Kasparov vs Ilyumzhinov: the FIDE Presidency battle begins

The very latest International round up of English news.
Mick Norris
Posts: 10328
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester

Re: Kasparov vs Ilyumzhinov: the FIDE Presidency battle begi

Post by Mick Norris » Tue Aug 12, 2014 8:14 am

There was a report on Radio 5 live this morning at 7:55 am for a few minutes
Any postings on here represent my personal views

User avatar
Paolo Casaschi
Posts: 1186
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 6:46 am

Re: Kasparov vs Ilyumzhinov: the FIDE Presidency battle begi

Post by Paolo Casaschi » Tue Aug 12, 2014 10:02 am

Roger de Coverly wrote:Stephen Moss in the Guardian

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/a ... f-comments
From this article there's a quote from M. Pein:
M. Pein wrote:But this was at the lower end of expectations. Ilyumzhinov got a lot of votes from third world federations whose support is kept in place by a system of patronage. It is very difficult to break through that.
This might be true, but it does not explain why the Kasparov side also lost the ECU election by a similar margin: do we have the same system of patronage in Europe as well?

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Kasparov vs Ilyumzhinov: the FIDE Presidency battle begi

Post by Roger de Coverly » Tue Aug 12, 2014 10:21 am

Paolo Casaschi wrote:but it does not explain why the Kasparov side also lost the ECU election by a similar margin
Had it been an ECF style election, with "None of the above" as an ECU Candidate, I'd suspect, at least as far as potential English opinion was concerned that "None" would be a firm favourite. Last time Danailov beat the unpleasant Turk with a penchant for banning arbiters and players.

There were several countries who regarded the elections as distinct rather than linked and made announcements to that effect.

User avatar
JustinHorton
Posts: 10364
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Somewhere you're not

Re: Kasparov vs Ilyumzhinov: the FIDE Presidency battle begi

Post by JustinHorton » Tue Aug 12, 2014 2:04 pm

Chris Rice wrote:Chess.com with an excellent report of the farce that went on yesterday.

http://www.chess.com/news/breaking-ilyu ... tions-4528

Clearly the electoral system is vulnerable to manipulation and so whether or not the election was free and fair, which is unlikely, its always going to be perceived that it was corrupt. But very much like the British electoral system if you are the dominant parties in a first past the post system as Labour and the Conservatives have been then what would be your motivation of going to a different electoral system where you would be at a disadvantage? That's what Illyumzhinov would argue I guess.

Even if you did get some buy-in for electoral change the incumbent would always get a major say in which alternative electoral system was used and Illyumzhinov would naturally choose one that benefited him the most while proclaiming that he's doing his bit on reforming FIDE.
Illyumzhinov may not be there much longer, but even if that's true, what's to stop him putting one of his cronies in place with the same tried and trusted electoral campaign model?
Tbh I can't see any light at the end of this particular tunnel.
Me neither. I don't really believe that any candidate with any team and any programme could have unseated Kirsan.

However, it's hard not to look at the margins by which the Kasparov side lost and conclude that it wasn't just a question of a stacked deck but that the Kasparov campaign itself was a serious proble, that it was found unattractive in various ways. Perhaps they found it bullying in tone, immensely negative in content and unconvincing in what it promised. Perhaps they found Kasparov a divisive, far too overtly political a figure, and for that matter with politics of which much of the world is fearful.

Come to that, they may have looked at the Leong deal (and not just the Leong deal) and concluded that the Kasparov camp was just as corrupt as the Kirsan people. Or they may have reflected that some people who were denouncing one another used to be best friends while some people who are now best friends used to denounce one another.

Point is that while in Kasparov-friendly places, the election gets presented in Manichean terms, the alien-lover against the human rights activist and so on, most of the world doesn't see it that way. And to a large extent they're right, because they're looking critically at both camps.
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

lostontime.blogspot.com

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Kasparov vs Ilyumzhinov: the FIDE Presidency battle begi

Post by Roger de Coverly » Tue Aug 12, 2014 2:26 pm

JustinHorton wrote: Me neither. I don't really believe that any candidate with any team and any programme could have unseated Kirsan.
In an interview with Danny King just before the vote, he reiterated his support for zero time default. Elsewhere he repeated the aliens story for the umpteenth time.

What ways does anyone see that he will removed, assuming by fair means or more likely foul, he will always control a majority of GA votes?

Campomanes was removed by what appeared an internal coup, so perhaps that's possible. If FIDE is now an offshoot of the Russian Diplomatic Service, Putin could dismiss him. As what's probably a long shot, enough Federations with a majority of the world's players could walk out, leaving him President but not responsible for organising any chess. As an even longer shot, players themselves could walk out supported by independent organisers.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Kasparov vs Ilyumzhinov: the FIDE Presidency battle begi

Post by Roger de Coverly » Tue Aug 12, 2014 6:21 pm

From the ECF website
http://www.englishchess.org.uk/nominati ... al-meeting
FIDE Delegate (Nigel Short, not standing for re-election)
Originally, a couple of days ago, it said undecided.

Andrew Zigmond
Posts: 2073
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Harrogate

Re: Kasparov vs Ilyumzhinov: the FIDE Presidency battle begi

Post by Andrew Zigmond » Wed Aug 13, 2014 12:19 am

Roger de Coverly wrote:From the ECF website
http://www.englishchess.org.uk/nominati ... al-meeting
FIDE Delegate (Nigel Short, not standing for re-election)
Originally, a couple of days ago, it said undecided.
He was on record as saying that he wouldn't stand again if Kirsan wasn't unseated in 2014. It's a shame; I didn't agree with Mr Short on everything but I feel that on the whole he has vigorously represented the interests of English players. Let's hope that we don't see a return to the Walsh approach to international chess politics.
Controller - Yorkshire League
Chairman - Harrogate Chess Club
All views expressed entirely my own

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Kasparov vs Ilyumzhinov: the FIDE Presidency battle begi

Post by Roger de Coverly » Wed Aug 13, 2014 12:26 am

Andrew Zigmond wrote:. Let's hope that we don't see a return to the Walsh approach to international chess politics.
It depends perhaps on who wants to take on the job. Plenty of opportunities for "troughing" as Nigel put it, but it might be hoped that Kirsan apologists would lose to "none of the above".

Jonathan Bryant
Posts: 3452
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 3:54 pm

Re: Kasparov vs Ilyumzhinov: the FIDE Presidency battle begi

Post by Jonathan Bryant » Wed Aug 13, 2014 12:31 am

Roger de Coverly wrote: It depends perhaps on who wants to take on the job..

Is CJ available?

Chris Rice
Posts: 3417
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 5:17 am

Re: Kasparov vs Ilyumzhinov: the FIDE Presidency battle begi

Post by Chris Rice » Wed Aug 13, 2014 8:04 am

Kasparov, after the humiliation of losing to an alien abductee, now focuses on demanding that Israel Gelfer be fired as FIDE VP for telling African delegates that they are lazy. http://kasparov2014.com/2014/08/12/shoc ... r-fide-vp/

Meanwhile Illyumzhinov makes a mega-boring victory address notable only for throwing out an olive branch to Kasparov. Maybe Kasparov could be a FIDE VP? Of course, a position would have to open up for that to be a possibility I guess...

http://fidefirst.com/?p=3602

Lewis Martin
Posts: 296
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 11:45 am

Re: Kasparov vs Ilyumzhinov: the FIDE Presidency battle begi

Post by Lewis Martin » Wed Aug 13, 2014 8:44 am

Jonathan Bryant wrote:
Roger de Coverly wrote: It depends perhaps on who wants to take on the job..

Is CJ available?
How about Roger himself?

Kevin Thurlow
Posts: 5821
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: Kasparov vs Ilyumzhinov: the FIDE Presidency battle begi

Post by Kevin Thurlow » Wed Aug 13, 2014 12:05 pm

"It depends perhaps on who wants to take on the job.."

Andrew Paulson?

"Meanwhile Illyumzhinov makes a mega-boring victory address notable only for throwing out an olive branch to Kasparov. Maybe Kasparov could be a FIDE VP? Of course, a position would have to open up for that to be a possibility I guess...

http://fidefirst.com/?p=3602"

Can't they just appoint an extra VP?

Chris Rice
Posts: 3417
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 5:17 am

Re: Kasparov vs Ilyumzhinov: the FIDE Presidency battle begi

Post by Chris Rice » Thu Aug 14, 2014 5:59 am

An article from the New York Times on Kasparov's defeat. There seems to be a growing consensus in the media, both official and social, that it was Kasparov's use of Twitter that cost him the election. I thought Mark Crowther's comment on TWIC was quite appropriate when he tweeted that if he had been in charge of Kasparov's campaign the first thing he would have done is disable Kasparov's access to his Twitter account.

http://6thfloor.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/ ... blogs&_r=0

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Kasparov vs Ilyumzhinov: the FIDE Presidency battle begi

Post by Roger de Coverly » Thu Aug 14, 2014 5:57 pm

The man himself has a parting shot at
http://kasparov2014.com/2014/08/14/the- ... -not-fide/

He's not over impressed by the Delegates, but the feeling perhaps is mutual as they declined to vote for him.

He does have a point though, as I gather not enough Delegates cared about various issues due to be discussed to turn up to make today's GA meetings quorate.

It's a problem which grows with every time the number of Federations in FIDE expands. The quorum required is half the number + one, so it's stretched well beyond those Federations with a respectable number of players, who might be interested in the problems of defining rules against computer cheating, awarding Academy status for junior training etc.

https://twitter.com/AndyHowie13/status/ ... 36/photo/1

NickFaulks
Posts: 8453
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Kasparov vs Ilyumzhinov: the FIDE Presidency battle begi

Post by NickFaulks » Fri Aug 15, 2014 7:40 am

Roger de Coverly wrote:
It's a problem which grows with every time the number of Federations in FIDE expands. The quorum required is half the number + one, so it's stretched well beyond those Federations with a respectable number of players, who might be interested in the problems of defining rules against computer cheating, awarding Academy status for junior training etc.
A roll call was taken, and I tried to keep track of who was there. It didn't seem like a small federation problem.

A lot of delegates seem to have planned to miss day four, on the grounds that it would all be over in three. They should not have done that, and should at least have organised proxies. Even so, they could hardly have foreseen the African sabotage which cost us day two or the voting shambles which cost us day three.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.

Post Reply