Kasparov vs Ilyumzhinov: the FIDE Presidency battle begins

[Sean Hewitt]

I wonder how many abstentions (or votes for "none of the above", if that's possible) there will be in the election (assuming no other "tickets" are put forward).

Votes for none of the above are not possible. One of the candidates tickets will be elected.

[JustinHorton]

Just to clarify, what's meant by "not possible" above? Is every federation obliged to vote?

[NickFaulks]

Not at all, but "none of the above" will not be on the ballot paper. There will probably be a few spoilt ballot papers, but there is no tradition of using abstentions to make a point.

[shaunpress]

The Papua New Guinea Chess Federation abstained in the 2010 election, as we were evenly divided on who to vote for. We did however hold a proxy and voted according to that Federations instructions. Of course this did not stop the BCM from reporting something completely different.

[Roger de Coverly]

The Papua New Guinea Chess Federation abstained in the 2010 election, as we were evenly divided on who to vote for. We did however hold a proxy and voted according to that Federations instructions. Of course this did not stop the BCM from reporting something completely different.

It might at a pinch have been New in Chess. At the very least it prompted the Streatham blog to have a go at someone or something that wasn't The Times chess correspondent.

http://streathambrixtonchess.blogspot.c ... -many.html

The New in Chess article contained reporting of alleged bribery.

Arriving from a long session with the African delegates, Treasurer Freeman expressed distaste for the way he had been obliged to do business. What did he mean - had they all simply walked in and held out their hands for a bribe? "No," he replied, "their hands were out before they came through the door."

If this doesn't happen, it's up to FIDE to attempt to refute it by taking action against magazines that report such stories. The problem is that establishing a story is factually accurate is a defence against libel even in the notoriously friendly to the wealthy UK courts.

[NickFaulks]

I had somehow missed that Streatham blog. Thanks for the link, better late than never. Graham Hillyard's article was evidently commissioned by the publishers on the basis that he should cause maximum offence to the greatest number of people, and as such it provided excellent value for his fee. I was particularly disappointed that he betrayed confidences of members of the team of which he was non-playing ( and, as it turned out, non-captaining ) captain.

Given the article's evidently scurrilous nature, I think all of those mentioned in it did the sensible thing by simply letting it pass.

[Roger de Coverly]

I was particularly disappointed that he betrayed confidences of members of the team of which he was non-playing ( and, as it turned out, non-captaining ) captain.

Is the report accurate though? Rewording it to remove the supposed prejudice , did a FIDE Insider actually say

Arriving from a long session with African delegates, Treasurer Freeman expressed distaste for the way he had been obliged to do business. What did he mean - had they all simply walked in and held out their hands for a bribe? "No," he replied, "their hands were out before they came through the door."

Those writing reports for magazines are not to be trusted, but if you don't want it reported, either don't do it, or don't say it.

[shaunpress]

The Papua New Guinea Chess Federation abstained in the 2010 election, as we were evenly divided on who to vote for. We did however hold a proxy and voted according to that Federations instructions. Of course this did not stop the BCM from reporting something completely different.

It might at a pinch have been New in Chess. At the very least it prompted the Streatham blog to have a go at someone or something that wasn't The Times chess correspondent.

http://streathambrixtonchess.blogspot.c ... -many.html

The New in Chess article contained reporting of alleged bribery.

Arriving from a long session with the African delegates, Treasurer Freeman expressed distaste for the way he had been obliged to do business. What did he mean - had they all simply walked in and held out their hands for a bribe? "No," he replied, "their hands were out before they came through the door."

If this doesn't happen, it's up to FIDE to attempt to refute it by taking action against magazines that report such stories. The problem is that establishing a story is factually accurate is a defence against libel even in the notoriously friendly to the wealthy UK courts.

It was actually both publications. I did contact the then editor of BCM about his story but he declined to print a correction, simply stating that it was 'old news'. And although New in Chess also refused to publish a correction, they at least published a letter (from Rupert Jones) pointing out the inaccuracies in their story. I did point out to Dirk Jan Ten Geuzendam at the time that it is no use keeping sources confidential if they simply lie to you.

But to bring this back on topic, what I saw in 2010 raises some interesting points. 'We all know' that all developing federations are bent. 'We all know' that all Kirsan supporters were bribed to vote for him. 'We all know' that only Western Europe/US/Anglo chess communities can be trusted to do what is best. I've even seen the media coverage to prove it. Except ... since 2006 (was not really involved before then) the PNGCF has never been offered any money or inducements to change its vote, the PNGCF delegate has always voted as instructed, and has never been offered cash or any other item to go against instructions, and various (western) media outlets have no qualms about publishing untrue stories, which are then accepted as 'proof' by their readership. Of course this is a single counterexample to what 'we all know', but I have yet to meet a delegate who I know has been paid off.

So when people bemoan the 'race to the bottom' campaign's we are seeing, have a look at the level of coverage of previous elections for a possible cause.

[Roger de Coverly]

'We all know' that only Western Europe/US/Anglo chess communities can be trusted to do what is best. I've even seen the media coverage to prove it.

Explain this though.

Proposition : Kirsan has been President for too long and it's time to replace him

Answer from Delegates : Find a suitable candidate and we will consider it.

So in 2006, a former businessman was put forward as Candidate. Result - rejected

In 2010 a former World Chess Champion was put forward as Candidate. Result -rejected

It's being going on since 1982. Why was Campomanes preferred to Olafsson?

PNG have to be complimented on having a reputation as not being open to inducements. It's dangerous to make such attempts as such a Federation could easily leak the approach to media. It should be the same with the ECF, whilst Kirsan has visited London, neither the ECF or the British government have ever featured in his photo album. Presumably British politicians are well enough informed to not wish to be a colleague of Saddam, Gaddhafi etc in being captured for posterity. It isn't a problem for them to be pictured with Kasparov.

The current ECF President is suspected as having a private deal with his alleged business associate to support the FIDE establishment. The FIDE Delegate is strongly opposed to this and has been threatened with removal. A dangerous game, since the same UK Company laws that could dismiss the Delegate could also dismiss the President.

[NickFaulks]

So in 2006, a former businessman was put forward as Candidate. Result - rejected

Indeed, how could anyone possibly vote against a former businessman? It couldn't have had anything to do with his dilettante team and lack of plan, it can only have been corruption. As for Karpov in 2010, he might have done better if he had given some impression that he actually wanted to do the job, rather than just having Kasparov's hand up his back.

[shaunpress]

'We all know' that only Western Europe/US/Anglo chess communities can be trusted to do what is best. I've even seen the media coverage to prove it.

Explain this though.

Proposition : Kirsan has been President for too long and it's time to replace him

I don't disagree with this at all.

Answer from Delegates : Find a suitable candidate and we will consider it.

I can't speak for other delegates, but I have even supported unsuitable candidates on the principal 'It is not a democracy unless you can vote against the incumbent'

So in 2006, a former businessman was put forward as Candidate. Result - rejected

The PNGCF supported Kok

In 2010 a former World Chess Champion was put forward as Candidate. Result -rejected

The PNGCF abstained - as explained above

It's being going on since 1982. Why was Campomanes preferred to Olafsson?

Because the chess world changed in the 1970's. More players in more countries began playing, and deserved to have a say in how FIDE was to be run. Those who oppose the "one country,one vote" system often overlook that at least 3 big countries (Russia, India, China) have supported KI in the past elections.
The other point that often overlooked in the wash up of FIDE elections is that a large number of Federations like how FIDE (the bureaucracy that is) operates, and are worried about what would happen if a new group took over. I'm not saying that KI is responsible for FIDE's good works (ratings, titles, development funding), as in almost cases he has had nothing to do with this, but he is seen to head a team who has made this happen. Contrast this with the Karpov (2010) campaign promise to fire everyone in the FIDE office, and you can see why Federations might be wary.

PNG have to be complimented on having a reputation as not being open to inducements. It's dangerous to make such attempts as such a Federation could easily leak the approach to media. It should be the same with the ECF, whilst Kirsan has visited London, neither the ECF or the British government have ever featured in his photo album. Presumably British politicians are well enough informed to not wish to be a colleague of Saddam, Gaddhafi etc in being captured for posterity. It isn't a problem for them to be pictured with Kasparov.

And while we have done the 'right' thing, I've yet to see any 'Not everything in FIDE is crooked' stories from New In Chess etc. Instead what I see are stories that conform to an existing narrative, campaigns based around that, and then confusion when things don't turn out the way people expected.

The current ECF President is suspected as having a private deal with his alleged business associate to support the FIDE establishment. The FIDE Delegate is strongly opposed to this and has been threatened with removal. A dangerous game, since the same UK Company laws that could dismiss the Delegate could also dismiss the President.

Never been a fan of 'lawyers at 10 paces', but I can't speak for anyone else (Disclaimer: I was in the company of Andrew Paulson when this story broke, and am aware of his side of the story)

NB This post isn't intended to support one candidate or the other in this election, but simply to (a) answer the questions asked and (b) explain things from a small federation perspective.

[Chris Rice]

Looking at the failure of Karpov's attempt three years ago (see David Levy's excellent article on why KI may have got so many votes) http://en.chessbase.com/post/echoes-of-the-election you wonder what's really changed to stop a repeat of this for Kasparov. There was around a 40 vote margin for KI in both the two previous elections which indicates that at least 20 Federations will have to vote differently than they did before. Is that really likely?

[JustinHorton]

Well, isn't that what Leong has been contracted to achieve?

I am impressed to learn that the BCM actually covered a story, by the way. I missed that one.

[Chris Rice]

Well, isn't that what Leong has been contracted to achieve?

Yes that's the only apparent difference isn't it? One assumes that they learnt the lesson from the previous election defeat and the clear implication from the Kasparov-Leong "nothing to see here totally transparent you must have been crazy to think otherwise agreement" is that Leong was hired to purchase the Asian votes on behalf of Kasparov. But now that's been blown out of the water, as its going to be presumably problematic for them to vote for GK without the inevitable accusations that they were paid to do so, what else can GK do to stop the KI juggernaut?

[JustinHorton]

Presumably British politicians are well enough informed to not wish to be a colleague of Saddam, Gaddhafi etc in being captured for posterity. It isn't a problem for them to be pictured with Kasparov.

Although