Andrew Paulson -- Candidacy for ECF President

Debate directly related to English Chess Federation matters.
Post Reply
Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Andrew Paulson -- Candidacy for ECF President

Post by Roger de Coverly » Fri Sep 20, 2013 10:23 am

Jonathan Rogers wrote: I would like to invite others on this forum to suggest other suitable "referees" (by PM preferably) and we can then ask Andrew whether he is happy for them to be approached too.
The forum has a couple of international "observers" who contribute to debates from time to time. Whilst neither are part of FIDE management in the narrow sense, both are involved with FIDE working parties and how their Federation votes in FIDE elections.

We could also observe that while the notion of an integrated cycle kept FIDE to the previously agreed dates, the completion of the Grand Prix cycle has depended on FIDE's usual support model of finding local sponsors who want an event in their back yard and using the naming and publicity rights for it.

In a number of respects it doesn't matter who is in charge of the ECF, because the ECF has very little power and what power it has is the ability to make a nuisance of itself. The test of that is to imagine that the ECF disappeared overnight. That's not an extreme hypothesis given the ECF's financial difficulties in recent years. Much of English chess activity would continue unaffected, in the short term at least. The short term is a period of a year probably, lack of new grades being the eventual limiting factor.

Jonathan Bryant
Posts: 3452
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 3:54 pm

Re: Andrew Paulson -- Candidacy for ECF President

Post by Jonathan Bryant » Fri Sep 20, 2013 10:35 am

Andrew Paulson wrote:
Jonathan Bryant wrote:Morning Andrew.

A quick question if I may:

who owns Agon?
I do, 100%.

Thanks for the clarification. I'll perhaps return to the interaction between AGON and FIDE later if there's time. Meanwhile, let's talk about something more fundamental.

I understand AGON was set up as a vehicle to commercialise world chess. Implicit in your election address and earlier comments here is the idea that commercialising English chess is a 'good thing'. Let's get specific on this assumption. Who benefits from taking chess in this direction. In what ways might amateur chess suffer and what steps would you take to avoid any damage (I'm thinking 'unintended consequences' here)


My second follow-up question is about the ECF's readiness to *be* an organisation run on commercial lines. What tells you that it is.

Earlier you referred to CJ de Mooi and Sheffield as being about personality not issues. But it really isn't. He may or may not be witty as you describe but his handling of the finances before and during Sheffield was appalling?


What do you know of the financial arrangements for Sheffield 2011 (both in terms of what the then president did and what the ECF as a body allowed)? What steps would you take as to ensure that this sort of thing never happens again?

PeterFarr
Posts: 624
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2013 11:20 pm
Location: Horsham, Sussex

Re: Andrew Paulson -- Candidacy for ECF President

Post by PeterFarr » Fri Sep 20, 2013 10:52 am

Andrew,

It's true that some of the comments have had the flavour of the Un-American activities committee, although a lot of the earlier comments around nominations were filling a vacuum, and basically just gossip and rumour; well that's kind of the nature of internet fora perhaps. As you noted yourself, coming on here and having a direct Q&A starts to change the tone of the debate; it's also giving it more substance.

Personally, I can get over Justin's criticisms around being a newbie etc., - every organisation needs fresh blood at some point, and if you listen to the people around that know where the bodies are buried etc., then that should cover it around day-today issues. The Sheffield thing seems largely a red herring to me.

I have more concern around the do-ability of your grand vision, marrying together all the disparate interests etc. It sounds risky and over-ambitious. But then the key question (for the voters) becomes something like, is it better to try, but 'fail', but in doing so achieve (say) 20% of what you set out to do? Or is there too great a risk of actually making things worse?

Roger's points about amateur chess have some substance; the game is almost entirely amateur and relatively speaking, a casual leisure activity in England as across the world. A "grand vision" can't just be about the big tournaments, GMs etc., it has also to appeal to people turning out on wet Wednesdays in November for their local club ( or at least it mustn't adversely affect them).

It's not an impossibility; as RdeC has previously noted, many people were switched on to chess in the first place by all the excitement around Bobby Fischer. So actions at the top level of the sport can filter down by creating interest. Whether the ECF can be a vehicle for that, I'm not so sure.

On another note, it seems a pity that all this is essentially just an argument around "radical change" with Andrew Paulson versus "do-nothing / steady as she goes" with Roger E; in reality we don't have competing visions.

So we have a dialogue that goes:

AP: "I want to do this...."
Critic: "That won't work ...."

Whereas it would be better to have:

AP: "I want to do this...."
Alternative view: "Hmm, OK, but how about this instead...." etc.

(P.S. I see John Upham is suggesting a thread for Roger E's candidacy - let's see what happens)

User avatar
JustinHorton
Posts: 10364
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Somewhere you're not

Re: Andrew Paulson -- Candidacy for ECF President

Post by JustinHorton » Fri Sep 20, 2013 11:04 am

PeterFarr wrote:The Sheffield thing seems largely a red herring to me.
Point about Sheffield, Peter, is not just that it was (along with the CAS case) kind of the culmination of a long trail of unreliable-to-dubious activity from the then-president, beginning with unlikely and ever-changing claims, proceeding to secretive political activity and ending with reckless financial conduct.

It's that this conduct had an impact, both on the way the ECF conducts itself and on the willingness of ECF members to turn a blind eye to this kind of carry-on. In other words it wasn't just, you know, that was all CJ and now he's gone thank goodness - it was this sort of thing happened because we allowed it to happen, and this shouldn't occur again.
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

lostontime.blogspot.com

Matthew Turner
Posts: 3600
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 11:54 am

Re: Andrew Paulson -- Candidacy for ECF President

Post by Matthew Turner » Fri Sep 20, 2013 11:07 am

The ECF is not going to have a big impact on the Somerset league or the Kettering League, but it can do some things. It can organise top level events and it can introduce programs for developing junior chess. Andrew Paulson is standing for President. He organised the Candidates in London, there were faults with that organisation, but wasn't it great that that event was held in London. Phil Ehr is standing for CEO. He has sent more juniors abroad to events than any other Junior Director, in my view there have been faults with his policies to.
So there is a choice, there are two candidates who have done big things imperfectly and will no doubt improve in the big things they have planned for the future. Then there is the alternative, except there really isn't.

PeterFarr
Posts: 624
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2013 11:20 pm
Location: Horsham, Sussex

Re: Andrew Paulson -- Candidacy for ECF President

Post by PeterFarr » Fri Sep 20, 2013 11:16 am

JustinHorton wrote:
PeterFarr wrote:The Sheffield thing seems largely a red herring to me.
Point about Sheffield, Peter, is not just that it was (along with the CAS case) kind of the culmination of a long trail of unreliable-to-dubious activity from the then-president, beginning with unlikely and ever-changing claims, proceeding to secretive political activity and ending with reckless financial conduct.

It's that this conduct had an impact, both on the way the ECF conducts itself and on the willingness of ECF members to turn a blind eye to this kind of carry-on. In other words it wasn't just, you know, that was all CJ and now he's gone thank goodness - it was this sort of thing happened because we allowed it to happen, and this shouldn't occur again.
Yes I get that, but it doesn't mean that Andrew should have an intimate knowledge of the Sheffield affair, which is what you were actually saying. Everybody can see the potential issues of a big personality candidate coming in, with a company behind him, and possibly riding rough-shod over proper processes etc., and that's a reason why so much scrutiny going on, reasonably enough. In the end there's a judgement call around whether people trust AP, and also whether people trust the rest of the Board to apply the right checks and balances - or will they turn a blind eye, as you say.

Andrew Zigmond
Posts: 2073
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Harrogate

Re: Andrew Paulson -- Candidacy for ECF President

Post by Andrew Zigmond » Fri Sep 20, 2013 11:17 am

Matthew Turner wrote:Then there is the alternative, except there really isn't.
Well there is, stick with Roger Edwards as President and elect Andrew Moore as CEO. My own opinion (I don't have a vote of course but I seem to be the only person in Yorkshire who cares) is that Roger Edwards deserves better than to be jettisoned after one year on a gamble but I would like to see Mr Paulson engage with English chess (perhaps Agon could sponsor the British) and if he delivers then Mr Edwards could consider how both could best serve the ECF in 2014.

The fact that Mr Paulson has come on this forum has improved his standing massively in my eyes; if he wasn't facing a successful (in the context that his two immediate predecessors were disasters) incumbent I would support his candidacy. Let's face it, this forum is controversial and distrusted by many in English chess (not just Steve Giddins) for a reason.
Controller - Yorkshire League
Chairman - Harrogate Chess Club
All views expressed entirely my own

Angus French
Posts: 2151
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 1:37 am
Contact:

Re: Andrew Paulson -- Candidacy for ECF President

Post by Angus French » Fri Sep 20, 2013 11:29 am

PeterFarr wrote:On another note, it seems a pity that all this is essentially just an argument around "radical change" with Andrew Paulson versus "do-nothing / steady as she goes" with Roger E; in reality we don't have competing visions.

So we have a dialogue that goes:

AP: "I want to do this...."
Critic: "That won't work ...."

Whereas it would be better to have:

AP: "I want to do this...."
Alternative view: "Hmm, OK, but how about this instead...." etc.
I think "Do-nothing / steady as she goes" is a bit of a mischaracterisation. For example, the attempt to convert to charity status is still on the agenda. Maybe there will be voting reform at some point too... As a whole, I think the last year was a good year with substantial improvements.

Is the critic saying "That won't work"? Personally, I'm not rejecting anything but I do want more substance... This said and on a particular point, I am sceptical about getting chess recognised as a sport - given, in particular, Brendan O'Gorman's comments over on another thread about the steps which would likely be required and the chances of each succeeding... Has Malcolm Pein already kicked off a campaign to get chess recognised as a sport (Andrew's election address said: "My first concrete goal is to arrange for the Government to accord to chess the status of a sport. We will actively support Malcolm Pein in his creation of an All Parliamentary Group reviewing the matter")?

One thing that concerns me is capacity for change (whatever that change may be). The ECF isn't a business. It's a volunteer organisation with limited capacity. I've long thought the ECF tries to do too much and should focus more on doing less better.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Andrew Paulson -- Candidacy for ECF President

Post by Roger de Coverly » Fri Sep 20, 2013 11:48 am

Matthew Turner wrote:The ECF is not going to have a big impact on the Somerset league or the Kettering League,
Isn't the business model that the local leagues and Congresses should give up their naming and marketing rights to the ECF? On the very big "if" and high risk strategy that the ECF can actually sell them for a worthwhile price, this then leaves local leagues beholden to the ECF for a share in the handouts. So anyone in control of the handouts has considerable political and potentially voting power. Being in charge of the hand-outs has worked for FIDE Presidents.

Matthew Turner wrote: He organised the Candidates in London, there were faults with that organisation, but wasn't it great that that event was held in London.
I think the point is that much more was promised than was actually delivered. Furthermore, the coverage and presentation went sideways from what had previously been considered best practice, as illustrated by Moscow in both the World Championship and Tal Memorial.

There's an element of tampering for the sake of it in Agon's record. Take the new design of chess pieces. When you sit at the board, you are looking at them from a 45 degree angle. As such it's the top of the pieces that you see and the top of the queen and top of the king are very similar. Take the lighting at the Candidates, Whilst putting spotlights on the boards is a valid idea, it had the serous disadvantage with the usual LCD displays on the clocks, that the cameras couldn't pick up the contrast to display the real time clock positions. Take the replay of the games. Whilst it's nice to have the clock times for each move, this was at the cost of easily being able to play through the game so far.

Is it unfair to judge an organisation that promises a new improved coverage designed to attract a world audience as to whether it actually delivers? That's particularly when the coverage is no better, and in some cases worse than other organisations making no such claims.

User avatar
JustinHorton
Posts: 10364
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Somewhere you're not

Re: Andrew Paulson -- Candidacy for ECF President

Post by JustinHorton » Fri Sep 20, 2013 12:04 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:Isn't the business model that the local leagues and Congresses should give up their naming and marketing rights to the ECF?
Who knows? This is the sort of minor detail that I've been trying to ask about.
Roger de Coverly wrote:On the very big "if" and high risk strategy that the ECF can actually sell them for a worthwhile price
And why would they? Companies normally sponsor sporting events and entities because of the media exposure it gets them, and chess gets next to no media exposure. (This is something that people who invoke "sponsorship" and "marketing" as if they were magic words rarely stop to think about.) It's partly for this reason that much chess sponsorship has always been patronage rather than sponsorship.

Of course we can make up stories about how we are going to change all that (or Magnus Carlsen is) but that's more magic-words stuff.
Roger de Coverly wrote:Is it unfair to judge an organisation that promises a new improved coverage designed to attract a world audience as to whether it actually delivers?
The very idea.
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

lostontime.blogspot.com

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Andrew Paulson -- Candidacy for ECF President

Post by Roger de Coverly » Fri Sep 20, 2013 12:12 pm

JustinHorton wrote: It's partly for this reason that much chess sponsorship has always been patronage rather than sponsorship.
An event that attracts a worldwide audience also gives worldwide name awareness. The problem is that the awareness is usually only amongst the limited numbers who follow top class chess.

Matthew Turner
Posts: 3600
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 11:54 am

Re: Andrew Paulson -- Candidacy for ECF President

Post by Matthew Turner » Fri Sep 20, 2013 12:21 pm

JustinHorton wrote:
Roger de Coverly wrote:Isn't the business model that the local leagues and Congresses should give up their naming and marketing rights to the ECF?
Who knows? This is the sort of minor detail that I've been trying to ask about.
Be realistic, if I go down to Glastonbury tennis club, it doesn't say Glastonbury tennis club brought to you by Aegon. Nor do the Internationals at School have to wear Aegon endorsed outfits all the time. However, when they represent England they will be supported by Aegon and Aegon will expect to get PR in return, so the players will have to wear Aegon logos. There is nothing strange about that and there is no reason why it couldn't happen in chess. If I have read it correctly that is what Andrew Paulson is looking to do. Frankly, that will be a bloody difficult ask, but how much would it be worth to Citigroup or Goldman Sachs to be the exclusive sponsor of English Chess (I.e title sponsor of the British, lead sponsor of the England team and proud supporters of English junior chess?)

User avatar
JustinHorton
Posts: 10364
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Somewhere you're not

Re: Andrew Paulson -- Candidacy for ECF President

Post by JustinHorton » Fri Sep 20, 2013 12:29 pm

Matthew Turner wrote: If I have read it correctly that is what Andrew Paulson is looking to do.
You might well have read it correctly, but it's difficult to know unless and until we're told.
Matthew Turner wrote: Frankly, that will be a bloody difficult ask, but how much would it be worth to Citigroup or Goldman Sachs to be the exclusive sponsor of English Chess
You'd assume anybody who was making such a proposal might have an estimate. Based on research. Perhaps he does. If not, we're talking about uncosted, unspecific, unresearched proposals and I can make a pretty good estimate of what such thinngs are worth.
Last edited by JustinHorton on Fri Sep 20, 2013 12:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

lostontime.blogspot.com

User avatar
John Upham
Posts: 7179
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:29 am
Location: Cove, Hampshire, England.
Contact:

Re: Andrew Paulson -- Candidacy for ECF President

Post by John Upham » Fri Sep 20, 2013 12:35 pm

Justin Horton wrote: If not, we're talking about uncosted, unspecific, unresearched proposals and I can make a pretty good estimate of what such things are worth.
What would you like to read here that would satisfy your curiosity?

Some specifics would be most welcome.
British Chess News : britishchessnews.com
Twitter: @BritishChess
Facebook: facebook.com/groups/britishchess :D

Leonard Barden
Posts: 1857
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2008 11:21 am

Re: Andrew Paulson -- Candidacy for ECF President

Post by Leonard Barden » Fri Sep 20, 2013 12:36 pm

Andrew Paulson wrote: As I was organising a Grand Prix and the Candidates in London in 2012/2013, I decided to meet with the prominent members of the UK chess community, at least as a courtesy but also as part of my chess education.  To this end, I met CJ de Mooi (President of the ECF), Stewart Reuben (former President of the ECF), Nigel Short (ECF Delegate), Malcolm Pein (chess correspondent of the Daily Telegraph), Raymond Keene (chess correspondent of The Times), Stephen Moss (chess correspondent of The Guardian), David Levy (chess engine expert) and Luke McShane and I also traveled once to Leicester to make a courtesy call on various members of the ECF Board.  I am not 'friends' with any of these people; but they were/are all key members of the UK chess community.  
Are you sacking me from the Financial Times and Evening Standard too?

Post Reply