Which Candidate Should the ECF Support in the FIDE Presidential Election?

[Jonathan Rogers]

Imagine if they held a vote and nobody came?

Ah yes; then the organisation would melt through embarrassment and implode, thus leaving the way clear to a new federation which would be run on ethical and democratic lines and which the world at large would accept.

Or not. Or maybe each side would claim victory by virtue of 100 proxy votes, and the matter would go to expensive arbitration some years later, but with Kirsan still in charge and FIDE still threatening to sue any new would-be rival organisation which might be in the throes of development.

[Mick Norris]

I value the posts of both Chris and Justin and hope that this can be resolved amicably.

On the question whether Nigel is running with Kasparov's encouragement - well, who can seriously doubt it?

Not, incidentally, that I imagine that Nigel would have been Kasparov's first choice. Reflecting on the PCA experience, he would say years later than he had overestimated the support Nigel had from other western grandmasters. As for previous experience of Nigel as President of anything, I am surprised that no one has mentioned that he was President of the Grandmaster's Association in the early 1990s and that its collapse was precipitated by his resignation after just three months in order to set up the PCA (according to Nunn in his second best games collection). So, leading experience in two short lived and defunct organisations seem to be prominent on the CV in terms of political/managerial experience.

Mind you, negative points aside, who on earth should we vote for, indeed? Does Justin have an answer to that?

I'd like to echo the first part of this, and thank Jonathan for reminding us of the next bit

The poll on here is who should the ECF support, and my view is that None of the above is appropriate as none of the 3 candidates is suitable; I think an equally valid view if you do think 1 or more candidate is suitable, is that the ECF shouldn't support anyone publicly, as they will be choosing between Nigel & Malcolm, and a public support of either isn't desirable

The next step is a vote, and as has been said, none of the above won't cut it here, so in that case you go for the least worst candidate; I'd be clear that's not Kirsan, but whether you think Nigel or Makro is a better choice might depend on who their running mates are

[NickFaulks]

and that we should have a much better knowledge of who does what and why in FIDE than we do, and a much better knowledge of the leading players in that organisation than we do.

Is there anything specific that you would like to know?

[NickFaulks]

Or maybe each side would claim victory by virtue of 100 proxy votes

Of course, nothing of the sort is remotely possible - I think you may be confusing FIDE with the ECF.

[NickFaulks]

I think an equally valid view if you do think 1 or more candidate is suitable, is that the ECF shouldn't support anyone publicly, as they will be choosing between Nigel & Malcolm

I've just noticed that since I last checked half of Malcolm's support has walked off.

[Mick Norris]

I think an equally valid view if you do think 1 or more candidate is suitable, is that the ECF shouldn't support anyone publicly, as they will be choosing between Nigel & Malcolm

I've just noticed that since I last checked half of Malcolm's support has walked off.

Yes, not sure how many votes have changed, though of course this forum isn't representative; OMOV would see Nigel win the members vote I think, as it does on here

[JustinHorton]

and that we should have a much better knowledge of who does what and why in FIDE than we do, and a much better knowledge of the leading players in that organisation than we do.

Is there anything specific that you would like to know?

Not immediately but I will say I often find your posts on the subject (and those of other people) helpful. When people are banging on about "bureaucrats" or whatever it's useful to find out what those bureaucrats actually do, rather than considering them in caricature. Doesn't mean I then have to go along with what they do or how they do it, but I'm just better-informed.

[Jonathan Rogers]

Or maybe each side would claim victory by virtue of 100 proxy votes

Of course, nothing of the sort is remotely possible - I think you may be confusing FIDE with the ECF.

Yes, no doubt, having never voted in either!

[Carl Hibbard]

I value the posts of both Chris and Justin and hope that this can be resolved amicably.

I hope so we will try to do that.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

and that we should have a much better knowledge of who does what and why in FIDE than we do, and a much better knowledge of the leading players in that organisation than we do.

Is there anything specific that you would like to know?

Not immediately but I will say I often find your posts on the subject (and those of other people) helpful. When people are banging on about "bureaucrats" or whatever it's useful to find out what those bureaucrats actually do, rather than considering them in caricature. Doesn't mean I then have to go along with what they do or how they do it, but I'm just better-informed.

Considering people in caricature. That's one way of looking at it. I wonder if Kirsan, Short and Makropolous (I am deliberately not focusing on any specific individual from those three!) are sometimes represented more as caricatures than real people. Maybe those reporting on their actions do the caricaturing. Sometimes the individuals themselves engage in actions that, um, lend themselves to that. Hopefully direct, probing journalism and interviews will make things clearer (though some will have already made up their minds).

[Roger de Coverly]

it's useful to find out what those bureaucrats actually do

One thing they do is dream up this rather unhelpful message when you enquire about past rating history.

According to Regulations on Registration & Licensing of Players archives and statistics data on FIDE Ratings website is available for registered users. Please use your FIDE Arena account, FIDE Ratings server account or create a new account at http://arena.myfide.net/register

Someone wrote and approved these Regulations and FIDE should disapprove and remove them.

[JustinHorton]

Indeed

[NickFaulks]

Someone wrote and approved these Regulations and FIDE should disapprove and remove them.

That is certainly true. This is 100% Makro and I'm not sure that anyone else of any significance within FIDE is particularly interested.

Having said that, getting yourself an Arena account is free and trivially simple. If you have a FIDE ID, the only piece of confidential information you have to supply is your date of birth, and another part of FIDE does have that already.

[Carl Hibbard]

I value the posts of both Chris and Justin and hope that this can be resolved amicably.

I hope so we will try to do that.

I have edited the posts as I see fit, both members are respected posters and have strong feelings on the matter.

I agree Nigel seems to split opinions down the middle and I myself voted for none of the above.

[Carl Hibbard]

The poll on here is who should the ECF support, and my view is that None of the above is appropriate as none of the 3 candidates is suitable; I think an equally valid view if you do think 1 or more candidate is suitable, is that the ECF shouldn't support anyone publicly, as they will be choosing between Nigel & Malcolm, and a public support of either isn't desirable

I don't see that happening.