Nigel Short about Andrew Paulson, Agon, Kirsan Ilyumzhinov

[Jonathan Rogers]

I accept that I am no expert in how the average East European IM/GM thinks. But it' s OK, I can afford to be quite wrong on my 95% figure, if indeed I am. I only invoked it in the context of why Andrew Paulson, when running for ECF President, shrinks from openly saying that he supports Kirsan, so we only really need to agree that 95% of people in the ECF are against Kirsan running FIDE, and that does seem about right.

I still believe that when AP says "it is time for him to go", he hopes that people will read his words as agreement that Kirsan should not be President. But when pushed, he actually means "it is time, in the sense that he has been around for a long time already, but there's nothing wrong with anything he's done, oh no, and of course you would have to have a suitable replacement" ...

The bottom line is that I believe he does in fact support Kirsan, because he would find himself "reluctantly" supporting him against anyone who actually challenges him. READ ALL OF HIS WORDS. And if you have any doubts, ask him to nominate actual people who should take over from him ...

[Matthew Turner]

Jonathan,
You've asked Andrew Paulson about replacing Kirsan and he said he couldn't really see an alternative. OK, so we might find that a bit worrying that you cannot think of a better alternative than a total wacko, so let try and help Andrew Paulson out. Let's take Kasparov out of the equation for a moment and see if we can think of a good replacement for Kirsan who has a credible chance of winning. You go first.

[Jonathan Rogers]

Jonathan,
You've asked Andrew Paulson about replacing Kirsan and he said he couldn't really see an alternative. OK, so we might find that a bit worrying that you cannot think of a better alternative than a total wacko, so let try and help Andrew Paulson out. Let's take Kasparov out of the equation for a moment and see if we can think of a good replacement for Kirsan who has a credible chance of winning. You go first.

Are you serious? And why on earth should we take Kasparov out of the equation?

It's clear to me. He cannot see an alternative because he actually supports Kirsan

[Roger de Coverly]

see if we can think of a good replacement for Kirsan who has a credible chance of winning.

That's two questions. A replacement for Kirsan is almost anyone, Andrew Paulson even. A credible chance of winning is much more difficult given the number of federations with a limited number of decision makers who would support Kirsan even if he announced rules preventing the playing of chess.

[Matthew Turner]

So there we have it, Jonathan Rogers cannot think of an alternative to Kirsan except a deeply flawed candidate who has no chance of winning. It is clear that Jonathan actually supports Kirsan.

A ridiculous argument, but no more ridiculous than the one Jonathan is making.

[John Cox]

That's Matt's point. If we accept that nothing we do and perhaps nothing anyone does is going to unseat KI, then questions about whether or not one supports him rather fade away, don’t they?

In any event, AP as President presumably doesn’t dispose of the ECF’s vote. If Jonathan’s best conspiracy theory is that AP has gone to all this trouble to secure the ECF’s vote for his mate Kirsan, then he must think AP a very considerable fool indeed. I would imagine it is obvious to everyone that the ECF is going to vote for Kasparov, and that there’s at least an excellent chance that even so Kasparov is going to lose (if Karpov can’t do it I’m pretty sure Gazza can’t). That being so it seems obvious to me that the ECF ought not to be burning its bridges (by, let’s say, bringing any more ill-advised court cases without consulting its members, for example).

[Jonathan Rogers]

John, would you mind not misrepresenting me, or at least doing me the courtesy of reading my posts with a modicum of care? I have no conspiracy theory and have expressly said that no credible conspiracy theory exists. EARLIER IN THIS SAME THREAD. (Instead I said "the sceptics shouldn't need one". Page one)

[John Cox]

Oh, I know you've SAID that, Jonathan. But then AP has SAID he doesn't support Kirsan. Your theory is that that was all a plot to lull us into thinking that he doesn't support Kirsan, when really he does. If that isn't a c t, I don't know what is.

[Mick Norris]

Jonathan,
You've asked Andrew Paulson about replacing Kirsan and he said he couldn't really see an alternative. OK, so we might find that a bit worrying that you cannot think of a better alternative than a total wacko, so let try and help Andrew Paulson out. Let's take Kasparov out of the equation for a moment and see if we can think of a good replacement for Kirsan who has a credible chance of winning. You go first.

Credible chance of winning is the hard one - probably looking for someone known throughout the farther reaches of the chess world, so as to gain support in Africa, Asia, Middle East, South America etc, ideally a non-European but who would have support from Europe, particularly eastern Europe I guess

No-one springs to mind

I think Kasparov is too divisive and Nigel would have a better chance (which in this context, means lose by a smaller margin I fear)

Your view Matthew?

[Jonathan Rogers]

Oh, I know you've SAID that, Jonathan. But then AP has SAID he doesn't support Kirsan. Your theory is that that was all a plot to lull us into thinking that he doesn't support Kirsan, when really he does. If that isn't a c t, I don't know what is.

No AP has not SAID (your capitals) that he "doesn't support Kirsan". He has just said that it is time for him to go, because no one should be in power forever. He has found a formula which allows him to have it both ways, always saying that it is time for him to go, but always allowing himself room for saying that he needs to stay a bit longer for lack of an alternative.

Do you see the difference?

I can see what Matt is saying, that this does not exclude the possibility that he really would support someone else if someone he regarded as credible were to come along. But we don't know. Matt is happy to take him at face value and that is probably where we have to leave it for now.

[Matthew Turner]

Mick,
I don't know enough about internal FIDE politics to give you a good answer. I would like to see Kasparov elected FIDE President, but if you determine that won't happen then these are some possibilities.

1. You accept Kirsan is here to stay and just try to make things better

2. You coalesce around a FIDE insider who is less bad than Kirsan

3. Karpov runs again recognising that the big problem last time was that his campaign started too late

[Nick Burrows]

If we accept that nothing we do and perhaps nothing anyone does is going to unseat KI, then questions about whether or not one supports him rather fade away, don’t they?
.

No, because if AP's claim is disingenuous, and he in fact does support Kirsan and is acting only to strengthen his personal agenda then that is something we should be very interested in, whether Kirsan can be unseated or not.