ECF Elections - FIDE Delegate - Poll

[Paul Cooksey]

I wondered what other people thought.

My view is its one of the least disruptive posts to "None of the above" if necessary since the board could find someone else as needed. But I'm not sure if it's a real problem.

[Roger de Coverly]

My view is its one of the least disruptive posts to "None of the above" if necessary since the board could find someone else as needed. But I'm not sure if it's a real problem.

If Malcolm becomes a FIDE vice-president, there's the possibility he may stand down from the ECF post or even that of International Director. Perhaps even if he doesn't, he may not feel he can work with a FIDE dominated by Russian political interests.

If enough Council members are irked by the ECF's support for the Makro/Kirsan establishment, that might force a stand down.

[NickFaulks]

If Malcolm becomes a FIDE vice-president

That can only happen in a Dvorkovich administration. Are you suggesting that he would be one of the President's appointees, or that he would get himself elected - I imagine that either is possible.

[Roger de Coverly]

That can only happen in a Dvorkovich administration.

I expect I meant Deputy President. In other words he gets elected as part of the Makro slate.

[NickFaulks]

I expect I meant Deputy President. In other words he gets elected as part of the Makro slate.

Ah, yes. Deputy President is not just a part of the slate, it is in fact the second most important position within FIDE, from which Makro himself has run the organisation for years. That's why it is so disappointing that Malcolm has been unable to restrain the most egregiously illegal activities of the Makro campaign in its attempts to round up votes.

[David Robertson]

it is so disappointing that Malcolm has been unable to restrain the most egregiously illegal activities of the Makro campaign in its attempts to round up votes

The Board was of the view that under Mr Makropoulos’ ticket, with Malcolm Pein as Deputy President, FIDE would have a better chance of becoming an independent sports organisation free of political influence

Critically assess these two statements, and evaluate their consequences for the probity of English chess in the coming period. Distinguish, in your analysis, between political influence and egregiously illegal activities, determining whether the ECF is now partner to the latter

[JustinHorton]

Distinguish, in your analysis, between political influence and egregiously illegal activities

Assuming of course that such a distinction is possible

[NickFaulks]

Assuming of course that such a distinction is possible

I can certainly make this distinction. If it is believed that, following a Dvorkovich victory, the resources of the Kremlin might be deployed to improve the status of international chess events and thereby show Russia in a good light ( as was done with the football World Cup ) then I don't really have a problem with that.

I do have a problem with giving GM and IM titles to selected federations in return for votes. This does no objective good, is in conflict with the FIDE Statutes and is plain wrong.

[Roger de Coverly]

I do have a problem with giving GM and IM titles to selected federations in return for votes. This does no objective good, is in conflict with the FIDE Statutes and is plain wrong.

I presume this is the reference
viewtopic.php?t=9765

Is there evidence this was anything other than a chess promotion exercise to the participants in the Arab Chess Championships? Awarding titles as prizes goes back a long way, but the practice does seem to have become more extensive during the long reign of the Kirsan/Makro double act. David Levy in 1969 and Tony Miles in 1974 got their IM titles that way, but in those days there were only a handful of awards each year.

They did cut back here and there as an acceptable score for a title in an all play all can become an easy target if the event is converted to a Swiss.

[Roger Lancaster]

I would have thought the answer to this fairly obvious but, even if it weren't, one would want to ask how many hats (Chess magazine, Daily Telegraph, CSC, London Chess Classic, in addition to ECF posts with the prospect of FIDE deputy president) one person can wear at the same time. That's not to denigrate Malcolm but to question whether he could continue to do everything effectively.

[NickFaulks]

In case anyone's wondering, Makro is Greece's delegate.

[Jonathan Rogers]

I would have thought the answer to this fairly obvious but, even if it weren't, one would want to ask how many hats (Chess magazine, Daily Telegraph, CSC, London Chess Classic, in addition to ECF posts with the prospect of FIDE deputy president) one person can wear at the same time. That's not to denigrate Malcolm but to question whether he could continue to do everything effectively.

Of course he cannot, and no one else could.

In this instance, it is his position as Editor of CHESS which has taken a hit.

I have been quite taken aback by the nature of his coverage of the FIDE election in his magazine. No room in the magazine has been given, or it would seem even offered, to either of his opponents in order to allow readers a balanced view. Ideally he should not himself be writing editorials on the matter, given his own personal interests, and should have been asking some one else to do so, with his views appearing separately (besides those of his opponents). Of course we do not expect very high standards of impartiality in the closed world of chess as we might do in the BBC, but the CHESS coverage has probably fallen below even our own quite minimal standards.

Fine, if you are a campaigning politician but not if you are editing a chess magazine aimed at a wide, non-partisan audience.

[JustinHorton]

Ideally he should not himself be writing editorials on the matter, given his own personal interests

Quite plausibly, but it's a bit late for people to notice that CHESS editorials are The World According To Malcolm, isn't it?

the CHESS coverage has probably fallen below even our own quite minimal standards.

Oh I dunno. On one view, noticing that controversial events are happening at all is a step up from the usual standard of British chess journalism.

[Brian Towers]

In this instance, it is his position as Editor of CHESS which has taken a hit.

I have been quite taken aback by the nature of his coverage of the FIDE election in his magazine. No room in the magazine has been given, or it would seem even offered, to either of his opponents in order to allow readers a balanced view. Ideally he should not himself be writing editorials on the matter, given his own personal interests, and should have been asking some one else to do so, with his views appearing separately (besides those of his opponents). Of course we do not expect very high standards of impartiality in the closed world of chess as we might do in the BBC, but the CHESS coverage has probably fallen below even our own quite minimal standards.

Fine, if you are a campaigning politician but not if you are editing a chess magazine aimed at a wide, non-partisan audience.

Does the magazine actually make a profit? Or is it the case, as in so much in the world of chess administration, that he is doing us a favour because there is no money in it?

[Jonathan Rogers]

Ideally he should not himself be writing editorials on the matter, given his own personal interests

Quite plausibly, but it's a bit late for people to notice that CHESS editorials are The World According To Malcolm, isn't it?

It is, I suppose. Apparently if you and a select few others don't press the point, then no one else will.

(I still remember reading Malcolm's defence of the 3-1-0 scoring system used in the Classic in his magazine, and thinking that any former editor of Pravda might have been happy with it).

the CHESS coverage has probably fallen below even our own quite minimal standards.

[/quote]

Oh I dunno. On one view, noticing that controversial events are happening at all is a step up from the usual standard of British chess journalism.

[/quote]

Probably you are thinking more of BCM than CHESS here.