English Arbiters to suffer???

[Gerard Killoran]

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!

They are and I am. I left London for Yorkshire in 2004, which is why my ECF grade isn't listed after that. See my history for previous grades.

My recent results are listed here:

http://www.chessnuts.org.uk/ny5/pdetail ... yerid=7575

And your point is?

[Paul McKeown]

And your point is?

None, other than it should be tidied up by the gradings people. I'm sure they will take note.

[Gerard Killoran]

And your point is?

None, other than it should be tidied up by the gradings people. I'm sure they will take note.

Thank-you for your concern.

[JustinHorton]

I would certainly not be a member of any English Chess Federation that joined some putative European Federation and ditched the rest of the world.

I've said before that if we want to undermine Kirsan, which we surely do, we need to do it by finding people in the rest of the world who object to corruption in their chess federations and wish to do something about it. That would, of course be difficult - striving for democracy often is - but it wouldn't be impossible and it wouldn't smack of all the reasons why Europe is not always well-regarded in the rest of the world.

It is not, by the way, as if the ECF's conduct recently has been a model for the world to follow, as far as transparency, financial rectitude and for that matter cronyism are concerned.

(For the record, in re: the CAS case, I have no particular objection to it, but the way in which it was deliberately hidden from members was quite scandalous. You don't do stuff like that and then tell me about your democratic credentials.)

Incidentally, should anybody wish to start a petition calling for thse arbiters to be reinstated, I'll be happy to sign it.

[Andrew Zigmond]

To be fair one hell of a lot of work is going on behind the scenes and a lot of individuals are working flat out over this issue (not that I ever doubted it).

Kirsan is well entrenched now and is going to be nigh impossible to shift. The only possible solution is for the larger chess federations to defect en masse but that would be a risky step.

[Matthew Turner]

It is fine to make a stand against Kirsan, but was this really the issue to go to war on? Spending millions of dollars on disputing a procedural issue seems wrong to me.
Is Kirsan stronger or weaker after the legal action? Well he may be financially weaker, but I suspect his reputation might well end up being enhanced with some/many of the smaller nations.

[Richard Bates]

Has there been any comment from German, French, US etc websites on this issue? After all, whilst people here are naturally pre-occupied with the second court case on here, it should be point out that beyond referring to "court cases" the letter only specifically references the Karpov case (not surprisingly since the latter outcome hasn't yet been determined so there are no grounds at present to deem it "frivolous". If FIDE were to lose then it will be their choosing to contest the case that will be the cause of the "waste of money".

[Roger de Coverly]

Has there been any comment from German, French, US etc websites on this issue?

It's not directly on this issue and it's from a New Zealand site, but this letter from the ECU President is expressing dissatisfaction with the Turkish organisers.

http://www.newzealandchess.co.nz/Olympi ... letter.pdf

On past precedents for Junior and other events, the Turkish Federation treat the running of international events as a profit centre and attempt to defray the financing costs of the event by overcharging for hotels and related services.

[Richard Bates]

Has there been any comment from German, French, US etc websites on this issue?

It's not directly on this issue and it's from a New Zealand site, but this letter from the ECU President is expressing dissatisfaction with the Turkish organisers.

http://www.newzealandchess.co.nz/Olympi ... letter.pdf

On past precedents for Junior and other events, the Turkish Federation treat the running of international events as a profit centre and attempt to defray the financing costs of the event by overcharging for hotels and related services.

Well yes - i suspect that the idea that the Turkish chess federation (/Govt) put "50-100,000 euros" into FIDE purely out of a sense of altruism is a bit far-fetched.

[Alex McFarlane]

I have asked Andrew Farthing to explain why the ECF has not sought some sort of injunction preventing all arbiter invitations going out before the matter is resolved. I await his reply. Once these other applications have gone out it will be even more difficult to reinstate Lara.

Obviously such action might be costly but the ECF has received cast iron assurances that any needed funding for legal action would be available as Andrew assured everyone at the April Council Meeting.

[Mick Norris]

http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/turki ... l-olympiad

[Christopher Kreuzer]

How many arbiters from each country are being affected by this? How many from England?

One of the comments left at the chessvibes article was a bit strange: "Still I think in today's financial times it's a real organizational achievement to be able to organize a tournament like the chess olympics where some 250 teams have food and lodging for free for 11, 12 days." When reading that, I thought it must be wrong. I was under the impression that the food and lodging had to be paid for by each team (as well as travel costs). Is that right?

[Jonathan Rogers]

I believe it is - for Olympiads. It is not so for the European Chs, which is one reason why fewer (European) teams enter it.

Back to the thread subject, I cannot help thinking that Nick Faulks' closeness to the events is affecting his objectivity. It seems obvious that Mr Yazici's actions are done with the blessing of FIDE, and to the extent that he might have his own private motivations too, surely the main one is likely to be that he is one of the Vice-Presidents who presumably might not be allowed to stand again next time if the case is lost.

[Roger de Coverly]

he is one of the Vice-Presidents who presumably might not be allowed to stand again next time if the case is lost.

The basis for the case is a bit obscure. The ECF and the Georgians are complaining that Kirsan appointed five VPs when he's only allowed two and that the appointment of VPs is in return for voting support and other favours. That's a almost an agreed statement of fact and something that was characteristic of Kirsan's presidency, that even if you run against him and are defeated, you are bought off with a VP offer. I believe though that the award of unlimited VPs is in the gift of the General Assembly, which if it's prepared to vote for Kirsan as president is unlikely to deny him his rewards of patronage. So the case is rather more a complaint against FIDE for not filling its forms in correctly.

This is the case as stated in a letter to FIDE
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=6779

(edit)

VPs are listed at
http://www.fide.com/fide/directory/fide ... =committee

Ten , plus 4 honorary ones. (/edit)

It would have been wiser for the ECF to have not taken the issue further, other than perhaps to get more signatories to the original letter.

[Jonathan Rogers]

he is one of the Vice-Presidents who presumably might not be allowed to stand again next time if the case is lost.

The basis for the case is a bit obscure. The ECF and the Georgians are complaining that Kirsan appointed five VPs when he's only allowed two and that the appointment of VPs is in return for voting support and other favours. That's a almost an agreed statement of fact and something that was characteristic of Kirsan's presidency, that even if you run against him and are defeated, you are bought off with a VP offer. I believe though that the award of unlimited VPs is in the gift of the General Assembly, which if it's prepared to vote for Kirsan as president is unlikely to deny him his rewards of patronage. So the case is rather more a complaint against FIDE for not filling its forms in correctly.

This is the case as stated in a letter to FIDE
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=6779

It would have been wiser for the ECF to have not taken the issue further, other than perhaps to get more signatories to the original letter.

Oh surely there is more substance to it than that - any side which has more people on the ticket than the other must be at an advantage. Don't you think that American presidential candidates would rather nominate all their political friends as VPs rather than have to choose between them - but by having to choose, the voting public then have a better idea what they are voting for. So there must be some mileage for the Karpov camp to argue "look the rules say 2, we nominated 2 ..." and from the point of view of Yazici, it must be preferable for him to be on the ticket as one of the two favoured ones, and not added in by the General Assembly after Kirsan has won the election with two preferred (nominated) VPs. I mean! Suppose he is dropped and people ask him during the campaign "why aren't you running yourself?" - what is he supposed to say?!