English Chess Forum

While I am not standing for re-election as Chairman of the Governance Committee (so my signature will be changing between 6.00 and 6.30 tomorrow) I am willing, if it is the wish of the newly-elected Board, to continue as the ECF Company Secretary and to undertake additional duties as part of the Finance Director's team. I have no plans to stop posting on this Forum.

Me thinks another post going off topic

I understand what Andrew is saying but just because something takes a lot of time does not mean it is not beneficial. If the ECF decide not to comment then this is reverting to type (if we ignore it it will go away) There is no doubt in my mind that this is a retrograde step and a bad thing for the ECF and chess in general.

We all need to be tolerant and try to understand the concerns and questions that people are raising - no need to get hot under the collar

Krishna and many others are very passionate and vocal about chess this is not a bad thing - get over it!

Krishna Shiatis wrote:[
Andrew did eventually tell us that it was an undisclosed third party who paid for the Memorandum. This was told to us only after being asked several times about how it was funded.

I thought it very obvious from the context that the Memorandum was paid for by Kasparov or his associates and not really worth challenging a CEO who had been evidently been asked not to disclose the source of the funding. It's self evident that an impoverished ECF would be unable to afford the fees of Wolfram & Hart or whoever it was who acted for Kasparov, so rather pointless to try and suggest that the ECF was acting as anything other than a proxy.

Bill Porter wrote:As an ECF director, you could score a very good debating point and set an example to the other directors by boycotting this forum.

Like you've boycotted playing you mean?

Krishna Shiatis wrote:

Sean Hewitt wrote: It is discussions like this that will prevent ECF Directors from posting here I'm afraid. At this rate, soon all you'll have is me. You have been warned

Yet more threats. Still attempting to censor anyone who dares to disagree with you.

Sweet Jesus. I'm not sure you'd recognise a threat if it popped up and bopped you with a wet fish.

The best and worst thing about this forum is that it attracts some very strong personalities and opinions. Carl does his best at moderation but ultimately (unlike a public meeting) there is no chairman to say, `We're going round in circles, let's put this to the vote`.

If this forum had ceased to exist eighteen months ago it would not have stopped the Sheffield incident and its aftermath from happening, nor would it have prevented the recriminations over the FIDE lawsuit. There is an argument for letting the debate take place on here so that those who want to get on their soapbox and/ or have a rant can do so - board members can step in to clarify where necessary and it contains matters to a extent by getting the recriminations out of the way.

I can understand why Andrew Farthing got frustrated when he stated things repeatedly only to be told that he was lying. One of his greatest strengths as CEO was that he was willing to answer any questions (within reason) and perhaps a future CEO could follow this approach and publicise it more. From my own point of view I baited Andrew Farthing over something (which I regret now) when a polite private message would have got the same response.

In general there is a tendency in English chess to dwell on the negatives. This forum has opened my eyes to much that is positive and I am determined in the season ahead to involve myself and my club colleagues more. I've already started by entering Harrogate in the national club championships for the first time ever.

Finally, a personal appeal to two forum contributors; one of whom does a tremendous amount for English chess and whose opinions, if occasionally blunt, are to be respected and another who does their bit and helps this forum as one of the few genuine voices of reason. This forum and English chess in general needs you too much to have you arguing on here. I won't name names ...

Andrew Zigmond wrote:Carl does his best at moderation but ultimately (unlike a public meeting) there is no chairman to say, `We're going round in circles, let's put this to the vote`.

It is getting harder to moderate and I really do not have a magic answer as the number of posts increases

In general terms I think this forum (i.e. Carl) maintains a pretty good balance between free speech and winding up topics if they become particularly libellous or if the discussion is going round in circles.

I would perhaps prefer it if some of the discussions (the posts between Sean and Krishna on here being a prime example) were carried out via PMs and the forum was more constructive, but the nature of internet forums mean that silly arguments will break out sometimes.

I think it's sad if ECF officials feel the need to have a default position of not posting on here as they are often the best placed to comment on certain issues. The problem is that if an official posts and then stops, this silence is usually deemed to be incriminating so it is understandable that officials might not want to post in the first place.

Andrew Bak wrote: I think it's sad if ECF officials feel the need to have a default position of not posting on here as they are often the best placed to comment on certain issues. The problem is that if an official posts and then stops, this silence is usually deemed to be incriminating so it is understandable that officials might not want to post in the first place.

There's no particular reason why they cannot comment using the ECF website. The difficulty comes if or when a discussion breaks out. Whilst the ECF employs a webmaster, it's probably not expedient for him to spend his working day monitoring discussion on an official ECF blog or website.

>There's no particular reason why they cannot comment using the ECF website.

Isn't the fact that no-one reads it a bit of an issue?

Andrew Bak wrote:I would perhaps prefer it if some of the discussions (the posts between Sean and Krishna on here being a prime example) were carried out via PMs and the forum was more constructive, but the nature of internet forums mean that silly arguments will break out sometimes.

I apologise if my taking to task someone who contributed to hounding a very good CEO both out of office and off the forum by implying that he was liar is a silly argument. The problem, as you rightly acknowledge, is that saying nothing can be taken as agreement with a position.

John Cox wrote:Isn't the fact that no-one reads it a bit of an issue?

That as well

But if they are really determined not to use this forum, they can comment or issue a statement on the ECF site and hope someone puts up a link and an opinion.

John Cox wrote

Isn't the fact that no-one reads it a bit of an issue?

Since March, the recorded visits to the ECF website have not fallen below 50,000 per month. Not quite Amazon or Ebay I will grant, but equally not no-one.

A forum like this has huge positives such as informing people of what is going on in the chess world and huge negatives such as a tendency to be used as a weapon by the disenchanted. If everybody stuck to the issues instead of getting personal it would be a lot better.