Directors Reports

[Andrew Zigmond]

Andrew, I don't know what you know of the Kasparov-inspired and possibly financed legal action against FIDE which the ECF backed. Are you aware, for example, that the ECF granted Power of Attorney to Kasparov's law firm and then didn't hear from them; that a second legal case was brought in the ECF's name which the ECF Board didn't know about?

In my view the ECF should support neither Kirsan nor Kasparov.

I'm well aware of the CAS action that the ECF were party to (I contributed to the bad tempered thread that Carl was forced to lock at the time) and I agree that was a poor decision on the then board's part (not helped by the secrecy). However I feel that that the ECF should support Kasparov (or anybody) over Kirsan even if it is as the lesser of two evils. Your post seemed to imply that in your view Kirsan was the lesser evil.

[Angus French]

Andrew, I don't know what you know of the Kasparov-inspired and possibly financed legal action against FIDE which the ECF backed. Are you aware, for example, that the ECF granted Power of Attorney to Kasparov's law firm and then didn't hear from them; that a second legal case was brought in the ECF's name which the ECF Board didn't know about?

In my view the ECF should support neither Kirsan nor Kasparov.

I'm well aware of the CAS action that the ECF were party to (I contributed to the bad tempered thread that Carl was forced to lock at the time) and I agree that was a poor decision on the then board's part (not helped by the secrecy). However I feel that that the ECF should support Kasparov (or anybody) over Kirsan even if it is as the lesser of two evils. Your post seemed to imply that in your view Kirsan was the lesser evil.

Yes, but the point I'm trying to make is that there were two cases and that the ECF Board knew nothing of the second case which was raised in its name. I'll post some more about this shortly with links to the relevant documents.

I certainly don't prefer Kirsan over Kasparov.

[Andrew Zigmond]

And also just to clarify: I am anti-Kirsan but not powerfully so. I think the ECF should try to engage constructively with FIDE... If Garry Kasparov were to stand for the position of FIDE President, I wouldn't want the ECF to support him.

This was the quote I pounced on which I interpreted as slightly anti Kirsan and very anti Kasparov. If I misinterpreted it I apologise.

[David Sedgwick]

I should say: Good report from David and I'm sorry he's stepping down as the ECF's representative.

Thanks, Angus - that's appreciated.

I too know nothing of the second court case and I await your revelations with interest.

I do, however, know perfectly rational people who believe that the Ilyumzhinov regime is bad but that the alternative so far on offer (Kok, Karpov and now Kasparov) would have been or would be worse. I don't share that view, but some of the comments on this thread seem rather extreme to me. FIDE Member Federations are not electing a one man band, although I accept that it often seems that way.

[Roger de Coverly]

FIDE Member Federations are not electing a one man band, although I accept that it often seems that way.

Unlike ECF elections, you get a slate of candidates, so there's no way to pick and choose. Indeed the defector to the Kasparov team is someone usually associated with the numerous initiatives from FIDE seemingly designed to make life difficult for players, organisers and arbiters.

Presumably the lists won't close on potential candidates for some months yet. It's a issue where the timings would enable the ECF Council for once to express a view as to what level of support, if any, the ECF should lend to either slate of Candidates, or even to remain silent in the hope of another slate declaring later.

[Angus French]

that a second legal case was brought in the ECF's name which the ECF Board didn't know about?

It was established that CJ jumped the gun in giving ECF Board approval. It's also known the Board "forget" to mention the issue to Council for two meetings running. But what was the second case? The one known about is the combined approach of the ECF and Georgian Federations to CAS about vice-presidents.

There were two legal cases. Both concerned the matter of the appointments - at the 2010 FIDE Congress - of several more Vice Presidents than FIDE statutes appeared to allow.

The first case was targeted (incorrectly) at a decision of the FIDE Presidential Board and the second case was targeted (correctly) at a decision of the FIDE General Assembly.

The ECF Board knew about and approved the first case which was submitted to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) on 24 February 2011.

The ECF Board did not know about the second case which was submitted, more than a month after the first, on 29 March 2011. It also didn’t know about FIDE’s response to the first case – in particular the request that the case be dismissed as it was “manifestly late”. This is particularly relevant because the ruling on the second case was that it wasn't submitted on time.

The ECF Board didn’t know about the second case or of FIDE’s response to the first case because it had ceased to have contact with Kasparov’s law firm. The law firm had been granted Power of Attorney by the ECF Board and presumably had been left to get on with things and didn’t feel the need to inform the ECF of what it was doing in its name... Or could it be that information was passed to an ECF representative but then not passed on to the Board?

The relevant source documents for this are the CAS decision text – see points 18, 19, 20 and 23 on page 6 - and the ECF's timeline document. For the latter, note:

1. There is no mention of the second case; and
2. The statement: “The Board received no further communication on this matter, from White & Case or any other party, after the vote on March 1.” (FWIW, it strikes me as odd that this is against an entry dated 18 April and concerning the "Appeal Brief" - a document which, by implication, the ECF Board didn't see - and the fact that the Board didn't see the "Appeal Brief" was confirmed at last year's ECF AGM).

Nigel Short’s report to last year’s AGM only mentioned the result of the second case, the case which the ECF Board didn’t know about. Of course, one has to wonder how much Nigel Short knew. Certainly Board Meeting reports show that Nigel was asked to report back to the Board on the legal action. Certainly Nigel knew when the Court of Arbitration for Sport was having its hearing on the cases – he must have known this because he attended the hearings.

I think the ECF should be very wary about involving itself with Kasparov.

[Angus French]

And also just to clarify: I am anti-Kirsan but not powerfully so. I think the ECF should try to engage constructively with FIDE... If Garry Kasparov were to stand for the position of FIDE President, I wouldn't want the ECF to support him.

This was the quote I pounced on which I interpreted as slightly anti Kirsan and very anti Kasparov. If I misinterpreted it I apologise.

Well, I should have put the word "powerfully" in quotes as I intended it as a reference to what Nigel said:

I was reelected last year with a powerful anti-Kirsan mandate

[David Sedgwick]

that a second legal case was brought in the ECF's name which the ECF Board didn't know about?

It was established that CJ jumped the gun in giving ECF Board approval. It's also known the Board "forget" to mention the issue to Council for two meetings running. But what was the second case? The one known about is the combined approach of the ECF and Georgian Federations to CAS about vice-presidents.

There were two legal cases. Both concerned the matter of the appointments - at the 2010 FIDE Congress - of several more Vice Presidents than FIDE statutes appeared to allow.

The first case was targeted (incorrectly) at a decision of the FIDE Presidential Board and the second case was targeted (correctly) at a decision of the FIDE General Assembly.

The ECF Board knew about and approved the first case which was submitted to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) on 24 February 2011.

The ECF Board did not know about the second case which was submitted, more than a month after the first, on 29 March 2011. It also didn’t know about FIDE’s response to the first case – in particular the request that the case be dismissed as it was “manifestly late”. This is particularly relevant because the ruling on the second case was that it wasn't submitted on time.

The ECF Board didn’t know about the second case or of FIDE’s response to the first case because it had ceased to have contact with Kasparov’s law firm. The law firm had been granted Power of Attorney by the ECF Board and presumably had been left to get on with things and didn’t feel the need to inform the ECF of what it was doing in its name... Or could it be that information was passed to an ECF representative but then not passed on to the Board?

The relevant source documents for this are the CAS decision text – see points 18, 19, 20 and 23 on page 6 - and the ECF's timeline document. For the latter, note:

1. There is no mention of the second case; and
2. The statement: “The Board received no further communication on this matter, from White & Case or any other party, after the vote on March 1.” (FWIW, it strikes me as odd that this is against an entry dated 18 April and concerning the "Appeal Brief" - a document which, by implication, the ECF Board didn't see - and the fact that the Board didn't see the "Appeal Brief" was confirmed at last year's ECF AGM).

Nigel Short’s report to last year’s AGM only mentioned the result of the second case, the case which the ECF Board didn’t know about. Of course, one has to wonder how much Nigel Short knew. Certainly Board Meeting reports show that Nigel was asked to report back to the Board on the legal action. Certainly Nigel knew when the Court of Arbitration for Sport was having its hearing on the cases – he must have known this because he attended the hearings.

I think the ECF should be very wary about involving itself with Kasparov.

Thank you for the information.

I think the point you make is something of a technicality. The Board authorised proceedings before the CAS in relation to the Vice-Presidents issue (albeit not until after the proceedings had commenced) and that decision was then pursued through all available means.

It's not as though there were unknown proceedings on a separate matter.

[Jonathan Rogers]

... Well, I should have put the word "powerfully" in quotes as I intended it as a reference to what Nigel said:

I was reelected last year with a powerful anti-Kirsan mandate

But isn't that a fair comment? NS was re-elected very comfortably over a candidate regarded (fairly or not) as pro-Kirsan, despite this being in the immediate aftermath of the secret ECF legal action fiasco, which personally did NS no good and had led to one of his reports being rejected by Council. That suggests to me a powerful anti-Kirsan mandate in spirit, at least.

[JustinHorton]

I don't doubt that given the choice, English chess would opt for Kasparov against Kirsan in an election. I'm not sure it follows though that they wish the ECF to be a mere adjunct of Kasparov's election campaign.

Mind you, if they were actually asked it'd be an improvement on the circus that happened last time.