ECF and the FIDE Presidential election

[Roger de Coverly]

Please remind me, what is Universal Rating?

To quote from http://en.chessbase.com/post/kasparov-f ... ign-081013

Universal rating system and expansion of online services:

A universal rating system will include every game of chess played on the planet, from world championship matches to online blitz. It will serve as a portal that unites tens of millions of players and will become an attractive advertising and sponsorship asset.

It's shouldn't be a vote-winning measure. You play online blitz as a leisure or at best a training activity. You don't want adverse results to prejudice possible title qualifications or even the prestige of a high rating. Tens of millions of players is one of those Paulson fantasies about the number of players.

[NickFaulks]

Something very similar was on the go in Tallinn, probably no surprise in view of the overlap of personnel. It was top secret, and the QC was not allowed to know about it.

[NickFaulks]

A full stop appears to have been applied to this story.

http://www.fide.com/component/content/a ... leong.html

Based on the known facts, any other decision would have been surprising, but the language the Court uses about the behaviour of Kasparov and Leong is quite trenchant. I look forward to reading the full judgement when it appears on their website.

Unusually, Leong has even been ordered to make a contribution to FIDE's own costs, although I doubt it will be enough.

I wonder whether this may cause the ECF Board to wonder whether Kasparov ( like Danailov ) was/is worthy of their unqualified support.

[LawrenceCooper]

A full stop appears to have been applied to this story.

http://www.fide.com/component/content/a ... leong.html

Based on the known facts, any other decision would have been surprising, but the language the Court uses about the behaviour of Kasparov and Leong is quite trenchent. I look forward to reading the full judgement when it appears on their website.

Unusually, Leong has even been ordered to make a contribution to FIDE's own costs, although I doubt it will be enough.

I wonder whether this may cause the ECF Board to wonder whether Kasparov ( like Danailov ) was/is worthy of their unqualified support.

"FIDE takes this opportunity to reaffirm its clear stance against corruption and bribery and to commit to continue its efforts to promote good governance."

[Roger de Coverly]

I wonder whether this may cause the ECF Board to wonder whether Kasparov ( like Danailov ) was/is worthy of their unqualified support.

The presence of Leong (zero time default) on the Kasparov ticket ought to have been enough to disqualify it from the ECF's support. That it wasn't and the support for Kasparov had general approval amongst British chess players says what you need to know about British opinions of Kirsan.

[NickFaulks]

It's here in full.

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

Strong stuff!

[LawrenceCooper]

I suspect he didn't write his own Wikipedia page, it includes this gem:

"Politically, he has swung wildly from one extreme to the other. He once formed a "World Chess Organization", which promised to overthrow FIDE. However, he abandoned that effort when not enough people joined. He has also swung wildly between being a supporter and an opponent of FIDE President Kirsan Ilyumzhinov.

In 2002, Leong announced that he was running for FIDE President against Ilyumzhinov. Later, he changed his mind, saying that he was not running. Then, changing it again, saying that he had never withdrawn his candidacy. It was eventually ruled that once he had withdrawn, it was too late to become a candidate again, so no election was held because Ilyumzhinov was the only candidate. However, Leong became FIDE Secretary-General."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignatius_Leong

[Roger de Coverly]

"FIDE takes this opportunity to reaffirm its clear stance against corruption and bribery and to commit to continue its efforts to promote good governance."

Kirsan was travelling the world offering largesse courtesy of the Russian government. These included sports scholarships. Did any of this materialise? There was controversy on a Canadian equivalent of ecforum when their President gave the vote to Kirsan alongside the promise of FIDE funded Norm tournaments. Did these ever take place?

Leong was a FIDE insider before he changed sides. As a FIDE insider, he saw nothing wrong with a contract that would make payments to his personal commercial interests and promise the vote from his Federation, which shouldn't have been in his personal gift. Morten Sand, who drew up the contract, was also a FIDE insider and again saw no objections to it.

What conclusions can be drawn?

It appears acceptable to offer voting support in exchange for inducements or incentives, but don't put it in writing and arrange it supposedly for the benefit of the Federation as a whole rather than the commercial interests of the vote holder.

[JustinHorton]

It's here in full.

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

Strong stuff!

I've just got as far as paragraph 53, which is one to make you whistle.

[JustinHorton]

One thing about which I'm curious - the judgement seems to have been made on 10 November. Has this summary (is that the correct term?) only just been published? I say I'm curious because you'd have expected this to be a big issue over the past fortnight, even if there's been some actual chess going on to distract us all from the politics.

[NickFaulks]

Kirsan was travelling the world offering largesse courtesy of the Russian government. These included sports scholarships. Did any of this materialise?

He didn't offer us any, so I can't say. Would you consider it more heinous if the scholarships did happen or if they didn't?

There was controversy on a Canadian equivalent of ecforum when their President gave the vote to Kirsan alongside the promise of FIDE funded Norm tournaments.

My recollection is that the Canadian federation had been minded to support Kasparov, but he gave personal offence to an extent unusual even by his own standards.

Leong was a FIDE insider before he changed sides. As a FIDE insider, he saw nothing wrong with a contract that would make payments to his personal commercial interests

Kirsan's habit of rewarding those who turn against him ( even twice ) by welcoming them back into the fold and giving them high office must have been a source of irritation to his more loyal supporters. I've always assumed it's a Buddhist thing. One vice of which he cannot be accused is vindictiveness.

Some lawyers consider it their job to consider the moral aspects of a contract which they draw up, some don't. Morten Sand is evidently in the latter camp.

[NickFaulks]

One thing about which I'm curious - the judgement seems to have been made on 10 November. Has this summary (is that the correct term?) only just been published? I say I'm curious because you'd have expected this to be a big issue over the past fortnight, even if there's been some actual chess going on to distract us all from the politics.

I think this is all we're going to get. The CAS seem to put things on their own site well in arrear, but FIDE decided to publish it on theirs.

If you're suggesting that if it hadn't come out 100% in favour of FIDE the Telegraph and the Guardian would have been all over it, probably even the BBC, then I expect you're right.

[David Sedgwick]

One vice of which he cannot be accused is vindictiveness.

I said the same on here three years ago and was swiftly criticised.

See Ian Thompson's riposte to me at http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php ... &start=120. (Second post down)

For the record, I still agree with you, not Ian.

[JustinHorton]

If you're suggesting that if it hadn't come out 100% in favour of FIDE the Telegraph and the Guardian would have been all over it, probably even the BBC, then I expect you're right.

Hadn't occurred to me, to be honest: I was just surprised that I hadn't come across it before, not that I'm Doctor Know, as Malcolm Tucker claimed to be.

[NickFaulks]

See Ian Thompson's riposte to me at http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php ... &start=120. (Second post down)

I have always ( well, at least since I got to know a bit more about Kirsan ) found it easy to believe the official line that he was horrified by what had occurred and pressed for the prosecution of those guilty. Left to his own devices, he would have been far more likely to appoint her as head of his own press office - probably to the annoyance of the incumbent.