English Chess Forum

Alex Holowczak wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 27, 2018 2:14 pm

Graham Borrowdale wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 27, 2018 1:03 pm

Sorry, what is a D.J.? I doubt it means someone who plays records.These private discussions are becoming less and less accessible for most of us.

But you must admit, much more interesting than the first 20 pages or so of discussion.

How can you say this!! We've had politics laced with intrigue and corruption. Now we've got a mystery. All we need is a sex scandal, and Ch.4 will be bidding for the film rights

David Robertson wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 27, 2018 2:40 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 27, 2018 2:14 pm

Graham Borrowdale wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 27, 2018 1:03 pm

Sorry, what is a D.J.? I doubt it means someone who plays records.These private discussions are becoming less and less accessible for most of us.

But you must admit, much more interesting than the first 20 pages or so of discussion.

How can you say this!! We've had politics laced with intrigue and corruption. Now we've got a mystery. All we need is a sex scandal, and Ch.4 will be bidding for the film rights

In which Peter Capaldi plays Malcolm (again), but who plays Nigel?

The late Warren Clarke could have done it

NickFaulks wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 27, 2018 10:33 am

I assume the advice Malcolm received was that the establishment ticket was going to win, so if he wanted to make a difference that was the one to be on. Not a difficult call to make.

I'm surprised. I know Short is a protest vote. But I would have thought Dvorkovich would be favourite. Unless there is more money behind Makro than there has been in the past.

Alex McFarlane wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 27, 2018 12:31 pm

I would have thought that the adviser might be more of a D.J.

Someone well acquainted with the inner workings of FIDE and would certainly strike the right notes.

Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 27, 2018 1:38 pm

I would suspect a reference to a former FIDE Executive Director.

Alex and Roger are referring to David Jarrett.

That is possible but unlikely in my view.

Mick Norris wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 27, 2018 11:23 am

Am I correct that the Russian Chess Federation was meeting yesterday to decide formally who to nominate/support?

It was an "absentee meeting" (which I presume means online) of the RCF Supervisory Board. It took place over two days, yesterday and today.

They voted 22-2 to support Dvorkovich rather than Ilyumzhinov.

David Sedgwick wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 27, 2018 9:24 pm

They voted 22-2 to support Dvorkovich rather than Ilyumzhinov.

Back in 2010, there was at least one meeting of the Russian chess federation which voted to support Karpov. That apparently was not the required answer, so the meeting was deemed not to have taken place or to have been illegal.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2010/ ... orld-chess

2010 wrote: Last month the presidential aide Arkady Dvorkovich announced that the Kremlin was backing the incumbent for re-election. Russia's chess federation threw its support behind Karpov.

Many of those now campaigning for the removal of Kirsan have to answer as to why they didn't support his removal in 2006,2010 or 2014.

Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 27, 2018 9:55 pm

Many of those now campaigning for the removal of Kirsan have to answer as to why they didn't support his removal in 2006,2010 or 2014.

Presumably because he was not then on the blacklist. Even if not in all cases the whole truth, that is an adequate answer.

My own additional answer, which I also believe to be quite adequate. is that on all three of those occasions the opposition campaigns had shown them to be entirely unsuitable.

NickFaulks wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 27, 2018 10:32 pm

My own additional answer, which I also believe to be quite adequate. is that on all three of those occasions the opposition campaigns had shown them to be entirely unsuitable.

Had it been an ECF style election, Kirsan v "none of the above", who would you support?

To the extent that being FIDE President could work as a prestige or ceremonial position, rather than administrative, just why are former world chess champions "unsuitable" against a post Soviet oligarch with a dubious reputation?

Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 27, 2018 10:58 pm

Had it been an ECF style election, Kirsan v "none of the above", who would you support?

In 2006, 2010 and 2014 Kirsan was a better choice than "none of the above". When Washington struck he should have done the right thing and resigned with grace.

2018 is different. I am unhappy that the Americans have given themselves the power to blackball the leaders of all international organisations, even those of no strategic significance, without the need to show any evidence of malfeasance. However, until such time as the world rebels against this tyranny, it is clear that it would be better for the post of President to be vacant.

To the extent that being FIDE President could work as a prestige or ceremonial position, rather than administrative, just why are former world chess champions "unsuitable" against a post Soviet oligarch with a dubious reputation?

This could go on for many pages, so I shall present just one anecdote.

In 2010 I attended a Subzonal in Nassau and had the opportunity of a lengthy chat with Karpov, who was these seeking support for their campaign. I asked him about their plan to close down the Elista office and transfer the management of the FIDE rating system to the French federation. I said this was a complicated procedure and he accepted without demur that there would probably be a period of six months during which full rating lists would not be published. He had been told that it should be possible to maintain the ratings of the top 100 during this hiatus.

I tried to explain that this would not work, and that in any case players below 2600 took their ratings very seriously. He was surprised by this and I did not get the impression that he believed me.

NickFaulks wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 27, 2018 11:41 pm

. I said this was a complicated procedure and he accepted without demur that there would probably be a period of six months during which full rating lists would not be published. He had been told that it should be possible to maintain the ratings of the top 100 during this hiatus.

You think Kirsan cared about "average players"? Not someone who has ever had a rating and his toxic legacy of zero default times lives on, being present in the Asian Team Championships.

Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 28, 2018 12:13 am

You think Kirsan cared about "average players"?

Well, at least he didn't have any of us shot. By Kirsan's standards that probably does constitute as 'caring about average players'.

The risk of pointing out the flaws in someone else's pre-determined choice of candidate, is the eruption of 'whataboutism' that will invariably follow. This was particularly noticeable in Tromso, where anyone who pointed out that Kirsan's promises of millions for chess were without foundation, were met with 'what about Sinquefeld, how do we know if his promises can be met?'
A better guide for me would is the past actions of a candidate and his team, which of course reflects very poorly on the Makro ticket.

shaunpress wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 28, 2018 8:56 am

The risk of pointing out the flaws in someone else's pre-determined choice of candidate, is the eruption of 'whataboutism' that will invariably follow.

I had decided that I wouldn't bother to make that point ( again ), but you are absolutely right. I believe my Karpov story is pretty devastating, but on this forum it was obviously only going to be met with the usual outrage about having to get to a sporting event in time for the start.

This was particularly noticeable in Tromso, where anyone who pointed out that Kirsan's promises of millions for chess were without foundation, were met with 'what about Sinquefeld, how do we know if his promises can be met?

I don't think that is true, because I don't remember hearing Rex Sinquefield say anything. I was listening hard and would have believed him. The problem was that we only heard promises from Kasparov's mouth, and anyone with past dealings with him had indeed formed an opinion on their value.

shaunpress wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 28, 2018 8:56 am

The risk of pointing out the flaws in someone else's pre-determined choice of candidate, is the eruption of 'whataboutism' that will invariably follow. This was particularly noticeable in Tromso, where anyone who pointed out that Kirsan's promises of millions for chess were without foundation, were met with 'what about Sinquefeld, how do we know if his promises can be met?'
A better guide for me would is the past actions of a candidate and his team, which of course reflects very poorly on the Makro ticket.

Who do you think is going to win the election?