Repercussions / Fallout from FIDE Elections?

The very latest International round up of English news.
Jonathan Rogers
Posts: 3902
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 9:26 pm

Re: Repercussions / Fallout from FIDE Elections?

Post by Jonathan Rogers » Wed Oct 10, 2018 1:00 pm

Yes, the decision was as difficult as that. And that is why the decision to support Makro is not surprising; but the unanimity of the decision, on the other hand, is hard satisfactorily to explain.

User avatar
Matt Mackenzie
Posts: 2898
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:51 pm
Location: Millom, Cumbria

Re: Repercussions / Fallout from FIDE Elections?

Post by Matt Mackenzie » Wed Oct 10, 2018 1:02 pm

John Foley wrote:
Tue Oct 09, 2018 11:25 am
J T Melsom wrote:
Mon Oct 08, 2018 1:22 pm
can you comment on the suggestion that Zurab is a thug and a bully or is he a re-formed character?
I've always found Zurab to be open and honest with a sense of humour. He gets on with people and is doing a good job. He has attracted many dynamic people to support the ECU which is growing rapidly. Notice how many major chess events take place in Georgia.
Though hasn't Georgia always been a pretty big chess country? Certainly in proportion to its actual size.
"Set up your attacks so that when the fire is out, it isn't out!" (H N Pillsbury)

Roger Lancaster
Posts: 736
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 2:44 pm

Re: Repercussions / Fallout from FIDE Elections?

Post by Roger Lancaster » Wed Oct 10, 2018 1:27 pm

Jonathan Rogers wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 1:00 pm
Yes, the decision was as difficult as that. And that is why the decision to support Makro is not surprising; but the unanimity of the decision, on the other hand, is hard satisfactorily to explain.
Quite so. Faced with what many of us would agree was a difficult decision between three imperfect options (I include Nigel's bid through his apparent lack of administrative/executive experience) it's curious that the Board was unanimous. If I were to hazard a guess, it would be that there was private dissent but all concerned felt it was necessary to give the impression, publicly, of a united Board.

User avatar
Michael Farthing
Posts: 1827
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:28 pm
Location: Morecambe, Europe

Re: Repercussions / Fallout from FIDE Elections?

Post by Michael Farthing » Wed Oct 10, 2018 1:40 pm

The Board did not say it was unanimous It said there was a clear majority (or some such similar wording). The idea of unanimity seems to have arisen from outside the Board.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 18180
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Repercussions / Fallout from FIDE Elections?

Post by Roger de Coverly » Wed Oct 10, 2018 1:50 pm

Michael Farthing wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 1:40 pm
The idea of unanimity seems to have arisen from outside the Board.
It was from one of Malcolm's supporters who also compared Nigel to Kim Philby.

Julie Denning
Posts: 130
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2014 9:07 am

Re: Repercussions / Fallout from FIDE Elections?

Post by Julie Denning » Wed Oct 10, 2018 1:58 pm

Jonathan Rogers wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 1:00 pm
Yes, the decision was as difficult as that. And that is why the decision to support Makro is not surprising; but the unanimity of the decision, on the other hand, is hard satisfactorily to explain.
It would be wrong of me to breach boardroom confidentiality, so I'm not going to report anything beyond the statement that has been issued ("clear majority") or will appear in the Minutes when they are published, but I will bust one myth that has been reported on this thread as fact. Namely that the vote for the Makro ticket was 9-0. Alex Holowczak has already reported on the Forum that he wasn't at the meeting, nor was one other Director. Neither of these 2 participated in the vote. Malcolm, quite correctly, left the room whilst the discussion and vote took place. Even including the President, that can only leave a maximum of 8 votes, which ever way they went. Beware what you read reported as fact - this post excluded, of course! (But at least I was there.)

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 18180
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Repercussions / Fallout from FIDE Elections?

Post by Roger de Coverly » Wed Oct 10, 2018 2:05 pm

Julie Denning wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 1:58 pm
I will bust one myth that has been reported on this thread as fact. Namely that the vote for the Makro ticket was 9-0.
It was a claim made by someone standing for election to an ECF Director post.

John Swain
Posts: 238
Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2010 10:35 pm
Location: Nottingham

Re: Repercussions / Fallout from FIDE Elections?

Post by John Swain » Wed Oct 10, 2018 3:28 pm

Julie Denning wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 1:58 pm
Jonathan Rogers wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 1:00 pm
Yes, the decision was as difficult as that. And that is why the decision to support Makro is not surprising; but the unanimity of the decision, on the other hand, is hard satisfactorily to explain.
It would be wrong of me to breach boardroom confidentiality, so I'm not going to report anything beyond the statement that has been issued ("clear majority") or will appear in the Minutes when they are published, but I will bust one myth that has been reported on this thread as fact. Namely that the vote for the Makro ticket was 9-0. Alex Holowczak has already reported on the Forum that he wasn't at the meeting, nor was one other Director. Neither of these 2 participated in the vote. Malcolm, quite correctly, left the room whilst the discussion and vote took place. Even including the President, that can only leave a maximum of 8 votes, which ever way they went. Beware what you read reported as fact - this post excluded, of course! (But at least I was there.)
Whether the Board's vote was 9-0 or 8-0 is not really the point. The point is whether the vote of those present was unanimous, as has been claimed on Twitter by one Board member and one would-be Board member, or whether the Board was split. Most readers would reasonably conclude (and I certainly read it that way) that for there to be a "clear majority", there must also be a contrasting "clear minority", even if that minority was just one Board member, or possibly two.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 18180
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Repercussions / Fallout from FIDE Elections?

Post by Roger de Coverly » Wed Oct 10, 2018 3:45 pm

The problem really was whether they could instruct Malcolm to vote against his own ticket. Even agreeing to nominate Nigel was a concession of sorts.

To what extent the Board were out of line with the views likely to be expressed at a Council meeting remains to be seen. Based on views expressed on this forum, perhaps so, in which case perhaps the non-Execs could have made the case that years of anti-FIDE publicity and FIDE's own actions left the paying membership ambivalent to more of the same with a Makro presidency.

It's not the first time an ECF Board has made a FIDE call not widely supported. The decision to act as a front for Kasparov in attempting to waste Kirsan's/FIDE's money on legal fees being one.

Roger Lancaster
Posts: 736
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 2:44 pm

Re: Repercussions / Fallout from FIDE Elections?

Post by Roger Lancaster » Wed Oct 10, 2018 4:05 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 3:45 pm
It's not the first time an ECF Board has made a FIDE call not widely supported. The decision to act as a front for Kasparov in attempting to waste Kirsan's/FIDE's money on legal fees being one.
With respect, it's the Board's task to exercise its collective judgment rather than follow the herd. In any case, in my estimation, the wider ECF membership neither knew nor cared. The "not widely supported" reference is to the self-appointed (and I include myself) contributors to this forum who believe that they know what the wider membership would have wanted, if they had known and if they had cared!


And I say that as someone who would have taken a different view to the Board.

User avatar
JustinHorton
Posts: 6620
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Somewhere you're not

Re: Repercussions / Fallout from FIDE Elections?

Post by JustinHorton » Wed Oct 10, 2018 5:12 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 3:45 pm
It's not the first time an ECF Board has made a FIDE call not widely supported. The decision to act as a front for Kasparov in attempting to waste Kirsan's/FIDE's money on legal fees being one.
However this is a poor comparison since in the earlier instance it could neither have been supported nor opposed since the existence of the action was hidden from ECF members. In the recent instance everybody knew what the Board was doing and its reasons.
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

lostontime.blogspot.com

Chris Rice
Posts: 2799
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 5:17 am

Re: Repercussions / Fallout from FIDE Elections?

Post by Chris Rice » Wed Oct 10, 2018 6:00 pm

JustinHorton wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 5:12 pm
Roger de Coverly wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 3:45 pm
It's not the first time an ECF Board has made a FIDE call not widely supported. The decision to act as a front for Kasparov in attempting to waste Kirsan's/FIDE's money on legal fees being one.
However this is a poor comparison since in the earlier instance it could neither have been supported nor opposed since the existence of the action was hidden from ECF members. In the recent instance everybody knew what the Board was doing and its reasons.
I would agree with the point you make but I find that Roger's comparison was rather a good one. Both actions were taken with complete disregard for what the ECF membership might have wanted.

J T Melsom
Posts: 571
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 11:12 pm

Re: Repercussions / Fallout from FIDE Elections?

Post by J T Melsom » Wed Oct 10, 2018 6:14 pm

Well I suspect the popular choice might well have been Nigel on the grounds of name recognition alone. After all we all understand why we couldn't vote for the beastly Russian, and malcolm wasn't running on his own ticket, so some of the good feeling towards Malcolm wouldn't necessarily stretch to his running mate. In the end of course Nigel threw his lot in with the beastly Russian, so we would all have felt let down. Just as well we left the boards to reach the decision. A degree of exaggeration, but I don't sense an appetite for being consulted on these issues. That is not to say it couldn't be done, but there are probably other gaps in consultation that might be addressed first. And county delegates and representatives are just as complicit in that regard as the Board.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 18180
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Repercussions / Fallout from FIDE Elections?

Post by Roger de Coverly » Thu Oct 11, 2018 10:20 am

There's an account by Shaun Press about the campaign.

http://chessexpress.blogspot.com/2018/1 ... ction.html

In 2014 there had been a dispute about who was the PNG delegate and it was referred to the electoral commission who came up with the verdict that the Kirsan/Makro supporting individual was the delegate.

David Robertson
Posts: 2174
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 6:24 pm
Contact:

Re: Repercussions / Fallout from FIDE Elections?

Post by David Robertson » Thu Oct 11, 2018 12:00 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 10:20 am
There's an account by Shaun Press about the campaign.
http://chessexpress.blogspot.com/2018/1 ... ction.html
Heh, Shaun reads my posts :) Not the first time I've been 'quoted' during the campaign either
David Robertson wrote:
Mon Sep 24, 2018 6:57 pm
Chris Rice wrote:
Mon Sep 24, 2018 6:27 pm
no booth for Nigel
Insurgents don't do 'booths'. I thought everyone knew that

Post Reply