Who should the ECF Council elect as President?

[David Sedgwick]

I saw that AP says that he has included among his many dinner companions Stuart Conquest (who would seem to fit that bill perfectly) - persuading him that there is no need for him to run, perhaps?

Andrew Paulson actually listed Stuart Conquest amongst those with whom he had "meetings and Skype calls" last week. That was after the close of nominations.

[David Pardoe]

Indeed. Keep up John.

Apologies: for one horrible moment I was worried that I had been proposed as an elected official of the ECF.

You've set my mind at rest.

If we achieve another year of steady progress at the ECF, I`m sure many will feel reasonably satisfied.
After a succession of years of `crash, bang, wallop`, some stability might give some valuable breathing space to regroup, and maybe even recover some credibility.
And of course, its very much a team effort. If those who clammer for great things would spell out any positive and constructive initiatives, I`m sure the ECF board would be very receptive.
Meanwhile, the various posts at the ECF are all open for those who wish to throw there hats into the ring.
Should this election process be reviewed to try to encourage additional candidates to step forward and offer there services?
Quite possibly. The prospect at the present time certainly seems to daunt the likes of John Upham, and some have even suggested that you`d need to be completely mad to volunteer to serve on such a body. Many looking on at the circus that has been created here will probably have there finger firmly on the `abstain` button.
Even Mr Paulson seems to have fallen silent, and stopped answering questions. Apparently he is flummoxed by the Carl technology challenge.
But there is no doubt that there are many talanted people out there who could offer much to the UK Chess scene.

[Paolo Casaschi]

Even Mr Paulson seems to have fallen silent, and stopped answering questions. Apparently he is flummoxed by the Carl technology challenge.

...or he actually has a life and does not sit all day in front of a computer reading this forum

[Andrew Paulson]

Even Mr Paulson seems to have fallen silent, and stopped answering questions. Apparently he is flummoxed by the Carl technology challenge.

...or he actually has a life and does not sit all day in front of a computer reading this forum

I both have a life and am reading this forum regularly. Actually, I'm in India at the moment working on organising media and sponsorship for the Chennai Match. (Not an easy task, as the rupee has dropped 15% since I arrived and there is talk of impending stock market crisis.)

During my first foray in this forum, I answered lots of questions and am absorbing the responses that were posted.

As I mentioned, I'm also talking to lots of chess people and getting lots of new input. There are several legitimate sides to most of the issues: sometimes it is a question of how best to execute on a goal everyone agrees on; sometimes it is a question of what really should be the goal itself. Sometimes it is a question of language and how best to formulate the question itself! A good example we've encountered is the controversy of being 'pro-FIDE' or 'anti-FIDE' which is actually two separate issues: (a) being pro/anti-Kirsan or pro/anti-Kasparov and (b) being pro/anti-FIDE itself. The first question (as I have said) is purely the domain of the ECF Delegate to FIDE (presumably Nigel Short). The second question is about how best to engage with an organisation that, whether you like it or not, is making decisions that affect our lives as chess players, not whether you like their decisions.

Closer to the election, I'll arrange a couple of opportunities to meet groups face-to-face; I'm now working on the logistics so as to make it as convenient as possible for the maximum number of people. Leading up to that, I'll post a summary of responses to comments in the various forums, giving enough time to have another cycle of comments and further discussion before the election. Direct contact is important: I should point out here that none of the people I have spoken to would paint me as a risky radical who wants to shake things up. This is a straw man which is an example of arguing in bad faith.

[Roger de Coverly]

A good example we've encountered is the controversy of being 'pro-FIDE' or 'anti-FIDE' which is actually two separate issues: (a) being pro/anti-Kirsan or pro/anti-Kasparov and (b) being pro/anti-FIDE itself. The first question (as I have said) is purely the domain of the ECF Delegate to FIDE (presumably Nigel Short). The second question is about how best to engage with an organisation that, whether you like it or not, is making decisions that affect our lives as chess players, not whether you like their decisions.

They aren't two separate questions. The voting structure of FIDE with a large number of votes in the hands of small organisations leaves a lot of power and patronage in the hands of the President, such that it can be difficult to oppose his pet hobby-horses. I dare say Karpov did insult him by turning up late in 1997 for the match with Anand. It's also true that there used to be late arrivals at the board during Olympiads, usually due to security. Neither are good reasons for insisting that players in a mass event should all be seated at the board when play commences.

I've never really known whether FIDE is for or against increased participation in international chess. Whilst some elements in the organisation seem keen to encourage growth, others appear determined to introduce regulations seemingly designed to have the opposite effect.

Historically the decision as to who the ECF would support for FIDE President is not that exclusively of the FIDE Delegate. It would usually be at least a Board decision and if the Board were undecided, the voters at Council might be consulted. It's even possible that players themselves might be asked a preference. So when the ECF declared for Karpov, there was little dissent.

[Jonathan Rogers]

Further to Roger's post (with which I agree), I will explain why I was asking about Andrew's personal support of Kirsan. Andrew is running on commercial expertise and competence as a large part of his platform *. Now, can that be separated from his personal view that Kirsan is the best that we have to lead FIDE? I think not. Any major corporation who researches international chess will google Kirsan and it won't be long before they find entries referring to him being the autocrat of a unknown Russian republic and further entries referring to his conversations with aliens, meetings with every dictator in the world, and the unsolved murder of a journalist. And there the research instantly stops and chess is thrown into the bin. Isn't that why we have we have had no real sponsorship since Kirsan came to power and rely on him for handouts for virtually everything?

Whereas if Kasparov wins ... well, he too is divisive and there will be no chance of commercial sponsorship in Russia. But in the outside world - large companies already know Kasparov (he talks to many of them) and he is a big, untarnished name in the western media. Wouldn't there be a good chance of another Bessel Kok coming forward in that case?

And so I simply don't understand how anyone running on a commercial ticket can possibly think that Kirsan is the better candidate.


* albeit that there is no explanation of exactly what he thinks can be done to entice commercial sponsorship in English chess (the primary idea in his manifesto, getting legislative change to make chess a sport, is politically impossible regardless of the private sympathies of cabinet members, as those who know about Parliamentary processes in this country will recognise)

[Jonathan Rogers]

Nigel Short is far more direct and unequivocal (surprise, surprise!) on the subject of AP's support for Kirsan:

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... eport1.pdf

[Jonathan Bryant]

Malcolm Pein was scathing about FIDE in the Daily Telegraph column today. He, we will all remember, pulled out of organising a World Championship match because of difficulties he experienced in dealing with FIDE.

Given this kind of feelings (Malcolm Pein's and Nigel Short's are hardly isolated voices) it would be very interesting to hear Andrew Paulson's thoughts on why closer engagement with Kirsan's FIDE would be a good thing.

[Mick Norris]

MCF Council is pretty much divided as the votes are on this poll, but not by the same proportions

Our votes will go to Andrew Paulson

[David Sedgwick]

MCF Council is pretty much divided as the votes are on this poll, but not by the same proportions

Our votes will go to Andrew Paulson.

It's entirely a matter for the MCF, but I believe that you could split your 4 votes if you so wished.

[Mick Norris]

It's entirely a matter for the MCF

It is indeed, but thanks for the advice

[Ihor Lewyk]

Yorkshire Chess has once again conducted exclusive interviews with both candidates for ECF President! I'm sure you'll be interested in what they have to say on a wide range of topics.

Interview with Andrew Paulson http://yorkshirechess.org/interview-andrew-paulson/
Interview with Roger Edwards http://yorkshirechess.org/interview-roger-edwards-ii/

[David Sedgwick]

I found one comment by Andrew Paulson rather striking:

"I was led to believe that Roger was a caretaker emergency President who would stand down as soon as I presented myself."

To paraphrase Oscar Wilde:

To stitch up one Presidential candidate may be regarded as a misunderstanding.

To stitch up both looks like duplicity.

[David Pardoe]

Interesting...
And interesting to see how misrepresented these candidates have been in certain camps....with certain personal slants being applied. Words like `chaos` and `stagnate` really do not represent the actual picture...even remotely, but the former poses `warning questions`. No wonder some chess bodies come up with cranky and bizarre decisions.
One of the key concerns that the ECF, as a leading and well regarded cultural organisation should focus on I believe, is its independence and integrity. We really cant afford to let it become a hostage to certain commercial vested interests.
At the same time.the ECF needs to find ways to harness the undoubted talents that are out there, without necessarily handing over the reigns of power. One option might be to increase the number of board member representatives. A few additional Non Exec directors would certainly not go amiss. Maybe we also need to find ways to unhitch the organisation from the straight jacket it now faces as a corporate body.
The ECF delegates need to think carefully about the various issues and concerns raised.

[John Upham]

Interesting...
No wonder some chess bodies come up with cranky and bazaar decisions.

I like the notion of the ECF organising a bazaar or even making decisions about one.

I presume this might follow once charitable status had been achieved?