English Chess Forum

NickFaulks wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 17, 2018 12:05 pm

Unfortunately, one of them is going to be the next FIDE President, so is it best for the ECF to recuse itself from the process?

In my view, yes, because "we need to do better than this" is a view worth expressing where people can hear it, and given that there are Englishmen on both of these two tawdry sides, who better to say it than us?

Duplicate deleted

Messed up, deleted

NickFaulks wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 17, 2018 12:05 pm

IanCalvert wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 17, 2018 11:12 am

Nick, sincere apologies.

No need, but I am still not certain that I understand. I think you are suggesting that, if both candidates are considered unacceptable, it would be better to abstain, one way or another.

Unfortunately, one of them is going to be the next FIDE President, so is it best for the ECF to recuse itself from the process?

Yes

IanCalvert wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 17, 2018 11:12 am

even Quakers, can be corrupted by power.

Well goodness gracious me, I take strong exception to that! Friend, thinkest thou not that thou shouldst wash thy mouth out with soap and water?

JustinHorton wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 17, 2018 12:16 pm

In my view, yes, because "we need to do better than this" is a view worth expressing where people can hear it, and given that there are Englishmen on both of these two tawdry sides, who better to say it than us?

That's a legitimate view, but I doubt that it will impress anyone.

JustinHorton wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 17, 2018 12:16 pm

NickFaulks wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 17, 2018 12:05 pm

Unfortunately, one of them is going to be the next FIDE President, so is it best for the ECF to recuse itself from the process?

In my view, yes, because "we need to do better than this" is a view worth expressing where people can hear it, and given that there are Englishmen on both of these two tawdry sides, who better to say it than us?

I have sympathy for this view, though I probably would not if I were actually a decison-maker in the ECF.

I had been toying with the idea of Makro as the lesser evil, but it is an invidious question and I am really not sure of the answer anyway. If we were to vote for him, it probably would be because of Malcolm (why else?), but that is really their whole point of including him on the ticket, isn't it? It does not truly mean anything. The rest of the alliance will not actually support him for a bid in 2022. Much more likely, he will resign in disgust over the next four years. In fact, recalling his peculiar support of Andrew Paulson for ECF President, it would be no great surprise if he were to resign in disgust on account of something which he seemingly knew all along.

So, abstaining would be fine by me.

Jonathan Rogers wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 17, 2018 12:30 pm

So, abstaining would be fine by me.

me too.

To be honest I was viewing Short as a kind of abstain in the first poll. I put Justin's position on Short's likely behaviour down to his historic animosity. But I have to admit he was right about this one.

I'm not yet convinced the ECF should abstain. I'd rather abstain than vote for Makro, since we know what we will get and it is unappealing. I'm not sure about Dvorkovich yet. I'm not opposed to any Russian candidate on principle, but I am interested in the IOC view on the ethics of his campaign.

NickFaulks wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 17, 2018 12:26 pm

JustinHorton wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 17, 2018 12:16 pm

In my view, yes, because "we need to do better than this" is a view worth expressing where people can hear it, and given that there are Englishmen on both of these two tawdry sides, who better to say it than us?

That's a legitimate view, but I doubt that it will impress anyone.

I would be surprised if you were wrong, but sometimes it's worth having a go anyway and it's maybe more constructive than the alternatives.

Paul Cooksey wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 17, 2018 12:47 pm

but I am interested in the IOC view on the ethics of his campaign.

Government involvement in campaigns for the award of the World Cup or the Olympics is nothing new, we may recall the involvement of Mayors of London, England football stars and the Queen's grandson in the presentations for the 2012 Olympics and the 2018 World Cup.

To what extent though, do embassies routinely get involved when there's a contested election for the head of a world sporting or cultural body?

Using chess as a diplomatic tool goes back to the Soviet Union arguably even to Capablanca who had a post to promote Cuba.

Funny the name Andrew Paulson should come up. A few years ago Paulson tried to tell us some stuff about Danailov that was really quite important and which nevertheless attracted very little attention within English chess, partly because Paulson had gone from being Mr Saviour Of English Chess to Mr Persona Non Grata by virtue of being on the wrong side in FIDE politics.

It can help to listen carefully to what these people say about one another and to be far more sceptical about what they say about themselves.

Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 17, 2018 1:14 pm

Paul Cooksey wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 17, 2018 12:47 pm

but I am interested in the IOC view on the ethics of his campaign.

Using chess as a diplomatic tool goes back to the Soviet Union arguably even to Capablanca who had a post to promote Cuba.

However nobody had actually signed up to anything saying specifically that this should not happen.

Paul Cooksey wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 17, 2018 12:47 pm

I'm not sure about Dvorkovich yet. I'm not opposed to any Russian candidate on principle, but I am interested in the IOC view on the ethics of his campaign.

I wouldn't expect much from that. I'm not suggesting that everything they have done is kosher, but I doubt there is much to be found that is concrete. Their football World Cup bid got through, didn't it?

I resigned my positions in my own federations when I returned to London, but we still talk. My advice to them is that they should try to identify the better ( less bad ) candidate and only if they are hopelessly split should they then legitimately abstain. If asked, and there is no reason why I should be, I would give the same advice to the ECF.

There is of course one incredibly unlikely alternative. Assuming that no candidate receives a majority on the first ballot, how badly do the Makro and Dvorkovich tickets want to deny victory to the other side (and still be part of a winning coalition) ....

Chris Rice wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 17, 2018 11:30 am

Makro backed this up with another tweet but it now seems to have been taken down. It ran along the lines that as Nigel was conceding that Makro would organise the tournament in Saudi Arabia again that Nigel was therefore conceding the election.

Managed to source the Makrotweet I couldn't find earlier:

"Confused in his head with hundreds of conspiracy theories, and used to produce libel as a machine, Nigel Short accidentally admits that we are winning the #FIDEelections2018. Otherwise how could we organise the next World Rapid & Blitz Championship? Thank you useful Nigel."

Makro has since continued the fighting talk:

"The fact that we are winning the #FIDEelections2018 does not mean that we will not expose and will not fight against every fraudulent "Glen Stark", every piece of slander & every illegal attempt to alter or derail our upcoming victory. Underworld methods have no place in chess."