English Arbiters to suffer???

[Paul Cooksey]

I agree with Adam.

As to what Yacizi is seeking to achieve, I imagine he just wants to demonstrate that malicious behaviour, even when financially underwritten by a rich sponsor, does not come without consequences.

That sentence without reference to the rights or wrongs? I could equally write "I imagine he just wants to demonstrate that any opposition to FIDE, however reasonable and well founded, will be met with cynical and unfair discrimination".

I imagine we will find out shortly if Mr Yacizi has judged the politics correctly, and whether he has to back down. From an ECF point of view, failure to disclose the CAS action means the board do not have the completely clear mandate that they would probably have been able to obtain from Council. On the other hand, there is some truth in the words Sean spoke in jest. Given the ECFs financial position, a boycott is maybe not such an unthinkable action as Mr Yacizi might have judged.

[NickFaulks]

Regardless of the right/wrong of the ECF's legal action this is outrageous behaviour by Ali Nihat Yazici/FIDE. I really don't understand what he sought to achieve, a boycott by the countries involved now seems inevitable unless he backs down.

Without reference to the rights and wrongs, I am willing to bet that England will not boycott the Olympiad.

As to what Yacizi is seeking to achieve, I imagine he just wants to demonstrate that malicious behaviour, even when financially underwritten by a rich sponsor, does not come without consequences. The ECF Board does not appear to have considered that.

I guess that is what he is banking on, however it seems to me the only logical response.

I don't think it's fair to expect the ECF to anticipate such an unreasonable and inappropriate response. A proper legal response would be a different matter.

On the contrary, some form of guerrilla warfare was clearly the only action open to him, since he lacks an unlimited fund for legal costs. It was careless of the ECF to assume that all action would take place on the battlefield of their own choice.

[Roger de Coverly]

Bringing an action against FIDE for being in breach of its own Statutes may not have been sensible, but I fail to see how it can be regarded as malicious.

There might be a clue in the current response. This asks for FIDE's Ethics Committee to take action, rather than running to CAS. Why shouldn't an internal process issue like the President exceeding his powers first go to the internal dispute settling mechanism, and only be escalated in the event, probably likely, that the Ethics Committee failed to resolve anything. That would have to have been made public though and as the Council meeting demonstrated, enthusiasm in the wider ECF for indulging in legal disputes with FIDE is limited.

I don't see the ECF boycotting the Olympiad either, but the ECF might wish to advise players against playing in other Turkish events, particularly official FIDE ones.

One of the Olympiad Deputy Chief Arbiters is American, notwithstanding her nominal federation, and had past associations with the PCA.

[David Sedgwick]

On the contrary, some form of guerrilla warfare was clearly the only action open to him, since he lacks an unlimited fund for legal costs.

Yazici seems to have unlimited funds to bring legal actions against the European Chess Union.

[Roger de Coverly]

Yazici seems to have unlimited funds to bring legal actions against the European Chess Union.

As well as an immense enthusiasm for bringing World and European events to Turkey. What do we know about how their federation is financed? They've got government and sponsor support, but do they exploit the difference between what they charge and what they pay for accommodation in these events to raise funds?

[Paul Cooksey]

It was careless of the ECF to assume that all action would take place on the battlefield of their own choice.

I realise I keep making this same point, but since it is factual and presumably not known to Nick, I'll make it again.

The was a debate at the ECF AGM on Nigel Short's report as FIDE delegate. The policy of opposing FIDE was discussed, as was the possibility of reprisals. Banning arbiters was not anticipated, and domestically is uncomfortable given the breakdown of the relationship between the ECF Board and some senior arbiters. But reprisals were not unforeseen. Indeed one Council member said, half in jest, that we have to do the right thing because we are British.

So if Nick thinks the ECF Board, or indeed the ECF Council, are surprised innocents in this matter, then I think he is misinformed. As Justin pointed out earlier, it is possible to accuse the ECF board of failing in many ways. But they are not idiots.

[John Foley]

Maybe Turkey has scuppered its chances of being admitted into the European Union.

[Nigel Short]

It is quite extraordinary how Nick Faulks, General Secretary of the Bermuda Chess Association, supporter of the ticket of Kirsan Ilyumzhinov, thinks he has the right to come on the English Chess Forum website and criticise the actions of ECF officials. I will answer to ECF members, thank you - not to a foreign stooge.

[Bill Porter]

I will answer to ECF members.

When?

[Nigel Short]

I will answer personally to Council, when I am free to attend.

[John Moore]

What does free to attend mean?

[Ernie Lazenby]

Mr Short the ECF annual general meeting is where your conduct will be discussed(and Mr De-Moois). Should you not be free to attend then that would be regretfull but will not be barrier to full and frank discussions. I know for a fact that it will be submitted as an agenda item. Appointment of officers is another matter that will no doubt be of great interest.

[Nigel Short]

"Free to attend" means I have a job, like everyone else: If I am not working, I will attend.

[Stewart Reuben]

Lawrence Cooper asked me to amend my post of Friday June 08 2012 of 11.59pm, which I have now done after some private correspondence. It was certainly never my intention to annoy or embarrass him. Had I simply made the change and not mentioned it here, few people would have noticed an amendment on page 5. It demonstrates the disadvantage of group discussions held by telephone. There are more likely to be misunderstandings.

[NickFaulks]

It was careless of the ECF to assume that all action would take place on the battlefield of their own choice.

I realise I keep making this same point, but since it is factual and presumably not known to Nick, I'll make it again.

The was a debate at the ECF AGM on Nigel Short's report as FIDE delegate. The policy of opposing FIDE was discussed, as was the possibility of reprisals. Banning arbiters was not anticipated, and domestically is uncomfortable given the breakdown of the relationship between the ECF Board and some senior arbiters. But reprisals were not unforeseen. Indeed one Council member said, half in jest, that we have to do the right thing because we are British.

So if Nick thinks the ECF Board, or indeed the ECF Council, are surprised innocents in this matter, then I think he is misinformed. As Justin pointed out earlier, it is possible to accuse the ECF board of failing in many ways. But they are not idiots.

I was responding to Adam Ashton, who wrote "I don't think it's fair to expect the ECF to anticipate such an unreasonable and inappropriate response. A proper legal response would be a different matter." He is the person whose ignorance you are correcting.


Report this post