CAS case clarification required

[Andrew Zigmond]

I’ve read much of this and associated threads in the year since Sheffield with an increasing sense of bewilderment.

I don’t know Andrew Farthing. But I have been knocking around the English chess scene for over 40 years and he is by quite some distance the most effective leader that the ECF (BCF as was) has had during this time. He has obviously been backed up by a number of highly competent individuals on the Board. It is a great shame that many of them have decided not to seek re-election for entirely understandable reasons.

I think the ECF was absolutely right to support the CAS action. It is a dreadful stain on the chess world that the International Federation is headed by a serial human rights abuser. Taking action on this should be the #1 priority of the ECF’s FIDE delegate, and I for one am grateful that Nigel Short has been active in this cause.

Best,

Peter

The CAS arbitration was on a point of protocol. It has nothing to do with the FIDE President seeking photo opportunities with dictators and being complicit in human rights abuses himself.

If you've been involved in chess for 40 years you must remember Sarah Hurst's campaign for the BCF (as it was then) to boycott the 1998 Elista Olympiad on human rights grounds. The BCF board and England's top players didn't want to know. The information is all there in the public domain.

[Sean Hewitt]

I don't believe that it's going to happen. If it does happen nevertheless, don't we just spend a period of time laughing about about it and thumbing noses until they change their mind?

Indeed, as it would be the deathknell of the current regime. Sadly, I suspect there is little chance of the proposal succeeding.

[Martin Regan]

It is a bit rich that those who happily call a man a liar on this thread should be outraged at being called a muppet in turn - and indicative of the general level of intelligence visible so far that they should take offence when the insult was not actually uttered.

But then that is how this thread manages to maintain its faux veneer of civility, this pretence of “debate” - A man is called a liar, but not directly, a man’s ethics are questioned but not directly, a board’s fiduciary competence is questioned but not quite directly. Yet the second anyone speaks directly …uproar.

Let me speak directly. This thread has been little more than a witch hunt - I use the phrase - precisely - cloaked in nauseous self-serving waffle about transparency.

The thread was predicated on the hope that CJ had acted either on his own or (God willing) in concert with Mr Short - this has proven not to be the case, but apologies come there none. Far from it, instead the “debate” morphs into the fact that the board might have negligent or dishonest, a “debate” powered by defamation and idiocy.

To sum up for the hard of thinking. The board acted within its powers. It carried out proper due diligence and it actions were as transparent as they could have been within the context of a legal action underwritten by a third party. They may not have been as transparent as some may wish, but you can, as Sean points out, address that at the election.

In short: the board has done nothing wrong.

This thread is a dead thread. It has ceased to be. It is no more.

[JustinHorton]

Curious use of "proven" in that post, but I am sure Martin will clarify, ah, "directly".

[Peter Sowray]

But this futile and self-defeating court case had nothing to do with replacing the FIDE President. Indeed it has made the possibility of doing so even harder. Countries who might have been won over to the 'cause' by persuasion will have been alienated by the ECF allying itself with Gary Kasparov and his shady American backers.

I'd take a guess that Nigel Short has never read How to Win Friends and Influence People.

Gerard,

We may have to disagree about this. I wasn't party, and I don't think you were either, to the reasoning behind the court case. My view is that the CAS action was designed to weaken the President's position.

Yes, it might have been possible to continue along the path of persuasion. But it doesn't seem to have worked in the 17 years we've had Kirsan.

Peter

[Adam Ashton]

It is a bit rich that those who happily call a man a liar on this thread should be outraged at being called a muppet in turn - and indicative of the general level of intelligence visible so far that they should take offence when the insult was not actually uttered.

But then that is how this thread manages to maintain its faux veneer of civility, this pretence of “debate” - A man is called a liar, but not directly, a man’s ethics are questioned but not directly, a board’s fiduciary competence is questioned but not quite directly. Yet the second anyone speaks directly …uproar.

Let me speak directly. This thread has been little more than a witch hunt - I use the phrase - precisely - cloaked in nauseous self-serving waffle about transparency.

The thread was predicated on the hope that CJ had acted either on his own or (God willing) in concert with Mr Short - this has proven not to be the case, but apologies come there none. Far from it, instead the “debate” morphs into the fact that the board might have negligent or dishonest, a “debate” powered by defamation and idiocy.

To sum up for the hard of thinking. The board acted within its powers. It carried out proper due diligence and it actions were as transparent as they could have been within the context of a legal action underwritten by a third party. They may not have been as transparent as some may wish, but you can, as Sean points out, address that at the election.

In short: the board has done nothing wrong.

This thread is a dead thread. It has ceased to be. It is no more.

Well said. I hope that is indeed the end of this thread. Hopefully the worthy discussion of how to proceed against FIDE can continue elsewhere.

[Peter Sowray]

But having decided to take action, why the secrecy? It took some while to get most of the facts even after Kirsan had himself revealed the CAS action. If it's that important, you don't just "forget" to mention it, particularly for two consecutive Council meetings.

The other problem is that it was only indirectly aimed at the FIDE President. Whilst FIDE's finances and those of its President are in some circumstances conjoined, there's enough independence for FIDE to be able to say that its ability to finance chess activity has been constrained by the need to spend it on lawyers.

Roger,

Yes, I won't defend the ECF Board's failure to inform Council. In fairness, the Board subsequently issued an apology / explanation, which I tend to believe although I know others take the conspiracy theory line. The meeting's focus had been on the Membership / Game Fee issue, it had obviously been a difficult meeting, the agenda was far too long, it was a cock-up ... it all rings very true to me.

Furthermore, I just don't think the issue was of much interest to Council. The CAS action had been common knowledge in chess circles since about July, so I'm sure that many Council members were aware about it. The fact that nobody asked the question from the floor is indicative.

Peter

[Peter Sowray]

Hi Peter,

We have met at the London Classic and it was a pleasure to meet you. I agree with everything you have said above with one proviso.

I think that you have to weigh up the pros and cons before you take action which has possible disastrous consequences for your own Federation.

I believe that FIDE should be united about how to proceed. The 'serial human rights abuser' was voted in by FIDE to be their leader. Rightly or wrongly, it is FIDE as a whole who has to agree on how to fix things. It has to be done in a way that does not mean that money is lost to solicitors (by anyone) and in a democratic and united way.

We are not the only members of FIDE. Surely all other avenues have to be exhausted (which must be to approach other member states and gain sufficient support to either vote him out or whatever the due process is to remove him) before the very expensive legal route is chosen? Surely, we can work together with other member states to achieve a common goal?

If we do not have the support of FIDE, then we have to bide our time and to talk to other delegates.

In addition, all the consequences of these actions have to be reviewed formally.

If the Council does not agree then, we have to be democratic and follow the wishes of our own Council. Rightly or wrongly, we do have to protect ourselves as well as to innovate and move chess forward.

Kind regards,

Krishna

Hi Krishna,

Yes, I do remember meeting you at last year's Classic and also watching with interest as your son Rohan played in the match against the Norwegians.

I won't be as blunt as some of the other posters on this thread, but I will make the following point. I'm sure that you mean no malice, but I find that the approach you and a handful of other posters have taken towards the Board has been unreasonable.

On the specifics of the CAS case, I don't recognise the disastrous consequences you refer to. I'd reiterate the point that it's been 17 years of Kirsan, so I'm not sure that we can continue to bide our time.

Best,

Peter

[Peter Sowray]

The CAS arbitration was on a point of protocol. It has nothing to do with the FIDE President seeking photo opportunities with dictators and being complicit in human rights abuses himself.

If you've been involved in chess for 40 years you must remember Sarah Hurst's campaign for the BCF (as it was then) to boycott the 1998 Elista Olympiad on human rights grounds. The BCF board and England's top players didn't want to know. The information is all there in the public domain.

Andrew,

You'll see from my post to Gerard that we'll have to disagree about the motivation of the CAS case.

Your point about Sarah Hurst is a good one and I had forgotten. In 1998 the full extent of the Kirsan horror was not clear, in particular I don't believe that the circumstances surrounding the murder of Larisa Yudina were common knowledge.

Perhaps the ECF Board and the elite players will want to consider boycotts at some point, particularly if other countries are similarly minded. I suspect a lot will depend on Yazici's initiative.

Peter

[Roger de Coverly]

The CAS action had been common knowledge in chess circles since about July, so I'm sure that many Council members were aware about it.

Those Council members who post here can speak for themselves, but if you go back to the very first thread in late November 2011 where this issue is raised on the forum for the first time, you will see various postings of incredulity about the ECF involvement.The Streatham blog shows much the same effect. I don't think either were fake. So we have an "us" of those in the know and a "them" basically the chess public, not in the know.

The thread was predicated on the hope that CJ had acted either on his own or (God willing) in concert with Mr Short - this has proven not to be the case,

That is far from proven. No direct evidence, but the context appears to indicate an approach by White & Case, Kasparov or his backers to the ECF through the offices of the President and the ECF's FIDE delegate. Everyone was careful up to a point to observe the necessary formalities. But is it really claimed that the sequence of events went
(a) ECF Directors - Let's take legal action against FIDE on CAS about Vice-Presidents
(b) We haven't got any money
(c) Let's ask Kasparov for some ?

The ECF CEO admitted that he hadn't even heard of CAS before January 2011. Evidently he hadn't been aware of the ECF's indirect support of the attempt through CAS to disqualify Kirsan's ticket.

[Peter Sowray]

Well said. I hope that is indeed the end of this thread. Hopefully the worthy discussion of how to proceed against FIDE can continue elsewhere.

Adam,

Yes, of course you're right.

I'll shut up now.

Goodnight.

Peter

[Paolo Casaschi]

At the General Assembly, it was reported that many European federations were pro-Karpov, but many African federations were pro-Ilyumzhinov. I've no idea if this is true: I wasn't there.

For what is worth, the site supporting Kirsan still has the list of their supporters http://www.onefide.com/supporters/
The countries not listed there either supported Karpov or expressed no intentions prior to the elections.
There were a couple of "controversies" about claimed support, but the site above should give you an idea of the geographical spread.

[JustinHorton]

if you go back to the very first thread in late November 2011 where this issue is raised on the forum for the first time, you will see various postings of incredulity about the ECF involvement.The Streatham blog shows much the same effect. I don't think either were fake. So we have an "us" of those in the know and a "them" basically the chess public, not in the know.

I'd certainly not heard about it before it was mentioned on here, but that doesn't really prove anything, since if you can't be out of touch living in rural Spain, where can you be? But I've not seen any evidence to suggest that it was known in English chess at all before it it was spotted (if I remember rightly) in FIDE documents and mentioned here. I mean of course this or that individual may have known about it - in retrospect that would hardly be surprising since it had been going since February. But it hadn't filtered through to the general chess public, even those who are interested in such things. Unless anybody can show me otherwise.

[Mike Truran]

Adam,

Yes, of course you're right.

I'll shut up now.

Goodnight.

Peter

Roger,

Yes, of course you're right.

But you're such a sanctimoneous and self-righteous p***k.

I'll shut up now.

Goodnight.

Mike

PS Carl - feel free to ban me. I don't really care.

[Warren Kingston]

Not sure it all matters, does it?
We are watching the Olympics.