English Chess Forum

Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 12, 2018 11:06 am

The Kremlin could have replaced him with Karpov, but for unknown reasons decided not to.

That is your speculation, which I believe to be totally unfounded. However, Karpov made it quite evident in Khanty-Mantiysk that he had no interest in doing the job and would have handed it straight over to Kasparov. As you say, they would in any case not have found that an appealing prospect.

NickFaulks wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 12, 2018 10:13 am

Graham Magoffin wrote: Cleans Hands 4 FIDE
Papua New Guinea suffered under the Kirsan/Makro/Borg regime because we openly gave our support to Kasparov presidential ticket.

I was surprised to read this because I do not remember any such declaration. I am now confident that the reason for this is that it never happened, although Mr Magoffin, who has become involved more recently, may not know that. What certainly does appear to have happened is that one prominent member of the federation informed Geoffrey Borg that he could not rely upon their support, which was sufficient excuse for his arsenal of WMDs to be unleashed against them.

My understanding in 2014 was that, left to their own devices, PNG might well have maintained the position of which they spoke in 2010, one of "a plague on both your houses". The last time I heard PNG give enthusiatic support to any presidential ticket it was Bessel Kok's in 2006, a prominent member of which was of course the aforementioned Geoffrey Borg.

These recollections are basically correct, although (a) it was certainly the case that "it is up to the Federation to decide" was interpreted as "open support for Kasparov" by Borg and others (but Nick is correct on this point) and (b) Borg had plenty of help from people who should have known better.

The PNGCF was a public supporter of the Kok campaign in 2006, but we abstained in 2010, because we couldn't agree which candidate to support. This didn't stop supporters of both tickets then accuse us of backstabbing them! In 2014 we didn't get a say due to FIDE shenanigans over our choice of delegate, but we assume the PNG vote went to Kirsan.

Roger >It's not exactly a "development" though, having been the case more or less since Kirsan became President.<

Kirsan became President in 1995. But he never ran FIDE. That was left to Makro. A few times Kirsan interfered of course. e.g, zero tolerance; the Knockout World Championship. Both of which damaged chess. What he did wonderfully was to give a great deal of money to chess. Of course, that came to an end with the interference of the US.

Kirsan was 'anointed' President in 1995; it was not an election, Campo stood down and nominated him. The Deputy President, Ghobash, simply sat there like a lump of wood. Of course, the Deputy should replace an incumbent who stands down.
Russia opposed the appointment of Kirsan in 1995. In order to allow his name to be put forward, it was necessary for the General Assembly to vote to overturn the Russian federation's wishes. It is a bit far-fetched to believe the Russians opposed Kirsan because they thought it more likely that then the other federations would support him.

We will have held the World Championship in London four times recently, 1986, 1993, 2000 and 2018. Dos this suggest England has asserted undue influence?

Stewart Reuben wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 12, 2018 1:04 pm

We will have held the World Championship in London four times recently, 1986, 1993, 2000 and 2018. Does this suggest England has asserted undue influence?

As two of these were non-FIDE matches I am not sure this point possesses any great strength.

Justin >As two of these were non-FIDE matches I am not sure this point possesses any great strength.<

Surely English people had some influence on the fact that they were non-FIDE matches.
Just in case. You do realise I was making a joke?

Stewart Reuben wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 12, 2018 1:36 pm

You do realise I was making a joke?

I'm afraid it eluded me, Stewart. Mea culpa: your postings are frequently informative but less frequently rib-tickling, and I did not see it coming.

In further Malcom weirdness, what precisely is he getting het up about here?

shaunpress wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 12, 2018 11:33 am

NickFaulks wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 12, 2018 10:13 am

Graham Magoffin wrote: Cleans Hands 4 FIDE
Papua New Guinea suffered under the Kirsan/Makro/Borg regime because we openly gave our support to Kasparov presidential ticket.

I was surprised to read this because I do not remember any such declaration. I am now confident that the reason for this is that it never happened, although Mr Magoffin, who has become involved more recently, may not know that. What certainly does appear to have happened is that one prominent member of the federation informed Geoffrey Borg that he could not rely upon their support, which was sufficient excuse for his arsenal of WMDs to be unleashed against them.

My understanding in 2014 was that, left to their own devices, PNG might well have maintained the position of which they spoke in 2010, one of "a plague on both your houses". The last time I heard PNG give enthusiatic support to any presidential ticket it was Bessel Kok's in 2006, a prominent member of which was of course the aforementioned Geoffrey Borg.

These recollections are basically correct, although (a) it was certainly the case that "it is up to the Federation to decide" was interpreted as "open support for Kasparov" by Borg and others (but Nick is correct on this point) and (b) Borg had plenty of help from people who should have known better.

The PNGCF was a public supporter of the Kok campaign in 2006, but we abstained in 2010, because we couldn't agree which candidate to support. This didn't stop supporters of both tickets then accuse us of backstabbing them! In 2014 we didn't get a say due to FIDE shenanigans over our choice of delegate, but we assume the PNG vote went to Kirsan.

Shaun has also commented on his blog at http://chessexpress.blogspot.com/2018/0 ... t-yet.html.

JustinHorton wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 12, 2018 9:52 pm

In further Malcom weirdness, what precisely is he getting het up about

http://fideforward.org/2018/08/08/dvork ... -campaign/

Makro and friends should know how effective Russian lobbying can be, after all that's in part how his team won elections in 2006, 2010 and 2014.

But I'm not seeing anything there about Nigel's alleged closeness to Dvorkovich, and the bit in Tim's piece doesn't seem enough to justify the comment, so what is Malcolm getting at?

JustinHorton wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 12, 2018 10:29 pm

so what is Malcolm getting at?

There's been a bit on twitter
https://twitter.com/TelegraphChess/stat ... 9840329729

The insiders would always deny it when they were united in defence against an external threat, but patronage, favours, sponsorship offers etc. have been a feature of FIDE elections going back to the days of Campomanes.

There's more. "Are you working with Dvorkovich?"

JustinHorton quoting Malcolm wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 12, 2018 11:04 pm

"Are you working with Dvorkovich?"

I have to ask you the question (s) again. Will you condemn Russian Govt interference in the election ? Are you working with @advorkovich ? would you rather he wins because as we all know and on your own admission you have no chance

As regards the "rather he wins", I thought Nigel was on record of wanting to overthrow the existing FIDE establishment and he's been consistent on that since 2006.

However, that isn't really the point, is it? It's the "are you working with?" bit, which on the face of it is based on nothing.

Perhaps that chess-news.ru poll that Roger reported on showing Nigel on 50% and Makro on 5% has spooked the Makro team and this is their way of lashing out?