The arbiter nexus

[Mick Norris]

Rupert Jones lost to Nigel Short because in his time at the ECF Rupert has rubbed as many noses the wrong way as Nigel, but does not have the counterweight of being a famous grandmaster - the surprise is that he got as many votes as he did. Though much of that may have been the Northern Nexus which has still not forgiven Nigel for actions which led to Manchester losing a world title clash.

The MCF voted for Nigel, but of course we aren't in the chess North, just the real North

[Andrew Zigmond]

I'm not sure the nexus thing is worth much further scrutiny. It was coined by somebody going down to a crushing defeat and seemingly unable or unwilling to grasp the reasons found a grouping to blame. Its far too much of a generalisation. It would have been better if John Foley had done what no doubt CSC coaches tell the children they teach, 'shake hands when you lose' and learn from your mistakes'.

Another one for the like button.

[Martin Regan]

MN wrote:

The MCF voted for Nigel, but of course we aren't in the chess North, just the real North

Mick. When I stood as candidate with Nigel as my Fide delegate - Manchester, i'm sure, voted against him, though that was when he lost. The contest against Rupert was some years later and the opposition may have weakened by then.

[Martin Regan]

MN:

but of course we aren't in the chess North, just the real North

In the NCCU there are many in Northumberland and Durham who think those from Manchester and Cheshire are southern spies.

[Andrew Zigmond]

We're going a little off topic but I believe the main reason Rupert stood for FIDE delegate was as a protest against the lawsuit against FIDE as; whatever the rights and wrongs of that; it derailed a lot of work British arbiters were doing within FIDE and led to retribution against arbiters. Nigel Short didn't exactly do himself many favours with some atrocious anti arbiter comments around the same time, (`what you do in your mickey mouse tournaments is up to you`). On the other hand there was the question of principled opposition to Kirsan Ilzhuminov or a more co-operative attitude. The lawsuit aside Nigel Short was a fine FIDE delegate in most respects and in a OMOV election I'd have leaned Nigel Short despite knowing and liking Rupert personally. BUT that's in the past.

[Martin Regan]

Andrew:

Rupert is Rupert. Nigel is Nigel.The chess world is a more interesting place for those two facts.

[John Foley]

Nigel Short didn't exactly do himself many favours with some atrocious anti arbiter comments around the same time.

The fatal mistake. Never breach this rule. Only speak of them in reverential tones for they will never forgive or forget.

[Andrew Zigmond]

Nigel Short didn't exactly do himself many favours with some atrocious anti arbiter comments around the same time.

The fatal mistake. Never breach this rule. Only speak of them in reverential tones for they will never forgive or forget.

It's interesting that you lopped off the quoted comment (`what you do in your Mickey Mouse tournaments is up to you`) when quoting my post. And I'm sure I don't have to point out that reverence and respect are clean different things.

[Mick Norris]

MN wrote:

The MCF voted for Nigel, but of course we aren't in the chess North, just the real North

Mick. When I stood as candidate with Nigel as my Fide delegate - Manchester, i'm sure, voted against him, though that was when he lost. The contest against Rupert was some years later and the opposition may have weakened by then.

Martin

You were talking about Nigel v Rupert - I was MCF President then, and I always brought up ECF elections at/with MCF Council so we could debate them - what happened before then, I don't know

You give the appearance of picking bits of things to argue about without ever admitting you are wrong about something, and all of us get things wrong at times, a bit like John Foley making statements and then ignoring questions about them - I feel I am wasting my time

[Martin Regan]

MN:

You give the appearance of picking bits of things to argue about without ever admitting you are wrong about something, and all of us get things wrong at times

Mick, My comment was about an NCCU group-think in the context of thread. The point was that certain groups feel more strongly about certain things and engage in group think.The MCF are not in the NCCU and no reference was made to them.

If your point was made to show that no such group think exists, then my answer which I should have made clearer, was that of course I accept that the MCF voted for Nigel in that particular election, but that did not disprove what I had written because in previous elections they had been the cheerleaders of such group think.

Or were you simply having a pop at the NCCU in the everlasting battle?

[John McKenna]

AZ:

It's interesting that you lopped off the quoted comment (`what you do in your Mickey Mouse tournaments is up to you`) when quoting my post. And I'm sure I don't have to point out that reverence and respect are clean different things.

From my (modest) Longman dictionary - REVERENCE: honour or RESPECT felt or shown

Sorry, but Andrew Z is beginning to overstep the mark in his attempt to score palpable hits on John F.

Why does AZ find it "interesting that you (JF) lopped off the quoted comment"? It seems a reasonably good place to stop quoting. The only thing JF should have done is ended with ellipsis rather than a full stop.

Also, AZ is starting to sound somewhat strident in his defence of nexus denials. Given his past connexions his challenges and protestations have a hollow ring.

It smells of an attempt to build a nexus-denying nexus in this thread to directly oppose and undermine claims that a lodge-like group of like-minded powerbrokers lurks like an almost invisible blackhole at the centre of the ECF.

Has Andrew Z ever joined, or contemplated, joining the Masons? Or, joined them unwittingly!

It's part of human nature to take advantage when opportunities arise. Did certain brokers in the City rig certain markets? You betcha!

[Martin Regan]

JM:

It smells of an attempt to build a nexus-denying nexus...

I do not necessarily agree, but I am impressed with the prose..

[Andrew Zigmond]

Fair enough John, I'll try to stop. I can get quite passionate when defending people I respect. I suppose I'm angling for John Foley to acknowledge the vast contribution his nexus make to the national chess scene and that the best way forward is to engage with them, not insult them. But if he wants to give the impression of being bitter at losing an election against a popular and respected incumbent I can't stop him.

If the election had gone the other way I suspect Alex would simply have dusted himself down and got on with his work for the many organisations for which he seems to have made himself indispensable. It's a matter of public record that he almost did that anyway.

[Michael Farthing]

Am I alone in having noticed the refreshingly prompt and plain-speaking response Alex has given to a query on the ECF Forum? OK - he had good news to give - but it still felt good. And Traci has not lost any time in setting to work on her own initiative.

[Roger de Coverly]

Am I alone in having noticed the refreshingly prompt and plain-speaking response Alex has given to a query on the ECF Forum?

You could add the instant meeting report as well as the recruiting initiative.
http://www.englishchess.org.uk/ecf-agm- ... more-34627

The official site has reported what happened before the unofficial ones. Admittedly something was necessary after the miscounted votes, but it's good practice if followed in future.