English Chess Forum

Carl Hibbard wrote:

Gordon Cadden wrote:According to Chessvibes, Kirsan Ilyumzhinov holds 51% of the shares in Agon. This makes Andrew Paulsen a puppet for the F.I.D.E President.

Behind the news curve a little Gordon so you may need to catch up!

See the latest Kevin Spraggett post maybe?

Just found Kevin Spraggetts Blog, and received a big pair of boobs in my face.
Two shocks in one day, is too much for this old boy.

So that would really be three shocks in one day?

This is simply embarrassing for English chess. But the blame is with some of the rabble element on the board. What kind of board seeks to remove its President without utter proof of any wrong doing? What kind of board seeks to censor its FIDE delegate when it elected the delegate knowing precisely that he was in a constant state of war with FIDE? AP and NS were never going to get on, it was up to the chief executive to manage it. Had it become too difficult, he ought to have called an EGM to solve the problem. Instead we have this fiasco of small-time ambition and politicking. And all the while the sponsors walk away.

I am NOT anti-FIDE. I am against the current people who are running FIDE. There is a fundamental difference.

Nigel Short wrote:I am NOT anti-FIDE. I am against the current people who are running FIDE. There is a fundamental difference.

But you supported the recent (Kasparov-inspired) legal action - taken out in the name of the ECF (and with the support of just the Georgian Chess Federation) but unknown to ECF members, to ECF Council and also, in part, the ECF Board* - against not the people who run FIDE but against FIDE (with the claim specifically targeted against a decision made by the representatives of the national governing bodies which make up the FIDE membership: the FIDE General Assembly).

*The legal action comprised two cases. The first case – approved by the ECF Board - was incorrectly targeted against a decision of the FIDE Presidential Board. The second case – unknown to the ECF Board (see here) – was targeted against a decision of the FIDE General Assembly.

Martin Regan wrote:But the blame is with some of the rabble element on the board. What kind of board seeks to remove its President without utter proof of any wrong doing? What kind of board seeks to censor its FIDE delegate when it elected the delegate knowing precisely that he was in a constant state of war with FIDE? AP and NS were never going to get on, it was up to the chief executive to manage it.

You seem to have a short memory. Have you forgotten your own demand for the resignation of the then President?

Moreover, you don't appear to have read the draft minutes of the meeting very closely. Of the four Executive Directors involved, only one expressed concern about the various issues regarding International Chess. All of them said that the President was making it impossible for them to do the jobs which Council had elected them to do.

The group had to do something. They could of course have chosen to quit suddenly and unexpectedly mid term. After all, there is a precedent for that course of action.

Martin Regan wrote: But the blame is with some of the rabble element on the board.

None of this would have happened, had Andrew Paulson not made a bid for the ECF Presidency as a stepping stone to potential greater glory as ECU Vice President and after Europe the world.

There have been tensions and policy differences between members of the ECF Board in the past, but never previously have those who run quite a bit of chess in England fallen out quite so drastically with the ECF President. That said, I don't totally understand their silence. If they are accused of being Pein minions and challenged in election by candidates carrying a Paulson coupon, shouldn't they state their case in public?

(edit) David Sedgwick reminds me of the 2008 precedent where the CEO, the Junior Director, the International Director and one of the non-Execs all walked out at once. We never totally got the whole story on that as to whether it was a dispute with the then President or a reaction to rejection of their preferred policies by the voting membership. It had little to do with policy towards FIDE elections. (/edit)

There has been a long standing ECF policy towards FIDE Presidential elections, dating back at least to 2006 which can be summarised in two words "Kirsan out". Remarkably, apart from intermittent attempts by apologists for the FIDE establishment to disrupt it, it's a policy that very few ECF voting members or the wider English chess public would disagree with. If AP wanted to avoid controversy on this front, he had to buy into it and was indeed challenged on this pre-election. That's not to say a review wasn't in order given one of Kasparov's associates and one or two of the policies espoused by Kasparov. The problem being is that if you support "No to Kasparov", the other side of that coin is to extend Kirsan's presidency from 19 years to 23.

I doubt whether the election of the ECU President is that much of an issue, objectively "none of the above" should be preferred. As Nigel suggests, if you want a tie-break, Zurab is perhaps the "official" FIDE candidate whilst Danailov is "opposition". For the ECF President to line up with the FIDE establishment would be sending the wrong signals. This does seem to be the final row which forced everything public. We should recall that Nigel himself was on an unsuccessful ECU slate in 2010 which attracted no adverse comment.

Little interest surrounds the real identity of the nom-de-plume used to leak the draft Kasparov-Leong "money for votes" contract. I believe I have seen speculation that it was the ECF President. Certainly he was quick off the mark to comment upon it.

David Sedgwick wrote:Moreover, you don't appear to have read the draft minutes of the meeting very closely. Of the four Executive Directors involved, only one expressed concern about the various issues regarding International Chess.

Although curiously they chose to raise the matter by organising a no-confidence motion against Paulson precisely as Paulson was organising one against Short.

Angus French wrote:

Nigel Short wrote:I am NOT anti-FIDE. I am against the current people who are running FIDE. There is a fundamental difference.

But you supported the recent (Kasparov-inspired) legal action - taken out in the name of the ECF (and with the support of just the Georgian Chess Federation) but unknown to ECF members, to ECF Council and also, in part, the ECF Board* - against not the people who run FIDE but against FIDE (with the claim specifically targeted against a decision made by the representatives of the national governing bodies which make up the FIDE membership: the FIDE General Assembly).

*The legal action comprised two cases. The first case – approved by the ECF Board - was incorrectly targeted against a decision of the FIDE Presidential Board. The second case – unknown to the ECF Board (see here) – was targeted against a decision of the FIDE General Assembly.

Angus, I can appreciate that you are very upset that you weren't elected to the Board last year. As Andrew Paulson's prettiest and most enthusiastic cheerleader, you may hope to be rewarded for your obsequiousness and servility. Unfortunately for you, Andrew is not going to succeed in his desire to sack everyone on the Board: Council has rather more common sense.

Please don't talk about legal matters you don't understand. Our lawyers took the view that the FIDE Presidential Board was responsible for the appointment of the three extra Vice Presidents. However, they were aware that the judges might decide that responsibility ultimately lay with the General Assembly - hence the second filing. Beyond that solitary technical point of legal interpretation the facts were exactly the same, which is why the judges decided to roll the two cases into one. To imply that the ECF Board was somehow duped into bringing a second case is grossly misleading.

I wonder if this debate could please continue.

Referred to Council. Statement on ECF site:

"The English Chess Federation regrets to state that the Chief Executive asked the President to resign, and the Board passed a motion expressing no confidence in the President. The President is not satisfied with these actions. The matter will be referred to Council at an appropriate time, to be coordinated. Background may be found in the draft minutes of the Board meeting of 8 February 2014 here."

Nigel Short wrote:Would you rather not know about the true nature of Andrew Paulson's relationship with Kirsan? Would you rather not know how this American interloper who, up until a couple of years ago, had no prior interest in or connection with chess in England, is using the ECF as a vehicle for his own (and indeed Kirsan's) international ambitions?

Well, no, not really. I'm sure all this FIDE/ECU/World Championship stuff is fascinating, but I can't see what difference it makes to chess players in Northumbria and so I make no apologies for my blissful ignorance. Mr. Paulson seems to have a plan to bring more money and organisation to the chess that's actually taking place in England, so I vote we let him get on with it. We can always vote for someone else next time.

Chris Wardle wrote:I'm sure all this FIDE/ECU/World Championship stuff is fascinating, but I can't see what difference it makes to chess players in Northumbria and so I make no apologies for my blissful ignorance. Mr. Paulson seems to have a plan to bring more money and organisation to the chess that's actually taking place in England, so I vote we let him get on with it.

Please could I ask you to (re-)read Points xii and xiii of David Openshaw's comments in the draft minutes at the start of the thread.

Self-confessed parochialism from Chris Wardle. Any more fascinating insights of that variety and we might as well abolish the ECF altogether...

Chris Wardle wrote:

Nigel Short wrote:Would you rather not know about the true nature of Andrew Paulson's relationship with Kirsan? Would you rather not know how this American interloper who, up until a couple of years ago, had no prior interest in or connection with chess in England, is using the ECF as a vehicle for his own (and indeed Kirsan's) international ambitions?

Well, no, not really. I'm sure all this FIDE/ECU/World Championship stuff is fascinating, but I can't see what difference it makes to chess players in Northumbria and so I make no apologies for my blissful ignorance. Mr. Paulson seems to have a plan to bring more money and organisation to the chess that's actually taking place in England, so I vote we let him get on with it. We can always vote for someone else next time.

I would be very glad to hear what you think Andrew Paulson has done for chess in Northumbria so far.