English Chess & the Little Englander mentality

[Roger de Coverly]

What an extraordinary question! In order to be considered for Delegate, you must be willing to put aside any notion of contemplating who might be the best candidate for FIDE President, and instead commit your support in advance to a "challenger to be named".

Not in the least bit extraordinary. Kirsan is a totally unsatisfactory President in the eyes of many English or UK players. Potential FiDE Delegates may wish to out themselves as Kirsan apologists or Kirsan supporters and exploit this as an electoral advantage or otherwise.

The ECF voting system leaves something to be desired, but the numbers of totally unaccountable voters is relatively limited.

So a three way question for the three candidates
Are you
(a) a Kirsan supporter
(b) a Kirsan apologist
(c) a Kirsan opponent

I would infer Malcolm as (c), Stewart as (b) and Lara as not known. The ECF's paper by Phil Ehr tries to be (b) but with a hint of (c) if as is likely FIDE doesn't behave itself.

[Lewis Martin]

On a more serious level, our leaders have in recent years asked us to accept that any opponent of Gaddafi or Assad could only be an improvement. How's that working?

An even more extraordinary question!

As an aside for the conflicts in question: have those leaders actually "asked us"? Not relevant to the thread, mind.

Are you suggesting that if Kirsan was "ousted" as President, then there will be numerous uprisings fighting for FIDE and the disbanded, and no longer united, chess federations have to fight for that control while there are many conflicts between themselves (see Gabon etc)?

[NickFaulks]

On a more serious level, our leaders have in recent years asked us to accept that any opponent of Gaddafi or Assad could only be an improvement. How's that working?

An even more extraordinary question!

As an aside for the conflicts in question: have those leaders actually "asked us"? Not relevant to the thread, mind.

Are you suggesting that if Kirsan was "ousted" as President, then there will be numerous uprisings fighting for FIDE and the disbanded, and no longer united, chess federations have to fight for that control while there are many conflicts between themselves (see Gabon etc)?

I'm saying that the blind assertion "anyone else would be better" has often come to be regretted, and not just in chess.

[Paolo Casaschi]

The ECF voting system leaves something to be desired

Quite an understatement.
A common suggestion is to try worrying about the issues you can actually affect rather than the one you can't.
Maybe the ECF should fix its representation system first before wasting so much time and effort in something that evidence has shown it can't affect. Looking at board meeting minutes, the time and effort spent around the FIDE elections looks disproportionate to, to say the least, to the time spent trying to fix the ECF representation issues.

[Stewart Reuben]

Roger de Coverly
So a three way question for the three candidates
Are you
(a) a Kirsan supporter
(b) a Kirsan apologist
(c) a Kirsan opponent
I would infer Malcolm as (c), Stewart as (b) and Lara as not known. The ECF's paper by Phil Ehr tries to be (b) but with a hint of (c) if as is likely FIDE doesn't behave itself.

That really is quite extraordinary. To imagine that there are only 3 options! Its a little like asking, 'When did you last beat your wife?'
Of course the answer in my case is NONE OF THE ABOVE.

Each issue should be judged on its own merits with a trend towards what Paolo just suggested: concerning myself about issues that I, or the ECF, can affect, rather than ones we can't.

[Roger de Coverly]

That really is quite extraordinary. To imagine that there are only 3 options!

How many options do you think there are?

If faced with three equally qualified candidates, is it not reasonable to find out where they stand on an issue critical to their position in the ECF? If Malcolm continues to endorse the views expressed in his editorial in the September 2014 Chess, it appears he would continue the public anti-Kirsan position as followed by Nigel since he first became the ECF's Delegate.

[Stewart Reuben]

Roger >How many options do you think there are?<
If you read my previous note, you would realise there are at least four alternatives.
(a) a Kirsan supporter
(b) a Kirsan apologist. Defined as one who defends by arguments.
(c) a Kirsan opponent
(d) a person who considers each issue on its merits.

Thus where Kirsan is wrong, e.g. the zero tolerance rule for all, I oppose him.
Where he has provided money from outside chess, I have supported him, though unclear about how much money has been involved since 1995. Every time he mentions the issue, the total seems to go up by about €5 million.
Of course, it is difficult to disentangle various FIDE initiatives from other FIDE administrators from those he espouses. Indeed, what is the point? FIDE is managed mainly by the PB. Each managerial decision needs to be considered on its own merits. I object to this this knee-jerk reaction that everything FIDE does is automatically bad.

[Mick Norris]

Interesting to see the Norwegian view
https://chess24.com/en/read/news/aulin- ... r-our-fide