Kasparov vs Ilyumzhinov: the FIDE Presidency battle begins

[JustinHorton]

as its going to be presumably problematic for them to vote for GK without the inevitable accusations that they were paid to do so

Maybe. Maybe they'll vote for Kasparov anyway, for good reasons or bad. I'd want convincing that the NYT story will make any difference to the ultimate outcome.

[Peter Sowray]

The PNGCF abstained - as explained above

Shame

[Angus French]

The PNGCF abstained - as explained above

Shame

?

[Angus French]

The current ECF President is suspected as having a private deal with his alleged business associate to support the FIDE establishment.

By whom is the current ECF President suspected and with what credible evidence? You don't actually believe this do you, Roger?

[Roger de Coverly]

By whom is the current ECF President suspected and with what credible evidence? You don't actually believe this do you, Roger?

The answer to your first question is by Nigel Short in a comment on the Streatham blog. The only available evidence is the signed draft, which isn't corroborated as having been implemented by the investigations into the ownership structure of Agon in Jersey. Someone whether Agon or FIDE was discussing shared ownership formats, as otherwise there wouldn't have been a document to leak. The Global Chess company incorporated in the UAE fits in somewhere, but its ownership and financing are unlikely to be available, other than in announcements by FIDE, which stated that it was owned and financed by Kirsan.

It may be possible for Agon to be a shell holding the rights, but with financing, ownership and any eventual profits from successful sponsorship emerging in Global Chess. It's a brick wall without an insight into how the London events in particular were financed.

If you are the wealthy President of a world sporting or cultural body, you may feel a need to help finance events it organises. It's wrong, is it not, to even contemplate signing over its intellectual property to a Company part owned by yourself with a view to taking a profit share for yourself and your associates?

The domestic issue is that AP gave the impression during the ECF election campaign that he was at arms length from FIDE, Kirsan in particular. We now learn that he was at least contemplating having Kirsan as a business and financing partner. There's evidently been a row between AP and Nigel under the surface for some months, brought into the open by the leaks. This may account for the lack of public progress by the ECF on a number of issues and the three month silence in reporting Board meetings and actions.

[Roger de Coverly]

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. .

Actually I'm reminded that at the time, it was thought courageous to even challenge Kirsan's rule by forcing an election. The previous attempts by Leong and Sand had either been frightened off or bought off.

(edit) Biased Western media again, but here's a link to a Kingpin article on the subject.
http://www.kingpinchess.net/2009/02/saddams-friend/

He's obviously now changed sides, but what of this observation discussing the 2002 non-election?

The campaign did not last long. Leong withdrew his challenge in September, in a deal where he and Sand would receive FIDE vice-presidencies on Ilyumzhinov’s ticket. I wrote to Sand to ask him what was going on. He replied:

“It is a classical conflict: should we stay out of activities we disagree with or should we try to work ‘inside’. FIDE consists of 160 federations and the easy way out is to say we do not want to participate. There is a 25-year tradition in FIDE for buying elections and we know that Kirsan easily could (and would) do this if necessary. Ignatius and I want changes in FIDE and to achieve this there is no other way than getting inside. Unless someone tries there will be no change.”

[Chris Rice]

There's evidently been a row between AP and Nigel under the surface for some months, brought into the open by the leaks. This may account for the lack of public progress by the ECF on a number of issues and the three month silence in reporting Board meetings and actions.

Chessdom in the interview with AP which appeared on December 6, 2013 asked the following:

Chessdom: The former world champion Garry Kasparov is challenging Kirsan Ilyumzhinov for the post of FIDE President. What is your opinion about the elections in FIDE?

Andrew Paulson: When I was standing for the Presidency of the ECF, I was surprised by the extent to which certain issues polarised vocal members of the community: it was clear that there were some litmus tests that I would have to pass, some might say that there was even an ‘enemies list’ I would have to eschew if not deny. Certainly Kirsan Ilyumzhinov was at the top of their list, closely followed by Ray Keene, CJ de Mooi, Ali Yazici, FIDE itself. Evil personified. The stuff of tales (chess-playing) parents tell their children in the dark of night to scare them onto the straight and narrow.
As an example, my friend Nigel Short who knows me rather well first averred that he would support my candidacy on the condition that I didn’t interfere with his voting for Kasparov. I confirmed this (his vote is determined by the Board, not the President). Then, he upped the requirement that I would not support Ilyumzhinov in the election. I confirmed this in writing saying that I would advocate abstention as neither candidate impressed me. Then Nigel upped his requirement even further, insisting that I attack Ilyumzhinov and support Kasparov. I refused (this is not appropriate behaviour for the President of the ECF). He denounced me.
However, Nigel made a very good (though arguable) point: in a democracy, you don’t vote for the good, you vote for the best you’ve got. For Nigel, even if Garry was highly problematic, he was not the diabolical Kirsan! When Garry Kasparov announced his candidacy for the Presidency of FIDE, most people questioned his competence for this position, but rather than thinking about this very seriously, quickly jumped to the conclusion that as bad as Kasparov might be, Kirsan was worse. Maybe.
This is the situation we have to study over the coming 9 months. Both sides are going to make their cases. Both sides have bullet point position papers and talking points defending their candidate and attacking their opponent. I will remain clear-eyed, consider the consequences of our vote, and try to lead the ECF to make the right decision as to how to vote. Nigel has convinced me: we will not abstain!

Difficult to see whether they were still on speaking terms even at that time but the leaks certainly seem to convince Nigel Short that AP was plotting against Kasparov?

[Roger de Coverly]

It isn't just supposedly biased Western media who accuse the FIDE President of vote-rigging.

Take this report from 1996 by the German President and Delegate.
http://archive.is/uHQ6f

The FIDE Election

We came to Yerewan very confident. The cooperation between Europeans and Americans after the Utrecht meeting hat led to a strong ticket headed by Jaime Sunye Neto, we were convinced our team had a good chance to win the election and to achieve the necessary changes in FIDE. Just arrived we had to register the elections were already lost. The support we had hoped for from the African and the Latin-American federations with their many delegates failed. There were different reasons, but the decisive reason in my opinion was President Kirsan Iljumzhinov using his money to impress delegates. Some examples:

The President had separate meetings with all teams and asked players for their problems and troubles. Each player got presents from him, among them a can of caviar, a bottle of vodka "Kirsan", sunglasses and a watch. Even our German players were impressed by this action.

For all delegates the President announced a blitz tournament after the prizegiving ceremony of the Chessolympiad and offered a prizefunds of US$ 10.000. Winner of this blitz tournament was Kouatly ahead of Sunye Neto, both his opponents in election.

There were many federations without voting rights because of more than two years' arrears. At the beginning of the Congress nearly all of the debts had been paid.

A Latin-American delegate who had given an unrevocable proxy to us suddenly appeared at Yerewan and told us, he had been called by Mr. Campomanes who asked for his proxy. When he heard the proxy had been given to the Sunye Neto ticket he invited the delegate to come to Yerewan and to vote himself, he would pay for the ticket and the hotel. Of course he had to support Iljumzhinov; he was to receive the payment after the election.

This campaigning for Iljumzhinov was done by Campomanes and by Makropoulos. We could not and would not campaign this way, but lost our support more and more.

I'm tempted to say that nothing has changed other than the apparent willingness of the Kasparov campaign to use the Campomanes approach.

[NickFaulks]

It's worth reading the article, rather than just than just Roger's selected highlights.

I couldn't make out what was going on in Yerevan, and I was there. The soldiers, tanks and demonstrators made an interesting backdrop. Off topic, I have to say that the Armenians somehow managed to organise one of the better Olympiads.

There was a great deal of changing of sides, and it is interesting to se how many of the central figures on all sides are still around today. One point on which I have never been clear is how the USCF's Steve Doyle, who arrived determined to unseat Kirsan, left as one of his Vice Presidents.

[Roger de Coverly]

One point on which I have never been clear is how the USCF's Steve Doyle, who arrived determined to unseat Kirsan, left as one of his Vice Presidents.

Opinions were perhaps less polarised in those days. It was a standard Kirsan ploy to defuse opposition by offering them apparent power sharing in the form of a vice presidency. That was even offered to Karpov in 2010, who turned it down.

It's the dilemma mentioned by Sand about the 2002 election. If faced with an unsatisfactory international body or its leaders, do you try to work within the system or just boycott any contact or engagement with it?

This was before Kirsan, supported by Delegates from smaller Federations, started tampering with the Laws and conditions under which the players compete.

[Angus French]

It's the dilemma mentioned by Sand about the 2002 election. If faced with an unsatisfactory international body or its leaders, do you try to work within the system or just boycott any contact or engagement with it?

Later, Kasparov tried a third option with the unwitting support of the ECF*. He got the ECF and the Georgian Chess Federation to sue FIDE which they did by challenging a decision made by the representatives of the federations which make up FIDE: the General Assembly.

* The ECF Council weren't consulted on or informed of the legal action. The ECF Board knew only of the legal case which challenged a decision of the FIDE Presidential Board. The Board were not consulted on or informed of the second legal case which challenged a decision of the FIDE General Assembly.

[John McKenna]

Just a couple of quick points regarding some of my earlier posts in this thread -

John McKenna>... The business didn't walk away its government did, but in the completely the wrong direction!

The whole article is at -

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 07201.html
<

It has been pointed out to me that -

"The House of Lords has backed the Serious Fraud Office's decision to drop its investigation into the £43bn arms deal between BAE Systems and Saudi Arabia, saying the investigation could have put British lives at risk.
The five law lords unanimously overturned a judgment by the High Court in April, which said the watchdog had acted "unlawfully" in halting its inquiry into alleged bribery and corruption over the Al-Yamamah deals, in which BAE supplied Tornado and Hawk fighter jets to the Saudis in 1985.
The ruling means that the SFO acted lawfully when it dropped the case over fears that the Saudis would withdraw co-operation over terrorism intelligence..."

See the link for the full article (31 July 2008) -

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/busin ... 81557.html

I don't know what you make of that but, to me, if two wrongs don't make a right a third wrong purporting to make one of the first two wrongs right (when it wasn't) is sublimely ridiculous and should have been laughed out of court.

Also, this one -

John McKenna>... 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 was pointed out to me that juxtaposing the names Paulson & Filatov like that could be perceived as unfair because the former is an American millionaire businessman (who has done only business in Russia) and the latter a Russian billionaire oligarch. Whether the difference is one of kind or degree is still an open question in my mind, but I'd be much more prepared to give Mr. P the benefit of the doubt over Mr. F. Not least because Mr. P became the head of the ECF in an election of sorts, whereas - for all I know - Mr. F has been parachuted in as head of the RCF from a Russian government Antonov An-26 military transport aircraft!?

[NickFaulks]

Opinions were perhaps less polarised in those days.

What?? Events from 1994 to 1996 make today's spats look quite tame by comparison. I really wonder where some of your statements come from.

[Roger de Coverly]

I really wonder where some of your statements come from.

Personal experience mostly as an observer. I remember the first TWIC for example. There weren't internet forums as such in those days, but there was the newsgroup rec.games.chess and a forum on compuserve. These did tend to be dominated by Americans shouting at one another but the downfall of Campomanes was generally welcomed even if little was known about his successor and how he would operate. The magazines of the period, or biased Western media if you prefer, had a reasonable amount of coverage. It's an unanswered question of history as to whether Campomanes could have headed off the 1993 PCA breakaway, but a more conciliatory attitude could have either prevented it in the first place or compromised with it by an Agon style agreement.

The difference then was that FIDE and who was in charge wasn't greatly relevant to low level international players, even if it mattered to GMs. It was only later that Kirsan and his voting support started to interfere in a malign way with how chess is played.

[NickFaulks]

It was only later that Kirsan and his voting support started to interfere in a malign way with how chess is played.

I believe I've asked this before, but have you ever actually played a game of chess which was affected by this malign influence? I have, since Olympiads have become less pleasant, but the only amateur players victimised are those from the smaller federations, and you would like to throw them out altogether, so I don't see you as a defender of the players' interests there.

Of course I agree with you in principle, I just cannot see the devastation that you constantly claim.