The ECF President- position as it stands today

[JustinHorton]

Do I need to open a tweet account to read other people's tweets?

You can mostly follow by Googling if you want.

(So for instance Google "Ray Keene Twitter".)

[Sean Hewitt]

PS: Tech question:

I don't have a tweet bleat thing nor do I intend to get one.
Do I need to open a tweet account to read other people's tweets?

You don't need a twitter account - you just need to be a twit (I think that's the right terminology - or is that termiteology?!)

[Geoff Chandler]

Cheers Justin.

It worked.......

So I tried you, success! The avatar (you see I am hip, I know the cool words)
it's from the The Chess Mind. Yes?

No time to read it (the tweet not Chess Mind) but I did notice you only have 269 Followers.
I can make that 2,269 Followers if you send me $300.

[JustinHorton]

Cheers Justin.

It worked.......

So I tried you, success! The avatar (you see I am hip, I know the cool words)
it's from the The Chess Mind. Yes?

It is. Previously I had my cat sat on some of my chess books, but I'll make it up to her.

No time to read it (the tweet not Chess Mind) but I did notice you only have 269 Followers.
I can make that 2,269 Followers if you send me $300.

I could make it up to 2269 myself if I accepted all the spam-Followers I was offered.

[Alan Burke]

I reproduce one sentance from CJ's election address...

"I am very careful about what I say and prefer to say nothing at all than something that could prove detrimental if misinterpreted. "

So maybe there was already someone else pretending to be the President when comments were made regarding T-shirtgate !

[Alex McFarlane]

Be nice if Steve G. revealed what the "totally unreasonable pre-condition..." was that prevented the parties meeting?

I might be in a better position to answer that question. Quite simply, I was to apologise for my behaviour. Requests to establish which parts of my behaviour I was to apologise for went unanswered.

In fairness to Mike Gunn before he told me what the condition was he admitted that he was trying to get it removed. I presume unsuccessfully. I did offer a statement which contained an apology of sorts (difficult to do otherwise when you don't know what you've to apologise for and certainly didn't want such a statement used against you) to Mike but I don't know if this was passed on. I also stated that I thought the purpose of the meeting was to try to agree who was due an apology and who should be given an apology. As you can imagine it was very annoying to subsequently be told by Adam Raoof that he never had any real intention of attending a meeting.

I did have one meeting with AR also present were Lara and Dave Welch and two others. Apparently, as Adam informed the Board, some agreement was reached. This meeting took place in November. I still await his informing me what agreement had been reached. Requests for this have been ignored. Three of the 4 others at the meeting also have no idea what agreement was reached. Immediately following this agreement I was not reappointed as congress manager.

I concur with all those who say that homophobia should have no place in chess. It would be nice to think that the President could finally offer an apology to those he falsely accused of such actions or if he didn't make such accusations then to say so publically and fight to have his misrepresented comments clarified by the Sunday Times and Observer. Had he taken such action immediately we clearly would not be in the situation that we are.

[Andrew Zigmond]

If what Alex says is true then this is another mark against certain members of the ECF board. The questions raised are very straightforward a) what was Alex being asked specifically to apologise for b) what was agreed at this November meeting that three of those present don't know about and c) why did Adam Raoof enter into negotiations for a meeting in bad faith?

I have no mandate to demand an answer from Mr Raoof on this forum. However these questions must be raised and (apologies if I up the ante here) if Mr Raoof cannot answer them he should give some thought to his position.

[Ernie Lazenby]

Mr DE-Mooi and Mr Raoof are friends.

Not everyone is like me who acted for the collective rather than the good of an individual. That said who really knows what went on behind closed doors, certainly not the two people most wronged. Reading between the lines is relatively easy but thats brings forth accusations of conspiracy theories.

I cling to the hope that come the AGM the right thing will be done.

BTW It is very apparent to me that if we are to become a charity we are going to have to have a radical change in the way things are done. Having been invloved in an application to become a charity in another one of my interests I am not at all sure that we will meet the criterea. Thats for others to decide- me I am too old and worn out to get actively involved.

[Sean Hewitt]

More on the subject from the AEIC

http://stevegiddinschessblog.blogspot.c ... do-it.html

[Roger de Coverly]

More on the subject from the AEIC

Something that's getting odder by the day.

As we know the election address was published with an introduction on the CJ personal blog last weekend. It has still yet to become "official" by appearing on the ECF site.

[Jonathan Bryant]

To be honest, I was expecting CJ to withdraw, and he did seem to be preparing to do so. I'd be inclined to let him go with thanks ....

If CJ is to depart, then the ECF's contribution to his beano to Turkey (benefit to the Federation: not immediately apparent) is more than thanks enough, I would say.

[Jonathan Rogers]

Perhaps. It is true that this latest business about "a job in the chess world being possibly incompatible with other roles" is hint number 94 that he might be preparing a pretext for withdrawal.

The trouble is that we still have just as many hints the other way. The election "statement", the rhetoric about CJ doing the right thing and never being afraid to fight and his refusal to meet Alex even to look for any possible compromises, and his general love of appearing in the media all point towards it being very difficult for anyone - let alone an arbiter! - to approach CJ in the way Paul suggests. Whether you love him or loathe him, there is no denying that CJ is not a normal candidate.

[Gerard Killoran]

Oh, it seems that Kirsan and Kasparov are best of buddies again.

http://www.fide.com/component/content/a ... embly.html

So all that money and heartache was worthwhile - was it? So much for principles.

[Roger de Coverly]

Oh, it seems that Kirsan and Kasparov are best of buddies again.

It appears they have come to an agreement about the FIDE Statutes. Are we not still expecting Kasparov or someone endorsed by Kasparov to stand against Kirsan and the rest of his establishment in 2014?