ECF and the FIDE Presidential election

[shaunpress]

What stance should the ECF take in the forthcoming FIDE Presidential election?

Is there a suggestion that in any shape or form it should endorse Kirsan?

If the ECF is to join those Federations willing to sell their vote, it should demand an extremely high price.

If the ECF Board don't want to be shouted at by English players and the next Council meeting, the practical choices are somewhere on the spectrum from all out support for Kasparov to a neutral position. There might after all be a third candidate, although whether Council would endorse the ECF's own President is by no means given.

I concur completely. The worst possible option would be to drift into a position of supporting Ilyumzhinov without obtaining anything meaningful in return.

Given that one of the perceived problems with FIDE (at least in Western Europe) is a so called 'corrupt' electoral process, I am not sure how to read the above statements.

[Roger de Coverly]

Given that one of the perceived problems with FIDE (at least in Western Europe) is a so called 'corrupt' electoral process, I am not sure how to read the above statements.

With the near impossibility of removing Kirsan and his cronies from office by legitimate means, why not be cynical and take the offered inducements aka bribes?

It was an issue of sorts at the 2012 election for the ECF's FIDE representative. The presumed FIDE nominee wasn't able to put very much on the table, little more than trips to the Olympiad for selected players as Match Captains for little known Federations. This didn't persuade the voters that it offset evils perpetuated by the current gang such as faster time limits, zero time defaults, arbiter fees, compulsory registration etc, etc.

The ECF may be divided of course. Whilst the new President is suspected of supporting Kirsan for the Presidency, or possibly himself, that is not a proposition that many/most of the 15,000 chess players in England would have much enthusiasm for.

[NickFaulks]

This didn't persuade the voters that it offset evils perpetuated by the current gang such as faster time limits, zero time defaults, arbiter fees, compulsory registration etc, etc.

You really believe that a Kasparov Leong administration would reverse any of that? Dream on. Where do you think these ideas originated?

[Roger de Coverly]

Where do you think these ideas originated?

It's part of the indictment of Kirsan that he did nothing to oppose them, in fact he encouraged them, zero time defaults in particular. I might hope the ECF will also speak out against those aspects of Kasparov's platform that it disagrees with.

But it's a futile task to oppose Kirsan's re-election for as long as the voting decisions are in the hands of a handful of administrators from small Federations.

[John Upham]

For the benefit of anyone contemplating support of KI here is an image that accompanies his brand:

img_1579_crop_small.jpg

[NickFaulks]

Where do you think these ideas originated?

It's part of the indictment of Kirsan that he did nothing to oppose them, in fact he encouraged them, zero time defaults in particular. I might hope the ECF will also speak out against those aspects of Kasparov's platform that it disagrees with.

But it's a futile task to oppose Kirsan's re-election for as long as the voting decisions are in the hands of a handful of administrators from small Federations.

Has the ECF ever spoken out against zero time defaults? If they, and others like them, had done so in Dresden, perhaps they wouldn't have happened.

I never understand this idea that FIDE elections are decided by who has more money. If that were the case, Kasparov would win at a canter.

[Roger de Coverly]

Has the ECF ever spoken out against zero time defaults? If they, and others like them, had done so in Dresden, perhaps they wouldn't have happened.

At Dresden, the ECF was represented by a FIDE Insider. If he didn't oppose zero time defaults, that was one of the reasons he was dumped by the ECF electorate acting in accordance with public opinion.

Discussion at the time
http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php ... wals#p2979

Stewart thought it a one-off experiment and wasn't even sure that it would be enforced, but the President of FIDE very nearly got it incorporated into the Laws of Chess. For local events, it's very likely that it would have been immediately set aside, but FIDE rated local games would have been a problem.

The ECF is usually reluctant to be publicly critical of FIDE. It wouldn't for example make a public fuss about the need to establish FINs before allowing players to take part in International tournaments, with a € 250 penalty for getting it wrong.

I never understand this idea that FIDE elections are decided by who has more money. If that were the case, Kasparov would win at a canter.

I thought that was the plan for 2014. Is it not strongly rumoured that election years feature financial concessions to smaller Federations and those who make the voting decisions in those Federations? For that matter, there's the supposed abuse of proxies.

[Paul McKeown]

I never understand this idea that FIDE elections are decided by who has more money. If that were the case, Kasparov would win at a canter.

Don't make me snort with derision. Kasparov is merely a former World Chess Champion and unsuccessful opposition politician in a country in which democracy is merely for appearance's sake. Ilyumzhinov, by contrast, was a Kremlin approved satrap, with full permission to plunder his federal republic, which he did with gusto.

[PeterTurland]

I think the best chess player in the world, should automatically be President of FIDE, and now Carlsen has proved he is world champion, should be given real power, in terms of FIDE's doings.

The wonderful thing about chess is, it is an objective measure of human logic ability.

Human logic ability requires evidence before believing in something, this is why science is such a powerful force in terms of human affairs.

I would like to know where people who believe in aliens, get their evidence from, tea leaves perhaps?

[Paul McKeown]

What's your Elo, then? I think we should be told.

[NickFaulks]

I never understand this idea that FIDE elections are decided by who has more money. If that were the case, Kasparov would win at a canter.

Don't make me snort with derision. Kasparov is merely a former World Chess Champion and unsuccessful opposition politician in a country in which democracy is merely for appearance's sake. Ilyumzhinov, by contrast, was a Kremlin approved satrap, with full permission to plunder his federal republic, which he did with gusto.

You are quite wrong about this, as was clearly shown in the silly lawsuit. Both sides came out looking bad, with huge legal bills, but the whole point was that Kasparov's backers could easily afford them and FIDE could not.

[NickFaulks]

For that matter, there's the supposed abuse of proxies.

I've never really understood this issue. Certainly, I do not like the idea of pocketfuls of proxies being passed around. In Tallinn, Kasparov held the ECF proxy but had too many, so he gave it to somebody else. That doesn't feel right, but I don't think there is any suggestion that any federation's vote has ended up being cast in a way they did not intend.

[Roger de Coverly]

I've never really understood this issue.

Chess Federations that are insufficiently active to even send a team to the Olympiads nevertheless seem to have sufficient interest in FIDE's affairs to appoint a proxy. Surprisingly such votes are presumed to always be in favour of the incumbents. Part of the reforms of FIDE's voting process agreed to in Turkey were intended to impose restrictions on proxies.

It's something that because of UK Company Law cannot be applied to the ECF, so there are about half a dozen people who could potentially decide ECF policy at AGMs unless constrained by prior instructions from those they represent. It helps that they are more often than not divided on many issues. Being unwilling to countenance ECF support for the re-election of Kirsan is an issue I would suspect they could agree on.

[Roger de Coverly]

Both sides came out looking bad, with huge legal bills, but the whole point was that Kasparov's backers could easily afford them and FIDE could not.

It's never really been clear where Kirsan's money stops and FIDE's starts. Because of this, it didn't really work as an attack on Kirsan's election fund as once FIDE had decided to defend, the costs came out of a pocket marked FIDE. The ECF should never have got involved, particularly in secret. Both the President and CEO at the time stepped down as a partial consequence. Still, if Kasparov were elected President, he would also have to find a means of filling the funding hole created by the CAS action.

[Angus French]

In Tallinn, Kasparov held the ECF proxy but had too many, so he gave it to somebody else. That doesn't feel right, but I don't think there is any suggestion that any federation's vote has ended up being cast in a way they did not intend.

Nigel Short, as ECF FIDE Delegate, appointed Kasparov (himself representing Croatia) to act as the ECF's proxy in Tallinn. It came out at the ECF's AGM in October that the decision was made without consulting the Board and the matter wasn’t discussed at any Board Meeting. It was also revealed – as Nick states - that the ECF’s vote ended up with the representative of another NGB – I think it might have been Estonia's (the host country) but I’m not sure.