Kasparov vs Ilyumzhinov: the FIDE Presidency battle begins

[NickFaulks]

You don't want to see the back of him enough to have been prepared to support any of Bessel Kok, Anatoly Karpov and Garrry Kasparov. When asked whom you would support, you name David Jarrett - an Ilyumzhinov ally for seventeen years.

I explained the first point in my post. Please scroll up.

I am disappointed to see such visceral aversion to David Jarrett within the ECF. I think you are very much mistaken. If Bessel Kok had not accused him, with no grounds whatsoever, of being a crook, then matters might be different now.

[NickFaulks]

It's now proposed within the ECF that militancy and opposition is counter-productive and that appeasement is a better strategy.

What is this nonsense? Why can't they just say what they think?

[Roger de Coverly]

If Bessel Kok had not accused him, with no grounds whatsoever, of being a crook, then matters might be different now.

From a British perspective, all Kirsan supporters are suspect.

I thought the general verdict was that Besel Kok fought a clean campaign, but that Kirsan won by calling in favours, proxies and worse from the smaller Federations. If that isn't a correct narrative, please describe the history.

Perhaps the Kok campaign wasn't helped by the Turkish guy on Kok's team who announced support for the FIDE establishment not long after the results were announced.

[NickFaulks]

My impression of the 2006 campaign was that it was mostly clean, with minor infractions on both sides cancelling out. Why the Kirsan team bothered at all is beyond me, since they were always going to win comfortably. The Amsterdam playboy team did not play well in the wider world. Kok's ( or Short's? ) unfounded accusations against Jarrett, who has always been widely respected, probably rebounded.

[Roger de Coverly]

What is this nonsense? Why can't they just say what they think?

I would refer to the most recent minutes of ECF Board meetings

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... ersion.pdf

in which

External Relations
Stewart Reuben is the proposed author for this paper. The paper is to address the
relevance of, and benefits seen to accrue from engagement and good relations with other
national federations and external associations. The paper should recommend the extent of
engagement at the Commission and Committee level in FIDE, ECU, Commonwealth Chess
Association and establishing formal relationships with the Association of Chess Professionals,
other UK federations (possibly through the BICC) and the ‘Group of Fifteen’ federations.
Recommendations to engage should be accompanied with estimates of the financial and
human resource costs.

This addressed an issue from the manifesto of the new President, in which he expressed a desire to reverse the ECF's attempts to keep its distance from FIDE.

[Roger de Coverly]

Why the Kirsan team bothered at all is beyond me, since they were always going to win comfortably.

If a majority of the world's rated chess players, those who don't get subsidised trips to Olympiads, want to see the back of Kirsan and cronies, how is this ever going to happen?

[NickFaulks]

Why the Kirsan team bothered at all is beyond me, since they were always going to win comfortably.

If a majority of the world's rated chess players, those who don't get subsidised trips to Olympiads, want to see the back of Kirsan and cronies, how is this ever going to happen?

This is going around in circles. Most "swing" federations would welcome a candidate less bad than Kirsan, but none present themselves.

[Roger de Coverly]

This is going around in circles. Most "swing" federations would welcome a candidate less bad than Kirsan, but none present themselves.

Why would an alternative candidate present himself or herself? Surely the inducements to "small" Federations give Kirsan a permanent majority for as long as his patronage and financial support hold out. Perhaps 1996 was the critical moment, before Kirsan had totally consolidated the support bequeathed to him by Campomanes.

[NickFaulks]

What is this nonsense? Why can't they just say what they think?

I would refer to the most recent minutes of ECF Board meetings

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... ersion.pdf

in which

External Relations
Stewart Reuben is the proposed author for this paper. The paper is to address the
relevance of, and benefits seen to accrue from engagement and good relations with other
national federations and external associations. The paper should recommend the extent of
engagement at the Commission and Committee level in FIDE, ECU, Commonwealth Chess
Association and establishing formal relationships with the Association of Chess Professionals,
other UK federations (possibly through the BICC) and the ‘Group of Fifteen’ federations.
Recommendations to engage should be accompanied with estimates of the financial and
human resource costs.

This addressed an issue from the manifesto of the new President, in which he expressed a desire to reverse the ECF's attempts to keep its distance from FIDE.

Ah. I wouldn't describe a willingness to consider sending a representative to the annual meeting of an international body of which one is a member as "appeasement".

[Roger de Coverly]

Ah. I wouldn't describe a willingness to consider sending a representative to the annual meeting of an international body of which one is a member as "appeasement".

The ECF's new President, who almost certainly has his own agenda, wants to stop the ECF being nasty to FIDE's management. If the FIDE President is regarded as a dictator and you want to conciliate him, the term appeasement seem appropriate.

[Stewart Reuben]

The truly critical moment was 1994 when Campo was allowed stand for election as President against the statutes. Kouatly should have become President, but Campo was a very wily politician. How good Bachiar would have been I have no idea. Ghobash (UAE) was on Campo's ticket as Deputy President.
1995 in Paris Campo stood down after a vote of no confidence, the result of which was never resolved. Ghobash should of course have taken his place. He just sat there like a lump of wood while Campo nominated Kirsan. He had spoken just once in 1994 at the GA. The 1995 GA voted in favour of Kirsan overwhelmingly. There were only three votes against. Peter Wilson of Guernsey, David Wallace of Scotland who, as a result was sacked as FIDE Delegate and one other who I don't remember.
Getting rid of an incumbent is difficult. 1994 and 1995 were the critical moments.

Nick got there before me. I believe in cooperation, but not in appeasement. I argued for more representation in Tallinn, to no avail.

[NickFaulks]

This is going around in circles. Most "swing" federations would welcome a candidate less bad than Kirsan, but none present themselves.

Why would an alternative candidate present himself or herself? Surely the inducements to "small" Federations give Kirsan a permanent majority for as long as his patronage and financial support hold out. Perhaps 1996 was the critical moment, before Kirsan had totally consolidated the support bequeathed to him by Campomanes.

Harking back to 1996 is interesting, but of no relevance. As it happens ( and I paid little attention to such matters in those days ) I am now inclined to agree with Stewart belief that Kirsan's victory then did save FIDE from bankruptcy - pace David Sedgwick and others, I don't think that makes me an apologist or a sycophant, just an amateur historian. It doesn't matter now.

It is a feature of democratic systems that the incumbent has certain advantages in terms of patronage. He is also liable to be blamed when things have gone wrong. Are you saying that in FIDE, the net advantages enjoyed by the incumbent are of such a unique nature that there is no point in anyone trying to mount a challenge? I doubt that. I believe that any team able to offer a reasonable proposition, with no unpleasant connections or historical baggage, would have a good shot at success. The Kasparov team, like those before it, fails on both counts.

[David Sedgwick]

If the ECF offered any oppostion in Dresden to zero tolerance default times, it was not readily visible. It might have been helpful.

I'll repeat what I first said on this Forum a long time ago. In my opinion Stewart Reuben is one of the two people we have to thank for zero tolerance default times not becoming universally mandatory. The other is Georgios Makropoulos.

In my opinion much of what you call FIDE's self-righting mechanism is due to Makropoulos - a much shrewder operator than either Ilyumzhinov or Leong.

You don't want to see the back of him enough to have been prepared to support any of Bessel Kok, Anatoly Karpov and Garrry Kasparov. When asked whom you would support, you name David Jarrett - an Ilyumzhinov ally for seventeen years.

I explained the first point in my post. Please scroll up.

I am disappointed to see such visceral aversion to David Jarrett within the ECF. I think you are very much mistaken. If Bessel Kok had not accused him, with no grounds whatsoever, of being a crook, then matters might be different now.

The then ECF Board dissociated itself from the comments to which you allude, albeit not to a degree which satisfied Jarrett.

I have nothing at all against Jarrett personally. On the contrary, he has been very helpful to me on a number of occasions. However, I felt that he was wrong in 1996 and that he was wrong in 2006. I said so to him at the time.

I feel much the same about you, Nick. You do an excellent job as Secretary of the Qualification Commission. You have frequently been very helpful to me and for that I am grateful. However, I thought that you were wrong in 2006, I thought that you were wrong in 2010 and I think that you're wrong now.

[Paolo Casaschi]

What makes you think Kasparov would go in that direction?

This:

Kasparov simply has no interest in amateur chess

As you say, it would seem to be at odds with his campaign material.

There's a major difference between not having interest in amateur chess and campaigning for delegating this responsibility to national federation as opposed to not having interest in amateur chess and advocating this responsibility for themselves in their program. The former might work, the latter is a recipe for disaster (assuming you care about amateur chess of course).

[David Sedgwick]

I wouldn't describe a willingness to consider sending a representative to the annual meeting of an international body of which one is a member as "appeasement".

Nick got there before me. I believe in cooperation, but not in appeasement. I argued for more representation in Tallinn, to no avail.

Q. Why was the ECF under represented in Tallinn?
A. Because the ECF was not prepared to cover or even contribute to people's expenses.

Q. Why was the ECF not prepared to make such contributions?
A. Because it lacks the financial resources to do so.

Q. Why does the ECF lack the necessary financial resources?
A. Because it's extremely difficult to attract commercial sponsorship for chess.

Q. Why is it difficult to attract commercial sponsorship for chess?
A. Because Kirsan Ilyumzhinov is President of FIDE.