USCF (and ECF) v FIDE

[Roger de Coverly]

Here's a link to an open letter from the USCF to FIDE
https://new.uschess.org/news/open-lette ... e-of-fide/

According to an editorial in the March 2017 Chess, the ECF, in particular the ECF International Director/FIDE Delegate, will be declaring the ECF's support for the USCF position.

I doubt this is controversial, since whilst there are a few Kasparov haters out there, who in English chess would be prepared to stand their ground as a Kirsan lover or apologist?

[JustinHorton]

Have you got Jorge Vega's letter?

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Mick linked to it earlier here (not saying you should have seen that, just saying where I got it from):

http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php ... 15#p195558

https://www.fideamerica.com/index.php/n ... t-barbados

That appears to be the letter referred to by the USCF (who refer to it as his December 2016 letter). It is dated 26 December 2016. The USCF letter is dated 14 February 2017.

[Roger de Coverly]

Have you got Jorge Vega's letter?

It's a newsletter/report.

https://www.fideamerica.com/index.php/n ... t-barbados

[Roger de Coverly]

Now linked by the ECF website

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/uscf-ope ... r-to-fide/

Does the FIDE establishment ever take any notice of such communication? Both the USCF and the ECF are historically hostile to the continuing Kirsan Presidency, so can presumably be disregarded for as long as the Federations the size of UK clubs, leagues or counties remain supportive.

[NickFaulks]

Now linked by the ECF website

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/uscf-ope ... r-to-fide/

Does the FIDE establishment ever take any notice of such communication? Both the USCF and the ECF are historically hostile to the continuing Kirsan Presidency, so can presumably be disregarded for as long as the Federations the size of UK clubs, leagues or counties remain supportive.

I hesitate to disturb the little world in which Roger lives, but the problem faced by the ECF in its dealings with FIDE is not that it is poorly regarded by the small federations. It is that it is poorly regarded by the big federations, who will in reality decide the succession.

In Tromso in 2014, vital motions failed because the General Assembly was not quorate. In response to this it was resolved that henceforth, and despite the financial cost in straitened times, delegates would be provided with free rooms ( not just for the days of the GA, but for the whole Congress ) and would have their travel costs paid. The assumption was that they would then feel bound to show up at least for the roll calls to ensure that the meetings were quorate.

In Baku last year, ENG was marked as "absent" from both roll calls. During one of the ENG Delegate's brief appearances, he proclaimed loudly that he had far more important things to do with his life ( breakfast with his players was mentioned ) than attend stupid FIDE meetings.

The ECF Board, whose instructions he was presumably following, believes that this demonstration of bad manners gained them considerable street credibility among the European federations they like to think of as their political allies. I know that they could not be more wrong, but I don't suppose there is any point in telling them that.

[Nick Grey]

Not sure what point going on about past or motives. Just let the current Board get on with it. The open letter is from USCF & looks very clear to me.

[NickFaulks]

Not sure what point going on about past or motives. Just let the current Board get on with it.

What took place in Baku was ordered by the current Board. That's the point.

[Alex McFarlane]

What took place in Baku was ordered by the current Board

That's not my understanding. I've been lead to believe that various things were done by one or two individuals rather than collective responsibility being the case.

You may argue that these things should have been discussed at Board level and that perceived conflict of interest might have been a genuine reason for bringing it to the Board first but that does not mean that it did go before the Board!

[Brian Towers]

Not sure what point going on about past or motives.

Perhaps:

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it

[JustinHorton]

I think I must have missed all this at the time. Did the FIDE Delegate produce a report after the Olympiad? (And would it be normal to do so?)

[Roger de Coverly]

Did the FIDE Delegate produce a report after the Olympiad? (And would it be normal to do so?)

There was a lengthy report to the 2015 AGM.
http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... ort-v2.pdf

As regards 2016, the Pearce report recommended that the Board produce a consolidated report of the year's activities.
http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... ouncil.pdf

Whilst that reports the Olympiad results, it does not go into any detail about the Baku FIDE Congress.

[JustinHorton]

Thanks. Well all this is very odd. Can I ask further:

(a) Did noboby at the 2016 AGM raise the question of whether there should be a FIDE Degate's report?

(b) Is it generally known that the FIDE Delegate was absent? (Does this mean he was absent from the meeting as such, or just from the roll calls?)

(c) Was any of this covered in CHESS?

[Roger de Coverly]

(c) Was any of this covered in CHESS?

There's a few paragraphs in Malcolm's editorial in the October 2016 issue where he mostly covers the Olympiad.

There's a section headed "Makro Economics" which starts "The FIDE Congress was predictably depressing".

Congress Minutes
http://www.fide.com/fide/minutes/9891-8 ... nexes.html

There's also meetings of FIDE's numerous Commission and Committees, an example
https://www.fide.com/images/stories/NEW ... nex_74.pdf

[JustinHorton]

I guess from my point of view, I'm not bothered so much as to what the policy is, more about knowing what is is, and that it's followed. So if the FIDE Delegate wishes not to attend meetings or to arrive at them deliberately late
(if indeed this is what occurred) I'd like to know that this was policy. If it isn't, I think our FIDE Delegate should be representing us by arriving in good time for meetings where he is our representative.

I also think the Delegate should be providing a report for the subsequent AGM - is there any reason why this should be a problem?

EDIT - I'm informed that some kind of report was indeed provided to the AGM in paper form. Is this generally available, and if not could it be made so?