Nigel Short about Andrew Paulson, Agon, Kirsan Ilyumzhinov

[Carl Hibbard]

Worth a watch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6UtU78p ... e=youtu.be

[John Cox]

Excellent. Now this is more like it. A proper, full-fledged conspiracy theory. So, if I follow Nigel's theory correctly, AP has gifted or sold part of Agon to Kirsan, and Kirsan in return has agreed to give Agon all the rights to run the world championship for ten years. And presumably Agon will then approach sponsors, and find them and then rip them off by charging massive 'organisation fees', and pocket the money, which AP and Kirsan will then share. And none of this can happen unless AP is President of the ECF, because......well, at this point I'm afraid I fail to follow Nigel's unspoken thread.

But still, this is marvellous. One has been waiting for AP's opponents to put some intellectual flesh on the bones.

Does the ECF run to board meetings? And does Nigel attend? If so, I may even trouble myself to read the minutes of the next one.

[IM Jack Rudd]

Does the ECF run to board meetings? And does Nigel attend?

Yes and sometimes.

[Mick Norris]

Chessvibes report here
http://www.chessvibes.com/andrew-paulso ... federation

[John Cox]

Incidentally, when did Nigel start putting on that absurd affected voice? He spoke perfectly normally when I knew him in the early eighties. Then I go away for 20 years, and when I come back he sounds like an American trrying to impersonate someone out of Downton Abbey. When did that happen?

[Roger de Coverly]

He spoke perfectly normally when I knew him in the early eighties. Then I go away for 20 years, and when I come back he sounds like an American trrying to impersonate someone out of Downton Abbey. When did that happen?

At least as long ago as the Channel 4 coverage of his match with Kasparov in 1993.

[Roger de Coverly]

Kirsan in return has agreed to give Agon all the rights to run the world championship for ten years. And presumably Agon will then approach sponsors, and find them and then rip them off by charging massive 'organisation fees', and pocket the money, which AP and Kirsan will then share.

So far that seems eminently plausible with the practical problem that there aren't any sponsors, or at least none through Agon. With Agon incorporated in Jersey, the usual processes of Company disclosure won't be able to find financial links between Agon and the FIDE Board, should they exist.

And none of this can happen unless AP is President of the ECF,

This is where it all gets difficult. Usually there's a fairly clear motive or life ambition behind wanting to be ECF President or even allowing yourself to be nominated or press-ganged. What is AP's and why couldn't he just be the CEO, the Commercial Director or even the arms length partner in the style of Agon's supposed relationship with FIDE?

[Matthew Turner]

Excellent. Now this is more like it. A proper, full-fledged conspiracy theory. So, if I follow Nigel's theory correctly, AP has gifted or sold part of Agon to Kirsan, and Kirsan in return has agreed to give Agon all the rights to run the world championship for ten years. And presumably Agon will then approach sponsors, and find them and then rip them off by charging massive 'organisation fees', and pocket the money, which AP and Kirsan will then share. And none of this can happen unless AP is President of the ECF, because......well, at this point I'm afraid I fail to follow Nigel's unspoken thread.

But still, this is marvellous. One has been waiting for AP's opponents to put some intellectual flesh on the bones.

Does the ECF run to board meetings? And does Nigel attend? If so, I may even trouble myself to read the minutes of the next one.

John,
I guess the argument goes something like this. The Presidential race between Kirsan and Kasparov could be close. It is rather unlikely than any countries in Western Europe will vote for Kirsan. Of all the countries in Western Europe perhaps England is most likely to vote for Kirsan (or more likely abstain) purely because the ECF is so dysfunctional. One could imagine (especially as an outsider) that England could have some regional influence swinging votes of Scotland and Wales and maybe even Ireland and the Channel Islands. It might therefore be worth gaining influence/control of the ECF in order to have some impact on the FIDE Presidential election.
I am not sure that I really subscribe to much, or indeed any, of that, but neither is it totally implausible.

[Kevin Thurlow]

"One could imagine (especially as an outsider) that England could have some regional influence swinging votes of Scotland and Wales and maybe even Ireland and the Channel Islands."

I think the outsider would be disappointed...

[Andy Howie]

John,
I guess the argument goes something like this. The Presidential race between Kirsan and Kasparov could be close. It is rather unlikely than any countries in Western Europe will vote for Kirsan. Of all the countries in Western Europe perhaps England is most likely to vote for Kirsan (or more likely abstain) purely because the ECF is so dysfunctional. One could imagine (especially as an outsider) that England could have some regional influence swinging votes of Scotland and Wales and maybe even Ireland and the Channel Islands. It might therefore be worth gaining influence/control of the ECF in order to have some impact on the FIDE Presidential election.
I am not sure that I really subscribe to much, or indeed any, of that, but neither is it totally implausible.

Em, no! We will decide ourselves who we are going to vote for. Outside influence is normally ignored

[Jonathan Rogers]

No one has a well worked out conspiracy theory. If they need one, then the sceptics are currently on shaky ground, though this is partly because of the inscrutable nature of AGON itself, which is presumably quite deliberate.

But do they need one? Why shouldn't it be for the supporters to explain why they want a President with no track record of interest in English chess, with only obscure and largely unworkable promises and a bad track record of delivering on his contract with FIDE and who quite openly supports Kirsan? Once they have shown there to be a good reason to want such a President, only then should the onus be reversed on the doubters.

(Edit - spelling mistake)

[Matthew Turner]

Andy,
My point was, that I can imagine that how Russia votes will have an influence on how for example Ukraine and Georgia votes. Why shouldn't a Russian (or an American) have a similar mindset and feel that the way England votes will influence Scotland (or visa versa).

[Matthew Turner]

Jonathan,
I suggest you have a look at the Spraggett commentary. Amongst other things he highlights Andrew Paulson's comments

"I feel that it is time for Kirsan to go for many reasons. The most clear and unequivocal is that he and his apparat have been around too long …. But, I state unambiguously, it is time for a change.”

I am not sure how you can assert that Paulson openly supports Kirsan.

[Jonathan Rogers]

because I have a brain? Of course he doesn't want to say that Kirsan is the best and must stay, knowing that 95% of the chess playing world is against him on this. So it is nuanced. It is time for him to go, he says -- but only because he has been around for so long and not because there is anything wrong with him.

When AP first visited this site, I said "hmmm" to his "it is time for him to go" point because it seems so insincere, and will allow him to keep saying "he ought to go, in principle, but ah, there's no one to replace him, so he'll have to stay for a bit longer" - thus trying to please everyone. He says that kasparov is not a good leader but it doesn't matter. I believe he would find some reason to oppose anyone who stood against Kirsan.

[Matthew Turner]

Jonathan,
I hope England will vote for Kasparov, but I think to assume that Paulson's expressed view must be cover for supporting Kirsan is disingenuous. There are many sensible people who hold Andrew Paulson's expressed view.

Spraggett goes even further

"HOWEVER, is Kasparov an alternative? No, I don’t think so. For as much as one can find ways to find fault with Kirsan, most in the chess world trust FIDE’s future in his hands more than in Kasparov’s hands. And who is on Kasparov’s team would not change the way most see this issue. Kasparov is not–and never was–a team player."

There is a debate to be had, but starting off by asserting 95% of the chess playing World agree with you when it is clear this is far from the case is not really a great start.