Nigel Short about Andrew Paulson, Agon, Kirsan Ilyumzhinov

[Jonathan Rogers]

95% of the chess playing world, I said, so I exclude delegates from countries where there are only about six players. Ok, Spraggett is in the chess playing world, but i feel sure that he speaks for a very select bunch of people. Any other GM think that FIDE is better off with Kirsan than Kasparov?

(Obviously I picked 95% from the air - that is probably what it is in England but less so elsewhere - but still, I can't believe there is any kind of real debate among committed chess players across the world on this one).

[Mick Norris]

Kasparov, like everyone else, would be better than Kirsan, but it does appear to be a Presidential race with 2 deeply flawed candidates

[David Robertson]

...a Presidential race with 2 deeply flawed candidates

A frequently observed characteristic of such contests throughout history, alas. Votes are granted for choices; only the Pope picks saints.

[Matthew Turner]

If you take the time to think about the candidates then you can reach a rather worrying conclusion. Kasparov has many great attributes, high recognition, ex-World Champion, sponsor friendly and some flaws, egomaniac, not a team player. Wouldn't it be nice if there was a candidate who had his attributes but not his flaws like say Karpov, ah but hang on a minute. If you want to actually remove Ilyumzhinov then you have to think about how it is achieved. Of course it is easier just to say vote Kasparov because everybody knows he is best.

[IM Jack Rudd]

The trick to removing Ilyumzhinov probably lies not in putting up one strong candidate - it lies in putting up multiple candidates, each of them targeting a different part of Ilyumzhinov's power base. I don't know if it would work, but I reckon it could be worth a try.

[Matthew Turner]

Beating Ilyumzhinov requires you to go to places where you need vaccinations. You cannot beat Ilyumzhinov sitting in the squanky offices of some New York lawyers.

[David Robertson]

I don't know if it would work...

It wouldn't - because Kirsan's real power base lies less in the global chess community than in the Kremlin, with Putin's patronage of his continued tenure as Kalmykian overlord. Remove Kirsan from that, and I'd bet the Russians would sponsor a like-for-like replacement in FIDE.

My claim rests on the plausible speculation that the Kremlin sees FIDE as part of its natural sphere of influence, an albeit minor part of its cultural hegemony, its global 'soft power'. Not something it will readily relinquish to a foe, not to the West, and certainly not to Kasparov. That is: what they have, they hold.

You see, this Kirsan-Kasparov business, and the Paulson-Short sideshow isn't just about chess. It isn't about conspiracies either (pace John Cox). It's a bit-piece drama in the continuing battle for global influence at every level.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

It wouldn't - because Kirsan's real power base lies less in the global chess community than in the Kremlin, with Putin's patronage of his continued tenure as Kalmykian overlord. Remove Kirsan from that, and I'd bet the Russians would sponsor a like-for-like replacement in FIDE.

My claim rests on the plausible speculation that the Kremlin sees FIDE as part of its natural sphere of influence, an albeit minor part of its cultural hegemony, its global 'soft power'. Not something it will readily relinquish to a foe, not to the West, and certainly not to Kasparov. That is: what they have, they hold.

You see, this Kirsan-Kasparov business, and the Paulson-Short sideshow isn't just about chess. It isn't about conspiracies either (pace John Cox). It's a bit-piece drama in the continuing battle for global influence at every level.

I thought Kirsan was no longer President of Kalmykia? The President of Kalmykia since 2010 has been Aleksey Orlov.

http://gambit.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09 ... ykia/?_r=0

Are you saying that Kirsan is still the main player in Kalmykia, much like the Putin-Medvedev ballet?

Medvedev was 3rd President of Russia: In office 7 May 2008 – 7 May 2012; Prime Minister Vladimir Putin; Preceded by Vladimir Putin; Succeeded by Vladimir Putin.

Says all you need to know, really.

[David Robertson]

No, I'm not saying Kirsan remains the real power. He may be, but I don't know. And in truth, I'd missed his change of status. So my post above needs to take account of that.

But my general argument stands: remove Kirsan from FIDE by alien abduction, force majeure, Putin decree, or other means, and Russia would sponsor a replacement. Kirsan continues in office because it's in Russia's interests that he should.

[John Cox]

Why does Russia prefer Kirsan to Karpov, then? Indeed, did Russia really vote for Kirsan ahead of Karpov?

[John Cox]

95% of the chess playing world, I said, so I exclude delegates from countries where there are only about six players. Ok, Spraggett is in the chess playing world, but i feel sure that he speaks for a very select bunch of people. Any other GM think that FIDE is better off with Kirsan than Kasparov?

(Obviously I picked 95% from the air - that is probably what it is in England but less so elsewhere - but still, I can't believe there is any kind of real debate among committed chess players across the world on this one).

I think you're totally wrong about this. My experience is that quite a few East European IM/GMs would prefer Kirsan to Gazza and find the contrary view incomprehensible.

[John Cox]

It isn't about conspiracies either (pace John Cox).

I never said it *was* about conspiracies. It's just that some of the more bonkers posters (and Nigel, indeed) seem to harbour conspiracy theories. I always enjoy trying to elucidate what exactly those theories are.

[Roger de Coverly]

Indeed, did Russia really vote for Kirsan ahead of Karpov?

It voted for both of them. The vote had to be repeated with different attendees to get the right answer.

http://en.chessbase.com/home/TabId/211/PostId/4006354

[David Robertson]

Why does Russia prefer Kirsan to Karpov, then? Indeed, did Russia really vote for Kirsan ahead of Karpov?

Presumably Kirsan is more acceptable to the Kremlin/Putin than Karpov. And wasn't there a major ruck at the time between the Russian ministry and the RCF over who to nominate? Karpov (iirc) was in the end nominated by Europeans; Kirsan, by Russia inter alia. And the link in Roger's post above seems to corroborate my general view: Kirsan is Putin's boy.

By the way, I'm merely extrapolating from the way nations, especially global powers, pursue foreign policy across a wide field. FIDE is a pawn (no pun) in a modern version of the Great Game

[John McKenna]

95% of the chess playing world, I said, so I exclude delegates from countries where there are only about six players. Ok, Spraggett is in the chess playing world, but i feel sure that he speaks for a very select bunch of people. Any other GM think that FIDE is better off with Kirsan than Kasparov?

(Obviously I picked 95% from the air - that is probably what it is in England but less so elsewhere - but still, I can't believe there is any kind of real debate among committed chess players across the world on this one).

I think you're totally wrong about this. My experience is that quite a few East European IM/GMs would prefer Kirsan to Gazza and find the contrary view incomprehensible.

I agree with John Cox about this and I know mindset of the kind of GMs he talks about.

It isn't about conspiracies either (pace John Cox).

I never said it *was* about conspiracies. It's just that some of the more bonkers posters (and Nigel, indeed) seem to harbour conspiracy theories. I always enjoy trying to elucidate what exactly those theories are.

I disagree with John Cox and David Robertson about this though. Can either one or both of them say if they think a conspiracy has ever taken place in the whole of recorded history?

The real conspiracy is that - due to the lack of acknowledged conspiracies by the powerful (due to the uncritical thinking and empty rhetoric of the conspiracy doubters) - the powers that be are busy manufacturing conspiracies that show their opponents to the only conspirators, while they are only capable of inadvertently innocent "cockups".