Kasparov vs Ilyumzhinov: the FIDE Presidency battle begins

[Paul McKeown]

Most "swing" federations would welcome a candidate less bad than Kirsan, but none present themselves.

LMAO - The degree to which an apologist is prepared to appear ridiculous in order to excuse a murderous kleptocrat's maladministration and promote his continuance in office, is truly a thing to marvel at.

<edit>fixed quotes</edit>

[JustinHorton]

Kirsan has won each time by a margin of about 2/1. That is hardly a landslide.

What? Of course it is.

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

This last strikes me as an assertion often made and rarely supported with evidence. Chess has always struggled for commercial sponsorship because chess isn't very popular. To make a helpful comparison, Formula 1 - which is led by a crook and an open admirer of Saddam Hussain, and has no compunction whatsoever about where its events are held provided the money is there, has no difficulty whatsoever in funding sponsorship. Ditto the World Cup, the Olympics and what you will.

I mean who do you think invests in these dictatorships? Big Westen companies, as often as not. Why did Blair suck up to Gaddafi? For Gazprom?

[Roger de Coverly]

It is a feature of democratic systems that the incumbent has certain advantages in terms of patronage.

The FIDE system, like, it has to said, many international bodies, has more in common with the what was termed historically "Rotten Boroughs" in its time than anything democratic in the normal one person one vote sense. In other words, lots of votes only accountable, if at all, to a handful of individuals. Did those stories in 2006 about Delegates taking photos of voting slips to prove they had voted the "right" way have no credibility?

Even in this election, I read about a meeting of Regional Chess Administrators financed by the Kirsan 2014 election campaign.

[Paul McKeown]

Chess has always struggled for commercial sponsorship because chess isn't very popular.

Bunkum. Just page through any "Chess" from the mid 1970s to the late 1980s. It was whisky galore with sponsorship from companies like Cutty Sark.

[JustinHorton]

From the point of view of amateurs in large Federations, the Olympiads are akin to the Football World Cup where you expect to be represented by your best players. Perhaps teams that are no better than club sides should really be expected to qualify, rather than their players being granted a subsidised holiday at the expense of the host Federation.

Well, you could do that. But the whole point about the Olympiad, as with the Olympics is that it's a world event. ose that and all you have is a kind of world team championship, which would be interesting but something short of Gens Una Sumus. And while of course it's a subsidised holiday for some, for many others, the chance to be on the world stage may be really important for the status (and self-worth) of chess in their country.

Being inclusive is important. Shutting people out is wrong on principle, and politically self-defeating.

[JustinHorton]

Chess has always struggled for commercial sponsorship because chess isn't very popular.

Bunkum. Just page through any "Chess" from the mid 1970s to the late 1980s. It was whisky galore with sponsorship from companies like Cutty Sark.

if that's the best example we can find, in the golden age of English chess, I think I'll take it as support for my argument rather than its refutation.

(As we're doing snooker and darts v chess on this thread, people are invited to compare the amount of sponsorship money in those other sports, say 1975-1990, to the amount in chess.)

[Roger de Coverly]

But the whole point about the Olympiad, as with the Olympics is that it's a world event.

The Olympics has absolutely no problem with having a qualification standard for individual sports and qualifiers for team sports. That you don't get numerous Hockey or Football teams taking part who are no better than club sides isn't regarded as reducing the inclusiveness of the event.

If the dream of some FIDE Officials came about and Chess were included in the Winter Olympics, they aren't going to invite 150 FIDE members plus to take part during in the main period of the event. There would have to be seeds and regional qualifiers.

[Roger de Coverly]

if that's the best example we can find, in the golden age of English chess, I think I'll take it as support for my argument rather than its refutation.

The term "always" rather implies a historic view as well. When you say Chess isn't popular, is that from a British or World perspective? I imagine they've cooked the numbers somewhat to include all the school children they're teaching, but the Turkish Federation are claiming record numbers.
http://www.fide.com/component/content/a ... -is-1.html

[JustinHorton]

The Olympics has absolutely no problem with having a qualification standard for individual sports and qualifiers for team sports.

Sort of, but:

(a) in the latter case I think this is a logistical thing rather than an "abolutely no problem", i.e. you haven't got forever to hold a tournament. Imagine an Olympic football event with (say) 150 teams. You'd still be going when the next one game around.

(b) I'm pretty sure that every Olympics I see people competing who are way behind all or most of the others, with times (or whatever the criteria may be) a long way short of professional standard. This is usually justified roughly in the way I do above.

[Paolo Casaschi]

But the whole point about the Olympiad, as with the Olympics is that it's a world event.

Exactly: as such it has a value by itself and it is supported by a long standing tradition, why changing something that actually works.
At the same time, you could also have a second event, a more technically sound team tournament for nations, only with a small number of top teams selected according to technical rules or qualifiers... oh, in fact it's already there: http://wctc2013.tsf.org.tr/

[Paul McKeown]

if that's the best example we can find, in the golden age of English chess, I think I'll take it as support for my argument rather than its refutation.

Justin, you are quite incorrigible; of course it isn't the only example I could find. Nor is it the only one you could think of. You just don't like to be gainsaid, that's all.

[JustinHorton]

if that's the best example we can find, in the golden age of English chess, I think I'll take it as support for my argument rather than its refutation.

Justin, you are quite incorrigible; of course it isn't the only example I could find. Nor is it the only one you could think of.

Of course not, but - and I stand to be corrected on this - I'm under the impression that much chess sponsorship (even in Ye Golden Age) has always come from people with a direct interest in chess, or institutions in which prominent individuals have had such an interest. Which is a little different from the normal arrangement, whereby a company attaches its name to a sport because of the publicity to be gained thereby. I'd call it patronage, but although that's perhaps a semantic difference, it's quite an important one.

Though it's symptom rather than cause, this helps illustrate my point: chess doesn't do well in the sponsorship-attraction stakes, even in the best of times, and tends to rely to a substantial degree on individual munificence. Again, I'd invite comparisons with other sports.

[Roger de Coverly]

(b) I'm pretty sure that every Olympics I see people competing who are way behind all or most of the others, with times (or whatever the criteria may be) a long way short of professional standard. This is usually justified roughly in the way I do above.

A handful of competitors are specially selected. But it's a handful, not representatives of every IOC member in every discipline. So you can send a couple of your best athletes, even if they are below the normal qualification standard.

Suppose you cut the Olympiad to 64 teams, with 48 seeded and 16 qualifiers. Using FIDE's top 10 lists, number 48 is Moldova and number 64 is Ireland. Scotland and Australia as well would have to qualify. You might in practice set the barrier a bit lower, to reflect the increase in geography created by the break up of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia and the increasing spread of titled players around the world. You would be looking perhaps for the standard of low end Open teams to be 5*2300, with just a handful below that.

In effect that's already been done for the parallel European competition. You never see Guernsey and Jersey in that, but there is another event.
http://www.ecuonline.net/com/news/single/553.html

You can still have Guernsey v Bermuda, but it's in a qualification competition.

[JustinHorton]

Suppose you cut the Olympiad to 64 teams, with 48 seeded and 16 qualifiers. Using FIDE's top 10 lists, number 48 is Moldova and number 64 is Ireland. Scotland and Australia as well would have to qualify. You might in practice set the barrier a bit lower, to reflect the increase in geography created by the break up of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia and the increasing spread of titled players around the world. You would be looking perhaps for the standard of low end Open teams to be 5*2300, with just a handful below that.

What's the point?

[Roger de Coverly]

Though it's symptom rather than cause, this helps illustrate my point: chess doesn't do well in the sponsorship-attraction stakes, even in the best of times, and tends to rely to a substantial degree on individual munificence.

Accepting the point about individual munificence, you don't think perhaps that having to share a stage with a dictator's friend such as Kirsan would discourage such an individual, whilst a chance to meet Kasparov could encourage them.