Which Candidate Should the ECF Support in the FIDE Presidential Election? (Take 2)

The very latest International round up of English news.
Post Reply

Which Candidate Should the ECF Support in the FIDE Presidential Election?

Poll runs till Mon Oct 01, 2018 8:05 am

Arkady Dvorkovich
5
11%
Georgios Makropoulos
8
18%
Nigel Short
22
49%
None of the Above
10
22%
 
Total votes: 45

IanCalvert
Posts: 213
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 4:59 pm

Re: Which Candidate Should the ECF Support in the FIDE Presidential Election? (Take 2)

Post by IanCalvert » Tue Jul 10, 2018 6:24 pm

"It's all a very odd state of affairs. Why does Dvorkovich bother if he's not confident of winning? That is, why would the Russians put so much political capital at risk? Better surely to let Kirsan take the hit if Makropoulos is indeed 'past the post', as his mouthy outriders claim."

Maybe this is about a well-connected Russian candidate in 2022 to stand against Malcolm??

NickFaulks
Posts: 4300
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Which Candidate Should the ECF Support in the FIDE Presidential Election? (Take 2)

Post by NickFaulks » Tue Jul 10, 2018 6:53 pm

David Robertson wrote:
Tue Jul 10, 2018 5:46 pm
It's all a very odd state of affairs. Why does Dvorkovich bother if he's not confident of winning? That is, why would the Russians put so much political capital at risk?
A question which I have posed repeatedly. I really don't think the Russians started out wanting to take total control of chess, they just didn't want to be exiled from it. And why should they be? They have a greater chess tradition than the US Treasury does.

As to Malcolm, we must rely upon him at least to show more integrity than Lord Coe. That doesn't set the bar very high.

David Robertson
Posts: 1907
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 6:24 pm
Contact:

Re: Which Candidate Should the ECF Support in the FIDE Presidential Election? (Take 2)

Post by David Robertson » Tue Jul 10, 2018 8:06 pm

NickFaulks wrote:
Tue Jul 10, 2018 6:53 pm
David Robertson wrote:
Tue Jul 10, 2018 5:46 pm
It's all a very odd state of affairs. Why does Dvorkovich bother if he's not confident of winning? That is, why would the Russians put so much political capital at risk?
A question which I have posed repeatedly
Uh huh. Where?

NickFaulks
Posts: 4300
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Which Candidate Should the ECF Support in the FIDE Presidential Election? (Take 2)

Post by NickFaulks » Tue Jul 10, 2018 8:23 pm

David Robertson wrote:
Tue Jul 10, 2018 8:06 pm
Uh huh. Where?
I shall not trawl through my posts for your benefit when you obviously haven't bothered to do so yourself, but you are not in possession of the only brain large enough to spot this obvious point.

David Robertson
Posts: 1907
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 6:24 pm
Contact:

Re: Which Candidate Should the ECF Support in the FIDE Presidential Election? (Take 2)

Post by David Robertson » Tue Jul 10, 2018 8:30 pm

NickFaulks wrote:
Tue Jul 10, 2018 8:23 pm
David Robertson wrote:
Tue Jul 10, 2018 8:06 pm
Uh huh. Where?
I shall not trawl through my posts for your benefit when you obviously haven't bothered to do so yourself
Well, I try to pay full attention. But I cannot recall anything from you that remotely confirms your claim. One example would do

IanCalvert
Posts: 213
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 4:59 pm

Re: Which Candidate Should the ECF Support in the FIDE Presidential Election? (Take 2)

Post by IanCalvert » Tue Jul 10, 2018 11:07 pm

Sorry for the discord surrounding a possible Russian cunning plan : doubtless ours predate the Revolution!

David Sedgwick
Posts: 3042
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
Location: Croydon

Re: Which Candidate Should the ECF Support in the FIDE Presidential Election? (Take 2)

Post by David Sedgwick » Wed Jul 11, 2018 11:59 am

Chris Rice wrote:
Tue Jul 10, 2018 8:51 am
Makropoulos and Dvorkovich sitting next to each other as Presidential Candidates in Bucharest yesterday at the 2nd quarter FIDE Presidential Board. However, not everyone was invited.
Makropoulos has stated that Dvorkovich was not invited to the Presidential Board meeting. He just turned up.

https://twitter.com/makro_chess/status/ ... 9490839552

Chris Rice
Posts: 2330
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 5:17 am

Re: Which Candidate Should the ECF Support in the FIDE Presidential Election? (Take 2)

Post by Chris Rice » Thu Jul 12, 2018 8:41 am

David Sedgwick wrote:
Wed Jul 11, 2018 11:59 am
Chris Rice wrote:
Tue Jul 10, 2018 8:51 am
Makropoulos and Dvorkovich sitting next to each other as Presidential Candidates in Bucharest yesterday at the 2nd quarter FIDE Presidential Board. However, not everyone was invited.
Makropoulos has stated that Dvorkovich was not invited to the Presidential Board meeting. He just turned up.

https://twitter.com/makro_chess/status/ ... 9490839552
Even so, odd that Dvorkovich would just turn up unannounced and stranger still that he would be invited into the Board meeting. It did get me wondering whether Makro is perhaps covering his bases, hoping he might get a role, like Kirsan, in case Dvorkovich wins.
It was interesting to see the Twitter exchange between Peter Doggers and Malcolm Pein regarding Malcolm's plans for what needs to be done inside FIDE because the questions asked by Doggers were very similar to the points I made earlier in the thread.

Peter Doggers
"I like @TelegraphChess's proposed changes in @FIDE_chess.
1) Wondering why @makro_chess hasn't fully embraced those yet, openly.
2) Why haven't Dvorkovich and @nigelshortchess communicated plans like that yet?"

On Peter Doggers twitter feed someone (not me!) tweeted back:
"Isn't @TelegraphChess -aka Malcolm Pein- in Makro's team? Your 2nd question is very correct, your 1st seems bit weird"

To which Peter Doggers replied:
"My point is that I wouldn't automatically believe @makro_chess agreeing with @TelegraphChess on everything. If he does, great!"

Malcolm then responded with: "Yes that's right, of course we don't agree on everything but we agree on quite a lot particularly that the Kremlin is trying to take control of world chess but in a different guise post Kirsan and it's time to break the principal of 'Money for Control'"

So perhaps the first clear signs that Malcolm and Makro don't speak with one voice and it may be, given the lack of public support for his proposals, that Malcolm's grand plans for change within FIDE would come to nothing should Makro be elected. Really hope that turns out not to be the case.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 17039
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Which Candidate Should the ECF Support in the FIDE Presidential Election? (Take 2)

Post by Roger de Coverly » Thu Jul 12, 2018 9:12 am

It remains to be seen whether it will be enforced in any meaningful sense.
http://www.fide.com/component/content/a ... sures.html

I noted
FIDE rejects all political interference from governments in the conduct of the election including and not limited to: The lobbying of delegates by embassies or other governmental organisations.
That was standard practice for Russian embassies acting in support of Kirsan.

The Liberian dispute referred to earlier could be a test case. Was it a coincidence that every dispute of this nature prior to the 2014 elections was resolved in favour of the Kirsan supporting side?

NickFaulks
Posts: 4300
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Which Candidate Should the ECF Support in the FIDE Presidential Election? (Take 2)

Post by NickFaulks » Thu Jul 12, 2018 10:14 am

Chris Rice wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 8:41 am
Peter Doggers
"I like @TelegraphChess's proposed changes in @FIDE_chess.
But what are they, really?
Malcom Pein wrote:You can’t fight an election without a positive vision for change. Here are just a few ideas I will promote.

Term limits – These would be 8 years for President and a limit for Board members. That would be 8 years in total so that no matter what happens, Ilyumzhinov cannot return, even if the Kremlin tries to parachute him back in.
You don't change the constitution to address one individual case. Term limits always sound like a good idea anyway, until you reach the point where after seven years most people agree that the incumbent is doing a great job and they don't wish to lose them. I support term limits, but it isn't a one-sided argument of honesty v corruption.

Beef up and rebrand the Anti Cheating Commission – I’d call it the Fair Play Commission and have it comprised of arbiters, legal professionals, organisers and most importantly, players. Indeed someone of Nigel’s stature as a player would be ideal as chairman.
This obviously makes sense, although if he is actually suggesting Short for the job he needs his head examined.
Rescind or completely renegotiate the arrangement with Agon/WorldChess
He won't find many people in FIDE disagreeing with that. There are supposedly legal complications.
Scrap the FIDE Online Arena and work with the major online providers instead
Or that, although there is an entrenched vested interest.
Arbiting standards – Create cadres of professional or semiprofessional arbiters as the core of any official event and end the use of such appointments for political purposes. Arbiting standards need to be raised generally.
He is right about political appointments and I hope he is on that case right now, without waiting to be elected
The Verification Commission needs to be strengthened – This is the body that oversees all the important functions and it does not report often enough. I would appoint one salaried member who is responsible for independent oversight of the FIDE bank account throughout the year and should have online access to scrutinise all transactions in real time if required.
I have never seen Malcolm at a VC meeting. Had he attended, he might reaise that their work covers a bit more than he imagines. However, the idea that its remit should be broadened is sensible and not a new one.

His other suggestion addresses a problem that does not currently exist. What does it even mean to add a role that is salaried and independent? It is only useful if you believe the Treasurer is either incompetent or corrupt, and he shares a ticket with the gentleman who holds that post.
Title fees – These need to be reduced. It seems to me that the approach is often: how can we raise more money from players? It’s time to look at new sources of income. Rating fees for developing countries must be kept to a minimum and abolished for as many poorer countries as possible.
There is a case for reducing OTB title fees ( although there is an entirely separate case for making these titles harder to achieve ). Fees for Arbiter and Trainer titles are in practice union membership dues. Don't get me started on Organiser titles. As to rating fees, he is petitioning for something that is already in force.

"It’s time to look at new sources of income." That's what Short says, too. Tell us more.
Africa – African chess has advanced far too slowly for decades and it’s the fault of FIDE’s longtime neglect. I would propose that a proportion of surplus funds over the target reserve of €2.5 million generated be transferred to an African development fund.
Ah yes, Africa. Some such proposal is clearly obligatory, but now you really do have an oversight issue. Who will ensure that the money does not just disappear?

Lest this comment appear unfairly derogatory about a single continent, perhaps the same would be said about other parts of the world too, except that nobody ever suggests dropping huge amounts of money on them. Why is that?
The Presidential Board should be composed of people with specific skills, as well as ensuring all continents are represented.
The trouble is that most of the PB are elected, not appointed. When Kirsan appointed a few extra, admittedly less than stellar candidates, he ran into a firestorm orchestrated by Malcolm himself. FIDE does need better governance, but the PB may not be the easiest place to start.

Mick Norris
Posts: 6875
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester
Contact:

Re: Which Candidate Should the ECF Support in the FIDE Presidential Election? (Take 2)

Post by Mick Norris » Thu Jul 12, 2018 11:58 am

Roger de Coverly wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 9:12 am
It remains to be seen whether it will be enforced in any meaningful sense.
http://www.fide.com/component/content/a ... sures.html
A number of allegations of attempted bribery of delegates have already been brought to the attention of the Board.
:roll:
Any postings on here represent my personal views and should not be taken as representative of the Manchester Chess Federation www.manchesterchess.co.uk

David Robertson
Posts: 1907
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 6:24 pm
Contact:

Re: Which Candidate Should the ECF Support in the FIDE Presidential Election? (Take 2)

Post by David Robertson » Fri Jul 13, 2018 4:34 pm

Isn't Spraggett on to something here with this FIDE delegate-bribery stuff when he declares that Makropoulos confesses to criminal behaviour?

And it's surely takes plenty of brass neck for Makropoulos, having presided over the corruption for ages, now to ban it once he no longer has any money. Just astonishing how this business is being played out

NickFaulks
Posts: 4300
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Which Candidate Should the ECF Support in the FIDE Presidential Election? (Take 2)

Post by NickFaulks » Fri Jul 13, 2018 5:27 pm

David Robertson wrote:
Fri Jul 13, 2018 4:34 pm
Isn't Spraggett on to something here with this FIDE delegate-bribery stuff when he declares that Makropoulos confesses to criminal behaviour.
Does anyone know what he's on about? He says he posted about this $80,000 in 2014, but I'm not going to wade through four years of his site to find it. Searches have failed.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 17039
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Which Candidate Should the ECF Support in the FIDE Presidential Election? (Take 2)

Post by Roger de Coverly » Fri Jul 13, 2018 6:18 pm

NickFaulks wrote:
Fri Jul 13, 2018 5:27 pm
Does anyone know what he's on about?
The Canadians voted for Kirsan in 2014. There was discussion on their forum at the time.
https://forum.chesstalk.com/

A couple of points may have influenced their vote.
One being a personal hatred of their President for Kasparov, not shared by the Canadian membership.
The other being that Kirsan or perhaps FIDE offered finance to run a couple of Norm tournaments. Whether these tournaments ever materialised isn't known. Presumably they never took place.

http://www.spraggettonchess.com/canadas ... or-kirsan/
http://www.spraggettonchess.com/canada- ... yumzhinov/

https://forum.chesstalk.com/forum/chess ... -elections

(Scroll down to the post by Bob Armstrong)
Benefits to Canada: FIDE Presidential Election

My Understanding

1. If elected, Kirsan will direct $ 80,000 of FIDE funds to support Canadian chess, over 4 years.
2. If Garry is elected, Kirsan will donate from his own funds, $ 80,000 to support Canadian chess over 4 years.
3. Some similar type offer is made by Garry, that FIDE funds will flow to Canada to support chess in Canada, but he can only do this if he is elected.

My Question: Did the Kasparov conditional commitment to Canada also have a second condition - that Canada vote for Garry? Though one would think it well might, what are the facts? If Garry is elected (a possibility), and Canada endorsed and voted for Kirsan (which it has and will), will Garry still direct FIDE funds to Canada to support chess in Canada? Did the Kasparov campaign make any commitment re such a scenario?

Bob A


Post Reply