my walks. Pictures taken from my perspective. I won't be describing them much, though, if at all. I'll leave that to the pictures.

This fair play thingy

Completed my first day as Fair Play Officer at the 21st Malaysian Chess Festival. 

I came armed with lots of ideas on how to make things work, only to discover that most of them worked better in my head than they did in the KL Gateway’s internal floor plan. In the end, it was finding the most practical solution to fulfil the anti-cheating guidelines, particularly where the toilet was concerned.

I was terribly shorthanded as well. My assistants were doing what they were supposed to do, but because they had to remain static at their posts, there was little they could do to help with anything else.

So, in between trying to keep an eye on things, I found myself taking on a few additional roles: Fair Play Officer, toilet monitor, food deliveryman and water boy. All in a day’s work. 😄

Nevertheless, Day One is done. One down, five more days to go. Will I survive? Hopefully I’ll get better at this before the festival gets the better of me!

A rather surreal few weeks

The past few weeks have been rather surreal for me. Looking back, quite a lot has happened in a relatively short space of time, and I am still trying to take it all in. It started in July with the release of a People of Penang podcast in which I was the featured guest. Not long after that, an article I wrote appeared on the ChessBase India website, the second time my name has appeared there.

But the most significant event in July was undoubtedly the Penang State Awards investiture ceremony at the Dewan Sri Pinang. That was followed a few days later by the official reopening of the Penang State Museum. The museum visit turned out to be rather special for me. I was happy to be reacquainted with the name of my great-great-grandfather on the marble plaque on the museum wall, but there was also the satisfaction of seeing how some of my own contributions to the history of Penang Free School had been acknowledged in the museum's new exhibits.

There was also a charity and fellowship dinner organised by the Persatuan 88 Captains. That evening gave me the chance to show the Penang Governor an old photograph from 2008 that featured him, Tan Chin Nam and myself at a private function, back when he was the president of the Malaysian Chess Federation from 2007 until 2016. He didn't say much, but his wife asked me for a copy of the picture.

Then there was a Town Hall dialogue with the Penang Island City Council, which I attended as the representative of the Swee Cheok Tong (Seh Quah Kongsi). I also took the opportunity to walk extensively through the civic precinct of George Town's heritage core zone and revisit several of the landmarks there, including the newly reopened Fort Cornwallis.

Rather unexpectedly, after not attending a George Town Festival programme for years, I suddenly found myself at one again. This time, at the former Majestic Theatre for a Malaysian Songbook performance. It was nice to be back at a festival that I had not been following for quite some time, and even nicer to discover that I could still be pleasantly entertained by what it had to offer.

And then came yet another small satisfaction of seeing my name in print, this time in the August 2026 edition of Penang Monthly, the magazine published by the Penang Institute. I had written about the history and development of chess in Penang. As I haven't actually elaborated on this last bit yet, here is the story in full:

Farsighted organisation behind Penang's prowess in chess competitions 
By Quah Seng Sun

IF SUCCESS IS measured by titles, then Penangites have built a reputation for prowess in chess. The state can proudly point to its roll of International Masters, FIDE Masters and Candidate Masters, titles bestowed by the World Chess Federation (FIDE), their numbers growing with each passing generation. But Penang’s chess story is not just told through 64 squares and 32 pieces, but also the generations of students, teachers and enthusiasts who have transformed the game into one of the state's most vibrant youth activities. What began with scattered school clubs and occasional competitions almost a century ago has evolved into a thriving ecosystem supported by schools, parents, coaches and volunteers: one which has always had students at its core.

The birth of school chess 
The earliest traces of organised gameplay in Penang are difficult to pinpoint, but the Penang Free School magazine provides a starting point. Throughout the 1930s, chess matches were reported, suggesting scattered pockets of enthusiasm among students, appearing briefly before disappearing. Under the Japanese Occupation, organised chess largely vanished from public view. Following the war, chess gradually re-emerged, but only in 1964 did student chess establish a significant presence. A major catalyst was the Penang Schools Students' Chess Council, formed by leading school chess clubs to organise annual competitions among themselves. No longer confined to individual institutions, students had a platform to compete against peers from other schools, creating rivalries, friendships and a growing sense of community.

Although the Council performed a pioneering role, a more comprehensive organisational framework was necessary to institutionalise the game. In the pivotal year of 1972, the Council voluntarily dissolved following the establishment of the Penang Chess Association, which assumed responsibility for the game’s broader statewide development and administration (and keeping the trophies accumulated by the erstwhile Council). That year also saw the introduction of the first team chess championship under the Majlis Sukan Sekolah-Sekolah Pulau Pinang (MSSPP, Penang Schools Sports Council) at Han Chiang Primary School, while an individual championship was introduced the following year. And in December 1972, the Majlis Sukan Sekolah-Sekolah Malaysia (Malaysia School Sports Council, MSSM) organised its inaugural team chess championship at Dewan Sri Pinang, officiated by then-education minister, Tun Hussein Onn, where four players represented Penang. This event marked the beginning of national-level school chess competitions, sending a clear signal that chess was recognised as a legitimate school sport.

These competitions provided a regular, structured and enduring pathway for student participation and talent development. Even after the MSSM chess competition was suspended after the 1997 edition, a casualty of the Asian Financial Crisis, Penang continued organising MSSPP championships uninterrupted, ensuring that young players continued to have opportunities to compete and develop.

A generational divide?
Despite these advances, chess remained widely perceived as a game for adults, as reflected in competitive chess circles. When the Malaysian Chess Federation, established 1974, organised its first National Closed Championship that same year, none of the Penang Chess Association's representatives were students. They remained in school competitions, the strongest state representatives were generally expected to be adults.

Although this distinction persisted for many years, the foundations laid by the MSSPP were quietly producing results. In the 1970s–80s, students gained tournament experience and developed stronger competitive skills at increasingly younger ages. By the 1990s, student players had the strength and confidence to compete successfully against experienced adults. When the Penang Chess Association selected teams for major events, such as the Merdeka Team Chess Championships, talented students increasingly found themselves earning places on the senior team through merit. 

Since then, the student–adult balance has shifted decisively. Today, it is normal that student players dominate Penang’s (and Malaysia’s) chess scene. In most open tournaments, students typically make up around 75 percent of the field. A thriving calendar of junior tournaments encompassing various age groups ensures a steady stream of opportunities for young players to develop skills and gain competitive experience. 

Fascinatingly, the growing presence of young people in chess circles persists despite the dominance of smartphones, social media and digital entertainment, all of which foster fragmented attention spans unconducive to a game requiring patience, concentration and prolonged quiet thinking. For many youths, chess appears to offer something that much of the online world does not: rewards for sustained focus and careful thought. Competitions themselves provide experiences that cannot be replicated entirely through screens: students travel to tournaments within and beyond Penang, meet friends from other schools, test their skills against unfamiliar opponents and cope with victory and defeat. Friendships are formed, rivalries emerge and memories are created across tournament halls.

This growth did not happen by accident. Many students who took up chess during the 1970s–90s have since become parents themselves. Having experienced the game’s benefits first-hand, they have introduced it to their own children. It is not uncommon to see parents waiting outside tournament halls for their children to finish games. Occasionally, coaches are present to provide immediate post-game failure analysis. As a result of the game’s re-emerging popularity, chess clinics and coaching programmes have mushroomed nationwide, where experienced adult players find themselves becoming coaches, either part-time or full-time. 

Initially, coaching was logistically constrained. Coaches often travelled between students’ homes, limiting the number of children whom they could reach. But with the Covid-19 pandemic lockdowns, online coaching quickly became practical, and even unexpectedly advantageous. Coaches could teach larger groups simultaneously without spending hours on the road, while students could attend lessons from the comfort of home. Online platforms allowed students to play, learn and analyse games at any time of day. Coaching became more accessible and competitive opportunities multiplied. Further, a timely popular culture boost—Netflix's The Queen's Gambit—introduced the game to a worldwide captive audience. For perhaps the first time in generations, chess became fashionable. Across Malaysia, tournament participation increased, coaching programmes expanded and a new generation of young players emerged. 

Rather than being overwhelmed by the digital revolution, chess has adapted strategically. If anything, the game's ability to cultivate focus, patience and thoughtful decision-making may explain why it continues to attract young players. In a world where attention is constantly under siege, the chessboard remains one of the few spaces where deep concentration is essential.

Lessons beyond the chessboard
Despite these technological changes, the essence of chess revolves around two players sitting across from one another, each attempting to outthink the other. In an increasingly screen-dominated era, one could argue that the qualities cultivated by chess— concentration, patience and self-discipline—have become even more valuable. Beyond mental discipline, chess develops pattern-recognition and structured thinking ability. Students learn to identify recurring ideas and anticipate likely outcomes, skills that prove useful in everything from mathematics to language. It strengthens decision-making under uncertainty, teaching players to weigh imperfect options against each other, and accept that every choice involves trade-offs.

The game also nurtures calculated patience and delayed gratification. Students learn that short-term sacrifices can sometimes lead to greater long-term rewards. Working memory and concentration are strengthened when players hold multiple possibilities in mind while planning ahead. Every defeat becomes an opportunity for failure analysis, encouraging students to examine mistakes objectively and improve systematically. Chess also promotes creativity within constraints, with players constantly challenged to discover original solutions within a structured framework. This skill translates naturally into many professional and academic fields. Equally important are social and emotional lessons. Learning to remain composed after a blunder, managing time pressures and displaying good sportsmanship all contribute to emotional resilience. 

Today, chess in Penang continues to be organised and regulated by the Penang Chess Association. The association itself is among the relatively small number of sporting organisations classified as Category One—the highest—by the Majlis Sukan Negeri Pulau Pinang (Penang State Sports Council, MSNPP). Since the mid-2000s, the Association has organised its annual flagship Penang Chess Festival at year-end, which continues to attract hundreds of players from Malaysia and neighbouring countries. Such recognition reflects the breadth and consistency of its activities, both nationally and internationally. Above all, it is a story of students, who have embraced the game, carried it forward and reshaped it according to the needs of their times. In the process, they have ensured that chess remains not merely a pastime from an earlier era, but a living and relevant activity for the 21st century. 

A not-so-simple appeal

My writing today is a little on the heavy side and so, do bear with me if this isn't my usual style. I'm still on the matter of the controversy surrounding the recent eChess competition at SUKMA XXII in Selangor, particularly the incident involving Penang's Poh Yu Tian during the rapid event. I wasn't there when it happened, so I am naturally reluctant to pass judgement on exactly what took place. But having now read the draft incident report, I find myself less interested in whether Yu Tian actually made the disputed move than in how the subsequent appeal was handled.

To recap, Yu Tian was playing Muhammad Emir Rasyid when, according to the report, the move 12...Qb6 appeared on his electronic chessboard. Yu Tian immediately said that he had not made the move and that the piece had moved by itself. What followed was a series of discussions and appeals which eventually resulted in Yu Tian being told to continue the game from the position after the disputed move. He refused and the game was subsequently forfeited.

At first glance, it might seem like a fairly straightforward case of a player claiming that he did not make a move and the organisers having to decide whether to believe him. But the report suggests there was rather more to it than that. For instance, the report says the account had been accessed on 20 August 2026 before the competition, and a tactical puzzle had been played on it. The initial reaction was therefore to consider restarting the game.

That decision was disputed by the opposing team, and the matter went before the Appeals Committee. The committee subsequently decided that Yu Tian should be given a new account, but that the game should resume after the disputed 12...Qb6 move. Among the reasons recorded was that there was no proof of third-party interference and that even a strong player could conceivably make a pre-move blunder. The Penang side then lodged a counter-appeal.

During the hearing, it was demonstrated that the same Lichess account could be logged in on two devices simultaneously, with a move being made from the second device while the player was playing on the first.

One thing should be clear first. This demonstration does not prove that somebody interfered with the game. It does not tell us who might have done so, and it certainly isn't evidence that someone actually hacked the competition. What it does tell us, however, is that interference was technically possible. And that, to me, is where the Appeals Committee's responsibility becomes important.

An Appeals Committee is there because somebody has disagreed with a decision and wants it reviewed. Its job is to examine the available evidence objectively, consider the circumstances and arrive at a decision that is fair to everyone concerned. But in an online chess competition, that may require rather more than a conventional understanding of chess rules.

When the dispute concerns an electronic board, an online account, simultaneous logins and the possibility of a move being transmitted from another device, there is another aspect to the problem. Someone on the panel needs to understand how the technology works, what the online platform records, what its logs can tell us and what they cannot tell us.

That does not necessarily mean that every member of an Appeals Committee needs to be a computer expert. But collectively, the committee should have access to the expertise necessary to understand the technical evidence before reaching a decision. Otherwise, there is a danger that something which is technically significant may be treated as if it were merely incidental. And that means fairness to both players. One player should not be unfairly penalised if he genuinely did not make the move. At the same time, the second player should not be deprived of a legitimate position simply because his opponent says he did not make it. The committee therefore had to balance the interests of both players while protecting the integrity of the competition itself. This is why I find the eventual reasoning somewhat unsatisfactory.

According to the draft incident report, the committee rejected the counter-appeal on the basis that there was no proof that another person had logged into the account and made the move. The conclusion recorded was essentially that whatever was on the board had to stand unless there was proof identifying who was responsible. But was that really the question that needed to be answered?

The issue was not necessarily whether somebody could be identified and punished for cheating. The more immediate question was whether the committee could be satisfied that the disputed move had actually not been made by Yu Tian. Those are two different things.

The absence of proof that somebody else made the move is not quite the same as proof that Yu Tian made it himself. Once it had been demonstrated that another device could technically make a move through the same account, I would have thought that the committee would want to look more closely at the available technical evidence before deciding that the move should simply stand.

Perhaps the evidence would still have led to the conclusion that Yu Tian made the move. If so, fair enough. But the committee should arrive at that conclusion after examining the evidence, rather than because no alternative culprit could be identified.

And this brings me back to the question of competence. In over-the-board chess, most disputes are things that an experienced arbiter can observe directly: whether a piece was touched, whether a move was legal, whether a clock was pressed, whether a player made an illegal move or whether a rule was breached.

Online chess introduces another aspect. The board we see on the screen is only the visible end of a chain involving an account, a device, software, a server and a network connection. If a player says, “I didn't make that move,” the answer may not be found simply by looking at the position on the board. There may be login records, timestamps, device information, connection records or platform logs that can help establish what happened. There may also be limitations to what those records can establish.

This is why I think the competence of an Appeals Committee for eChess deserves some serious thought. It is not enough simply to take the procedures used for conventional chess and apply them unchanged to an online environment. The committee must understand the environment in which the alleged incident occurred.

Again, I am not suggesting that the members of this particular committee were incompetent. I have no basis for saying that, and I don't know their individual qualifications. My point is that competence in chess arbitration and competence in online chess technology are not necessarily the same thing.

Perhaps this is something organisers will have to think about more seriously as eChess becomes part of major sporting competitions. Appeals panels dealing with online disputes may need people who are not only familiar with the Laws of Chess but also understand the technical workings of the platforms on which those games are played. At the very least, they should have access to someone who does.

There is also the question of the account itself. If the organisers had already become concerned that the account might have been compromised, surely that was something that needed to be resolved before Yu Tian continued using it in competition. The later demonstration that simultaneous access from another device was technically possible makes that earlier concern all the more relevant. Again, none of this proves foul play. But it does mean that the possibility could not simply be brushed aside.

I also think an Appeals Committee has another important responsibility: it must be prepared to reconsider an earlier decision when new information comes to light. An appeal should not simply be an opportunity to defend what has already been decided. If new evidence changes the picture, the committee should be willing to look at the matter again with an open mind. To me, that is precisely what an appeal is supposed to be about.

I appreciate that SUKMA is a major event and that a dispute over one game can hold up an entire round. But if we are going to have an Appeals Committee, then its role is not simply to keep the tournament moving. It is there for those occasions when things don't go according to plan, and sometimes getting the right answer may take a little longer.

What happened in this case may eventually turn out to have been nothing more than an unfortunate technical incident or a simple mistake by a player. It may also turn out that there was no outside interference whatsoever. I don't know, and I don't think the incident report allows anyone to say otherwise with certainty. But that is precisely why I think the Appeals Committee needed to be particularly careful.

There was an unexplained move, there had already been concerns about the security of the player's account, and a technical demonstration subsequently showed that the scenario described by the player was possible. Yet the final decision appears to have rested largely on the fact that there was no evidence identifying another person as having made the move. For me, that is not quite good enough.

An Appeals Committee should not be there to decide which player it believes more, nor simply to endorse the decision of the tournament officials. Its responsibility is to look at the circumstances as impartially as possible and find the fairest solution for both players and for the competition as a whole. And perhaps that responsibility becomes even greater as chess moves further into the eSports arena.

We are no longer dealing only with pieces, clocks and a board of 64 squares. We are dealing with accounts, devices, networks, software and online platforms. When something goes wrong, those deciding the dispute need to understand that environment and be prepared to investigate it properly.

That may mean rethinking who sits on an Appeals Committee for online chess competitions. Being a strong chess player or experienced arbiter is valuable, but it may not by itself be enough when the dispute involves technology. The people deciding the case must have, between them, the competence to understand both the chess and the technology.

I don't think anyone should come away from this incident saying that Yu Tian was definitely hacked. There simply isn't enough evidence for that conclusion. But neither should we dismiss the possibility simply because nobody has been identified as the culprit. There is a difference between “we have no evidence that foul play occurred” and “we have established that foul play did not occur.” That, perhaps, is the real lesson from this episode.

When two players are caught in a dispute and the facts are not immediately clear, they deserve an Appeals Committee that will give both sides a fair hearing, examine the evidence without preconceived conclusions and, above all, protect the integrity of the game. Because in the end, an Appeals Committee should not be there for one player or the other. It should be there for the game of chess itself.

Keeping online chess fair

In the last few days, a dispute has emerged over the eChess competition at SUKMA XXII in Selangor. During the rapid chess event, a game involving Penang's Poh Yu Tian became mired in controversy when he reported that a move had appeared on his electronic chessboard without him touching his mouse.

His protest went before the Appeals Committee, which did not accept that there had been a breach of the online system on the lichess platform. Instead, Yu Tian was instructed to continue the game from the position in which the disputed move had occurred. He refused to do so and the game was eventually forfeited.

I wasn't there, so I don't want to pretend to know exactly what happened or pass judgement on whether the move was the result of a technical problem, human error or, more worryingly, some form of foul play. But the incident does raise a bigger question: how do we ensure fairness when chess is played online?

Chess has always been a game in which the result should be decided by what happens on the board. But when the board is an electronic screen and the players are connected through an online platform, establishing what actually happened can be considerably more complicated.

In an online competition, the concern is not necessarily that a player might cheat. There is also the possibility of a technical failure, a system error or, in the worst case, someone deliberately interfering with the system itself. If a move appears on a player's board without the player apparently making it, the organisers need to be able to determine how that happened before simply requiring the player to continue the game.

This is why proper monitoring is important. A camera can show what a player is doing, while screen recording can show what is happening on the player's computer. But neither can necessarily explain what happened inside the online platform. System and platform activity logs, together with proper technical oversight, could provide a much clearer picture.

The role of the Appeals Committee is equally important. In a dispute such as this, its responsibility should not simply be to decide whether a player's complaint is valid. It must also ensure that both players are treated fairly and impartially. Where there is an unexplained technical incident, the committee should have access to whatever technical evidence is available and satisfy itself that the circumstances have been properly examined before deciding how the game should proceed.

After all, fairness must apply to both players: the player making the complaint as well as the opponent who may otherwise be affected by the decision. The objective should not be to assume that somebody has cheated or that the system must have malfunctioned, but to establish, as far as possible, what actually happened.

Most players, I believe, simply want to play chess and enjoy the competition. But organisers, including the Appeals Committee, have a responsibility to protect both the players and the integrity of the system. A player should not be left having to accept an unexplained move on his board simply because nobody can immediately establish how it got there.

That becomes increasingly important as chess moves further into the eSports arena. If online chess is to be regarded as a serious competitive sport, its systems must be robust enough to deal with both deliberate cheating and genuine technical problems.

Penang has a long history in competitive chess. We should not allow that reputation to be clouded by doubts over the fairness or transparency of an online competition. Rather than waiting for another controversy, perhaps this is the time to put better safeguards in place.

Technology has changed the way we play chess. It should not change the fundamental principle behind the game: the player who plays the better game should win, and everyone should have confidence that the game was played fairly.