English Chess Forum

This rather reminds me of the occasion when a certain English GM stood against then FIDE president Florencio Campomanes (although, strictly speaking, it was the GM's running mate who sought the presidency) with warm support from the BCF and much of the English chess community, although enthusiasm for the GM in question seems to have cooled somewhat over the intervening years. Whilst not equating in any way Nigel's personal qualities with those of the GM in question, and I say this without intending to cause offence to either, I don't immediately see any reason to expect Nigel to have any greater success than his predecessor. Am I missing something? And here I refer to Nigel's candidacy and not the earlier one!

JustinHorton wrote: ↑

Fri May 11, 2018 11:22 am

You may remember Roger that this line of attack was notably unsuccessful last time round and it's not likely to cut any more ice this time.

Given your depth of hatred for Nigel, is it your personal view that you would prefer Kirsan or Makro?

Roger Lancaster wrote: ↑

Fri May 11, 2018 1:42 pm

This rather reminds me of the occasion when a certain English GM stood against then FIDE president Florencio Campomanes (although, strictly speaking, it was the GM's running mate who sought the presidency) with warm support from the BCF and much of the English chess community, although enthusiasm for the GM in question seems to have cooled somewhat over the intervening years. Whilst not equating in any way Nigel's personal qualities with those of the GM in question, and I say this without intending to cause offence to either, I don't immediately see any reason to expect Nigel to have any greater success than his predecessor. Am I missing something? And here I refer to Nigel's candidacy and not the earlier one!

I would try and look this up (as I am not familiar with this part of chess history), but don't have the time right now. Who is this English GM and the contested election against Florencio Campomanes?

Oh, OK. I took the effort to Google the search terms 'contested election Florencio Campomanes' and got this:

http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/fidefacts.html

The 1986 FIDE Presidential Election - Edward Winter:

"In the 1986 FIDE Presidential Election the incumbent, Florencio Campomanes, was challenged by a ticket comprising Lincoln Lucena and Raymond Keene...."

And literally pages more of scanned materials!

It is worth quoting what is at the end of that webpage, as not many people may get that far:

"On page xviii of the Financial Times (Weekend FT), 6 December 1986 Dominic Lawson wrote an astoundingly biased account of the FIDE election which read as if dictated by Raymond Keene himself."

[Dominic Lawson is the current ECF President.]

Christopher Kreuzer wrote: ↑

Fri May 11, 2018 1:55 pm

Who is this English GM and the contested election against Florencio Campomanes?

Campo had built an election machine based on support from Federations no bigger than chess clubs or at a pinch local leagues and therefore the 1986 campaign didn't achieve very much. To a considerable extent this was inherited by Kirsan and Makro and that's what Nigel or any challenger is up against. As to whether it stays loyal to Kirsan or switches to Makro, that will remain to be seen. Bermuda perhaps will join those disloyal.

Am I really alone in seeing Short's stated support for changing the stalemate rule as an important obstacle to supporting his candidacy?

(indeed, how many of those who have rushed to support him - here and elsewhere - are even aware of it)

Matt Mackenzie wrote: ↑

Fri May 11, 2018 2:08 pm

Am I really alone in seeing Short's stated support for changing the stalemate rule as an important obstacle to supporting his candidacy?

I don't really understand this point. Are you saying that Short's expression of this view, rather like Kirsan's claim to have been abducted by aliens, demonstrates his unsuitability as the head of a major international body? If you are instead under the impression that he could actually make it happen, then perhaps there is room for two in Roger's dream world.

NickFaulks wrote: ↑

Fri May 11, 2018 2:22 pm

Matt Mackenzie wrote: ↑

Fri May 11, 2018 2:08 pm

Am I really alone in seeing Short's stated support for changing the stalemate rule as an important obstacle to supporting his candidacy?

I don't really understand this point. Are you saying that Short's expression of this view, rather like Kirsan's claim to have been abducted by aliens, demonstrates his unsuitability as the head of a major international body? If you are instead under the impression that he could actually make it happen, then perhaps there is room for two in Roger's dream world.

Wasn't Kirsan the prime mover behind the zero tolerance rule? In addition, I think you underestimate the groundswell of support for Nigel from 6-8 year olds worldwide who believe it is very unfair that their opponent should escape with a draw when they are five queens up.

Chris Rice wrote: ↑

Fri May 11, 2018 2:30 pm

Wasn't Kirsan the prime mover behind the zero tolerance rule?

It was also that guy from Singapore that Kasparov later got to change sides. He had been put in charge of the Olympiad which was doubly unfortunate when it took place in a country known for following orders. Makro managed to get a stay of execution when the General Assembly seemingly was threatening to extend it to all of chess in homage to Kirsan who spoke in favour.

The original intent had been a perfectly valid attempt to introduce flexibility to a law that had been in place since the days of Capablanca and one that had long since been modified to 30 minutes for many practical purposes in British tournaments.

Chris Rice wrote: ↑

Fri May 11, 2018 2:30 pm

Wasn't Kirsan the prime mover behind the zero tolerance rule?

Yes, but that only ever had very limited applicability and even then didn't survive long. An attempt to remove the stalemate rule would be far more complicated, and would certainly be abandoned at an early stage.

The way the Rules Commission seems to work, and presumably the Rules Commission did in the past when Stewart Reuben was Secretary, is:
1. Everyone is invited to write to the Secretary of the Rules Commission with suggestions. Some Commission members will no doubt have their own ideas too.
2. The Councillors of the Rules Commission meet to discuss the submissions. This is a private meeting. The ones they like get added to a draft version of the new Laws.
3. The revised Laws then get put to a meeting at a FIDE Congress for approval. This is a public meeting. Some things get added, subtracted, and so on. It then approves them.
4. The proposed new Laws then get put to the General Assembly. Some things get added, subtracted and so on. It then approves them.

Nick's right that the FIDE President couldn't make a change like that happen. The first job would be to get support from the Commission. But that's not so easy, whereas the FIDE President appoints the Chairmen of every other Commission, the exception seems to be the Rules Commission, whose entire membership seems to be appointed by the Technical Commission. So there are two groups of people you need to get on board/replace with people who agree with you before you've even started. If you succeed in doing all of that, then the General Assembly may still just reject it at the end of the process anyway.

In the case of zero tolerance, it presumably only got through because of the rest of the Law, which enabled competitions to specify a different default time (just as the old Law did). So Kirsan's wonts could be pandered to, and the rest of us could ignore it.

Possibly not the best use of a person's time to fret about Nigel abolishing the stalemate rule when Nigel has promised to abolish so much more, starting with that tottering pile of secrecy, incompetence and self-reproducing bureaucracy called FIDE. He's called for the dismissal of the entire Kirsan-era Nomenklatura and a reorganisation of the FIDE Apparat. He deserves to win a landslide. If players voted, he would

It seems that the Glen Stark scandal, with a new negative revelation out today and yet more promised, has the potential to fatally damage Kirsan's campaign.
http://www.chessdom.com/glen-stark-a-year-old-story/

Leonard Barden wrote: ↑

Fri May 11, 2018 3:40 pm

http://www.chessdom.com/glen-stark-a-year-old-story/

"Expect a major update with bombastic information in the next hours on Chessdom."

David Robertson wrote: ↑

Fri May 11, 2018 3:28 pm

He's called for the dismissal of the entire Kirsan-era Nomenklatura and a reorganisation of the FIDE Apparat.

Long words, but do you have the remotest idea of what you're talking about?

To start, how many employees do you believe FIDE has?

Roger Lancaster wrote: ↑

Fri May 11, 2018 1:42 pm

This rather reminds me of the occasion when a certain English GM stood against then FIDE president Florencio Campomanes (although, strictly speaking, it was the GM's running mate who sought the presidency) with warm support from the BCF and much of the English chess community, although enthusiasm for the GM in question seems to have cooled somewhat over the intervening years.

Him and Nigel are still good mates, as I understand it, and both of them are pally with one CJ de Mooi, giving Nigel the distinction of having as allies in English chess two chaps who disappeared from the Federation having ripped it off.

Anyway I'm glad Roger's reminded us of the Lucena/Keene circus, because from that day (and before it) to this, English chess has had two striking characteristics:

(a) to scream and shout about the wicked deeds of whoever is running FIDE, some of these imaginary, some of them very much not ;

(b) to forgive, overlook or justify any kind of misconduct by prominent people in English chess, provided they're seen to have brought money or publicity to the game, this making mugs of ourselves time and again.

This isn't just absurd, it's clownish and embarrassing, and while not everybody does this, it's very much an institutionalised pattern, it's not going to change soon and it's often particularly in evidence round about FIDE election time.

Or to put it another way, if we're going to judge FIDE insiders by their deeds and not their promises - and we surely should - then in order not to appear ridiculous we should also do the same with prominent figures in English chess, yes? And in this particular case we might find that we have a pretty consistent record of bullying and feuding, misogyny and motormouthing, and a very pronounced tendency to demand rules and transparency on behalf of other people while ignoring both when it comes to looking after Number One.

English chess can and will overlook this if it chooses, but other people maybe won't.