How about asking whether the Delegate position is to represent the ECF within FIDE or to represent FIDE within the ECF? I find it difficult to see how appointing a long term insider is anything other than the latter.Paul Cooksey wrote:I think the contest between Nigel Short and Rupert Jones for the FIDE Delegate role deserves its own thread.
I have been in touch with Rupert, and he does indeed intend to prepare an election address.I suppose he may intend to release one, but has not yet had time given he is at the Olympiad.
How can that possibly be bad?Paul Cooksey wrote: Rupert ... has a beard that reminds me slightly of Roger Delgado.
Pah! This reads like the contest between Paul Cooksey and Rupert Jones. Paul's pre-judged Rupert before reading Rupert's election address and ignored Nigel's record in office.Paul Cooksey wrote:I think the contest between Nigel Short and Rupert Jones for the FIDE Delegate role deserves its own thread.
I’ll admit to some prejudice against Rupert, who I don’t know personally. He comes from the county that is recalcitrant with its subs, has a plastic FM title, and has a beard that reminds me slightly of Roger Delgado. However I am prepared to admit these aren’t reasons why he couldn’t do a good job as FIDE Delegate.
More seriously, I think Angus French's test " I'd support anyone who is reasonably competent, listens, communicates and plays a straight bat." is insufficient here. When electing someone I think Council also has to consider what that person will do in office. Policies are important. My feeling was that Rupert was a supporter of the current FIDE leadership, which a would be an issue for me. I do not believe it acts in English chess’s interests. Certainly his blogs suggests he has a good working relationship with Nigel Freeman. But Matthew’s link is interesting. I have to say I am no expert on FIDE politics. Was I wrong to assume a close relationship between Nigel Freeman and Ilyumzhinov?
I would not say that representing PNG and ENG is necessarily a conflict of interest. But I think they are countries that want different things from FIDE. I'd be interested to know how Rupert reconciles that, and would read an Election Address with interest. I suppose he may intend to release one, but has not yet had time given he is at the Olympiad.
If I had a vote - which I don't - I would still be inclined to back Short. I think the current FIDE leadership is bad for England, and bad for pretty much everyone else too. Short made clear he would be actively opposed to FIDE, and has been. I think it is the right policy. I also think his status as a famous Grandmaster is relevant, since it gives him more influence. That said maybe Rupert Jones will be able to convince us he could achieve more within FIDEs structure. I'd be interested to hear about his record.
I was tempted to say it would be typical for the ECF to deselect Kasparov's close ally, just in time for Kasparov to win the FIDE Presidency. But if he does, it will have involved him making some sort of deal with the Federations with less than 10 rated players, so it might not matter.
I'm not sure I really know, but it was a point made in the CAS judgement that FIDE doesn't work on the basis of "government" and "opposition". So fellow members of the FIDE Board are expected to have a reasonable working relationship with one another. Indeed it's part of the Vice President issue that opposition is invited to join the tent and p*ss out and Karpov was made such an offer. The motto of "we are all one family" tends to imply family in the Mafia sense.Paul Cooksey wrote: The question about Nigel Freeman was entirely serious, and I hope someone can answer it.
Are Kasparov and Short really that close? They may have worked together when they had a mutual interest in 1993 but Nigel Short described Kasparov as `most unpleasant` and other quotes along those lines (`he's the sort of person who walks into a room full of people watching television and changes the channel` is one I remember). And in the fourth volume of Gary Kasparov on Modern Chess, GK seems to blame the failure of the PCA on Short's lack of standing among Western GMs.Paul Cooksey wrote: I was tempted to say it would be typical for the ECF to deselect Kasparov's close ally, just in time for Kasparov to win the FIDE Presidency. But if he does, it will have involved him making some sort of deal with the Federations with less than 10 rated players, so it might not matter.
Perhaps, but the issue of the many things that FIDE does which are of harm need to be addressed as well. If they need to be listed , you could start with the obsession , now partly abandoned, with ever faster time rates. You can add zero time defaults. Publicity stunts with political leaders of dubious reputation would be another. Stories of delegates using their phones to prove they had voted "the right way" would be another. Allies of the FIDE president banning players and journalists for opposing them or raising issues about them would be yet another.Andrew Zigmond wrote:I suspect he will want to focus on the many things FIDE does that is of value.
Surely that's only if you are a Council delegate, in other words a representative of a local body. But you do run a Congress or two, so unless you have passed it on to Somerset, you can attend and vote at the AGM subject to paying the appropriate membership fees on behalf of the Congresses (which may be zero of course).Matthew Turner wrote: I do have a vote, but nobody bothers to tell me I have a vote or that there is an election which I may wish to vote upon.
I can't speak for Paul Cooksey because I don't know what organisations he's involved with locally and how they're constituted. However in a roundabout way I do have a vote. As a member of the YCA (and anybody who plays in the Yorkshire League is a member) I elected a delegate to the ECF to vote on my behalf and it's not clear to what extent members of the YCA can impose their wishes on him (ie can we compel him to vote for a specific candidate even if his own choice is for somebody else). I suppose - a critical point - if anybody besides a small minority were that bothered then the ECF delegate role would be more closely contested.Matthew Turner wrote:Paul Cooksey wrote
"If I had a vote - which I don't"
I always find this sort of comment amusing. I do have a vote, but nobody bothers to tell me I have a vote or that there is an election which I may wish to vote upon. I guess I could pester the ECF Office and make sure that I get my democratic due, but will it really make a difference which candidate is elected?
I'm not sure this is the sort of position that you would stand for on an election manifesto. Really, the person carrying out this role needs to be the sort that would consult with the membership and vote as instructed by the organisation they represent. It's more a "who is available that has the time and is willing to attend meetings?" kind of thing.Warren Kingston wrote:Andrew, do you actually hold elections for the positions in YCA? One member one vote?
