Kasparov vs Ilyumzhinov: the FIDE Presidency battle begins

[Mick Norris]

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.

Given the electorate's past form, I'm not sure I'd automatically make the jump to assuming that 'reason' or logic were contributory factors in this election.

The first question was whether to go for "safe" Roger Edwards or "risky" Andrew Paulson as ECF President - most chose the (calculated or otherwise) risk - OK, none of the above was possible, but it was clear that either Andrew or Roger would win

The second question (which most Council voters had to decide before the answer to Q1 was known) was whether to support Nigel as FIDE delegate or none of the above, and Nigel was thought a better choice than leaving it to the ECF Board

It is possible that some Council voters felt that NS & AP having opposing views was a benefit, thus allowing both sides of the argument to be aired within the ECF

My guess is most Council voters don't care about Kirsan, but would support Kasparov for the wrong reasons

[Chris Rice]

In the last couple of hours Silvio Danailov, the ECU President, has tweeted twice regarding the Chessvibes article he said that “Mr Freeman was probably not informed well. Now it is quite obvious that somebody lied in CAS but it wasn’t me” and “during the last EGA in Tallinn FIDE Executive Director Nigel Freeman attempted to accuse me of lying in Swiss court action about FIDE & Agon”.

It’s too much to cut & paste but if you want to get up to speed then click on the link below and go down to item 14. Legal matters.

http://www.fide.com/images/stories/NEWS ... inutes.pdf

[Roger de Coverly]

In the last couple of hours Silvio Danailov, the ECU President, has tweeted twice regarding the Chessvibes article he said that “Mr Freeman was probably not informed well. Now it is quite obvious that somebody lied in CAS but it wasn’t me”

If you Google Agon CAS, you come up with another chessvibes story. This was about the abortive attempt by the Bulgarians to prevent the London Candidates taking place.
http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/bulga ... -dismissed

This is dated December 24th 2012. Old ground naturally, but there's this little bit

Danailov finished his email questioning the legal status of Agon:

Who is the real owner of Agon? Obviously Paulson is a simple employee which he confirmed during the CAS hearing. FIDE promised to disclose who is Agon's owner after the ratification of the contract and again silence and nothing happened. Why?

Again if Agon is just a shell that holds the rights, which so far have proved of negative worth, is there another as yet unidentified Company involved? The Borg company which seems to have been involved in the actual practical staging is one of Kirsan's as far as anyone is aware.

[NickFaulks]

In the last couple of hours Silvio Danailov, the ECU President, has tweeted twice regarding the Chessvibes article he said that “Mr Freeman was probably not informed well. Now it is quite obvious that somebody lied in CAS but it wasn’t me” and “during the last EGA in Tallinn FIDE Executive Director Nigel Freeman attempted to accuse me of lying in Swiss court action about FIDE & Agon”.

It’s too much to cut & paste but if you want to get up to speed then click on the link below and go down to item 14. Legal matters.

http://www.fide.com/images/stories/NEWS ... inutes.pdf

I don't recall Nigel Freeman accusing Silvio Danailov of lying, and that is borne out by the minutes. He said that someone must have been lying, which seems rather obvious. Either the USCF instructed White & Case or they didn't. They say this information is covered by lawyer client privilege. It's not clear to me how that works unless you did in fact instruct them, but I'm not a lawyer.

[John McKenna]

Mick Norris>... My guess is most Council voters don't care about Kirsan, but would support Kasparov for the wrong reasons.<

That covers a multitude of sins and could be expanded on - in this context what does "don't care" mean and what are the "the wrong reasons"?

(Our benefactor, Carl, did say he wanted people here to stand up and be counted but it is not easy to say when you stand up which side you will be counted as being on because we have entered another fog of war in this battle as we did in the one for the ECF presidency. Also Nick Faulks has asked here for people's views about FIDE. So what follows is their responsibility not mine.)

Let me expand on my sins in relation to this matter as an example -

I care about Kirsan, he can't be totally beyond redemption as a person, he's Buddhist for *****'s sake and seems to care about the game of chess if not all those who play it. Whether he wins or loses in this battle I'll try to follow what happens to him.

I also admit to kind of supporting Kasparov because he would be a new broom even if he cannot sweep the FIDE stables clean because he is wearing muddy boots. He has tried to stand up to Putin but nobody can do that if the vast majority of the Russian people don't stand with them. Garry deserves a chance to show what he can deliver. Kirsan has had more than enough chances and he has delivered some good things but too often in a dubious or even, at times, bad way.

A word of warning? Andrew & Phil were also regarded as new top management brooms when caretaker manager Roger Edwards was perceived to be found wanting by some. I tried to keep neutral (failed at times due to innate anti-Americanism) during the ECF elections but after was prepared to wait and see what would Andrew & Phil would do in office. At first I did not see much (I thought they must be continuing Roger-style while finding their feet) although I gained the impression that things were going on behind the scenes - e.g. at least a team of women were sent to Istanbul even if it was not the strongest possible. In light of what has transpired I now think that organised chess (like football, etc) has become the mere plaything of the rich and powerful. Paulson in England, Filatov in Russia - it is the age of the free-booting privateer replete with Blackberry. By comparison Kirsan is an old-fashioned pirate with a parrot (Nick in the opinion of some here) and he knows where the treasure and the bones are buried.

And an old Scotch ditty for those who are thinking of changing, or have recently changed, sides -

It's good to be merry and wise,
It's good to be honest and true.
And, afore you're off with the old love
It's best to be on with the new.

Edit: Thanks to Mick (below) for his clarification in answer to my questions.

[Mick Norris]

The wrong reasons for supporting Kasparov are because he was a great player

The right reasons would be if you thought he would make a good FIDE President

I assumed Kasparov had no chance of getting elected against Kirsan, but I'm no longer certain of that

[Nigel Short]

To set the record straight: I am all in favour of the ECF having a closer relationship with FIDE - just not with the present incumbents. Kirsan is NOT FIDE - much as he would like us to believe.

Is that why you supported the legal action taken by the ECF against FIDE?

Yes. A FIDE President who rides roughshod over the organisation's statutes ought to be brought to heel, if not ousted from office.

[Angus French]

To set the record straight: I am all in favour of the ECF having a closer relationship with FIDE - just not with the present incumbents. Kirsan is NOT FIDE - much as he would like us to believe.

Is that why you supported the legal action taken by the ECF against FIDE?

Yes. A FIDE President who rides roughshod over the organisation's statutes ought to be brought to heel, if not ousted from office.

Though it seems to me that Ilyumzhinov was unaffected by the action and FIDE, the organisation, lost out financially (since they incurred significant legal expenses even though they won both cases).
I do appreciate that FIDE statutes were reformed as a consequence.

[NickFaulks]

I do appreciate that FIDE statutes were reformed as a consequence.

Really? Can you name one single change that actually makes any difference? That's leaving aside the fact that they were ignored before, are ignored now and will be ignored whoever wins in Tromso.

[Nigel Short]

The first statute change that makes a difference is that it is now established that the Delegate votes and not the President. The situation was completely unclear before.

[NickFaulks]

Well, yes, but that was just tidying up wording. I agree that was needed, but David Jarrett could have handled it perfectly well, without all the fuss.

[NickFaulks]

What the Presidential Board needs is just one person who looks as their decisions as they are made and asks "are we allowed to do this?". Not holding my breath.

[NickFaulks]

What the Presidential Board needs is just one person who looks as their decisions as they are made and asks "are we allowed to do this?". Not holding my breath.

A simple question, because I don't know the answer. Does the ECF Board have such a person?

[Jonathan Bryant]

A word of warning? Andrew & Phil were also regarded as new top management brooms ....

by whom?

I'm not saying that either or both don't deserve the label you give, nor that some/many or perhaps even most wouldn't agree with what you say. It just feels a bit sweeping to me. (see what I did there?)


And I'm going to assume the Kirsan/Buddhist reference was a joke.

[Rob Thompson]

Do I think Kasparov would be a good FIDE president? No.

Do I think Kasparov would be a better FIDE president than Kirsan? Yes.

I don't know how well this translates into actually supporting Kasparov, for good reasons or bad.