Should Nigel Short resign as FIDE delegate?

[Martin Crichton]

Should Nigel Short resign as FIDE delegate?

yes (you feel strongly enough or on balance that he should resign)

no (you feel strongly enough or on balance that he should not resign)

abstain

[Colm Daly]

If I can be forgiven for my intrusion into the internal affairs of English chess and my ignorance of English chess in general and any of the chess politics therein, I still feel that, as an outsider looking in, with no axe to grind against anybody in English chess, it is simply bonkers to even suggest that Nigel Short has any reason to resign as the English Fide delegate.

Far from it, English chess can consider itself lucky to have such a well known and accomplished chess player and figure within world chess, still willing to stay active and involved in the Fide delegate position.

Notwithstanding the chess politics and various views and notions people have about various developments in English chess, the fact is; that the current English Fide delegate clearly has the best interests of English chess at heart.

I don't know the man personally, having barely exchanged a few words over many years of just happening to be in proximity at various events over more than 25 years, be it an Olympiad, or international tournament, in some part of the world or the other.

What I do know is something of his views as expressed in various ways in various places. Some of which I would find myself agreeing with and others not. But in general at least he seems to me to be well informed, sincere in his beliefs and convictions, and genuinely coming at issues from the perspective of a true chess player with the primary motivation being that of a chess player pushing for the well being of chess players and the elevation of the game we all presumably love [at least most of the time].

One of the awful aspects to chess politics in general is the way so called "top chess players" are continually patronized and even disrespected, or at least misunderstood, undervalued and under appreciated as the assets they actually are. That is not to say such players should be give a free pass and allowed to talk down to the rest of any chess community or not have their ideas subject to scrutiny and when need be criticisms, but all too often there is an element in which so many so called chess players seem unable to stop themselves re actively and instinctively trying to have a go or take down the likes of NS or Kasparov.

Neither are angels I would guess, just human, with exceptional achievements, and ability in the world of chess to their credit. But also vast knowledge and experience that extends far beyond just "being good at chess". Does this mean that either are the ideal people to be at the forefront of an attempt to change things within Fide? Possibly or probably not, but at least they are putting themselves forward in a pretty open manner and engaging with the big issues within chess, all the while exposing themselves to every and any view from nutters, cranks and genuine chess people alike.

The issue for English chess I would guess is not Nigel Short or his role as the Fide delegate but far more searching questions about how and why it has arrived at the point it is at now, and then how best to proceed to act in the interests of the greater good of English chess.

Given the general apathy or indifference within chess generally in many western countries, the air of resignation about, and then the various overlapping and competing interests and personal agendas and ego's involved in a very complex chess community as is English chess, it is very hard to see a clear and easy path for progress. But at the same time there seems to be a heck of a lot of capable and bright people within the English chess community so I imagine things will somehow find a way to move on with some positive outcomes.

[JustinHorton]

my ignorance of English chess in general and any of the chess politics therein, I still feel that, as an outsider looking in, with no axe to grind against anybody in English chess, it is simply bonkers

Without prejudice to any of the particular views Colm subequently expresses, it is bizarre to describe a point of view as "bonkers" when by your own account you are not aware of any of the specific circumstances or past events that inform it.

[Paul McKeown]

Decent post by Colm Daly, whose sentiments may well be shared by all, apart from the cranks.

[Colm Daly]

my ignorance of English chess in general and any of the chess politics therein, I still feel that, as an outsider looking in, with no axe to grind against anybody in English chess, it is simply bonkers

Without prejudice to any of the particular views Colm subequently expresses, it is bizarre to describe a point of view as "bonkers" when by your own account you are not aware of any of the specific circumstances or past events that inform it.

Well Justin, fair enough, Ignorance of English Chess in general does not mean I have no knowledge of some recent and past events. I have been an active player for more than three decades and have even played in a few events in England (fond memories), so it is not so bizarre that I would be able to form a strong view on a particular aspect of English chess.

In this instance perhaps you are right to fault me on using such a strong and provocative word as "bonkers", but then if you quote the rest of the sentence "to even suggest that Nigel Short has any reason to resign as the English Fide delegate." I think that on balance I would stand by my description.

He [Nigel Short] was duly elected as the Fide delegate, has been in this role for many years, and, to date, nobody else has been able or willing to take this position? Open to correction on this last point- if someone has been willing to be the Fide delegate they did not manage to get themselves into the position anyway. So I assume it safe to say that Nigel was/is the person people most feel is best placed to be the Fide delegate. Though for all I know there may be many other far better suited people to be the Fide delegate? I confess I would not have a clue as to who else that might be, but I am thinking probably not Andrew Paulson. A matter for English chess community to decide upon.

The reason I feel it is bonkers to suggest Nigel Short does not have any reason to resign as Fide delegate relates to the specific context that has arisen just recently.

In any event, I must again plead forgiveness for my intrusion, it is just one outsiders perspective and I hope I am not causing any offense by just throwing in my tuppence worth here.

The issues are also of a general interest given the public chess profiles of some of the people involved, plus the English Chess Federation happens to be one of the more important chess federations in the world, or at least English Chess is one of the more important chess communities in the world. So naturally such dramatic and colorful developments are bound to attract interest from further a field. Though that does not give anyone [like myself] any right to feel free to comment on what really are internal affairs of a national federation. I only do so with the indulgence of people like your good self. If I caused any offense then I apologize.

[Roger de Coverly]

He [Nigel Short] was duly elected as the Fide delegate, has been in this role for many years, and, to date, nobody else has been able or willing to take this position?

There have been three contested elections for the FIDE delegate position in recent years. If I've remembered correctly, the first of these was in 2006 when Nigel challenged the incumbent Gerry Walsh and lost. He was actually part of a wider slate wishing to depose Gerry who was also Executive President and had been for a number of years. The next would have been in 2009 when Gerry Walsh had finally stood down as President but tried to retain the FIDE role. That was a narrow win for Nigel. In 2012, there was again a challenge, this time from Rupert Jones. This was widely interpreted as being a referendum about ECF policy towards FIDE, Nigel's opponent being regarded as a long term FIDE insider. Again Nigel won by a clear majority.

Every year the post is re-elected and there is usually a formal vote. In some years "none of the above", in other words a form of active abstention has had a certain amount of support in the election for the FIDE Representative.

How a candidate would have fared who wasn't Nigel, but was equally opposed to the current FIDE establishment has never been tested.

[JustinHorton]

In 2012, there was again a challenge, this time from Rupert Jones. This was widely interpreted as being a referendum about ECF policy towards FIDE

And perhaps as well for Nigel that it was, for reasons of which Colm may not be aware.

[Martin Regan]

What a curious thread. Why on earth should Nigel Short even contemplate resignation? He has the support of the board, he has the support of council and he has the support of the chief executive.

Now I can see why the President might vote "yes" in this poll, but who are the others? Really. Who are they?

[Paul McKeown]

Now I can see why the President might vote "yes" in this poll, but who are the others? Really. Who are they?

A few vested interests, supported by clueless donkeys, axe-grinders, the bewildered and sundry barmpots.

Next question?

[JustinHorton]

Well, I guess that if you fall out with the president and leder of your organisation, and he says that you should go, it's not actually at all absurd to suggest that you should go. One can disagree with this in the specific circumstances, or any others, but it's not in itself an unreasonable proposition.

[Martin Regan]

JH wrote:

Well, I guess that if you fall out with the president and leader of your organisation........it's not in itself an unreasonable proposition

Of course it is. The fall out was a consequence of the President's behaviour. If you are on a board and you discover that the Chairman of the board is actively thwarting the wishes of both board and shareholders (council) you only resign if you are found NOT to have done anything about it.

[JustinHorton]

The fall out was a consequence of the President's behaviour.

That's your view. It's likely Nigel Short's view. It might even be my view. But it's not necessarily everybody's view, and nor, realistically speaking, does it necessarily matter.

[NickFaulks]

It would be interesting to know whether the people who think Nigel Short should resign tend also to think that Andrew Paulson should resign. I'm guessing that can't be discovered.

[Roger de Coverly]

Well, I guess that if you fall out with the president and leder of your organisation

It's always been a bit ambiguous as to who actually is the leader of the ECF. Both Martin Regan as CEO and Gerry Walsh as President thought they were in charge. There was an attempt to clarify matters when CJ was elected, but he wanted a more executive role than had perhaps been envisaged. In practice, he mostly only involved himself with media appearances, the British Championships and International issues. When Roger Edwards was elected there was the motion by a couple of proxy holding members of Council telling him not to do various things in his election manifesto. As a consequence of this being voted through, he described his year of office as ambassadorial.

[Martin Regan]

JH wrote:

That's your view. It's likely Nigel Short's view. It might even be my view. But it's not necessarily everybody's view,

Meaningless gibberish which acquires meaning only if one accepts that viewpoints which ignore facts are as valid as any others.

To go back to the point. The only people who are voting yes in this poll are accurately described in a preceding post by Paul McKeown. There is no other credible explanation.