Karpov candidate for FIDE president

[Simon Spivack]

There is more on http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/fide- ... s-support/ , http://main.uschess.org/content/view/10309/319/ and http://main.uschess.org/content/view/10307/319/ .

it seems that Karpov is a somewhat underwhelming candidate in some senses - but that is still no good reason for the ECF to be neutral, assuming that Kirsan will be his opponent.

I am greatly encouraged by

Philosophically speaking I believe the above is a much sounder approach to finances and raising funds than the current methods employed by FIDE. The current FIDE philosophy of implementing new rules with financial penalties and turning profits on official FIDE events at the expense of national federations is not the proper way to support FIDE programs.

For myself, I'd like the principal behind the murder of Larissa Yudina to appear before a properly constituted court, he should also be charged with peculation on a vast scale.

In yesterday's FT there was a survey on Russia which mentioned that the funds sent to Moscow's satrapies have fallen as a consequence of the global economic crisis. There is also a rethink going on as to the wisdom of supporting the assorted ruffians who occupy positions of local power. It is possible that Ilyumzhinov may not be quite so generous to his supporters. In other words, Karpov's challenge is well timed.

A momentum built up in support of Karpov may garner him extra votes from those looking to curry favour. This turns on its head the argument made at one ECF meeting, some time ago, by a certain person that the President of Kalmykia should be supported as he was going to win anyway. The time for an ECF statement committing to a vote for Karpov is now.

[Paolo Casaschi]

It might be determined exclusively by the Russian chess federation though

I'm not sure it has much to do with the Russian chess federation.

Perhaps the best hope is that the Kremlin decides that Ilyumzhinov is too much of a liability. For instance if he takes a line too independent of Moscow. Not something I can see happening.

To illustrate the links to the Kremlin, it should be born in mind that the President of the Russian Chess Federation, Alexander Zhukov, is also the Deputy Prime Minister of Russia. Given the celebrity (sic) obsessed world we live in, it might not be inappropriate to mention that his daughter Daria Zhukova is the girlfriend of Roman Abamovich. Worth a comment, too, is that his son Peter Zhukov was in the news for the wrong reasons. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6735269.stm

You might be mixing things here.

This is the deputy prime minister and head of the chess federation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Zhukov

This is the father of Dasha Zhukov (girlfriend of Abramovich) and of Peter Zhukov (the one in the news):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Radkin_Zhukov
Some info here as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dasha_Zhukova

Not that this changes much the discussion about the connection between chess federation and politics in Russia, at least this celebrity obsessed world is not THAT sick as we thought

[Simon Spivack]

You might be mixing things here.

This is the deputy prime minister and head of the chess federation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Zhukov

This is the father of Dasha Zhukov (girlfriend of Abramovich) and of Peter Zhukov (the one in the news):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Radkin_Zhukov
Some info here as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dasha_Zhukova

Not that this changes much the discussion about the connection between chess federation and politics in Russia, at least this celebrity obsessed world is not THAT sick as we thought

Why do people quote Wikipedia as a reference? The only answer I can come up with is laziness. It is completely unreliable. I use it rarely, and only as a prompt.

I don't propose to show that Peter is an Anglicized version of Petr.

Googling Petr Zhukov produces headlines such as Russian deputy PM's son jailed for city brawl, Russian Deputy PM's Son Beats Up London Banker - Kommersant Moscow and Russian leader's son 'beat up City banker' - Times Online. That same first page also gives lines such as Last Friday, Petr Zhukov, 24, whose father Alexander is deputy prime minister of Russia, was jailed for 14 months at Southwark crown court, ... and Russian Depty PM's son Petr Zhukov outside London's Southwark crown court ... Petr Zhukov, 24, the son of Moscow top politician and chess.

Thus, contrary to what Paolo has written, I expect that Peter Zhukov is the son of the Deputy PM.

If Paolo can be bothered to find out what is wrong with this Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Krylenko , then I may double check the Daria Zhukova stuff. I don't read non-chess gossip pages, so I should not be altogether shocked to learn that I have identified the wrong beetle. Zhukov is a common name.

I have read a couple of articles that have suggested that Alexander Zhukov is moving on from the chess federation to the sports. However, I've not seen anything definitive, so am not certain as to how reliable this is. I'm not sure what bearing it has on Karpov's chances of winning the FIDE presidency.

[Gavin Strachan]

It is all very well voting for Karpov and I know he will get a lot of support from players but I do not think he will get a big enough majority. I agree he is a very well known figure to non players as opposed to the incumbent who is unknown (talking from a UK perspective) but imagine that many voters will probably think that just because the guy is a good chess player may not make him a good president. Kirzan will get voted back in simply because he has lots of money and has big money backers in various countries around the world. People in Kirzan's position are well versed in being involved in million if not billion dollar multinational deals. I think it probable that people in higher FIDE authority with voting rights will not be particularly confident that Karpov would bring likewise investment into the game as he doesn't have track record of this nature which is as financially impressive as Kirzan's. I thought Bessel Kok was a great candidate in 06 with the right background, but was out muscled/done/etc by Kirzan 54-96 - shame. Personally I would like Karpov as president as it would be nice for chess to have a president who is not seen as somewhat dodgey in someway or other.

[Gavin Strachan]

I certainly don't support him Martin, but it is a bit like the local elections in some areas of the UK. They are staunch Conservative or Labour or other that it is barely worth voting in them. And yes proper dodgey is perhaps most appropriate.

[David Sedgwick]

I've just seen a report on Chess Vibes that the Russian Chess Federation has officially nominated Ilyumzhinov.

http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/fide- ... yumzhinov/


Edit: Mark Crowther on TWIC also has the story and some analysis.

http://www.chess.co.uk/twic/chessnews/p ... ov-chances

[Nigel Short]

In fact the Russian Federation hasn't nominated Ilyumzhinov, as can clearly be seen from http://www.karpov2010.org/2010/04/karpo ... vich-move/ Incidentally Ilyumzhinov's right hand man, Berik Balgabaev, has been repeatedly claiming, since mid February, that Kirsan is on the point of securing the Russian nomination but, two months and more later, it is yet to happen. The attempt to circumvent proper procedure smacks somewhat of desperation, but irregular moves of questionable legality have been by no means unusual in the chess world during the last 28 years...
All sides agree that the Russian nomination will be important, in particular as it will influence votes in the former Soviet Union, but I doubt that it will prove decisive, as Mark Crowther seems to imagine. There are three possible outcomes to the Russian nomination: a) Kirsan is nominated b) Karpov is nominated c) neither candidate is nominated.
As Kirsan is the incumbent, one would assume that nominating him is the default option. The more protracted the Russian Federation decision becomes, however, (and the decision has already been postponed several times) the more embarrassing it gets for the FIDE President.
If Karpov were to be nominated, this would indeed be a severe blow to Kirsan. Indeed there would even be a legal question as to whether he could run because, unlike Karpov, he is a member of only one federation. Nevertheless were Karpov to be nominated, I would confidently predict that documents will be produced "proving" that Kirsan has been a member of the Vanuatu Federation, or wherever, for the last x number of years - thus entitling him to compete. Alternatively he will try to obtain a dispensation from the General Assembly - as he did successfully, albeit somewhat dubiously - in 1994.
Were I a betting man - which I am not - I would place money on the current stalemate leading to the Russian federation not nominating either Candidate. That would be a blow to Kirsan - the default candidate - but by no means decisive.
In conclusion, regardless of the outcome of the Russian Federation nomination, Karpov and Ilyumzhinov will almost certainly be fighting it out in Khanty-Mansiysk. However some ex-Soviet votes will swing as a consequence of the Russian Federation decision and it will have a psychological impact elsewhere.

[Alex Holowczak]

How does the voting procedure work in these elections? Does each member of FIDE get one vote only? It would seem a little unfair for Russia to get one vote, and the British Virgin Islands to get one vote.

[David Sedgwick]

In fact the Russian Federation hasn't nominated Ilyumzhinov.

Thanks for putting me straight.

How does the voting procedure work in these elections? Does each member of FIDE get one vote only? It would seem a little unfair for Russia to get one vote, and the British Virgin Islands to get one vote.

Nevertheless, that is the situation.

In the last elections in 2006, Bessel Kok got the support of the majority of the major chess playing nations and was ahead in the tally of pledged votes for quite some time. In the final days he was overwhelmed as the smaller and chess developing nations came out one after the other for Ilyumzhinov.

One thing that that election demonstrated is that, whilst the Russian nomination may have a more general impact, the decisions of England, France and Spain have little effect on the thinking of other countries. If anything they tend to vote the opposite way to their former colonial masters.

As regards what the ECF should do at the present time, my feeling is that the important thing over the next two to three months is to do what we reasonably can to support Malcolm Pein's bid to bring the World Championship to London in 2012.

[Simon Spivack]

Yesterday and today I have read about the potholes in Surrey. I'm not convinced that David has found any more.

If anything they tend to vote the opposite way to their former colonial masters.

Is this weaker assertion justified?

The Italian Oil company ENI is a big investor in Libya, notwithstanding Italy's atrocious activities as an occupier (killings and camps). A record not particularly well known, especially to Italians. Libya, of course, is hardly receptive to foreign investment from anywhere.

To give a better publicised example, what happened in Spain's Latin American possessions has been widely reported at times. Nonetheless, Spanish companies have spent heavily in that continent and are big players.

The colonial authorities in India must bear prime responsibility for the Bengal famine during WWII. Bengal had been a big importer of Burmese rice, a source that was lost when Burma fell to the Japanese. The consequences were entirely predictable and should have been anticipated. Lord Wavell the Viceroy of India during the latter stages of the famine had to battle hard to obtain shipping. He was aware of the racism and double standards: A dull Cabinet, but it brought home to me the very different attitude towards feeding a starving population in Europe. In this case it is Holland which needs food, and ships will of course be available, quite a different answer to the one we get whenever we ask for ships to bring food to India - 9 April 1945 entry in his diary. When India became independent, the United States assumed that it would be a major beneficiary at the expense of Blighty: not so. Britain has an ambiguous record in the Subcontinent, to put it mildly, yet it is not clear that that necessarily disadvantages her.

There is also some mystique attached to the Commonwealth, which can work to Britain's benefit.

I question David's argument as he does not look at the type of politician who blames the former colonial powers, the Robert Mugabes and Bal Thackerays of this world. These individuals have an agenda, they use the colonial stick ex post facto to justify what they want to do; if it did not exist, they'd find another. Likewise, those who will support Ilyumzhinov will look to any excuse. After all, they can't say that they were swayed by a subvention!

[LozCooper]

This appeared in my facebook inbox today:

Hi all,

Ron Henley from the Karpov Campaign team asked me to send you this message:

"It seems Ilyumzhinov has rushed to Moscow from Sofia before game one and without announcing his ticket. It looks like the Dvorkovich-Ilyumzhinov gambit has not succeeded. They are now apparently trying to get the approval of Alexander Bakh. We are looking to present a formal letter of support in Russia from... GMs."

If you're a GM and want to sign the letter of support, send your email to: [email protected]. Thanks!

[Alex Holowczak]

I received that too. It appears to have come from the 'Change FIDE - Chess players supporting Karpov for FIDE President' group, which currently has 561 members.

[David Sedgwick]

I question David's argument.

Simon, I don't pretend to come close to your knowledge understanding of modern history. I was merely talking about chess politics, based on my analysis and observations regarding the Turin Congress 2006 and other occasions.

Certainly there are friendly relations amongst the member countries of the Commonwealth Chess Association and amongst those of the recently formed Francophone equivalent. However, the fact remains that these Federations, and those from the Spanish speaking countries, are influenced little if at all by the views of England, France and Spain respectively. Continental allegiances are much more important.

I'm prepared to concede that this may not have anything to do with the colonial era.

[Simon Spivack]

My apologies if I have given offence. I dare say many of the readers of these fora are aware that David had worked tremendously hard for decades in the cause of chess at county, regional, national and international level. This selfless work gives little or no reward. It's just that I find the demerits of one of the candidates so pronounced that I consider him incorrigible and not someone we should work with if at all possible.

I wasn't at Turin, which must be considered when assessing what I write. Nonetheless, I have been informed from various sources that the prevalent tune when voting for one of the candidates then was that of the gratuity (it is surprising how little is needed in many instances). I often find when considering an action that I consider questionable that the party I believe to be in the wrong seizes upon a quite possibly completely unrelated matter to justify what he has done. Hence my doubts as to the force of any sort of anti-West, for want of a better term, argument.

Continental allegiances are much more important.

I was tempted to ask Nigel what he thought of the endorsement by the Egyptian federation of the Karpov School. A careless reader may imagine that this was an endorsement of Karpov's bid for the presidency, which is not how I read it! Although I don't know what the Arabic text says.

The thing is, though, what does Egypt have in common, say, with Cameroon? I could be taking David too literally here, and it is possible that the countries of the Maghreb and the Near East are meant. Still, I remain unconvinced, the differences between them are enormous; witness the various failed unions that have been attempted between them.

[cjdemooi]

The ECF board are currently considering who, if anyone, to support for FIDE President. I have my own personal preference but naturally a majority decision is required to formally endorse a particular candidate.
As I have always stated, all important decisions and processes should be transparent to others (especially the Council and ECF members) so does anyone have a view please?
It is rather important this is decided before tomorrow lunchtime so any support can be submitted before the Russian Federation declares on Friday. Feel free to contact me on my personal email address ([email protected]) if you'd rather keep it confidential, via [email protected] or just post it on here.
Thanks CJ.