CAS case clarification required

Debate directly related to English Chess Federation matters.
User avatar
JustinHorton
Posts: 6827
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Somewhere you're not

Re: CAS case clarification required

Post by JustinHorton » Sun Aug 12, 2012 10:45 pm

You might be. I've got the Gobbi/Callas Rigoletto on CD and the golf updates on the internet.
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

lostontime.blogspot.com

Richard Bates
Posts: 2980
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:27 pm

Re: CAS case clarification required

Post by Richard Bates » Sun Aug 12, 2012 10:46 pm

Warren Kingston wrote:Not sure it all matters, does it?
We are watching the Olympics.
I think a lot of people are looking for a reason not to watch the (end of) the Olympics at the moment... :wink:

Warren Kingston
Posts: 110
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 6:05 pm

Re: CAS case clarification required

Post by Warren Kingston » Sun Aug 12, 2012 10:56 pm

Deary me, its the Spice Girls, back to the forum.
Justin, looks like McIlroy.

Angus French
Posts: 1621
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 1:37 am
Contact:

Re: CAS case clarification required

Post by Angus French » Sun Aug 12, 2012 11:00 pm

Peter Sowray wrote:I just don't think the issue was of much interest to Council. The CAS action had been common knowledge in chess circles since about July, so I'm sure that many Council members were aware about it. The fact that nobody asked the question from the floor is indicative.
Nigel Short referenced the legal action both in his written report to last year's AGM and at the AGM itself when he was quizzed - in some detail, and in particular by Peter Wilson - about the ECF's working relationship with FIDE. But Nigel didn't say that the ECF was one of the parties involved in the action.
At the following Finance meeting, as a way of expressing its unhappiness about the legal action and, I believe, with having been kept in the dark about it, Council voted to reject Nigel's report to the meeting.
Last edited by Angus French on Sun Aug 12, 2012 11:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

David Gilbert
Posts: 737
Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2009 10:03 am

Re: CAS case clarification required

Post by David Gilbert » Sun Aug 12, 2012 11:02 pm

Running over the same old ground.
What have you found? The same old fears.
Wish you were here.

Ian Kingston
Posts: 1070
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 3:16 pm
Location: Sutton Coldfield
Contact:

Re: CAS case clarification required

Post by Ian Kingston » Sun Aug 12, 2012 11:28 pm

David Gilbert wrote:Running over the same old ground.
What have you found? The same old fears.
Wish you were here.
Oh, for a 'Like' button. :D

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 18278
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: CAS case clarification required

Post by Roger de Coverly » Sun Aug 12, 2012 11:49 pm

Peter Sowray wrote: My view is that the CAS action was designed to weaken the President's position.
It's easy to share the view that the CAS action was nothing to do with Vice Presidents but just a political attempt to undermine FIDE and its President. The question for the ECF, is whether it wishes to associate itself with such activities, given that, on balance, they take money out of chess.

PaulJackson
Posts: 24
Joined: Sun May 30, 2010 8:27 pm

Re: CAS case clarification required

Post by PaulJackson » Mon Aug 13, 2012 12:26 am

Krishna Shiatis wrote:Sean, I was not born yesterday. I am fully aware of what you are saying. I think that your comments are highly personal and offensive not only to yourself but everyone who has ever participated and who will ever participate on this forum. It is your choice what you call people and what you say, but everyone here is intelligent enough to see.
I totally agree with Krishna. I'm new to this forum and don't intend to stay here much longer. Some of the posts here are shocking and I wonder why the posters aren't ashamed of themselves for typing them. Some people on here are spitefull and hide behind their keyboards typing comments that I'm sure they wouldn't dare say to anybody face to face in real life.

User avatar
Gerard Killoran
Posts: 403
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 11:51 am
Contact:

Re: CAS case clarification required

Post by Gerard Killoran » Mon Aug 13, 2012 1:03 am

Peter Sowray wrote:
Gerard Killoran wrote:
But this futile and self-defeating court case had nothing to do with replacing the FIDE President. Indeed it has made the possibility of doing so even harder. Countries who might have been won over to the 'cause' by persuasion will have been alienated by the ECF allying itself with Gary Kasparov and his shady American backers.

I'd take a guess that Nigel Short has never read How to Win Friends and Influence People.

Gerard,

We may have to disagree about this. I wasn't party, and I don't think you were either, to the reasoning behind the court case. My view is that the CAS action was designed to weaken the President's position.

Yes, it might have been possible to continue along the path of persuasion. But it doesn't seem to have worked in the 17 years we've had Kirsan.

Peter
Hi Peter,

Disqualifying the supernumerary vice-presidents would have made absolutely no difference to Kirsan's position. To quote myself from another discussion:
Having read the CAS judgement

http://www.fide.com/images/stories/ches ... ly2012.pdf

I wonder if Andrew now considers the actions of the ECF were justifiable given:

1. The appointment of additional vice-presidents was confirmed by the General Assembly
2. That the additional vice-presidents didn't alter the balance of power on the Presidential board and were unpaid.
3. That additional vice-presidents had been appointed in the past.
4. That the additional vice-presidents were appointed to assist the President in tasks such as the Chess in Schools project.
5. That one of the additional vice-presidents was the organiser of the coming Olympiad.
6. That CHF 75,000 doesn't cover the FIDE costs of CHF 470,000 so there is a huge financial loss to the chess family, including the ECF.
However if the ECF action had been 'successful', FIDE would have had to pay all its own costs, plus those of a very expensive American law firm.
Yes, it might have been possible to continue along the path of persuasion.
That is the democratic way
But it doesn't seem to have worked in the 17 years we've had Kirsan.
So we'll bankrupt FIDE instead? Is that really the way to do it? Shouldn't we operate on the basis of principle rather than expediency, acting as a front for the ambitions of Gary Kasparov and whoever his shady backers are?

As for allying ourselves with Kasparov, do you remember when he was opposed to Campomanes - then became his best mate? The same has happened with Kirsan - just read what Bareev has pointed out about his record.

http://reports.chessdom.com/news-2010/b ... rov-karpov

Now we see an alliance between Short and Zurab Azmaiparashvili, who not so long ago were mud-wrestling each other.

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3675

If the actions taken have made the ends you sought less attainable, why do you still consider them to be justified? Why does anyone? FIDE has lost a lot of money better spent on chess and Kirsan has been strengthened in his position.

Omnishambles doesn't even come close to describing what has gone on.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 18278
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: CAS case clarification required

Post by Roger de Coverly » Mon Aug 13, 2012 1:33 am

JustinHorton wrote: But I've not seen any evidence to suggest that it was known in English chess at all before it it was spotted (if I remember rightly) in FIDE documents and mentioned here.
Ever since 2004, when FIDE abolished writing the move down before playing it, it's been apparent that the minutes of FIDE meetings are worth scrutiny for radical ideas. So therefore I scanned the minutes of the 2011 FIDE Congress to see if it was still possible to resign, agree a draw or travel abroad to play chess. But what was Kirsan going on about, with this talk of legal action by Georgia and England? It's not an issue that had been reported by mainstream chess journalists, or if it had, not in a way that attracted any attention. So had I missed something? Response on the forum and in other blogs, was that it was news to them as well.

Gossip in the 4NCL bar is by no means definitive, but it was suggested that it was part of a "plot" hatched by the President, the Delegate and others during the Siberia Olympiad to cause grief to the FIDE President.

John McKenna
Posts: 3763
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 2:02 pm

Re: CAS case clarification required

Post by John McKenna » Mon Aug 13, 2012 1:54 am

Got to break my vow - some are trying to cover/bury a body.
FIDE defeated the ECF on a technical knockout at CAS. But, FIDE lost the financial battle as they didn't recoup their costs. The two national federations escaped financial penalty (their willing backers footed all the bills) but are suffering a loss of credibility and support.
If the ECF'd won, the police (move along now folks) & undertakers (no peeking please) would be crowing and forming a committee to re-elect President CJ & Sec. of State Short.
To find a for(u)m that accommodates the mess, that is the task of the artist now. (Samuel Beckett)

User avatar
IM Jack Rudd
Posts: 3976
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:13 am
Location: Bideford

Re: CAS case clarification required

Post by IM Jack Rudd » Mon Aug 13, 2012 1:57 am

John McKenna wrote:Got to break my vow - some are trying to cover/bury a body.
FIDE defeated the ECF on a technical knockout at CAS. But, FIDE lost the financial battle as they didn't recoup their costs. The two national federations escaped financial penalty (their willing backers footed all the bills) but are suffering a loss of credibility and support.
If the ECF'd won, the police (move along now folks) & undertakers (no peeking please) would be crowing and forming a committee to re-elect President CJ & Sec. of State Short.
Your post appears to have arrived out of time and space, or at least mixed its metaphors so thoroughly that they resemble a compost heap.

John McKenna
Posts: 3763
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 2:02 pm

Re: CAS case clarification required

Post by John McKenna » Mon Aug 13, 2012 2:05 am

The BIG mistake was not ensuring that the case was watertight enough to be almost guaranteed winnable. If you leave such decisions to lawyers you deserve what you get, since lawyers cannot always be trusted to act in your best interest, particularly if someone else is footing their bill.
To find a for(u)m that accommodates the mess, that is the task of the artist now. (Samuel Beckett)

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 18278
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: CAS case clarification required

Post by Roger de Coverly » Mon Aug 13, 2012 2:11 am

John McKenna wrote:The BIG mistake was not ensuring that the case was watertight enough to be almost guaranteed winnable. If you leave such decisions to lawyers you deserve what you get, since lawyers cannot always be trusted to act in your best interest, particularly if someone else is footing their bill.
It's by no means obvious that it was about winning. The idea was to take part so as to exhaust the FIDE President's funds in defending the action. The problem is that FIDE's funds and the FIDE President's funds can be interchangeable.

User avatar
Carl Hibbard
Posts: 5774
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:05 pm
Location: Evesham

Re: CAS case clarification required

Post by Carl Hibbard » Mon Aug 13, 2012 6:23 am

This thread has more than run it's course now so I am considering locking it down so we can move on
Cheers
Carl Hibbard

Post Reply