English Chess Forum

From the World Team Championships thread:

Mick Norris wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 01, 2019 9:26 am

That would be good, although presumably we haven't budgeted for this, although the International Director will no doubt get sponsorship for it.

NickFaulks wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 01, 2019 11:32 am

Why bother, when it is so much easier simply to increase membership fees?

Breaking news from the ECF Newsletter:

"Team England

ECF Director of International Chess IM Malcolm Pein opens with some terrific breaking news. As a result of our fine performance at the 2018 Chess Olympiad, England have been invited to the World Team Championships. Thanks to support from the Scheinberg family, a team will be sent to the competition which begins on March 4th in Astana, Kazakhstan."

Recalling my spat with Justin Horton at the time of the last Chess.com Isle of Man International, I thought that a poll might be interesting.

Ha ha brilliant. I'll not be voting on this obviously.

JustinHorton wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:06 pm

Ha ha brilliant. I'll not be voting on this obviously.

Why not? Your opinion is not difficult to guess, but you are just as entitled to vote as any other member of this Forum.

I wonder if such a poll would be permitted in Kazakhstan? Nazarbayev doesn't have a great record on human rights does he?

Scheinberg is a new name to me but I take it, from the IoM reference, that this is the PokerStars family.

This is excellent news and I am delighted to put my ongoing disagreement with the ECF's taxation policies on hold to vote YES.

Roger Lancaster wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:36 pm

Scheinberg is a new name to me but I take it, from the IoM reference, that this is the PokerStars family.

Please see viewtopic.php?f=31&t=9823 for the earlier discussion to which I alluded in my opening post.

ECF ought to agree sponsorship with anyone. Excellent work. Happy with PokerStars too.

Well, up to a point. Clearly you don't agree sponsorship if the cost to you of doing so is greater than the value of the sponsorship. YMMV on where the line is drawn.

I re-read the previous thread. David are you saying that because Mr Scheinberg is being pursued in respect of a bad law, his actions to evade justice including as I understand the breaking of other US laws are justified, and that this flexible approach to the legal system should not disqualify him from sponsorship?

Nick - your view is unambiguous if morally dubious, so I suppose I should be grateful for the clarity.

J T Melsom wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 08, 2019 8:49 pm

I re-read the previous thread. David are you saying that because Mr Scheinberg is being pursued in respect of a bad law, his actions to evade justice including as I understand the breaking of other US laws are justified, and that this flexible approach to the legal system should not disqualify him from sponsorship?

I have deliberately refrained from expressing any view in this thread. I wanted to see what other people thought.

For those who wish to join you in re-reading the previous thread, I stand by my comments therein.

I think I can draw my own conclusion then. I actually found the previous thread quite difficult to follow as to where the ethical lines were being drawn by contributors, and much of the debate also took place privately. I hope my summation is a fair representation of your views. That was all I was asking at this point.

I think I can draw my own conclusion then. I actually found the previous thread quite difficult to follow as to where the ethical lines were being drawn by contributors, and much of the debate also took place privately. I hope my summation is a fair representation of your views. That was all I was asking at this point.

JT I think you are morally dubious & your opinion of my answer is meaningless.
ECF ought to take the money to send a good team to play chess in the WCT. I voted YES.
It is up to ECF on it's stance. Why get involved in any US law debate.
I suggest you put a call to BATMAN.

The premise that you should take money from anyone is morally dubious, I don't seriously believe its a view you would hold in all instances. Of course it is up to the ECF to reach a view, though that hasn't stopped David posting the poll or you and others expressing a view here ECF members or not. I think that I'd want assurances that in the rush to find funding the ECF hasn't become ethically compromised. I don't know enough about the dispute but it is proper to have the debate, just as the ECF should always in my view consider the human rights record of host nations. Its great that chess players are invited in to play chess, but what about free and fair elections? That may also be a short debate and the conclusions may not be the same as would be reached on a forum, but its not good to ignore questions of ethics.

For the avoidance of doubt I am not suggesting that the ECF has acted improperly even if it were to draw the line in a different place to me. I simply don't have sufficient unambiguous evidence in this case. Concerns have been raised but the facts and what should concern us are a little less clear cut.