English Chess Forum

Either way, and anyway, Makropoulos is in a legacy squeeze, caught between 'clean hands' Short and 'fresh face' Dvorkovich. The squeeze, which Makropoulos is poorly positioned to resist, is on his ownership of the past.

To be effective though, given many delegates are content to have the corruption continue, both Short but more likely Dvorkovich will need to translate their 'moral high-ground' positioning into the baser practicalities of winning votes.

chess-news.ru has conducted a similar poll. The difference in support for the "Russian" candidate is noticeable.

https://twitter.com/Chess__News/status/ ... de%2F24919

As of writing this and rounding the numbers

Short just under 50%
Dvorkovich 35%
Makro just under 5%
none of the above 10%

Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 07, 2018 8:56 pm

chess-news.ru has conducted a similar poll.

Sorry, I've forgotten what little Russian I once knew. From what group of people was that vote taken?

Roger Lancaster wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 07, 2018 9:11 pm

From what group of people was that vote taken?

I'm not sure I know. My guess would be readers of the site.

Votes for FIDE president almost completely ignore what would be the popular vote by players.

Surely in Russia, of all places, who counts the vote is much more important than who voted?

Yes, there's likely to be little correlation between the popular choice - whoever that may be - and who most appeals to FIDE delegates. Given that fact, it's handy to know who cast those votes, where I'm inclined to agree with RdeC. As to Brian's point, I would have thought that any 'arithmetical irregularities' would have resulted in Dvorkovich getting a higher vote than he actually recorded.

The FIDE Treasurer has gone ballistic once again. This time Bacher Kouatly gets the treatment for daring to quote FIDE statutes in relation to the accusations that Federations in debt are potentially being stripped of their votes for the forthcoming election and stating that Dr Siegel has gone 'political'.

Chris Rice wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 07, 2018 11:51 pm

stating that Dr Siegel has gone 'political'.

Isn't he standing for election as part of the "Makro" team?

But there does seem to be a new policy, that Federations are allowed to send teams and Delegates to the Olympiad regardless of their state of debt to FIDE. The relative inability of FIDE to accept payments cannot have helped.

Chris Rice wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 07, 2018 11:51 pm

This time Bacher Kouatly gets the treatment for daring to quote FIDE statutes in relation to the accusations that Federations in debt are potentially being stripped of their votes for the forthcoming election

Actually, for quoting selected chunks in order to give an impression that is the opposite of the effect of all relevant sections taken as a whole. It is hard to believe that Kouatly did this by accident.

NickFaulks wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 08, 2018 8:19 am

Chris Rice wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 07, 2018 11:51 pm

This time Bacher Kouatly gets the treatment for daring to quote FIDE statutes in relation to the accusations that Federations in debt are potentially being stripped of their votes for the forthcoming election

Actually, for quoting selected chunks in order to give an impression that is the opposite of the effect of all relevant sections taken as a whole. It is hard to believe that Kouatly did this by accident.

The response that Dr Siegel sent back seems to rest on the interpretation of paragraph 2.5 of the FIDE Statutes which reads:

"Members not fulfilling the duties mentioned in art. 2.4 may be temporarily excluded from FIDE by a decision of the General Assembly/Executive Board/Presidential Board and permanently excluded from FIDE by a decision of the General Assembly. A member in arrears in the fulfilment of its financial obligations towards FIDE may be temporarily excluded by the Presidential Board, Executive Board or General Assembly. This temporary exclusion shall be annulled if the temporarily excluded member has fulfilled its financial obligations 60 days before the General Assembly following the temporary exclusion. No participation in any FIDE event or meeting will be permitted during the exclusion period. Payments made after the 60 days but before the General Assembly will not allow participation without a majority approval of the General Assembly. The Treasurer shall include information in his report on those federations that should be temporary or
permanently excluded. A temporary exclusion made by the Presidential Board or Executive Board shall be submitted to the next General Assembly, which will decide on the permanent exclusion of the negligent federation. This must be an agenda item prior to any election. In other matters a permanent exclusion can be ruled by the General Assembly only if the member is guilty of a severe offence against the statutes, regulations, resolutions or decisions, or acts against the principles of FIDE, taking into account the opinion of the Ethics Commission. This must be an agenda item prior to any election."

Now Dvorkovich or Short would be thinking that "may be" will be taken as including federations that would vote for Makro and excluding those that don't. As Roger says above Dr Siegel is part of the Makro team so he's clearly conflicted. So perfectly legitimate for Kouatly to argue what he did. As for FIDE following the procedures laid down correctly, don't make me laugh. Past Presidential campaigns have shown how corrupt this body is when it wants to cling on to power. Perhaps Dr Siegel's over reaction is testament to the pressure that Makro's team are feeling.

Chris Rice wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 08, 2018 9:48 am

As for FIDE following the procedures laid down correctly

In fairly recent memory, haven't players been excluded from the rating list when their Federation was in financial arrears? Exclusion then is a sanction that the FIDE Presidential Board have been prepared to use and as a member of the continuity team, the Treasurer cannot distance himself from past actions.

Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 07, 2018 8:56 pm

chess-news.ru has conducted a similar poll. The difference in support for the "Russian" candidate is noticeable.

https://twitter.com/Chess__News/status/ ... de%2F24919

As of writing this and rounding the numbers

Short just under 50%
Dvorkovich 35%
Makro just under 5%
none of the above 10%

Well here is a diversionary puzzle from the intricacies of the FIDE statutes:

The exact figures given on the website are

Short: 49.7
Dvorkovich 35.3
None of the above 10.2
Makro: not shown on the pie chart (too litttle space to accommodate)

The puzzle is "What is the minimum number of votes cast that would yield these figures correct to 1 decimal place?"

Makro presumably 4.8%.
You are not implying that maybe only 10 people and their cats voted are you??

Christopher Kreuzer wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 08, 2018 10:05 am

Makro presumably 4.8%.
You are not implying that maybe only 10 people and their cats voted are you??

No! [Though the (unwarranted) suspicion that the voting might be quite low did provoke me to do the Maths].

In fact, to get the exact percentages considerably more than 10 votes are needed

Michael Farthing wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 08, 2018 9:56 am

The puzzle is "What is the minimum number of votes cast that would yield these figures correct to 1 decimal place?"

You would need 1000 so that's 497 for Nigel etc. If it had been quoted as 49.8 and 35.2, 500 would have suffixed.