Kasparov vs Ilyumzhinov: the FIDE Presidency battle begins

[John McKenna]

Paulo, you may be right about me but you also seem to suspect that most of the people you communicate with are the same. You know your stuff no doubt up to a point but unless you have the means to do it yourself it is a bit optimistic of you to ask here if anyone has done what you would if you could. This is a breaking-news story not a forensic investigation.

[JustinHorton]

you only need to have the full original email with all header info and to know how to read those info.

You might be right, Paolo, but I'm interested to know why you think so.

[Paolo Casaschi]

you only need to have the full original email with all header info and to know how to read those info.

You might be right, Paolo, but I'm interested to know why you think so.

Not sure I understand the question. The best answer is have is that, based on the little I know about email systems, looking to the full headers of the original emails sent with the leaked document might provide some more info for the gossip on the whole story. What did you have in mind when asking that question?

[Paolo Casaschi]

Paulo, you may be right about me but you also seem to suspect that most of the people you communicate with are the same. You know your stuff no doubt up to a point but unless you have the means to do it yourself it is a bit optimistic of you to ask here if anyone has done what you would if you could.

The main issue for doing this analysis is to have the original email sent with the original document. Some people reading this forum might have received such email or might be friendly with someone that did (Mark from TWIC, the guy from ChessVibes, Paulson) hence the question on the forum.

This is a breaking-news story not a forensic investigation.

So only gossip is allowed and actual information must be disregarded. Is this FOX News?

[David Sedgwick]

Goodness. It's almost as if that Paulson chappie isn't entirely to be trusted.

I don't see any reason to question Andrew Paulson's assertions that he is the sole owner of Agon and independent of Ilyumzhinov.

What an interesting difference of opinion within Streatham & Brixton.

[Jonathan Bryant]

Goodness. It's almost as if that Paulson chappie isn't entirely to be trusted.

I don't see any reason to question Andrew Paulson's assertions that he is the sole owner of Agon and independent of Ilyumzhinov.

What an interesting difference of opinion within Streatham & Brixton.

I'm Streatham Hill. Angus is Streatham Common (splitters). And don't get me started on what the Brixtons has ever done for us.


But as I'm here ... I'd be surprised if it wasn't true that Andrew Paulson is 100% owner of Agon. Why go out of your way to something that wasn't true? It's what he's not saying, that's likely to be more interesting, I think.

[JustinHorton]

What did you have in mind when asking that question?

It's OK, I think my question was based on a misapprehension. Sorry about that.

[JustinHorton]

What an interesting difference of opinion within Streatham & Brixton.

I can probably give an opinion that differs from both Jonathan's and Angus's if it'll help.

[John McKenna]

Paulo, you may be right about me but you also seem to suspect that most of the people you communicate with are the same. You know your stuff no doubt up to a point but unless you have the means to do it yourself it is a bit optimistic of you to ask here if anyone has done what you would if you could.

The main issue for doing this analysis is to have the original email sent with the original document. Some people reading this forum might have received such email or might be friendly with someone that did (Mark from TWIC, the guy from ChessVibes, Paulson) hence the question on the forum.

This is a breaking-news story not a forensic investigation.

So only gossip is allowed and actual information must be disregarded. Is this FOX News?

First, I'd like to apologise for misspelling Paolo's name above - I was in a hurry.

Next, 'actual information', which I take to mean facts, is almost always to be preferred to gossip. However, in this case what are we more likely to be given? All the 'actual information' is coming from where? Independent witnesses? The 'actual information' is all secondhand as far as I can see. For example (quoting Chris Rice from p.18 of this subject) -

However, by Morten Sand's own account he sent this draft contract to Mr Leong at his fide.com email address ie Leong’s work email address which seems an unbelievably stupid thing to do, given the contents. It’s legally clear that if you send or receive something using your work email then technically it’s the property of your employer. So it’s incorrect to say the contract was “stolen” and one always has to be careful in a workplace about what emails are sent or received as they are always likely to be monitored by IT administrators for spam and such like.

Whether the upper echelons of FIDE actually got to see this email is unknown. It could easily have been copied by an IT administrator and sent to the New York Times to make a few dollars. The mysterious Bill Warth may be connected to one of the IT administrators or more likely he does not exist at all. TWIC’s Mark Crowther certainly seems to think so anyway.

So, it would seem that - Morten Sand admits sending the original email, which Chris thinks is "unbelievably stupid" (one could ask why such a person would do such a thing), then there is some speculation until "mysterious Bill Warth" sends it (or a copy of it?) to the NYT having perhaps gotten it from a (FIDE?) IT admin.

Now it seems to me that Paolo thinks if some techie examines the email sent by mysterious or even non-existent Bill W then all will be revealed. Or will it just start to be?

But hold on a minute, the mystery deepens - later Mr. Leong seemingly admits that while in Tromso he asked a certain person, who asked another person, for help with his email a/c. I somehow don't think this looks like a quick clean solution to whatever we are trying to solve here is going to be forthcoming from an email. Who has the email we are looking for? Which email exactly is it that Paolo wants examined?

When you start digging for facts in a case like this you might hope for a quick and simple resolution but what if you just find you are taking the first step on a wild-goose chase? Time will tell which it is.

NB Look what is now starting to come out in the phone hacking trial and how long it has taken. Andy Coulson told the PM he knew nothing - others are saying the opposite now. Who do you believe?

I believe that Paolo wants to believe that a (circumstantial) email holds the key to this. I believe that people know far more than they will ever tell - until the time is ripe that is. Happy hunting!

[Roger de Coverly]

I believe that Paolo wants to believe that a (circumstantial) email holds the key to this. I believe that people know far more than they will ever tell - until the time is ripe that is.

I could speculate that the security on fide email addresses is not that great. Arguably it doesn't need to be if the holders of such addresses have some mutual trust.

That's an issue for the ECF Board as well. If a third party wished to discuss a confidential issue with a member of the ECF Board or even a holder of an ECF email address, how secure is it to use the ECF address?

It seems likely enough that the sender of the draft Kasparov-Leong contract was a made-up name. Paolo is speculating that the actual email might give a clue as to who was the sender.

Increasing the speculation, we have the story by the Sunday Times about Agon and the alleged also draft contract showing Kirsan as an Agon shareholder or beneficiary. Is it a coincidence that both the Morten Sand story and the Agon story emerged in the same week?

[Chris Rice]

The journalist who wrote the original article for the New York Times, Dylan McCain posted this, around 17 hours ago, on the ChessVibes site in response to an allegation that he "had been played" by FIDE:

First, I and The Times were not hoodwinked by FIDE or a FIDE official. I actually could not believe that a contract like this existed when I received it. It was only after Morten Sand, the lawyer hired by Kasparov, who drew up the contract, confirmed its authenticity that we went ahead with the article.

Second, both the original draft contract and the final version say that money is being paid for chess education and development, but half of it is contingent on the resutls of the election. In other words, the political result of the election is the key to the contributions, not education.

Third, the contract, both in its draft form and its final form explicitly state how many votes Mr. Leong is to provide in return for the financing. Does that sound like contributions for educational purposes? I'll let others decide.

Fourth, the director of the new Kasparov Chess Foundation Asia Pacific, that is supposed to oversee the distribution of the money for educational purposes -- perhaps even to Mr. Leong's Asean Chess Academy, which is a for-profit entity -- is non other than Mr. Leong.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, I am interested in and will report on any topic that I and the editors of The Times believe is relevant and important. I and they have absolutely no biases or predispositions about what we report or what the results of an election should be. I would like to know more about the sources of Kirsan Ilyumzhinov's financing and more about how it is he has been so successful being re-elected in previous elections. I have heard many rumors, but as a matter of journalistic practice, both ethical and legal, I cannot report on rumors. They must be substantiated by hard information in the form of documents, bank statements and/or on-the-record interviews with people who have intimate knowledge of a subject (meaning they are in a position to know, not just they suspect something). I always look for these type of sources, but they are not as easy to find as you and others may think. In the case of the contract between Mr. Kasparov and Mr. Leong, it was a document and it was authenticated. That is why I was and did report on it.

As I cannot do these sort of things without approval from higher up editors at The Times, you should realize that they agreed with me about the importance and newsworthiness of the contract.

[Nigel Short]

Of course the timing of the release was not a coincidence. The unsigned, draft Kasparov-Leong agreement emerged immediately after Paulson, Kirsan and others were contacted about the signed Paulson-Kirsan memorandum. Paulson managed to stall the Sunday Times for a week (His lawyers have been busy) by which time the other story, with vigourous peddling by AP, had got wide publicity. To a large degree, Paulson/FIDE have, so far at least, successfully diverted attention away from the main issue.

[JustinHorton]

The journalist who wrote the original article for the New York Times, Dylan McCain posted this, around 17 hours ago, on the ChessVibes site in response to an allegation that he "had been played" by FIDE:

First, I and The Times were not hoodwinked by FIDE or a FIDE official. I actually could not believe that a contract like this existed when I received it. It was only after Morten Sand, the lawyer hired by Kasparov, who drew up the contract, confirmed its authenticity that we went ahead with the article.

Second, both the original draft contract and the final version say that money is being paid for chess education and development, but half of it is contingent on the resutls of the election. In other words, the political result of the election is the key to the contributions, not education.

Third, the contract, both in its draft form and its final form explicitly state how many votes Mr. Leong is to provide in return for the financing. Does that sound like contributions for educational purposes? I'll let others decide.

Fourth, the director of the new Kasparov Chess Foundation Asia Pacific, that is supposed to oversee the distribution of the money for educational purposes -- perhaps even to Mr. Leong's Asean Chess Academy, which is a for-profit entity -- is non other than Mr. Leong.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, I am interested in and will report on any topic that I and the editors of The Times believe is relevant and important. I and they have absolutely no biases or predispositions about what we report or what the results of an election should be. I would like to know more about the sources of Kirsan Ilyumzhinov's financing and more about how it is he has been so successful being re-elected in previous elections. I have heard many rumors, but as a matter of journalistic practice, both ethical and legal, I cannot report on rumors. They must be substantiated by hard information in the form of documents, bank statements and/or on-the-record interviews with people who have intimate knowledge of a subject (meaning they are in a position to know, not just they suspect something). I always look for these type of sources, but they are not as easy to find as you and others may think. In the case of the contract between Mr. Kasparov and Mr. Leong, it was a document and it was authenticated. That is why I was and did report on it.

As I cannot do these sort of things without approval from higher up editors at The Times, you should realize that they agreed with me about the importance and newsworthiness of the contract.

Quite so. Well said, and shouldn't have needed saying.

[Chris Rice]

Isn't all this stuff about Agon a smokescreen?

The real issue - for me anyway - is what Kasparov and his team are doing to secure votes - an issue on which Nigel Short, the ECF Delegate to FIDE, has yet to comment.

I did a bit of checking with the Jersey company registry and find that Agon Ltd submitted an Annual Return for February 2013 (which they are required to do under Companies (Jersey) Law 1991) which revealed that the Number of Ordinary shares to be issued was 10,000. Of those 10,000 the number issued to date was two (both were issued to Andrew Paulson who was registered at a London address) and the total amount received for these was $2. It cost me £2 to get this information which means I effectively paid more than the stated capital value of the company. It does, if nothing else though, confirm though that Andrew Paulson is the sole owner of Agon Ltd.

All companies are required to keep accounts under Jersey Law but presumably as its a private company it doesn't have to make those accounts public. I don't know but certainly I can't trace any accounts for Agon Ltd on the company registry or anywhere else. If they don't exist its going to lead to further speculation that Agon Ltd is just a shell company and the agreement with FIDE is and was worthless from the start.

[JustinHorton]

Without knowing much about company accounts, presumably:

(a) there might be all sorts of good reasons why a company might have capital of only two dollars at any given time?
(b) it would be surprising if this were a permanent state of affiars if that company organised events of any kind?
(c) if (b) is true, there ought to be accounts of some kind somewhere, whether publicly-available or otherwise?