USCF (and ECF) v FIDE
-
- Posts: 2151
- Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 1:37 am
Re: USCF (and ECF) v FIDE
Malcolm did provide a report to the AGM - in printed form; I don't think an electronic version was published. See below for scanned pages.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
-
- Posts: 10364
- Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
- Location: Somewhere you're not
Re: USCF (and ECF) v FIDE
Thanks for that. (It would be nice to see it on the ECF website if such is convenient and possible.) Malcolm says he was "the most vocal delegate", which is an odd combination with not being there the whole session.
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."
lostontime.blogspot.com
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."
lostontime.blogspot.com
-
- Posts: 21317
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm
Re: USCF (and ECF) v FIDE
The editorial in Chess reads as an abridged version of the report presented at the ECF AGM.JustinHorton wrote:(It would be nice to see it on the ECF website if such is convenient and possible.)
-
- Posts: 2075
- Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 9:23 pm
- Location: Harrogate
Re: USCF (and ECF) v FIDE
I am assuming the accusations made in this thread about the FIDE delegate can be backed up with evidence. Are the roll calls where the ENG delegate was allegedly absent in the public domain (and given FIDE's track record can we rely on these to be accurate)? Has any senior figure from another Western delegation publicly criticised the ECF? In his report Malcolm refers to tapes of the meeting? Are these available? What do they show?
The FIDE delegate does not contribute to this forum but can be contacted (albeit in another capacity) through the Ask The Directors facility on the ECF website. If I had concerns about allegations made on an unofficial forum I know that's where I might start.
The FIDE delegate does not contribute to this forum but can be contacted (albeit in another capacity) through the Ask The Directors facility on the ECF website. If I had concerns about allegations made on an unofficial forum I know that's where I might start.
Controller - Yorkshire League
Chairman - Harrogate Chess Club
All views expressed entirely my own
Chairman - Harrogate Chess Club
All views expressed entirely my own
-
- Posts: 10364
- Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
- Location: Somewhere you're not
Re: USCF (and ECF) v FIDE
Give it a pop then Andrew, let us know how you get on
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."
lostontime.blogspot.com
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."
lostontime.blogspot.com
-
- Posts: 8472
- Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm
Re: USCF (and ECF) v FIDE
To me, the question is not whether the England team captain was taking breakfast with his team at the time of the roll calls - that is just an acknowledged fact - but whether the ECF accepted the free room for ten nights, plus travel subsidies, offered to delegates. If the ECF Board decided to do that ( how would we know? ), but then allowed ENG to be unrepresented at the roll calls, than I think they acted improperly. In my opinion FIDE shows far too forbearance towards federations which abuse their finances in this way.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.
-
- Posts: 5249
- Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
- Location: Croydon
Re: USCF (and ECF) v FIDE
You reported previously that on at least two days the General Assembly was only narrowly quorate. That would suggest that dozens of delegates were absent from the roll calls.NickFaulks wrote:To me, the question is not whether the England team captain was taking breakfast with his team at the time of the roll calls - that is just an acknowledged fact - but whether the ECF accepted the free room for ten nights, plus travel subsidies, offered to delegates. If the ECF Board decided to do that ( how would we know? ), but then allowed ENG to be unrepresented at the roll calls, than I think they acted improperly. In my opinion FIDE shows far too forbearance towards federations which abuse their finances in this way.
Do you consider that the Boards (or equivalent bodies) of all those Federations acted improperly?
-
- Posts: 8472
- Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm
Re: USCF (and ECF) v FIDE
Absolutely, I thought I made that clear. I would be furious if Bermuda did it. However, this is the English Chess Forum.David Sedgwick wrote: Do you consider that the Boards (or equivalent bodies) of all those Federations acted improperly?
edit : Does the ECF Board really want its organisation to be just one of the list of known freeloaders?
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.
-
- Posts: 5249
- Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
- Location: Croydon
Re: USCF (and ECF) v FIDE
So, if a delegate turns up for the roll call but then disappears for the rest of the day, then that is fine.NickFaulks wrote:Absolutely, I thought I made that clear. I would be furious if Bermuda did it. However, this is the English Chess Forum.David Sedgwick wrote: Do you consider that the Boards (or equivalent bodies) of all those Federations acted improperly?
edit : Does the ECF Board really want its organisation to be just one of the list of known freeloaders?
But if a delegate misses the start of proceedings but then represents his Federation vigorously for the rest of the day, he and his Federation are freeloaders.
-
- Posts: 10364
- Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
- Location: Somewhere you're not
Re: USCF (and ECF) v FIDE
Well, up to a point David.
I think I'd like my delegate to be there for the whole session if that's possible, regardless of what (say) the delegate from the Duchy of Grand Fenwick might or might not do. And if my delegate can't be there for the whole session, or for some reasons chooses not to be, I think I'd like to be informedthat this was the case, and the reasons why. Not particularly to make a fuss about it, but just because I think that would be normal practice for a delegate.
I think I'd like my delegate to be there for the whole session if that's possible, regardless of what (say) the delegate from the Duchy of Grand Fenwick might or might not do. And if my delegate can't be there for the whole session, or for some reasons chooses not to be, I think I'd like to be informedthat this was the case, and the reasons why. Not particularly to make a fuss about it, but just because I think that would be normal practice for a delegate.
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."
lostontime.blogspot.com
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."
lostontime.blogspot.com
-
- Posts: 8472
- Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm
Re: USCF (and ECF) v FIDE
Judging by the general occupancy of the hall, I'd say that delegates who make the 9am start do mostly stay for the full proceedings. They may not contribute much but, as proved in Tromso, their involvement, such as it is, is vital.David Sedgwick wrote: So, if a delegate turns up for the roll call but then disappears for the rest of the day, then that is fine.
I don't think I've ever come across one of them.But if a delegate misses the start of proceedings but then represents his Federation vigorously for the rest of the day, he and his Federation are freeloaders.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.