Kasparov vs Ilyumzhinov: the FIDE Presidency battle begins

[Alex Holowczak]

Hampstead was a fun event but didn't seem very serious and quite noisy. But you're right - it was three hours. As for non-graded opponents, I'm not sure because as I said it seemed to be a fun tournament, more serious chess - better results. I mentioned this to Adam during the event. Rapidplay at Golder's Green I did much better - generally it's quiet. No excuses though!

EDIT: Also the ECF grade is based on 30 games rather than 19 right? Some of which will be club matches.

The tournament was FIDE-rated, but you played 4 games - all against unrated opposition! They count for ECF grading, but not for FIDE rating.

You bring forward 11 games from 2010/11 for your grade, which count 4 from e2e4 Uxbridge, 2 from the London League, and 5 from the 4NCL. So out of your 30 games, 27 were FIDE rated. I haven't the patience to count how many of those 27 were against rated opposition!

So I don't think you can blame your relatively low grade on unrated club matches, I'm afraid.

[JustinHadi]

Just did a quick calculation on 2010/2011 games of which there are 39. FIDE rated games rough ECF performance 169. Non FIDE rated rough performance 151. Nice try though

[JustinHadi]

Great! That means I can enter U160 congresses without fear of being called a shark

[E Michael White]

For reasons best known to themselves, the USCF are prepared to rate down to thirty minutes as standard play, but also duplicate the processing of the result by including it in a rapid-play list as well.

That's amusing. If games were included in the ECF grading lists as rapid and longplay and played strictly to current FIDE rules some game results might have to be shown as 1-0 in one list and 0-1 in the other !

[JustinHadi]

So I don't think you can blame your relatively low grade on unrated club matches, I'm afraid.

Well, I must say it's much more fun debating on forums than it was as a serious 190 rapid player or whatever Still don't agree with 2 hr FIDE rated games though.

[PeterFarr]

I'm the polar opposite of Justin, as having played 18 years for a pub team, I play well in cramped, noisy conditions, and am a fish out of water when confronted with space, quiet, wooden boards and pieces, arbiters etc..

Come to think of it, that supports Justin's theory rather than contradicts it, as for someone to play relatively better in good conditions, there must be someone else who doesn't.

Generally, I think people get too precious about ratings/ gradings; they only capture performance at certain moments, against particular opposition. It's silly to be too purist about it - though just as a gut feeling I tend to agree that a proper game should be at least 2 hours, if not 3.


Getting back to the main heading, I would rather see Vishy Anand as FIDE president, as someone widely respected and with some reputation outside the chess world, at least in Asia; he could point to the growth of the game in India and probably claim to have done more to promote chess than any FIDE official (?). Maybe he could be a candidate in a few years time.

[David Robertson]

I would rather see Vishy Anand as FIDE president..Maybe he could be a candidate in a few years time.

Maybe. But maybe he's sane

[Roger de Coverly]

Getting back to the main heading, I would rather see Vishy Anand as FIDE president

Retired World Champions or even veteran GMs would be very good choices as FIDE presidents, but it's not seen that way by the relatively small circles who control the votes on these matters who seem to have preferred a Russian regional politician for getting on for twenty years . If you don't think of the ex Champions as particularly good administrators, it doesn't really matter, just make sure that there's a CEO or equivalent to handle the delivery and use them for publicity and door opening.

[PeterFarr]

I would rather see Vishy Anand as FIDE president..Maybe he could be a candidate in a few years time.

Maybe. But maybe he's sane

Doh! catch-22

[Martin Crichton]

Martin Crichton >Is there any outlet taking bets on the outcome? Even at 200 to 1 on I'd put all my disposable income and spare change on Ilyumzhinov to win by a landslide.<

If serious Martin, I strongly recommend you never, ever become a gambler. That statement breaks two cardinal rules.
Also Kirsan has won each time by a margin of about 2/1. That is hardly a landslide.

Stewart...good points.(I was being flippant but you get my point) Any show in town taking bets? Anywhere to see the odds?

[NickFaulks]

but it's not seen that way by the relatively small circles who control the votes on these matters

You say this over and over again, and I genuinely have no idea what you mean. Are you talking about a handful of people, or a few dozen, or a few in each federation, therefore maybe a thousand? Please explain.

[Roger de Coverly]

You say this over and over again, and I genuinely have no idea what you mean. Are you talking about a handful of people, or a few dozen, or a few in each federation, therefore maybe a thousand? Please explain.

Where you have a Federation no bigger than a chess club, who decides or controls the votes in these? Surely just their President. So to collect fifty votes from smaller Federations, how many people do you have to influence? Around fifty. Less than that if they hand their proxy to someone else to decide on their behalf.

The problem goes back to the days of Euwe. When FIDE decided on a push to get new countries into FIDE, it didn't change its voting system . Campomanes realised that a less than scrupulous operator could control FIDE almost permanently by ensuring most of the votes of such Federations always went in his direction.

At the very least, the ECF's vote will have to be determined by the ECF Board, which is subject to review by the ECF voting membership of nominally around 250 but in practice around 40. At least some of these 40 are subject to reporting back to local bodies, so the 15,000 players might get to voice an opinion.

[Angus French]

A stunning story in the New York Times: Kasparov's Moves in Run for Chess Office Raise Ethical Concerns.

The draft contract also said that in return for [Ignatius] Leong’s support, the Kasparov Chess Foundation, which is based in New York, would pay the Asean Chess Academy, an organization founded and owned by Leong for teaching children, $250,000 a year for four years, beginning in 2013, though the agreement would be void if Kasparov was not elected.

The Kasparov Chess Foundation also agreed to open an academy in Asia, in cooperation with Leong’s academy, in November 2013.

Leong was to be “responsible for delivering 10 + 1 vote from his region, with the effort to deliver 15 votes (not counting China),” the draft contract said. Leong was also to “secure 5 + 1 endorsements (signed proxies)” for Mr. Kasparov’s election.

Statement by Morten Sand.

HT: Olimpiu G. Urcan

[Matthew Turner]

"A stunning story"

What were you expecting?

[NickFaulks]

No surprise that such an agreement exists, but why put it in a legal document at all, let alone allow it to escape? What is the point of specifying the number of votes to be delivered in a secret ballot? It seems unlikely that, if the votes fail to come through, Leong will give back the $500,000 already received.

Morten Sand's response looks a bit panicked, and I'm particularly amused by "it is clear that no money can or will be allocated to individuals for personal use". No, it really isn't. It's always nice to see a lawyer on the run.

The less funny side of this is that federations have been given a written guide to the sort of money they might expect to be able to negotiate in bribes, should they be so inclined. This is a retrograde step.