FIDE Law Suit

[Gerard Killoran]

Just an update

from

http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/nigel ... xperiences

The current FIDE regime has been in power for well over a decade and a half. I honestly don’t think they are terribly serious about promoting chess in Africa. Their main priority is the crude exercise of power. To give a recent example: FIDE has chosen to spend the best part of a million Euros of FIDE money on a court case in Lausanne, this January, defending Kirsan’s appointment of five FIDE Vice Presidents, in 2010, when the statutes state that he can appoint only two “and no more”. Personally I consider that to be a disgraceful waste of money that would be far better spent on Africa (or anywhere else for that matter). If it were essential to have so many extra VPs, Kirsan could simply have appointed two and put a motion before the General Assembly calling for a change in the statutes. The million Euros of our money is being spent solely for the right for Kirsan to do whatever he wants, whenever he wants.

This would be fair enough - except Short fails to mention his own role in this and other law suits against FIDE.

[Stewart Reuben]

Quoting Nigel Short 'One of the main problems here is that senior FIDE officials don’t actually like strong chess players. They are at best tolerated and at worst actively despised.'

In my experience this is not so at all. In fact recently they have gone to considerable pains to involve the Association of Chess Professionals. What is true is that there is incompetence, especially in the field of formulating playing policy and sticking to it.

'Hence FIDE’s obsession with setting up arbiters’ seminars and the like.'

Well, maybe. It is natural for an organisation to concentrate on regulations. Thus leaving development to entrepeneurs with relatively little connection to the core administration.

What I find most distressing is this recent tendency to find ways of defaulting players. Rather than having games decided by moves played on the board.

[Jonathan Rogers]

This latter point of Stewart has attracted comment by SG.

On this occasion SG is wrong. The game in question went 1 d4 d6 2 c4 Kd7 3 Nc3. We will never know whether Black would have played 3...Kc6, for which he had been offered a reasonable amount of money by one of the many spectators. I still think that at the end of the day he would have more likely played 3...Ke8 and 4...e5.

[Stewart Reuben]

I didn't know at the time of my making the decision, about the bets. Since they constituted advice, clearly solicited, I was absolutely correct.

[Martin Regan]

Gerard K wrote:

This would be fair enough - except Short fails to mention his own role in this and other law suits against FIDE.

No Gerard, it is fair enough. Full stop.