Which Candidate Should the ECF Support in the FIDE Presidential Election? (Take 2)

The very latest International round up of English news.

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

Poll ended at Mon Oct 01, 2018 8:05 am

Arkady Dvorkovich
5
11%
Georgios Makropoulos
9
20%
Nigel Short
22
48%
None of the Above
10
22%
 
Total votes: 46

David Robertson

Re: Which Candidate Should the ECF Support in the FIDE Presidential Election? (Take 2)

Post by David Robertson » Wed Sep 26, 2018 11:21 pm

Michael Farthing wrote:
Wed Sep 26, 2018 10:24 pm
Well, as of this moment, 51% of the - alleged- members taking part in a straw poll in this place have declared against Short and 49% in favour. I agree the data is 'slight'.
Don't be foolish. 51% have in no sense declared against Short. At best, 18% have. A further 22% have declared for no candidate, a view that might have commended itself to the ECF Board, in my opinion.

The question remains: who, or what, does the ECF Board think it represents when it takes a position on matters like this? If it's merely the sum of its prejudices then we, the paying multitude, should know - and object. If it's the views of the membership, the playing & paying community, then we deserve to know what the minimal steps might be that would secure confidence that those views were being reflected. As things stand, all we've been given is a risibly pompous statement that presents the ECF as a minor arm of the Ministry of Defence. Further folly

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21291
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Which Candidate Should the ECF Support in the FIDE Presidential Election? (Take 2)

Post by Roger de Coverly » Thu Sep 27, 2018 12:07 am

David Robertson wrote:
Wed Sep 26, 2018 11:21 pm
The question remains: who, or what, does the ECF Board think it represents when it takes a position on matters like this?
In partial fairness to the ECF Board, it doesn't really have any formal methods of consultation. It could have been a discussion point at the April Finance meeting but that was quite some time before the final line up became clear and the FIDE election was excluded, probably deliberately, from being discussed. One other mechanism available would have been to convene an EGM to discuss the matter, but that didn't happen either.

Chris Rice
Posts: 3416
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 5:17 am

Re: Which Candidate Should the ECF Support in the FIDE Presidential Election? (Take 2)

Post by Chris Rice » Thu Sep 27, 2018 12:39 am

ChessBase article on the upcoming election gives an update of where we're at and a profile of the runners and riders with their manifestos.

Chris Rice
Posts: 3416
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 5:17 am

Re: Which Candidate Should the ECF Support in the FIDE Presidential Election? (Take 2)

Post by Chris Rice » Thu Sep 27, 2018 8:44 am

The anti-cheating measures at Batumi are not going down too well. A wide variety of reasons have been given such as officials carrying out checks not being trained, only made worse by a lack of proper procedures and some say the checks are only there for show anyway. Here's a couple of examples from yesterday.

Ian Rogers:

"Anti-cheating theatre at Batumi Olympiad. AUS player called for body scan after game. Officials then refuse to test her, asking for her LAT opponent, only found 15 mins later. "Too late!" cry the officials so AUS woman is scanned after all. However her handbag remains unexamined."

Then someone asked Ian Rogers to post the suspicious game to which he replied:

"There was no suspicious game. It was just a random post-game check which turned out to be completely pointless since had either player been cheating (and they were not), they would have had multiple opportunities to dispose of any electronic equipment. So the tests are theatre."

Jacob Aagard who is the team captain for the Indian women's team mentioned on Emil Sutovsky's thread on FB that "After the game Humpy (Koneru) was asked to stay back to go for anti-cheating. Then the arbiter disappeared for a few minutes, while I was waiting with her and then she was asked to go alone to the check. This did not disturb her at all or the game or anything. But if anyone are actually cheating here, they would not get caught. The measures are clearly ineffective at the door as well. I could have smuggled something in every day if I had wanted to, although of course it would take some daring and cunning. Basically, a will to cheat. I have none of these attributes, but I hope they will tighten up so the checks matter."

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21291
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Which Candidate Should the ECF Support in the FIDE Presidential Election? (Take 2)

Post by Roger de Coverly » Thu Sep 27, 2018 10:18 am

Chris Rice wrote:
Thu Sep 27, 2018 8:44 am
some say the checks are only there for show anyway
This is perhaps better on the "cheating" thread, but once mobile phones and other devices capable of running chess engines or consulting chess theory are excluded from the playing venue, isn't the problem to detecting those who come "tooled up" for cheating or perhaps those who seek advice on their position in a traditional way by asking a stronger player? Not all cheating is directly electronic, as witnessed by the French method in Siberia, but acting on intelligence and observation might work rather better than the theatre of random testing.

We haven't heard much of the Regan program of late. Perhaps all it achieves is to detect examples of successful preparation.

User avatar
JustinHorton
Posts: 10364
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Somewhere you're not

Re: Which Candidate Should the ECF Support in the FIDE Presidential Election? (Take 2)

Post by JustinHorton » Thu Sep 27, 2018 10:28 am

David Robertson wrote:
Wed Sep 26, 2018 11:21 pm

The question remains: who, or what, does the ECF Board think it represents when it takes a position on matters like this?
It represents itself, and its own judgement, and has never been asked to do otherwise on the question of FIDE elections. Had people wanted it to take soundings, they could have said so. I don't believe they did.

As an aside, those of us with working memories may recall how much consultation Nigel engaged in when he was a member of the ECF board, and laugh.
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

lostontime.blogspot.com

User avatar
Michael Farthing
Posts: 2069
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:28 pm
Location: Morecambe, Europe

Re: Which Candidate Should the ECF Support in the FIDE Presidential Election? (Take 2)

Post by Michael Farthing » Thu Sep 27, 2018 1:21 pm

David Robertson wrote:
Wed Sep 26, 2018 11:21 pm
Michael Farthing wrote:
Wed Sep 26, 2018 10:24 pm
Well, as of this moment, 51% of the - alleged- members taking part in a straw poll in this place have declared against Short and 49% in favour. I agree the data is 'slight'.
Don't be foolish. 51% have in no sense declared against Short. At best, 18% have. A further 22% have declared for no candidate, a view that might have commended itself to the ECF Board, in my opinion.
I was far from being foolish. I was pointing out that your assertion of a 'decisive' decision could not be deduced from the figures. In a first past the post race very little can be said about the thinking of the electorate and the only way a vote might be considered "decisive" is if one candidate passes 50% in the sense of reaching a clear decision, but without the over-tones of enthusiasm that your words suggested. We do not know the tactical thinking of the 51% who did not vote for Short. We can be fairly certain that 22% didn't want him under any circumstances. The remaining 33% may have been quite enthusiastic for him but on balance considered there to be an even better candidate as an alternative. Equally, they may have thought that their choice was not really very good, but that anything would be better than having Short. We just don't know. (Though the surrounding discussion does possibly give some hints).

Chris Rice
Posts: 3416
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 5:17 am

Re: Which Candidate Should the ECF Support in the FIDE Presidential Election? (Take 2)

Post by Chris Rice » Fri Sep 28, 2018 1:10 am

Sport Governance Seminar at Batumi. Interestingly timed for Saturday 29/9 a few days before the election on 3/10.

NickFaulks
Posts: 8452
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Which Candidate Should the ECF Support in the FIDE Presidential Election? (Take 2)

Post by NickFaulks » Fri Sep 28, 2018 8:20 am

Sitting in Ethics Commission, where Makro's attempt to get his election opponent thrown out is being considered. We're all surprised and pleased that it is not a closed session.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.

NickFaulks
Posts: 8452
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Which Candidate Should the ECF Support in the FIDE Presidential Election? (Take 2)

Post by NickFaulks » Fri Sep 28, 2018 10:04 am

Well, that was a shame. The EC Chairman thought an open session would look good, but the lawyers ( both sides, we think, but not certain about that ) disagreed with him so we were thrown out.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21291
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Which Candidate Should the ECF Support in the FIDE Presidential Election? (Take 2)

Post by Roger de Coverly » Fri Sep 28, 2018 11:58 am

NickFaulks wrote:
Fri Sep 28, 2018 8:20 am
Sitting in Ethics Commission, where Makro's attempt to get his election opponent thrown out is being considered.
Without knowing whether there's any case for the supposed financial support linked to the removal of the Delegate, isn't the proposition undermined by the documentary evidence that the Serbian federation were trying to change their FIDE delegate when it was still plausible that Kirsan would be standing?

Chris Rice
Posts: 3416
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 5:17 am

Re: Which Candidate Should the ECF Support in the FIDE Presidential Election? (Take 2)

Post by Chris Rice » Fri Sep 28, 2018 12:07 pm

Outside the Ethics Commission. Chairman François Strydom told @ChesscomNews a verdict today is unlikely but should come before Oct. 3.

Inside the Ethics Commission where Dvorkovich and Makro are both present.

Chris Rice
Posts: 3416
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 5:17 am

Re: Which Candidate Should the ECF Support in the FIDE Presidential Election? (Take 2)

Post by Chris Rice » Fri Sep 28, 2018 12:09 pm

Nigel:

"Well-stocked up with popcorn and coke, I attended the first session of the Makro versus @advorkovich Ethics Commission case. The Chairman, Francois Strydom, appears to know what he is doing."

Chris Rice
Posts: 3416
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 5:17 am

Re: Which Candidate Should the ECF Support in the FIDE Presidential Election? (Take 2)

Post by Chris Rice » Fri Sep 28, 2018 7:50 pm

Nigel:

"The fundamental legal mistake of the FIDE Ethics Commission however is not to hear the cases Makro versus @advorkovich and @advorkovich versus Makro at the same time. This prejudices the presidential election and is a recipe for utter chaos."

Clearly Nigel thinks he is going to get a lot more votes than is commonly believed:

"Great news! At 7pm this evening @cleanhands4fide passed the winning tally of 95 votes."

Is 95 a winning tally anyway, I thought it was 114 but I've long since passed the point of confusion.

David Robertson

Re: Which Candidate Should the ECF Support in the FIDE Presidential Election? (Take 2)

Post by David Robertson » Fri Sep 28, 2018 11:06 pm

Chris Rice wrote:
Fri Sep 28, 2018 7:50 pm
Is 95 a winning tally anyway, I thought it was 114 but I've long since passed the point of confusion
n = 187 (I think). So 95 would be past the post. But I'd take all claims with a pinch of salt from now on: candidates will spin their numbers as they try to create a bandwagon effect

Post Reply