Kasparov vs Ilyumzhinov: the FIDE Presidency battle begins

The very latest International round up of English news.
NickFaulks
Posts: 8453
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Kasparov vs Ilyumzhinov: the FIDE Presidency battle begi

Post by NickFaulks » Fri Jan 31, 2014 1:30 am

PeterFarr wrote:there's at least one GM title application currently on the FIDE website that is highly suspect
That one has been noticed, and ticks all the boxes, but what to do is another story. Perhaps the chap really has decided to work hard on his game, or to concentrate on getting results rather than playing imaginatively. Perhaps he's solved some life problem which was damaging his chess. It's a terrible thing to accuse someone of cheating just because they're playing well.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.

PeterFarr
Posts: 624
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2013 11:20 pm
Location: Horsham, Sussex

Re: Kasparov vs Ilyumzhinov: the FIDE Presidency battle begi

Post by PeterFarr » Fri Jan 31, 2014 8:59 am

NickFaulks wrote:
PeterFarr wrote:there's at least one GM title application currently on the FIDE website that is highly suspect
That one has been noticed, and ticks all the boxes, but what to do is another story. Perhaps the chap really has decided to work hard on his game, or to concentrate on getting results rather than playing imaginatively. Perhaps he's solved some life problem which was damaging his chess. It's a terrible thing to accuse someone of cheating just because they're playing well.
Well that's true; it's actually not quite such an obvious case as the others, e.g., the tournament results are a bit freaky, but not totally ridiculous. One for further investigation by the commission, which presumably could be done discreetly, without naming names.

To go back to an earlier point of Nick's, that it's hard for FIDE to challenge the more powerful national federations; it's depressing that the serial offenders for Title manufacturing appear to be Russia and Ukraine. You would have thought that such strong countries have far more vested interest in having an honest system, rather than debasing the currency; they hardly have any need for a few more weak GMs.

Simon Brown
Posts: 798
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 8:38 pm
Location: Sevenoaks, Kent, if not in Costa Calida, Spain

Re: Kasparov vs Ilyumzhinov: the FIDE Presidency battle begi

Post by Simon Brown » Fri Jan 31, 2014 10:15 am

Nigel is playing Kevin Spraggett at Gib today.....

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 » Fri Jan 31, 2014 11:14 am

After reading Chess.com’s “big scoop” yesterday I must say I was rather disappointed. The only two new items of note were:

a. An apparent signed original document of the draft Agon-Fide memo; and
b. A statement that Malcolm Pein had said Andrew Paulson had mentioned to him that Kirsan was the major shareholder of Agon a couple of times.

On the first matter, the contents of the draft memo didn’t constitute a contract. It was clearly stated it was a basis for further discussion. Quite why Kirsan and Andrew Paulson would have signed it makes no sense at all. Perhaps they were just acknowledging it as a basis for discussion but at the end of the day it means nothing. On the second matter, its just hearsay, I’m sure Malcolm is relaying this exactly as he heard it but in what context was it said? Without a record of the conversation Andrew Paulson could easily argue he has been selectively quoted.

Now a growing number of people are suggesting that while the known documentation relating to Agon Ltd clearly shows that Andrew Paulson is the sole shareholder that there could be an undercover agreement or structure within FIDE to keep this all hidden. Now none of this growing number has so far produced an iota of evidence to back this up so I carefully stored those allegations in my “Bogdan” box.

For me this was all a bit of a red herring and it’s the actual signed contract between Agon and FIDE that was the important one so I went back to looking at that. If we start with the minutes of the meeting last October on Tallin then we see under item 4.5 (my italics)

4.5 . Agon.
Mr. G. Makropoulos informed the Executive Board about its activities.


Yes that was it, while most of the other sections had annexures with reports by the officers responsible this one had nothing. Now we jump to the commented accounts and we see at Annex 2 Supplementary notes to the accounts:

2.18 Legal Costs Agon 3,863 Euros (no explanation of what specifically this referred to)

2.31 Agon expenses: 14,600 Euros (no other detail)

and then we come to section 2.41. Why is this significant? It is because it is the section relating to write offs. Now we have been given the explanation that the $500K that Agon owed to FIDE under the agreement had been written off due to the move of the Candidates tournament from Chelyabinsk to London which begs three questions:

1. Why isn’t there something in this section which seems the appropriate one for recording it?
2. Where is the record of the discussion to write of the money owed to FIDE?
3. Was the agreement renegotiated in the light of this?

For the reason I ask the third question we go back to the minutes and see the discussion over the bidding process for the awarding of the 2014 Candidates tournament:

5.20.3. FIDE Candidates’ Matches 2014.

Mr. N. Freeman briefed the Board and said that there has been declaration of interests from Khanty-Mansiysk and Bulgaria, because the right to award the events belongs to Agon. …. He said that the Bulgarian offer is much larger than the Khanty-Mansiysk one, almost double. He also said that there was no deadline as it was Agon who would decide and we were talking with Agon about it but we were willing to give some time more to the Bulgarians to produce one or the other and then we will see after that.
Mr. I. Gelfer said that he understood what was said about Agon and officially Agon had the rights for this tournament, however, he warned that there were only five months before the event.
Mr. N. Freeman said that …. Mr. I. Gelfer is actually prolonging the time more than FIDE and Agon wanted to, as they said the Bulgarians should produce the letter in the next two or three days, otherwise the event goes to Khanty-Mansiysk. Then if the Bulgarians would send a letter from the Prime-Minister showing their seriousness, we would anyway tell them to produce the bank guarantee

Mr. G. Makropoulos said this moment, with the situation we have in Agon, we could make a decision, negotiating on behalf of them at this moment. …
Mr. G. Makropoulos proposed that provided the letter would be received as Mr. S. Danailov said, the event would be awarded automatically to Bulgaria, the contract will be prepared, all financial provisions should be included and we will go on. If there was no letter by the end of the week, the event would be awarded automatically to Khanty- Mansiysk. We cannot risk by postponing the decision further.
The Board approved the proposal of Mr. G. Makropoulos to extend the deadline by one week for the Bulgarian Chess Federation to provide a letter from their Prime- Minister.


Now we know the tournament was later awarded to Khanty-Mansiysk and there is no issue with that. But did you notice:

1. At the beginning of the discussion it was clear that the contract with Agon was still valid and no-one mentioned the missing money?

2. That nothing could be decided about the two venues because it was Agon’s right to decide this? If you look at the signed agreement it says at 3.1(a) Agon shall be the sole and exclusive organiser of each event... http://www.fide.com/images/stories/NEWS ... d_Agon.pdf

3. That during the course of the discussion Mr Makropoulos suddenly announced he had the right to negotiate on Agon’s behalf and suddenly any mention of Agon disappeared? This would be contrary to section 8.2 of the agreement which states Neither FIDE nor Agon shall represent that it has the right to speak for the other....

4. The proposal was accepted by the Board with no mention of discussing this at all with Andrew Paulson or Agon?

The above implies that there was (and perhaps there still is) some agreement between Agon and FIDE that we don’t know about because why else would Mr Makropoulos act in this way?

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 » Fri Jan 31, 2014 11:51 am

Chris Rice wrote:For me this was all a bit of a red herring ....
For me too - but perhaps for the opposite reason.


I'd be surprised if AP doesn't in a legal sense own 100% of AGON. It would be spectacularly thick to repeatedly go out of your way to make a point of saying something - as AP has - if it wasn't true.

But to me that the question of ownership really isn't that important. People (including me) were raising the issue not because they had any specific interest in who does or doesn't own a company, but because there was (and still is) an interest/concern in the wider and bigger question: what relationship was/is there between AP and Kirsan.

What the document has established is there was indeed a relationship. It might not have led to them both owning AGON, but there were clearly suggestions of the two of them forming a business relationship.

If you are wanting to be President of a national chess federation - especially if one plank of your campaign is establishing closer ties with FIDE - you really have to declare this stuff.

So when AP was asked, "who owns AGON?" he could have replied, "Me, 100%. We did consider a company jointly owned by myself and Kirsan, but in the end we decided against that" but he didn't.

I have to ask myself, why leave that second sentence out when you know very well that people are asking about your relationship and ties with Kirsan?

I also have to ask myself, can I rely on AP telling the full story about anything if he didn't tell the full story here?

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 » Fri Jan 31, 2014 12:04 pm

Chris Rice wrote:On the second matter, its just hearsay, I’m sure Malcolm is relaying this exactly as he heard it but in what context was it said? Without a record of the conversation Andrew Paulson could easily argue he has been selectively quoted.
There's also something else here that does not quite add up: Malcom has been very critical of the current FIDE leadership; why would he openly recommend Paulson as ECF president knowing that Paulson works fulltime running a company whose majority shareholder is the FIDE president himself?

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 » Fri Jan 31, 2014 12:11 pm

Jonathan Bryant wrote: So when AP was asked, "who owns AGON?" he could have replied, "Me, 100%. We did consider a company jointly owned by myself and Kirsan, but in the end we decided against that" but he didn't.
There's a Spraggett piece from four years ago where he records the rise and fall of Kirsan's previous attempts to set up Companies to raise sponsorship revenue on behalf of FIDE. In both cases, the FIDE President was the major part of the initial financing.

http://kevinspraggettonchess.wordpress. ... ip-crisis/

We know that the Grand Prix series after the London Candidates, the World Cup and the World Championship all went ahead even if not always at the pre-planned venues. With the exception of the World Cup, weren't Agon supposed to be running these? In the event it seemed some combination of FIDE, an agent of FIDE and local organisation/sponsorship was paying for the events and also running them. Even the Agon look and feel of "ChessCasting" was missing.

PeterFarr
Posts: 624
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2013 11:20 pm
Location: Horsham, Sussex

Re: Kasparov vs Ilyumzhinov: the FIDE Presidency battle begi

Post by PeterFarr » Fri Jan 31, 2014 12:15 pm

Actually, given that AP included closer ties with FIDE as part if his election statement, it was in some ways contradictory of ECF Council to also elect Nigel Short as FIDE delegate, knowing full well that he is a strong FIDE critic.

Presumably, people wanted AP's domestic agenda and assumed that the FIDE stuff didn't matter so much; or that Nigel could cast his weight behind Kasparov while AP continued to work with the existing regime. This doesn't seem to have turned out too well.

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 » Fri Jan 31, 2014 12:24 pm

PeterFarr wrote:Presumably, people wanted AP's domestic agenda and assumed that the FIDE stuff didn't matter so much; or that Nigel could cast his weight behind Kasparov while AP continued to work with the existing regime. This doesn't seem to have turned out too well.
Who knows what was in the minds of those who voted for AP. If your presumption is correct it would be a little strange, however, given that even during the time of the election questions were being raised about AP using the election as a stepping stone towards wider goals involving FIDE/international chess.

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 » Fri Jan 31, 2014 12:25 pm

Paolo Casaschi wrote: There's also something else here that does not quite add up: Malcom has been very critical of the current FIDE leadership; why would he openly recommend Paulson as ECF president ....
I'm not sure that he did. Look at the statement (published here during the election on his behalf) again.

PeterFarr
Posts: 624
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2013 11:20 pm
Location: Horsham, Sussex

Re: Kasparov vs Ilyumzhinov: the FIDE Presidency battle begi

Post by PeterFarr » Fri Jan 31, 2014 12:39 pm

Jonathan Bryant wrote:
PeterFarr wrote:Presumably, people wanted AP's domestic agenda and assumed that the FIDE stuff didn't matter so much; or that Nigel could cast his weight behind Kasparov while AP continued to work with the existing regime. This doesn't seem to have turned out too well.
Who knows what was in the minds of those who voted for AP. If your presumption is correct it would be a little strange, however, given that even during the time of the election questions were being raised about AP using the election as a stepping stone towards wider goals involving FIDE/international chess.
Perhaps, but there must have been some reason for the election of both AP and Nigel when they had such different views. Maybe it just didn't occur to people at all.

John McKenna

Re: Kasparov vs Ilyumzhinov: the FIDE Presidency battle begi

Post by John McKenna » Fri Jan 31, 2014 12:40 pm

PeterFarr wrote:Actually, given that AP included closer ties with FIDE as part if his election statement, it was in some ways contradictory of ECF Council to also elect Nigel Short as FIDE delegate, knowing full well that he is a strong FIDE critic.

Presumably, people wanted AP's domestic agenda and assumed that the FIDE stuff didn't matter so much; or that Nigel could cast his weight behind Kasparov while AP continued to work with the existing regime. This doesn't seem to have turned out too well.
Hi Peter,
Why just not think of it in the same terms as electing a UKIP member(s) to the EU Parliament?
John

PS A similar crunch to the one we are experiencing here, as chessplayers, may come politically after the EU elections in May.

PeterFarr
Posts: 624
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2013 11:20 pm
Location: Horsham, Sussex

Re: Kasparov vs Ilyumzhinov: the FIDE Presidency battle begi

Post by PeterFarr » Fri Jan 31, 2014 12:43 pm

John McKenna wrote:
PeterFarr wrote:Actually, given that AP included closer ties with FIDE as part if his election statement, it was in some ways contradictory of ECF Council to also elect Nigel Short as FIDE delegate, knowing full well that he is a strong FIDE critic.

Presumably, people wanted AP's domestic agenda and assumed that the FIDE stuff didn't matter so much; or that Nigel could cast his weight behind Kasparov while AP continued to work with the existing regime. This doesn't seem to have turned out too well.
Hi Peter,
Why just not think of it in the same terms as electing a UKIP member(s) to the EU Parliament?
John

PS A similar crunch to the one we are experiencing here, as chessplayers, may come politically after the EU elections in May.
Yeah that's very good, though you may have mistaken Nigel Farage for Nigel Short :shock: :D

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 » Fri Jan 31, 2014 12:47 pm

PeterFarr wrote:Actually, given that AP included closer ties with FIDE as part if his election statement, it was in some ways contradictory of ECF Council to also elect Nigel Short as FIDE delegate, knowing full well that he is a strong FIDE critic.
Unlike 2012, there was no "FIDE apologist" candidate standing against Nigel in 2013. Whilst there were some "none of the above" votes, I don't think there was any campaign or sentiment that the FIDE Delegate decision should be handed back to the Board for appointment.

That said, the arms length posting from Andrew Paulson hinted that he would put a motion to a Council meeting for the removal of Nigel from office. Companies Act law provides that if you can get the support of 5% of the voters, you can put up a motion to remove a director from office subject to having a valid reason. Although elected by the AGM, Nigel isn't a director.

Angus French
Posts: 2151
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 1:37 am

Re: Kasparov vs Ilyumzhinov: the FIDE Presidency battle begi

Post by Angus French » Fri Jan 31, 2014 12:59 pm

Jonathan Bryant wrote:
Paolo Casaschi wrote: There's also something else here that does not quite add up: Malcom has been very critical of the current FIDE leadership; why would he openly recommend Paulson as ECF president ....
I'm not sure that he did. Look at the statement (published here during the election on his behalf) again.
Malcolm Pein's statement on the ECF elections can be found here: http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=5939.

I note the following:
Malcolm Pein's statement wrote:Nigel Short points to Andrew’s business relationship with Kirsan Ilyumzhinov. I’ve no proof of this, but it seems likely to be the case.
So: how come Malcolm said in his statement "I've no proof of this" (this being a business relationship between Andrew Paulson and Kirsan Ilyumzhinov) but is then reported as saying something markedly different in the recent Chess Vibes article (http://www.chessvibes.com/leaked-agreem ... f-interest)?
ChessVibes article wrote:“Andrew told me on at least on two occasions that Kirsan is the majority shareholder.” The last time was “shortly before the ECF elections”, said Mr Pein. This was in October 2013.