English Chess Forum

You're right, I wish I had though of this forum sooner. Perhaps it might even have affected events at your AGM. However, I remain puzzled that the issue could have been the talk of the chess world for so many months except, it seems, in England.

Nick,
Can you give us some more details on the case?

Can you point to any public forums, websites or blogs where this information may have been disclosed? I don't think it's been on chessbase, chessvibes, chessninja, chesscafe or even whychess.

It would be useful if we had an official statement on this from the ECF itself. I do not know if someone has said this already. Clearly the ECF is involved. Clearly it will impact on us if things go wrong, if not financially then in other 'political' ways.

It is not that we agree or disagree. At the moment we just do not know (for sure) what exactly is happening and how committed we are.

We may be the 'little people', but I think it is important for us to know.

We should be kept informed. I suspect that there is no formal procedure for this kind of thing. It is usually Andrew Farthing who comes along and tells us what is happening.

Perhaps Andrew, you could shed some light into this (formally).

You have to realise that it was quite clear in Khanty that the Kasparov-Short ( yes, technically Karpov ) team were trying to reclaim chess for the civilised world, and did not hide their disdain for lesser nations. It was seriously suggested that third world federations should be supervised by their betters in Western Europe and North America, and should only be given a vote when they had demonstrated that they managed their affairs as well as the USCF and the ECF. You get the point....

Actually I don't. If you count active players and events, how many do these small Federations have? Why do they have the right to elect a President with an anti-chess agenda such as zero time defaults and inappropriately fast time controls. I don't think the President has much credibility with Western governments or sponsors. It was reported that GK's recent visit to Westminster on the Chess in Schools and Communities event attracted the attention of a number of MPs. Would Kirsan have had similar pulling power?

You don't see why I find it offensive to be told that the Bermuda Chess Association must demonstrate to England that the management of its affairs meets the ECF's high standards? Really? Which one was caught having sent in a string of fraudulent results for rating?

On the question of time controls, yes, the 90'+30" experiment was a terrible mistake, FIDE recognise this and it has been abandoned in their own competitions. It was due to be banned for all events giving title norms from 1.7.10, but the PB ( illegally ) overruled this, giving in to intense pressure from the USCF. It continues to enjoy support in the UK, for instance in e2e4 events, which is why I cannot consider playing in those.

Zero time defaults are awful, but I believe the ECF delegate voted for them in 2008.

GK has a claim to be the best player in history, so of course he can draw a crowd ( though you might be surprised by the esteem in which Kirsan is held in the uncivilised world ). He is also the most energetic individual I have ever met, and can get things moving, but can you remember a commercial enterprise of his which has not collapsed leaving unpaid creditors?

If Western Europe and North America do not wish to share a club with dirty little countries, they are free to set up their own. Of course they won't, since those guys couldn't organise a cake stall, but if they did they might find that they were missed less than they assume.

In fairness, I can see why that would be offensive.

On the other hand England has 928 FIDE rated players, and Bermuda 17. It feels like each Bermuda player has 50 times the importance to FIDE that I do.

Cynic that I am, I've always assumed Russia rules FIDE, and given the small nations credit for finding away to benefit from the situation.

Of course, he didn't remain the FIDE Delegate for much longer thereafter.



To my mind, it is simply wrong that Bermuda gets as many votes on the General Assembly as Russia. The impact is that there is no point ever trying to win votes in Russia, you may as well just promise to throw lots of money into smaller countries. You can't make many promises to help Russian chess, but it's relatively cheap to make promises that helps chess in so-called lesser countries. There must be a reason Kirsan never seems to go on "Working Visits" of European countries, yet he seems to go to less developed nations all the time. It's probably why he campaigns for retaining the status quo in this regard, too.

I don't see why there couldn't be a system where a country gets votes proportional to the number of active rated players it has. Even if it's only 1 vote per 1000 FIDE-rated players, it'd be an improvement. On this system, England would get as many votes as Bermuda, 1. Russia would get 7. France would get 8, and Germany would get 9! I don't see how this isn't fairer. Bermuda still gets a relatively large share of the vote given it only has 17 rated players.

_________________
February 16-17: 2013 BUCA Team Championship
April 20: 2013 British Blitz Championship
July 27-August 10: 100th British Chess Championships

Democracy demands not only that there be no tyranny of the majority, but also no tyranny of the minority, either. FIDE is dominated by a small clique, held in place by a large number of rather inconsequential chess nations, held as paid liege men. Having said that, I doubt that Bermuda is one of those that have been corrupted, it is too wealthy and it doesn't have the culture for that.

The general impression we have of voting rights in FIDE is this:-

The FIDE membership cost containing a minimum annual amount can be onerous to the smaller federation. Even Guernsey have been known to complain about it. At the same time, a country needs to join FIDE in order to run, for example, an internationally rated national championship.

As a consequence, the smaller federation can be grateful for any financial assistance it might receive. Whether this in any way affects its vote for the Presidential slate is a matter of speculation.

As regards zero time defaults, the FIDE President was strongly in favour. If the ECF delegate voted in favour in 2008, that's news, but he was thrown out of office not long after.

After a long period of conservatism, English events are now finally adopting incremental move rates. These have the advantage or disadvantage of removing the dramatic spectacle of clock bashing and arbiters cogitating over 10.2 claims.

The FIDE president is also on record as wishing to reduce all chess to the sort of G/75 or G/90 thrash that many of us spend our evenings indulging with. A more leisurely pace at the weekend or in tournaments is to be welcomed, not abolished on the fiat of FIDE.

What's his next initiative going to be? Insisting that we cannot agree drawn positions as drawn perhaps?

I hadn't realised the FIDE President has said this. The ECU President, I seem to remember, was in favour of shortening the games to a maximum of 4 hours, presumably with an intermediate time control. So something like 40/100 + G/20. He was certainly opposed to increments.

_________________
February 16-17: 2013 BUCA Team Championship
April 20: 2013 British Blitz Championship
July 27-August 10: 100th British Chess Championships

Did the ECF really send in fraudulent results for rating? Why don't I remember?

This is before my time, but I was told that a previous FIDE-rating Officer was making up results and submitting them. He was swiftly removed from post, by all accounts.

_________________
February 16-17: 2013 BUCA Team Championship
April 20: 2013 British Blitz Championship
July 27-August 10: 100th British Chess Championships

I have some recollection of a proposal. I didn't think it was any more than a minimum standard that you would expect from a British league or county association, namely that it had a set of elected officers, plus meetings at least once a year, and an annual statement of its financial position and reports on its activities. Did it go beyond that? If so, in what way?