Kasparov vs Ilyumzhinov: the FIDE Presidency battle begins

[Roger de Coverly]

Can you explain why you think, on balance, that Kirsan would not be as bad as Kasparov as FIDE President?

The problem really is that Kirsan inherited the Campomanes machine for winning FIDE elections, so it probably doesn't matter what candidate is put up against him because the machine has the support of a sufficient majority of small federations. So you then have the problem of whether to maintain a principle of opposition or to sell out for the highest price.

I would have thought that any statements by the ECF in Kirsan's favour would bring a torrent of domestic criticism on the head of the ECF Directors, unless they make it clear it was a deliberate sell-out and that positive advantages were gained. Increasing influence in FIDE wouldn't be it. An admission by Kirsan that zero time defaults were wrong in principle and were to be abolished might help. Also that he accepted that amateur players do sometimes like to play a leisurely game, so attempts to speed up chess for all players would be abandoned. Acceptance that ideas like compulsory registration of arbiters were hostile to amateur chess wouldn't come amiss. Whilst expecting all players to have a FIDE number helps the reliability of the rating process, there shouldn't be a 250 Euro fine for getting it wrong.

If the ECF Directors want a quiet life, they either stay neutral or endorse Kasparov.

[Andy Howie]

Can I just correct a few posters about the Darts PDC thing. The split took place in 1993 when 16 players ( From memory it was Taylor, Priestly, Harrington, Lowe, Warriner, Bristow, Wilson, Anderson, Harvey, Lazerenko, Deller, Gregory and a couple of others who I can't remember, I helped to organize the first WDC tournament in Scotland in 1994 and got my backside kicked by Jamie Harvey in my match!).

They did not split from the WDF, it was the BDO (British Darts Organisation), who was from memory was under Ollie Croft at the time. the After the Tomlinson agreement, the organisation changed its name to the PDC (or Phils Darts Club as we all know it). Barry became Chair in 2001.

I am pretty certain Barry Hearn was brought in fairly early to promote the events, and has certainly made his mark but the split was nothing to do with him. His effect on the sport for professionals has been phenomenal. The BDO remained and looks after the local leagues etc. It is fair to say the sport is dying on its feet. I played in Germany as a teenager with my father, playing in both the Bundesliga and in a local league. Looking at the DDV site, most of the teams I knew have gone and the leagues are smaller. The same has happened over here. My local league used to have 3 Divisions, now it has amalgamated with two other leagues to get a single division. The same has happened in Edinburgh where I used to play.

ninja Edit, name has come back to me, Tommy Cox lead the WDC, Barry Hearn came in in 2001

[Andy Howie]

And on who to vote for. Well I have spent three months trying to get answers from the Kasparov team on questions for a Council meeting we have coming up. No one wants to communicate. With no evidence, it is going to be hard to convince people to vote for them so we may be voting for Kirsan

[Paolo Casaschi]

Certainly being part of the Italian Olympic Committee helped the Italian Chess Federation for the Chess Olympics 2006.

In the final analysis, who actually paid for 2006? I imagine the accommodation was available cheaply as an Olympics left over prior to conversion to normal flats. Was it otherwise added to the Winter Olympics budget, sponsorship from Italian business, or a one-off grant from local or national governments or agencies?

I don't know the details, but their website is still there:
http://www.scacchisticatorinese.it/olim ... /index.php
It show both government sponsors (City of Turin, Regione Piemonte) and major private sponsors (the FIAT car manufacturer is the major Turin based corporation, San Paolo is a major Italian bank and several others are listed).
I dont think the Winter Olympic budget was directly involved; however the venue has been refurbished as part of the preparation for the Winter Olympics with the plan of the facilities being available going forward for other events; I'm almost sure this agreement results in the venue cost for the Chess Olympiad significantly lower than using equivalent private facilities (even assuming you could find anything directly comparable).

[Paolo Casaschi]

The problem really is that Kirsan inherited the Campomanes machine for winning FIDE elections, so it probably doesn't matter what candidate is put up against him because the machine has the support of a sufficient majority of small federations. So you then have the problem of whether to maintain a principle of opposition or to sell out for the highest price.

I thought the one member one vote policy within FIDE has always been in place, being used in the first place to encourage new countries to join. Nothing that Campomanes had to setup.

[Roger de Coverly]

I thought the one member one vote policy within FIDE has always been in place, being used in the first place to encourage new countries to join. Nothing that Campomanes had to setup.

The novelty introduced by Campomanes was that you only had to secure the support of a handful of individuals to get the votes needed to win. This contrasted with major Federations where you not only needed the support of the President or FIDE Delegate, but also more generally, as the President or Delegate could overthrown if they defied the majority to a sufficient extent.

A respected Grandmaster from a Western country was thrown out of office after only one term in favour of Campomanes. Subsequently Campomanes seemed impossible to challenge until brought down by FIDE's near bankruptcy in 1995. He given got re-elected in 1994 despite exceeding a limit on the number of Presidential terms.

[Alex Holowczak]

Barry became Chair in 2001. [...] I am pretty certain Barry Hearn was brought in fairly early to promote the events, and has certainly made his mark but the split was nothing to do with him. His effect on the sport for professionals has been phenomenal.

The BDO 1st prize in 1993 was £30,000 and rose to £46,000 in 2001. It's £100,000 now. (The prize money for the runner-up has only doubled in that time.) The PDC as it became had a 1st prize of £16,000 in 1993, rose only to £33,000 in 2001. So the PDC wasn't really succeeding until Hearn came along as Chair. The 1st prize is £250,000 this year. Only since then did all the top players start to jump ship to the PDC, and it became the place where the top players ended up. Indeed, Hearn has created several events since 2001 with prize funds at £40,000 or higher (e.g. the Grand Slam, Masters, UK Open, Players Championship). The next best in the BDO is the World Masters at £25,000, and then there's not much after that. The PDC's European Tour events have a comparable first prize, £20,000! It's fair to say that since Hearn came in in 2001, he's done a great job with professional darts.

The BDO remained and looks after the local leagues etc. It is fair to say the sport is dying on its feet. I played in Germany as a teenager with my father, playing in both the Bundesliga and in a local league. Looking at the DDV site, most of the teams I knew have gone and the leagues are smaller. The same has happened over here. My local league used to have 3 Divisions, now it has amalgamated with two other leagues to get a single division. The same has happened in Edinburgh where I used to play.

So the playing base has shrunk, apparently non-existent in most cases, yet the money for the professional game has increased. (Ironically, the increased prize money makes it more desirable for players to take up the game and make a living off it?!) Perhaps, then, the number of people who play the game is a red-herring, and what counts is the number of people who watch it. So maybe n million players isn't so relevant a statistic as x million people who watch the Internet coverage. The problem being is that x < 0.2 for the World Chess Championship, but x = 361 for the World Snooker Championship.

[Andy Howie]

The BDO 1st prize in 1993 was £30,000 and rose to £46,000 in 2001. It's £100,000 now. (The prize money for the runner-up has only doubled in that time.) The PDC as it became had a 1st prize of £16,000 in 1993, rose only to £33,000 in 2001. So the PDC wasn't really succeeding until Hearn came along as Chair. The 1st prize is £250,000 this year. Only since then did all the top players start to jump ship to the PDC, and it became the place where the top players ended up. Indeed, Hearn has created several events since 2001 with prize funds at £40,000 or higher (e.g. the Grand Slam, Masters, UK Open, Players Championship). The next best in the BDO is the World Masters at £25,000, and then there's not much after that. The PDC's European Tour events have a comparable first prize, £20,000! It's fair to say that since Hearn came in in 2001, he's done a great job with professional darts.

The difference was with the BDO you had a single tournament with a large prize. With the WDC at the time, you had a lot of tournaments with large prizes. Sky came on board pretty quickly. Between '93 and '00 10-15 players switched (Manley, Burnett, Askew and Part are the ones that spring to mind). Since 2000 I would say that number has trebled if not quadrupled.

With the latest crop (Hankey, Winstanley and West), there is hardly anyone of the "top" standard left. I will be rooting for my mate Ross this year (6th Seed) at Lakeside.

Look at Phil Taylor as a good example, When you look at his tournament winnings post split, they go up exponentially in comparison to what he was getting for his tournament winnings post spli

[Alex Holowczak]

With the latest crop (Hankey, Winstanley and West), there is hardly anyone of the "top" standard left. I will be rooting for my mate Ross this year (6th Seed) at Lakeside.

Chisnall is the last one to make an impact, he beat Taylor in the Worlds two years ago. Hankey is a long way past his best. The only player in the current BDO setup who would be competitive in the PDC is probably Scott Waites.

If you mean Ross Montgomery, he appears to be seeded 14 according to wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_BDO_W ... ip#Last_32

There are 3 Scots in the last 16 of the PDC event!

[Andy Howie]

BDO at their best. According to Lakeside he is 6th, Either that or they have not updated yet (which given they have done the draw...)

http://www.lakesideworlddarts.co.uk/profiles.php

[NickFaulks]

As to Kasparov and Western sponsors, there is a history of a honeymoon period, following which he hacks them off. I don't think that can be changed. His own team claim that they can harness his energies, but I don't know if even they are really convinced.

I doubt anyone is claiming Kasparov to be perfect - even Kasparov himself. The key question in this election is perhaps "which candidate is least bad?".

Can you explain why you think, on balance, that Kirsan would not be as bad as Kasparov as FIDE President?

The key question in this election is not perhaps "which candidate is least bad?", it is certainly "which candidate is least bad?" So, a rerun of 2006 and 2010.

I have posted quite a lot on this topic already, and do not feel that I have much new to say. Kasparov does not hide his disdain for people who waste their time trying to play chess even though they cannot manage to reach a 2600 rating. Under him, FIDE would be about the top 200. To the extent that they dirtied thier hands with lower levels, this would be under the control of Leong, who has driven every one of the developments in recent years about which de Coverly rightly complains. Under Kirsan, and with a new team ( which we haven't seen yet, and I am withholding final judgement until we do ) there is a chance that some of the worst features will be rolled back.

[Alistair Campbell]

If I may interject into something that doesn't really concern me

… The split took place in 1993 when 16 players ( From memory it was Taylor, Priestly, Harrington, Lowe, Warriner, Bristow, Wilson, Anderson, Harvey, Lazerenko, Deller, Gregory and a couple of others who I can't remember

Evison, Gardner, Spiolek and Johns, assuming that’s Priestley to whom you refer?

BDO at their best. According to Lakeside he is 6th, Either that or they have not updated yet (which given they have done the draw...)

I wouldn’t be too harsh on them, it’s easy to muck up a draw… (but you may want to refer to the 2014 draw, rather than the 2013 one).

BTW, the Leith League continues to have 2 divisions, although numbers may be down a little…

As you were…

[Angus French]

I'm under the impression that much chess sponsorship (even in Ye Golden Age) has always come from people with a direct interest in chess, or institutions in which prominent individuals have had such an interest.

There is perhaps an element of truth in that, although perhaps exaggerated. You, no doubt, say this in the knowledge of Lloyd's Bank's sponsorship of chess whilst under the chairmanship of Jeremy Morse. I don't know whether that was true or not with Cutty Sark's sponsorship, say, or Pilkington Glass's. You may be better informed in those cases, although it is certain that one wouldn't have to search too hard to find good counterexamples. It certainly can't be denied that a keen interest in chess by a board member or senior manager is likely to improve the chances of such sponsorship being forthcoming; that is likely to be the case with the sponsorship of every other cultural activity, too. It certainly isn't the case, though, that chess is or has been only sponsored by those who played it.

Which is a little different from the normal arrangement, whereby a company attaches its name to a sport because of the publicity to be gained thereby. I'd call it patronage

I'd call it bo**ocks. A company that sponsors chess does so, not only to support the chess community, but also to receive positive publicity from having done so. It won't do so if the publicity it receives from having sponsored chess is likely to damage its brand. Such as when the world chess federation is lead by a murderous kleptocrat, who believes himself ambassador on earth to extraterrestrial little green men, and who can be regularly be seen engaged in frottage with the likes of Saddam Hussein.

Though it's symptom rather than cause, this helps illustrate my point: chess doesn't do well in the sponsorship-attraction stakes, even in the best of times, and tends to rely to a substantial degree on individual munificence.

Seems like an example of something you can frequently be seen railing against: entirely made up statistics. Give us some numbers.

Didn't chessplayers at Duncan Lawrie and Darwin Strategic help with sponsorship from those firms? I have a feeling the same may also have been true for Grieveson Grant.

Could it really be that the current President of FIDE affected sponsorship opportunities for chess in England? That seems far-fetched to me - is there evidence?

[Roger de Coverly]

Under him, FIDE would be about the top 200.

Not of itself a bad thing and parallel to what's been suggested has happened in Darts and Snooker provided that unlike Darts, the base doesn't cease to exist. It would also seem to be part of the Paulson vision of a mass spectator audience.

To the extent that they dirtied thier hands with lower levels, this would be under the control of Leong, who has driven every one of the developments in recent years

That and the universal ratings idea would be serious reservations about the Kasparov slate. But I don't see Kirsan as in any way a defender of the rights of ordinary players given that he's had eighteen years to demonstrate this.

[NickFaulks]

Can you explain why you think, on balance, that Kirsan would not be as bad as Kasparov as FIDE President?

The problem really is that Kirsan inherited the Campomanes machine for winning FIDE elections, so it probably doesn't matter what candidate is put up against him because the machine has the support of a sufficient majority of small federations. So you then have the problem of whether to maintain a principle of opposition or to sell out for the highest price.

I would have thought that any statements by the ECF in Kirsan's favour would bring a torrent of domestic criticism on the head of the ECF Directors, unless they make it clear it was a deliberate sell-out and that positive advantages were gained. Increasing influence in FIDE wouldn't be it. An admission by Kirsan that zero time defaults were wrong in principle and were to be abolished might help. Also that he accepted that amateur players do sometimes like to play a leisurely game, so attempts to speed up chess for all players would be abandoned. Acceptance that ideas like compulsory registration of arbiters were hostile to amateur chess wouldn't come amiss. Whilst expecting all players to have a FIDE number helps the reliability of the rating process, there shouldn't be a 250 Euro fine for getting it wrong.

If the ECF Directors want a quiet life, they either stay neutral or endorse Kasparov.

Kirsan will not admit he has been wrong. Where he comes from, you don't do that. What happens is that you realise that some nutty idea has not been heard about for a while, and has evidently been abandoned.

We are in total agreement on zero time defaults, and I shall not give up the fight to get rid of them, but they're not such a big deal in practice. They apply mostly to professional players, who should perhaps be willing to abide by competition rules even if they are vexatious. Other than juniors, the main amateur sufferers are the representatives of weaker federations in Olympiads, and your plans for them seem far more brutal than anything contemplated by Kirsan.

What does "so attempts to speed up chess for all players would be abandoned" mean? There has been a Leong attempt to allow two hour games to be rated, but that was kicked into touch by the PB.