The battle for ECU Presidential elections begins

[Roger de Coverly]

The current perception is that the ECF does whatever Kasparov wants from them: engaging in a risky lawsuit; removing a newly elected president; supporting Danailov.

I think that had AP been able to obtain support from the voting membership, he could have remained in office. The ridiculous tirade in favour of Azmai did him no favours in a context where his initial appointment had already been opposed by a reasonable minority. The ECF has consistently been opposed to the continued Kirsan Presidency since at least 2006 and probably before that if anyone had been allowed as a challenger.

[Paolo Casaschi]

The current perception is that the ECF does whatever Kasparov wants from them: engaging in a risky lawsuit; removing a newly elected president; supporting Danailov.

I think that had AP been able to obtain support from the voting membership, he could have remained in office. The ridiculous tirade in favour of Azmai did him no favours in a context where his initial appointment had already been opposed by a reasonable minority. The ECF has consistently been opposed to the continued Kirsan Presidency since at least 2006 and probably before that if anyone had been allowed as a challenger.

This does not change the key point of my post: such a behavior does not help gaining influence with the supported ECU candidate since they know the ECF vote does not depend much on the available candidates.

[Chris Rice]

An interesting interview on Chessdom with Azmaiparashvili and below is the highlight of the interview. He needs to do some work on his adding up though, assessing his chances in percentage terms as 60-55!

Alina l’Ami: What about the elections for ECU? Do you expect to win?

Zurab Azmaiparashvili: Yes, otherwise why would I run from the first place? Just recently I was giving an interview on our national sports portal, where they asked me how come I decided to be a candidate. Making a parallel, you see it also in politics, even for presidential chairs, that some people are running and you wonder: what are they doing there, what are they trying to achieve? Maybe they will get one vote, two votes, maybe their family will vote for them too, but quite often they are in the race only because of their own ambition, which, sometimes, doesn’t have any foundation at all.

To be ambitious is not a bad thing of course, but it has to be combined with a solid background, desire alone is not enough. Without those two, the candidate can safely retreat to a political asylum. The vice versa applies as well: if you do have the background but lack the get-up-and-go… not a dream came true. I believe I have a bit of both: a balanced background and ambition as well. But I don’t push the boundaries to such an extent that I will advise the current president – “resign, I am much better than you”.

I do believe though that things will change to the good and that I am better than Silvio Danailov on several points. I am not saying that my approach and views in life are superior to his. Maybe some people will believe me, maybe others will think the opposite, but there are a couple of agenda items which I believe I would do better. In addition: I have the background, I have people, not only chess players but also politicians. In the beginning, I was estimating our chances, Silvio’s and mine, as being more or less equally shared, 50-50, so I decided to run. Even if I would have had chances like 45-55 in my detriment, I still had a chance, so I should run as well. Today, I trust that my chances increased and I would assess them to be around 55-60 in my favour. To answer your question: yes, I believe I have more chances to win the elections than Silvio Danailov. The percentages grew thanks to my campaign, which I consider it to be better than Silvio’s, especially because he connected it with Garry Kasparov’s campaign for the FIDE Presidency.

Somehow it looks as if Kasparov is campaigning for Silvio, which, in my opinion, is not the right approach. In my view, it only shows that you don’t have a strong personality to do it alone. Compared to this, almost my entire campaign I carried it on my shoulders. Silvio has and should show his own personality, he will run the organization not Garry, he will be the one responsible, not Kirsan Ilyumzhinov, for example, if I would win the elections. I will be the one responsible to establish also the relations with FIDE. Because I believe that FIDE has a high interest in having good relations with every continent, while moving further together. When I say “move together” I don’t imply that both sides should have the same ideas; by “moving together” I mean “walking together”, make decisions together, sometimes have fights too for the commonly taken decisions – it is all normal. It is family. I am not talking about politics, when some people are publicly fighting, pointing fingers at each other, claiming that the other side is wrong and so forth. No, in our case, if someone is wrong we have to tell it to each other, to sit and discuss.

We shouldn’t wash our clothes in the media, in public, this is not the right way to progress. It is not normal what Silvio is doing and I am criticizing him for that. In fact, he is doing it only for the public, he never really fought inside the board meetings. He is wearing his fights outside, which makes me think that he wants to build his image of a fighter against FIDE, against Kirsan, against Makropoulos. All of this doesn’t show that he can run alone, while also committing himself with Garry. I don’t want to be misunderstood either, I am not against Garry, I never said anything like that, that I would be against Kasparov. I want us to be friends, the same time I want to be friends with Kirsan. I respect what Kirsan Ilyumzhinov did for FIDE. Even if I didn’t agree with something he had decided in the past, I told him and, in any case, how could I not respect all his efforts for the chess world?!

The same thing with Makropoulos: many people think that we are friends; well, of course we are but it doesn’t mean we don’t have fights, that sometimes we don’t have different opinions and positions. But we are friends because I respect what he is doing and I believe he feels the same for me, otherwise it would be a bit difficult to become friends from the first place. Fighting for your own principles and ideas, disagreeing, taking positions, it all shows that we have our own personal opinions. But these fights will never go out! Have you heard of a quarrel between me and Makropoulos that went out in the air? No. Have you heard about a fight between me and Ilyumzhinov that became public? No. But don’t worry, we do fight! Do you see that I am fighting with my wife? Of course not. But it doesn’t mean we don’t disagree at times, it is normal.

And another issue which is important for me: in 2010, when I actually supported Silvio back then for the elections, I asked him after he won, if he will transfer the salary as the President to the general budget of ECU. He was surprised by my suggestion; I cannot say that he was a very rich man, but he had some businesses going, which made me believe he didn’t need this additional 3000 Euro/month. He disagreed with my position, which was transparent: resignation from the salary. He didn’t do it. I don’t know if I was right or not but I already made a proposal to our Georgian federation, to cut the salary of the future president of ECU; and we will bring this forward, before the elections, and if it won’t be voted 100 % pro, since normally for such things the votes should be in full percentage, the majority will probably be in favour of this idea.

I don’t want to send the wrong message here, either: that Zurab is rich and he doesn’t need this money, that he doesn’t care about 3000 euro. It is not like this. And I will tell you why:
First: we have an organization which is not rich.
Secondly: we are not so successful; one cannot show me why ECU is prospering at the moment.

True, the tournaments are running and we have some budget too, but the figures are not that big, approx. 200 000 Euro; getting a salary of 3000 Euros from 200 000 Euros seems not like a priority, especially when you cannot subsidize the projects for marketing for example, the projects like chess in schools on another hand, or to build a commission which would show the work that we want to do…

Everybody is saying that chess in schools is very important and they emphasize a lot on this topic, but these are just words. We have to do something, we have to work, we have to bring the product.

Every single one of us agrees: Kirsan understands, Garry too, me as well, that chess in schools is very important. In other words, what I am saying is not that I don’t need a salary, but first we need a project to stand still, we need to be successful. I prefer this money to be invested in the projects, which would bring chess and us more success, too. After everything is in place, we can discuss further about the next things from the list, like money and salaries.

[Chris Rice]

Azmai continues to keep up the pressure on Danailov but in a good way I think, unveiling an agreement between the Bank of Georgia and the ECU. http://www.finchannel.com/index.php/wor ... hess-union

[Chris Rice]

Further update on Azmai's "loadsamoney" campaign http://www.chessdom.com/europe-chess-fu ... ponsoring/

[Chris Rice]

Whoa! An interview with the ECU Secretary General clearly a Danailov supporter

http://danailov-for-president.com/?p=2906#more-2906

[Chris Rice]

You'll recall that Sakotic was Danilov's running partner before a scandal and police investigation followed into allegations of corruption led Danailov to drop him. For whatever reason the Montenegro Chess Federation wanted to update FIDE at the Tromso Olympiad. Well this press release has just gone out:

Dear friends of chess,

We wish to inform you that on 5th August 2014 the Chess Federation of Montenegro filed a criminal complaint against the Executive Director of the ECU and its former President Vladimir Šakotić for the abuse of the official position and financial damage he inflicted to the Chess Federation of Montenegro.

Along with criminal complaint evidence was attached on basis of which there is a reasonable doubt that the Chess Federation of Montenegro during the year 2013 was financially damaged by more than €100,000.

State authorities have been conducting investigation by the legal duty already for several months.

The organization of the European Youth Chess Championships in Budva was characterized by a lack of transparency, conflict of interest and speculative behavior in the opinion of the Directorate of Sport of Montenegro as well.

Chess Federation of Montenegro strives that all chess events should be followed by the transparent and professional organization which includes clear conditions.

Sincerely,

Angelina Vuković, President
Chess Federation of Montenegro

[Roger de Coverly]

The organization of the European Youth Chess Championships in Budva was characterized by a lack of transparency, conflict of interest and speculative behavior in the opinion of the Directorate of Sport of Montenegro as well.

Was the story that the Montenegro Federation was expecting to make a large profit from running the European Youth? That in itself raises questions as to what extent these tournaments should be profit centres for the hosts. In the event, the allegation is that all these profits were siphoned off into organisations controlled by the President himself. A bit like the alleged Agon contract then.

[Chris Rice]

ECU GA proclaim that Crimea is Russian not Ukrainian. http://www.chessdom.com/european-chess- ... nd-crimea/

[Roger de Coverly]

ECU GA proclaim that Crimea is Russian not Ukrainian.

I read it as sitting on the fence. There is no UN recognition for Crimea being part of Russia.

[Lewis Martin]

ECU GA proclaim that Crimea is Russian not Ukrainian.

I read it as sitting on the fence. There is no UN recognition for Crimea being part of Russia.

This is typical chess politics with regards to Russia's involvement though isn't it? UN is a global body (with American influence, it has to be said) whereas the ECU is perhaps still dominated by remnants of the USSR past. (i.e. people in their 50's-60's running the show having being brought up in that environment.)

[JustinHorton]

If I read Yazici correctly Azmai won by 33 to 18. Am I misremembering, or was ECF policy to back Danailov in order to be in a position of influence when he won?

[Mick Norris]

If I read Yazici correctly Azmai won by 33 to 18. Am I misremembering, or was ECF policy to back Danailov in order to be in a position of influence when he won?

I think it was more fundamental i.e. Azmai is the Kirsan candidate and Silvio the Kasparov one

But yes, we had the ECF President as number 2 on the winning ticket, saying that Kirsan would stand down after beating Kasparov, to be replaced either by Paulson himself, or by Azmai allowing Paulson to take over the ECU - and now we don't have an ECF President, or any influence in the ECU or FIDE

Maybe not a bad thing, though

[JustinHorton]

If I read Yazici correctly Azmai won by 33 to 18. Am I misremembering, or was ECF policy to back Danailov in order to be in a position of influence when he won?

I think it was more fundamental i.e. Azmai is the Kirsan candidate and Silvio the Kasparov one

Such was also my assumption, but I don't believe it was the rationale as explained to us on here.

[David Sedgwick]

If I read Yazici correctly Azmai won by 33 to 18. Am I misremembering, or was ECF policy to back Danailov in order to be in a position of influence when he won?

I think that was an view which I expressed, rather than an official ECF position.

I was arguing against the suggestion that the ECF should abstain. I can't deny that the result is not good news for us. However, we're no worse off than we would have been had we abstained, or had we kept our intentions secret.