Kasparov vs Ilyumzhinov: the FIDE Presidency battle begins

[Jonathan Bryant]

The names of recipients did seem relevant ....

I agree. I think they were. Just to be clear, that's not an intended criticism of the moderation.

[NickFaulks]

I think AP felt that he is no longer able to post directly here

In what way?

Anything I said further would be speculation, and I do learn from my mistakes.

[JustinHorton]

Anything I said further would be speculation

Well that's kind of why it would be helpful if he made his own statements, isn't it?

[JustinHorton]

Can I add that I do not at all see why it is appropriate for Mr Paulson to pursue a legal, business and political dispute against Mr Short, one relating to FIDE, through ECF channels? If Mr Short is to be, or not be, the ECF's FIDE delegate I'd like that to be determined by the relevant electorate at the relevant time.

[NickFaulks]

My interests are narrow, and I would support any candidate who seemed likely to allow the QC to do its job running titles and ratings in a sensible and impartial manner, in accordance with the Statutes.

If that's your only criterion, I'll enter the race myself. Would Bermuda like to nominate me?

That might bring about a schism in the Bermuda federation, which would cause de Coverly more amusement than I could take. Seriously, if there is one person in the chess world less likely than Kirsan to accept that the Statutes should limit their powers as FIDE President, that person is probably Garry Kasparov. Campo never really got that either. Like the Stranglers said, something better change.

[Roger de Coverly]

I agree. I think they were. Just to be clear, that's not an intended criticism of the moderation.

I didn't pay that much attention to the list, but I think as well as the Board members, it included both the Chair of the Finance Committee and that of the Governance Committee. I don't recall whether it included the Company Secretary, which is relevant if there's a proposal that the voters should consider the position of the FIDE Delegate or for that matter a counter-proposal regarding the President.

[John McKenna]

Is there some reason why Andrew Paulson is incapable of making his own postings on here?

(This is no criticism of Nick Faulks, by the way. I merely observe that Mr Paulson is in possession of a login.)

I think AP felt that he is no longer able to post directly here

In what way?

Anything I said further would be speculation, and I do learn from my mistakes.

NickFaulks>Andrew Paulson has sent the following email to a number of key figures in ECF politics. As the final paragraph makes clear ( I'm not sure it does, but this was evidently the intention ) he is hoping that it will be made public to a wide audience ahead a possible legal mess. He has asked me, as a neutral observer*, to put it here, in case nobody else does. That seems like a good idea, and I do so without comment.

Board Colleagues,

I have tried to be informative, constructive and civil engaging on this issue with the Board. Nigel's behaviour makes this no longer possible and I will no longer be discussing it in any forum or with any of you, pending court action. I hope that this will allow us to get on with our important work, unfettered....<

High officials posting here do so at risk - the astute ones calculate that before deciding to risk it or not.

[Roger de Coverly]

This is a remarkably strong allegation. I trust Mr Paulson has reported this to the police?

Both sides should really look to their security. It is after all claimed that someone hacked Leong's computer or email or that of Morten Sand to get the draft Kasparov/Leong contract. There's also the pseudonymous leak of that contract to many chess journalists or websites. It appears that bastion of probity that it is, the Streatham blog is not privileged enough to be on leaker's email lists.

[David Sedgwick]

I didn't pay that much attention to the list, but I think as well as the Board members, it included both the Chair of the Finance Committee and that of the Governance Committee. I don't recall whether it included the Company Secretary, which is relevant if there's a proposal that the voters should consider the position of the FIDE Delegate or for that matter a counter-proposal regarding the President.

I didn't see the list, but I would have expected the Company Secretary to be included.

My understanding is that, in addition to Board members, ECF Board emails are normally sent to the two Committee Chairmen above mentioned, the Company Secretary and the FIDE Delegate.

They are not normally sent to the General Secretary of the Bermuda Chess Association.

[John McKenna]

David Sedgwick>... They are not normally sent to the General Secretary of the Bermuda Chess Association.<
The Gen. Sec. of Bermuda is probably the closest person you can get to an American at short notice in this storm.

[Roger de Coverly]

Nigel's behaviour makes this no longer possible and I will no longer be discussing it in any forum or with any of you, pending court action. I hope that this will allow us to get on with our important work, unfettered....[/i]

For someone who wanted to build bridges with "disaffected actors", it has only taken a matter of months for the ECF President to fall out with one of the more influential English chess players of the last thirty years or more.

[John Philpott]

David Sedgwick wrote

I didn't see the list, but I would have expected the Company Secretary to be included.

I can confirm that the Company Secretary did receive the message, but is not intending to concern himself with ECF affairs until he returns to the UK next week after finishing his holiday in Australia.

[Jonathan Bryant]

It appears that bastion of probity that it is, the Streatham blog is not privileged enough to be on leaker's email lists.

Indeed we weren't. Not that limiting the list of suspects to those who don't think very highly of the blog narrows things down too much.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I thought things had been a bit quiet around here. I may just follow the chess in Gibraltar instead...

[Nigel Short]

Andrew Paulson is entitled to post here if he wishes but, with the greatest of respect, Nick Faulkes is hardly the "neutral" person he claims to be. As General Secretary of the Bermuda Chess Association, he is very closely acquainted with a key figure in the drama, Nigel Freeman (President of the BCA and FIDE Treasurer), one of only two external members of the "Interface" (along with Georgios Makropoulos) who have access to the financial figures of the official
Agon-FIDE agreeement http://www.fide.com/images/stories/NEWS ... d_Agon.pdf which was passed by the General Assembly in Istanbul 2012.

If the secret Paulson-Ilyumzhinov memorandum were current, then Makropoulos, a beneficiary of the deal to the tune of 150,000 euros per annum, could scarcely be expected to be impartial. Nigel Freeman, who is not a stated financial beneficiary of the secret agreement, is thus the only person who could conceivably shed any light on proceedings. Alas, thus far, he has steadfastly declined to answer any questions on the matter.

Nigel Freeman also has also, thus far, declined to comment on Andrew Paulson's extraordinary claim to the ECF Board yesterday that

"AGON clearly failed and has vanished without a trace, as you all know."

Nigel Freeman is, of course, also the Executive Director of FIDE and it is extremely disappointing that in remaining silent, on a matter of great public interest, he is failing to discharge his duties.

In addendum, I was already informed several weeks ago that, in an unguarded moment, over beers in Bucharest with the Romanian Delegate, Ion Serban Dobronauteanu, Nigel Freeman gleefully explained that, with the election of Andrew Paulson to ECF President, it was now the FIDE plan to have me removed as ECF Delegate before the Presidential vote in Tromso. Needless to say the latest developments have come as absolutely no surprise to me at all.