The battle for ECU Presidential elections begins

[Jonathan Rogers]

Azmai won it quite convincingly, leading or jontly leading from start to finish and winning a smooth game v Speelman (then preparing for his candidates semi-final) in round 8.

By way of historical digression, Kamsky also played and lost an early game to Adams; he went on to lose also to Plaskett, who arrived some 45 minues late. Adams, newly crowned British champion, did not maintain his challenge, and a bonus point to anyone who can say (without looking it up) to which British player he lost in round 5?

But I am not sure what relevance Azmai's playing strength has. The doubts over Strumica 1995 seem more in point. Presumably that is why Leonard thinks the ECF should have abstained.

[JustinHorton]

I too have only limited influence. However, I expressed my opinions upthread.

One of the reasons that Paulson lost the confidence of the Board and Council was his association with Azmaiparashvili. It would have been odd then to support Azmaiparashvili after all.

Of course not supporting Azmaiparashvil, and supporting Danailov, are two very different things, aren't they?

Anyway, this reversed-pledge claim. Is it true?

[David Sedgwick]

Of course not supporting Azmaiparashvil, and supporting Danailov, are two very different things, aren't they?

Only for those, like you, who consider that the ECF should abstain. To my mind that's a sure fire way of ensuring that the ECF has no influence in the ECU over the next four years, whatever the outcome of the election.

The ECF will be voting for Danailov's ticket.

Please see my post at http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php ... 5&start=45 (Sunday 13th April, 12.55 pm)

[JustinHorton]

Only for those, like you, who consider that the ECF should abstain.

Well no, they are actually two different things, aren't they David?

By the way, do you have any idea whether Danailov junked his pledge on the day of being elected?

[Roger de Coverly]

The ECF will be voting for Danailov's ticket.

According to reports, a position broadly supported by the April meeting of the voting members. I didn't think AP's vigorous defence of the various skeletons in Azmai's cupboard helped his case.

[JustinHorton]

Still, did Danailov junk his pledge on the day of being elected?

Somebody must know. People are normally so good at remembering details like this.

[David Sedgwick]

By the way, do you have any idea whether Danailov junked his pledge on the day of being elected?

No, I have no idea at all. I can't recall having heard that allegation before I read it in the Iclicki interview.

[Chris Rice]

Azmai's ECU Back to Europe campaign have just stated on FB "We have been asked by GM Peter Heine Nielsen, so we give the basic figures of ECU budget today. In a total of 190,000 euros (annually), 56,000 is for the President, 35,000 is the cost of office in Belgrade, 28,000 is the for the General Secretary, 20,000 is for Board meetings and GA, 16,000 are taxes, currency loss, bank commissions. 12,000 is the expenses of officers, 6,000 is for the internet page....0 for schools programs, 0 for Commissions, 0 for development projects. We are really wondering why there are around 15-16 feds supporting the current management? What is the benefit of chess and feds of this budget sharing?"

I note the ECF are supporting Danailov but so far I have yet to see any rationale for doing so apart from he's pro-Kasparov.

[David Sedgwick]

I note the ECF are supporting Danailov but so far I have yet to see any rationale for doing so apart from he's pro-Kasparov.

Perhaps I'd better upload Danailov's manifesto.

[Stewart Reuben]

Chris Rice wrote: I note the ECF are supporting Danailov but so far I have yet to see any rationale for doing so apart from he's pro-Kasparov.

I am biased against Danailov, but I know 3 of Danailov's team well and they are extremely able. i.e. Burstein, Metzing and Stoisavljevic. (I know nothing of Aulin-Jansson.) That is a rational reason for supporting Danailov's ticket. I am not suggesting it would be necessarily be the best thing to do, but it would be rational.
Scenario. Kasparov is elected. It is rational to suppose it would be better for chess if the ECU President can work with Garry.
Scenario. Ilyumzhinov is elected. It is rational to suppose it would be better for chess if the ECU President provided an opposition to the elected ticket.
You can turn both scenarios on their heads and make it rational to support Azmay.
The ECF Board possibly made their decision simply because the elected officer, Nigel Short, advised them to support Danailov. That also makes perfect sense.

[Chris Rice]

Chris Rice wrote: I note the ECF are supporting Danailov but so far I have yet to see any rationale for doing so apart from he's pro-Kasparov.

I am biased against Danailov, but I know 3 of Danailov's team well and they are extremely able. i.e. Burstein, Metzing and Stoisavljevic. (I know nothing of Aulin-Jansson.) That is a rational reason for supporting Danailov's ticket. I am not suggesting it would be necessarily be the best thing to do, but it would be rational.
Scenario. Kasparov is elected. It is rational to suppose it would be better for chess if the ECU President can work with Garry.
Scenario. Ilyumzhinov is elected. It is rational to suppose it would be better for chess if the ECU President provided an opposition to the elected ticket.
You can turn both scenarios on their heads and make it rational to support Azmay.
The ECF Board possibly made their decision simply because the elected officer, Nigel Short, advised them to support Danailov. That also makes perfect sense.

Those are all plausible reasons Stewart, as is the Danailov manifesto that David attached on the previous post. But which, if any of those reasons, were the actual reasons the ECF took the position in supporting Danailov's ticket? Looking back on this particular thread there is a lot of adverse information regarding Danailov that has yet be be answered but ECF support has been given to him nonetheless.

I was intrigued by the Nigel Short position which seems to highlight the difficulties for this particular election. Nigel has said (on this thread) in an angry exchange with Angus French that "for your information, I have never stood on a pro-Danailov platform." Later, when Danailov got the nod of approval from the ECF it didn't seem to me that it was a ringing endorsement of Danailov from Nigel who on another thread said "I am leaning towards Danailov because I consider him to be the least bad of the two options so far. However I stood for election on a pro-Kasparov platform, not on a pro-Danailov platform, and I am not so rigid in my views that I can't change my mind - particularly if a better candidate should appear. I hope this makes my stance a little clearer." To my mind, it seemed clear that if he had any other choice but that between the two current candidates he would have taken it like a shot.

I think I agree with your position (which I believe is also supported by Leonard Barden and Justin Horton) that the ECF should have abstained from voting. I can understand David's statement that if you have a vote you should use it but frankly if you have no confidence in either candidate then what's the point?

[David Sedgwick]

I'd like to set out my views a little more fully.

To my mind, any question of the ECF voting for Azmaiparashvili disappeared at the April Council Meeting.

That doesn't seem to be being seriously disputed. Those who are critical of the ECF decision to vote for Danailov are advocating abstention.

If you look back at the old ECF consultation page, you'll see that I posed a question to Danailov about whether he would make his 2014 ticket more inclusive than his 2010 one, with representation from Western European Federations. I don't claim that Danailov acted in response to my question, but Aulin-Jansson and Metzing are on the ticket.

The inclusion of Metzing in particular led me to think that this was a ticket that was worthy of support. That was also the view of those with whom I'd been in contact about possibly forming a third ticket.

If they are wise, the winners of any election listen to the views of their supporters. By voting as intended, the ECF will have some influence within the ECU if Danailov wins. Were we to abstain, we would have no influence whatever the outcome.

But which, if any of those reasons, were the actual reasons the ECF took the position in supporting Danailov's ticket?

I can't speak for why the Board decided as they did.

However, as I mentioned up thread, it was a decision for which I had been pressing. My reasons were those which I have given in the two paragraphs immediately above the quote.

[Stewart Reuben]

In the ECF, but not FIDE, there is the option of voting for 'none of the above'. That is not the same as abstaining. Indeed NOTA has sometimes secured the greatest number of votes.
There is no merit in abstaining in FIDE elections. It won't even be noticed as it is a secret ballot. The only reason to abstain is because the voter has no preference among the candidates.
The ECF could have proclaimed, 'We will make our decision about the ECU election, after the FIDE Presidential election, when we have heard final submissions by the candidates.'
It is obvious the ECF Board has no intention of stating exactly why they decided publicly to support Danailov.

[Paolo Casaschi]

By voting as intended, the ECF will have some influence within the ECU if Danailov wins.

I wonder whether this is actually true.
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. Why would the ECU president need to listen to the ECF and please the ECF while in office? In the lack of a representative in the ticket, remaining undecided till the last moment would have given the ECF a better leverage: Danailov (or any other president) would need to actually listen/please the ECF in order to get the vote next time.

[JustinHorton]

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.

Quite.

Another perception is that the ECF talks very very loudly about principles and good practice when it comes to candidates they oppose, but is silent or indifferent on such matters when it comes to individuals with whom they wish to deal.