ECF and the FIDE Presidential election

[David Sedgwick]

Or [the ECF Board] might decide that their declaring for one candidate would help the other get elected.

Has the ECF ever spoken out against zero time defaults? If they, and others like them, had done so in Dresden, perhaps they wouldn't have happened.

On the basis of your logic, perhaps the ECF should have supported zero time defaults in Dresden.

I don't know what makes you think that we didn't oppose the idea. As one of the English representatives in Dresden, I can assure you that we did.

Indeed, it was substantially due to some excellent work by Stewart Reuben that zero time defaults didn't become mandatory.

Where do you think these ideas originated?

With Kirsan Ilyumzhinov

[Roger de Coverly]

Where do you think these ideas originated?

With Kirsan Ilyumzhinov

There were two reason advocated in favour. One was that in the match between Karpov and Anand at the IOC, Karpov turned up late. If so, it took Kirsan over ten years to object, and in his way Karpov was only repeating Fischer's behaviour. An explanation is that you avoid photographers flashing at you.

The other reason was a lack of players at the start of Olympiads. That too has a simple explanation, which is that if you apply security checks as in Calvia and Turin, that the net result is that players will arrive late for their games. Particularly with the Kirsan inspired faster move rates, arriving on time has a premium unless thwarted by FIDE itself.

[Paul McKeown]

You are quite wrong about this, as was clearly shown in the silly lawsuit. Both sides came out looking bad, with huge legal bills, but the whole point was that Kasparov's backers could easily afford them and FIDE could not.

I thought for a moment we were talking about the relative wealth of Ilyumzhinov and Kasparov. Instead you wish to prattle about what their recent hangers on wish to waste. Different matters altogether. I know you're an apologist, but at least try to retain some appearance of credibility. This isn't North Korea.

[John McKenna]

North Korea is just a pimple on the world basketball that the US and China are currently playing each other with. Kim Jong Un has been inviting Dennis Rodman to explain the likely strategy the US will use in the new great game. Kim is an expert himself in Chinese basketball strategy. His uncle thought he was a better strategist but forgot who is calling the shots. His problem is - how to remain an independent family dictatorship and avoid becoming absorbed into China (as Tibet) or becoming an appendage to the US (as the poor relation in a unified Korea ruled from Seoul).

[NickFaulks]

You are quite wrong about this, as was clearly shown in the silly lawsuit. Both sides came out looking bad, with huge legal bills, but the whole point was that Kasparov's backers could easily afford them and FIDE could not.

I thought for a moment we were talking about the relative wealth of Ilyumzhinov and Kasparov. Instead you wish to prattle about what their recent hangers on wish to waste. Different matters altogether. I know you're an apologist, but at least try to retain some appearance of credibility. This isn't North Korea.

What could be the relevance of Kasparov's personal wealth? He will put in the same amount of his personal resources to this project as he always has. None. His backers, however have unlimited money to throw around, until they notice that they are getting ripped off.

[Roger de Coverly]

What could be the relevance of Kasparov's personal wealth? He will put in the same amount of his personal resources to this project as he always has. None.

As far as is generally believed, during the CAS action the ECF were just acting as a front for an organisation that wished to take on FIDE/Kirsan but weren't allowed to under their own name. The name of the secret organisation being the Kasparov Chess Foundation. Isn't the name a clue that Kasparov has put some of his own money into it? That's what would be generally believed.

[Angus French]

As far as is generally believed, during the CAS action the ECF were just acting as a front for an organisation that wished to take on FIDE/Kirsan but weren't allowed to under their own name. The name of the secret organisation being the Kasparov Chess Foundation. Isn't the name a clue that Kasparov has put some of his own money into it? That's what would be generally believed.

Was it Kasparov Chess Foundation which instructed the legal firm, White & Case? According to the timeline document produced by the Board, the ECF were indemnified against loss by Kasparov International Management.
Anyway, if the legal firm was instructed by a Kasparov organisation does it follow that Kasparov was the financer? Has any real evidence been provided to suggest that he was?

[Roger de Coverly]

Anyway, if the legal firm was instructed by a Kasparov organisation does it follow that Kasparov was the financer? Has any real evidence been provided to suggest that he was?

I suppose it's a new conspiracy theory that Kasparov is just the figurehead for a group of shadowy financiers who want to depose Kirsan and cronies from elected positions in FIDE. It remains to be seen if they will be any more successful than the previous four attempts, the first two of which didn't even get as far as an election.

Here's Kasparov International Management
http://www.nycompaniesindex.com/kasparo ... llc-260ap/
and Kasparov Chess Foundation
http://kasparovchessfoundation.org/

I expect it was the commercial organisation financing the legal work, as the Foundation appears the US equivalent of a charity.

[NickFaulks]

What could be the relevance of Kasparov's personal wealth? He will put in the same amount of his personal resources to this project as he always has. None.

As far as is generally believed, during the CAS action the ECF were just acting as a front for an organisation that wished to take on FIDE/Kirsan but weren't allowed to under their own name. The name of the secret organisation being the Kasparov Chess Foundation. Isn't the name a clue that Kasparov has put some of his own money into it? That's what would be generally believed.

I'm struggling to keep up, because parallel discussions are taking place in two threads. I do not believe GK has put any of his own money at risk in the KCF. I believe he never does that. I could be wrong.

[Roger de Coverly]

I do not believe GK has put any of his own money at risk in the KCF. I believe he never does that. I could be wrong.

I could well imagine the ECF or those who have voting rights in the ECF, asking that question. As to the answer , I wouldn't know. But now Kirsan is no longer President of Kalmykia, what is his funding?

If GK is putting his own money in, the source of this would be his earnings as a conference speaker and royalties from being a best-selling author.

[JustinHorton]

Anyway, if the legal firm was instructed by a Kasparov organisation does it follow that Kasparov was the financer? Has any real evidence been provided to suggest that he was?

I suppose it's a new conspiracy theory that Kasparov is just the figurehead for a group of shadowy financiers who want to depose Kirsan and cronies from elected positions in FIDE.

Well not really Roger, it's just that just because you set up a foundation it doesn't mean it's solely or mainly financed by yourself. Indeed I'm sure a major point of setting up a Foundation is that it enables you to solicit funds from elsewhere.

So if I set up the Justin Horton Foundation to support, say, independence and scepticism in chess journalism, it wouldn't follow that I was the main source of funds. It could come from anywhere. Except of course anybody connected with the BCM.

[Roger de Coverly]

Well not really Roger, it's just that just because you set up a foundation it doesn't mean it's solely or mainly financed by yourself. Indeed I'm sure a major point of setting up a Foundation is that it enables you to solicit funds from elsewhere.

With a little more digging, it appears there are two American Kasparov organisations. When the ECF divulged some of the details of its CAS action, it appears that it disclosed that it was Kasparov's commercial company, rather than his foundation which was doing the paying for lawyers bit. The general message given by the ECF directors was "Don't worry about the CAS action, because Kasparov is paying".

Who is the anonymous guarantor who will pick up the bill if we lose? Kasparov International Management LLC.

[NickFaulks]

Something which requires a bit of thought, really.

You could instead have FIDE with a CEO who did the legwork, with a President purely for honorary and ceremonial purposes. After all not every country with a President as Head of State makes them their most powerful political figure as well.

It seems to me that if Kasparov is distrusted on administrative grounds, that someone else should do the day to day stuff and use Kasparov where he is likely to be effective, namely opening doors and providing ceremonial opportunities.

That is precisely what they have done. Ignatius Leong has been brought in to do the day to day stuff. I expect that Kasparov, just like Kirsan, could not resist the temptation to do a bit of meddling in matters of which he has no understanding.

[Roger de Coverly]

I expect that Kasparov, just like Kirsan, could not resist the temptation to do a bit of meddling in matters of which he has no understanding.

The ECF Board have, according to Nigel Short, met with Kasparov on his visit to London for the Chess-in-Schools Conference.

As to what they asked him about his programme and intentions remains undisclosed. Nigel indicated that opposition to Universal rating wasn't discussed.

[NickFaulks]

I expect that Kasparov, just like Kirsan, could not resist the temptation to do a bit of meddling in matters of which he has no understanding.

The ECF Board have, according to Nigel Short, met with Kasparov on his visit to London for the Chess-in-Schools Conference.

As to what they asked him about his programme and intentions remains undisclosed. Nigel indicated that opposition to Universal rating wasn't discussed.

Please remind me, what is Universal Rating?