English Arbiters to suffer???

[Roger de Coverly]

I'm sorry but I don't think there's any evidence that this would be the case

A number of the world's chess federations are the size of a chess club, or at best a league or county association. When you have a FIDE President who tries to make rule changes opposed by a majority of the world's players, why should a handful of officials in the "small" federations be in a position to dictate events?

[Roger de Coverly]

CAS seems to be thinking about something, and it may even decide in the ECFs favour.

CAS is presumably a law unto itself. But it might like to think of itself as an independent arbiter of disputes. What would it think of an International body which chose to take revenge on representatives of a national body which had the temerity to refer a dispute to itself?

[Paul Cooksey]

CAS seems to be thinking about something, and it may even decide in the ECFs favour.

CAS is presumably a law unto itself. But it might like to think of itself as an independent arbiter of disputes. What would it think of an International body which chose to take revenge on representatives of a national body which had the temerity to refer a dispute to itself?

Which is the genius of the catch-22 FIDE have engineered. If you take action, you are the enemy of developing chess nations. If you don't, your innocent members are subject to arbitrary punishments.

Quite how you deal with that, beyond hoping Kasparov wins the next FIDE election, is beyond me.

[Paolo Casaschi]

A number of the world's chess federations are the size of a chess club, or at best a league or county association. When you have a FIDE President who tries to make rule changes opposed by a majority of the world's players, why should a handful of officials in the "small" federations be in a position to dictate events?

It seems to me chess organization often have cumbersome electoral rules.
Do you think the allocation of votes at the ECF council is much better? For example, I'm an individual member of the ECF and I don't belong to any club or league... am I represented in any way at the AGM of the organization I'm a member of?

[Gerard Killoran]

Electing the good 'Doctor' to be our FIDE delegate had foreseeable consequences.

As I said in an early post, not just forseeable but also forseen.

I found Gerard's arguments difficult to accept, they seem to consider only what is expedient not what is right. Blaming ECF Directors for the actions of the Turkish Federation seems to me wrong.

I am arguing for realism. What are the potential benefits and costs from any action? As far as I can see, legal action against FIDE will cost the ECF a great deal in reputation and possibly money. The winners will be the lawyers and the Court of Arbitration. The benefits? No one has explained what we have to gain, except the disqualification of the vice-presidents appointed by Kirsan Ilyumzhiinov - one of whom happens to be the same Ali Nihat Yazici who is now taking revenge on our arbiters.

I don't blame the ECF Directors for the actions of the Turkish Federation, but allowing 'Doctor' Short a free hand was always going to have repercussions however indiscriminate, unfair and unjustifiable. Those who thought that anyone would be better than Gerry Walsh should perhaps think again.

[Gerard Killoran]

I'm sorry but I don't think there's any evidence that this would be the case

A number of the world's chess federations are the size of a chess club, or at best a league or county association. When you have a FIDE President who tries to make rule changes opposed by a majority of the world's players, why should a handful of officials in the "small" federations be in a position to dictate events?

I think you will find that all world sports organisations are based on one country, one member, one vote. Why should chess be any different?

[Roger de Coverly]

It seems to me chess organization often have cumbersome electoral rules.
Do you think the allocation of votes at the ECF council is much better? For example, I'm an individual member of the ECF and I don't belong to any club or league... am I represented in any way at the AGM of the organization I'm a member of?

The ECF Council allocates votes by size, so additional votes are proportionate to the number of games played. There are a number of non-playing bodies who also have votes and Congress Organisations aren't really accountable to anyone. There's around 200 votes available. A similar system in FIDE would award votes to federations that organise a lot of chess. Either that or basing it on headcount (active rated players) would result in an international organisation not beholden to national electorates consisting of a handful of officials.

In the ECF Individual Direct members have a paltry eight or ten votes held by "Direct Member Representatives". I'm not aware to what extent, if any, these Representatives make any attempt to contact those they represent. It's probably the other way round, they expect people to contact them.

[Angus French]

Which is the genius of the catch-22 FIDE have engineered. If you take action, you are the enemy of developing chess nations. If you don't, your innocent members are subject to arbitrary punishments.
Quite how you deal with that, beyond hoping Kasparov wins the next FIDE election, is beyond me.

Can't the argument be made that FIDE didn't have to defend the law suit; that it could have relented instead - and not wasted money which would otherwise have been spent on developing chess nations?

[Roger de Coverly]

I think you will find that all world sports organisations are based on one country, one member, one vote. Why should chess be any different?

International sporting bodies maintain the "Rotten Borough" principle of a disproportionate franchise abolished by the British Parliament in the 1830s. It's variable in its execution though, awarding the Football World Cup or the Olympics is done by a subset of national delegates. That naturally causes its own problems by concentrating patronage in a few hands.

[Roger de Coverly]

Can't the argument be made that FIDE didn't have to defend the law suit; that it could have relented instead - and not wasted money which would otherwise have been spent on developing chess nations?

That was my original point. I think Paul is commenting on what would happen if one of the excluded arbiters were to take action in CAS against one or both of FIDE and the TCF. Finance would probably preclude it, but they could be morally justified.

[Paolo Casaschi]

In the ECF Individual Direct members have a paltry eight or ten votes held by "Direct Member Representatives". I'm not aware to what extent, if any, these Representatives make any attempt to contact those they represent. It's probably the other way round, they expect people to contact them.

How are "Direct Member Representatives" selected? If I dont have any active way to select them, even those eight or ten votes really dont represent me.
Anyway, my point is, not only FIDE has questionable electoral rules.

[Roger de Coverly]

How are "Direct Member Representatives" selected?

Usually they select themselves by volunteering.

Anyway, my point is, not only FIDE has questionable electoral rules.

Agreed, but you don't get the effect that the London area has only the same number of votes as a rural county.

It could be possible to get the ECF on board as a Kirsan supporter, but you would have to influence any number of league and county AGMs to mandate their ECF delegate to back the Kirsan ticket. I think on paper, any new President of FIDE starts out with a neutral reputation, as witness the lack of support for the "Let's boycott Elista" calls in 1998. They forfeit their reputation by proposing annoying initiatives like removing options for longer time controls and much worse, the zero default time.

[Andrew Zigmond]

I think there is a strong case for the ECF taking a stand against FIDE as much about Ilyumzhinov is beyond contempt and we can't be the only major chess federation to feel that way. However it has to be done with care as previous coups against FIDE have proved unsuccessful (I have a former world champion and challenger in mind here).

Seperately I do think there is an interesting comparison to be made between the Elista boycott calls of the late 90s and the recent T shirt incident. In both cases an ECF official made a stand on a matter of moral principle, both in their own ways were equally commendable but in neither case was the most appropriate platform used. Back then the ECF board (which has of course changed although the most high profile figure in the Elista controversy is still present) couldn't get rid of Sarah Hurst quick enough. I'm not making any judgements (I've already had one member of the current board take offence when I intended none) but the contrasts are interesting.

And the ECF was of course the BCF back then, just to save somebody pointing that out.

[Paul McKeown]

Jonathan entirely right to criticise the ECF board for failing to disclose the current CAS case. But no-one could have doubted the ECF's opposition to the current FIDE leadership, based on Dr Short's AGM report. Indeed he was re-elected nem con, even after discussion of potential reprisals from FIDE.

Amoral as they may be, the 2700 politics from FIDE are impressive. Most organisations, when their internal failings are publicised, would not have the brass neck to go on the offensive. Arguing their friends, the developing chess nations, are the ones who suffer when FIDE are challenged is inspired. Equally sanctioning arbiters, who are usually involved in domestic politics, rather than players, who are generally not, has a Machiavellian genius to it.

Still, I remain happy for the ECF to be dissident while Ilyumzhinov is in charge. It won't be forever.

I can accept that the case was timed to distract focus and resources. But the idea FIDE is an innocent victim of dirty politics, seems very unlikley, on the facts we know. Either way the actions of the Turkish Federation seem wrong, and I hope FIDE will condemn them.

[...snip...]

But what we get from FIDE seems very limited. Their rating system is creaking, and their titles devalued. I might be more comfortable with a European Federation, certainly if Russia was in it.

Blaming ECF Directors for the actions of the Turkish Federation seems to me wrong.

Which is the genius of the catch-22 FIDE have engineered. If you take action, you are the enemy of developing chess nations. If you don't, your innocent members are subject to arbitrary punishments.

Paul Cooksey has pretty much nailed it for me with those posts.

To be honest, I consider FIDE beyond repair. It is a fundamentally undemocratic organisation with disproportionate power handed to the representatives of territories with no established chess culture. I cannot see at present what forces could lead to FIDE giving real voice to players in its decision making structures. If the representatives of genuine chess playing nations refused to fund FIDE until it was capable of governance in the interests of chess players or wished to form an association outside of FIDE, I would say more power to their elbows.

For those who say that international sports organisations are *all* one member federation one vote, irrespective of chess playing population, it is easy to disprove that by reference to the International Cricket Council, where power is in the hands of the test playing nations. Again that presents difficult problems, in that the rights of the "minnows" are frequently tramped upon. Presumably a better formula exists than that of FIDE ("one junket monkey one vote") or that of the ICC ("if you aren't India forget it").

[Paul McKeown]

Question for Gerard Killoran. Are both of these players, http://www.ecfgrading.org.uk/?ref=265063A and http://www.ecfgrading.org.uk/?ref=127558G, one and the same, or are they genuinely different players? Their results seem quite similar!