ECF relations with FIDE

[J T Melsom]

In the run-up to the FIDE congress the ECF supported the campaign to remove the Russian president of FIDE. This campaign was unsuccessful. Geo-politics are complex, but since that outcome individual ECF members and ECF Board members have accepted appointments to FIDE posts whether specially created or part of Commissions. I am unsure whether these are in the gift of the President or not. But I think this means that the only response of the ECF to the barbarism in Ukraine is to support Ukrainians, no boycott of a Russian led organisation is in place (it's okay to continue to engage for example or assume new roles) It's great that our chess administrators are recognised as having something to contribute to the global stage, they may be better appreciated there than at home, but curious none the less. I'm not going to get a view from Malcolm Pein, so this is just sounding off. The answer may be that we support the aims of FIDE as an organisation, but reject the politics of the President, but I don't know.

[IM Jack Rudd]

I'd say there's a difference between "a Russian-led organization" and "an organization whose leader is a Russian", although it does get a bit muddy when the leader who is a Russian is also someone who has been part of the Russian government.

[NickFaulks]

I am unsure whether these are in the gift of the President or not.

Following his massive victory, I think you can assume that there is nothing not in the gift of the President.

[J T Melsom]

I am unsure whether these are in the gift of the President or not.

Following his massive victory, I think you can assume that there is nothing not in the gift of the President.

Does he vet all appointments or just the Chair of Commissions? Who appointed you to your posts? I and I suspect many others don't have the first idea about international chess administration. It would be genuinely appreciated if those who have served were willing to share their knowledge so that the forum and chess community is better informed.

Edit : extra sentence added.

[J T Melsom]

I'd say there's a difference between "a Russian-led organization" and "an organization whose leader is a Russian", although it does get a bit muddy when the leader who is a Russian is also someone who has been part of the Russian government.

That's arguable (the muddy bit is less contentious) but ECF members aren't being asked for their views, and at the same time representatives of that membership are being asked to vote for somebody who has failed to set out his views.

[Chris Goodall]

If Dvork is trying his best to signal that he's not an apparatchik of Putin by appointing some Angles to high office, I don't see why we would try to prove him wrong. That seems like exactly what we want him to do.

[Mick Norris]

The answer may be that we support the aims of FIDE as an organisation, but reject the politics of the President, but I don't know.

I guess so, probably the same as seeing the need for FIDE or UEFA but not being impressed with the way they are run or the people in charge (and although they are better than their immediate predecessors not accepting that as an argument in favour)