Kasparov vs Ilyumzhinov: the FIDE Presidency battle begins

[Angus French]

Nigel has also claimed that AGON owes FIDE $500,000. I wonder how he knows that.

I don't know about the exact amount, but is it not public that FIDE have "sold" the "rights" to world chess to Agon and that Agon have yet to pay anything to FIDE? The general public doesn't know what the contract says, it's possible there's some contingency that Agon doesn't owe anything to FIDE unless or until it gets some sponsorship in its own name. If that were the case, nothing would yet be owed.

Yes, it's known that Agon has the rights to run various World Chess Championship events. I'm not aware, though, of any FIDE statement which says that, as of now, Agon owes it money.
Nigel made a similar claim last October. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6UtU78p ... e=youtu.be.

[NickFaulks]

Could the password have been used by someone else, perhaps one of the politicians? I cannot rule that out, and I believe that if you know what you're doing, tracks can be erased, so we may never be sure. My bet would be that, if the truth ever can be established, the source is elsewhere.

A number of chess journalists state that they received the draft contract, but except for the New York Times declined to immediately publish unless they could establish the source. It is reported that the tone of the accompanying email was hostile to the Kasparov campaign.

Was the NYT right to publish? I don't know, but in this case Dylan may feel vindicated, since his article drew a quick confirmation from the lawyer who drew up the contract that it was genuine.

I'm not surprised that the author of the email was hostile to the Kasparov camp. Why else would they send it?

[Angus French]

Could the password have been used by someone else, perhaps one of the politicians? I cannot rule that out, and I believe that if you know what you're doing, tracks can be erased, so we may never be sure. My bet would be that, if the truth ever can be established, the source is elsewhere.

A number of chess journalists state that they received the draft contract, but except for the New York Times declined to immediately publish unless they could establish the source. It is reported that the tone of the accompanying email was hostile to the Kasparov campaign.

As the current trial in London demonstrates, email and voicemail are usually only as secure as the password used to access the server containing the messages.

I wonder, did the chess journalists contact either Morten Sand or Ignatius Leong or any other member of the Kasparov team about the alleged contract which had come into their possession?

The email from Morten Sand to Ignatius Leong will likely have been stored:
- in a place local to the sender (e.g. on a local disk drive);
- on a sending server;
- on a receiving server; and
- in a place local to the receiver.

It will also have travelled across the Internet and will likely be stored on backup media.

I've used SMTP server software (for sending emails) which stored emails as plain text files on the server from where they could be accessed directly - no need to log in to an email account or even use an email client.

The fact that the email was sent to a FIDE email account could be a red herring.

[Angus French]

Was the NYT right to publish? I don't know, but in this case Dylan may feel vindicated, since his article drew a quick confirmation from the lawyer who drew up the contract that it was genuine.

I'm not surprised that the author of the email was hostile to the Kasparov camp. Why else would they send it?

I thought the NYT journalist made contact with Morten Sand BEFORE the article was published and that Mr. Sand's reaction was part of the story.

[NickFaulks]

Was the NYT right to publish? I don't know, but in this case Dylan may feel vindicated, since his article drew a quick confirmation from the lawyer who drew up the contract that it was genuine.

I'm not surprised that the author of the email was hostile to the Kasparov camp. Why else would they send it?

I thought the NYT journalist made contact with Morten Sand BEFORE the article was published and that Mr. Sand's reaction was part of the story.

You are quite right. Why couldn't all the others, who refused to touch the story, have done the same?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/22/sport ... cerns.html

for anyone who hasn't read it or, as in my case, forgot what it said.

[Nigel Short]

Perhaps some kind and thorough person would be so good as to check Andrew Paulson's previous claims, on this forum, to be completely independent from Kirsan Ilyumzhinov.
I would do so myself, but I am just about to start in Gibraltar...

[Angus French]

Perhaps some kind and thorough person would be so good as to check Andrew Paulson's previous claims, on this forum, to be completely independent from Kirsan Ilyumzhinov.
I would do so myself, but I am just about to start in Gibraltar...

What's the point? The Sunday Times article indicates that the allegedly possible deal did not place and the contract which *was* agreed came into force long before Andrew Paulson joined this forum.

[Roger de Coverly]

Yes, it's known that Agon has the rights to run various World Chess Championship events. I'm not aware, though, of any FIDE statement which says that, as of now, Agon owes it money.

As of one of the periodic FIDE meetings, Agon still owed money. It was left in the hands of Kirsan as to how to follow it up. They may have paid up, there again they may not. It's a simple enough statement to make one way or another.

Didn't the voters in the ECF election ask whether Agon had actually paid anything to FIDE?

[Roger de Coverly]

Perhaps some kind and thorough person would be so good as to check Andrew Paulson's previous claims, on this forum, to be completely independent from Kirsan Ilyumzhinov.

Malcolm Pein, in an otherwise favourable endorsement to AP, did mention the rumour that Agon was in some way a vehicle controlled or financed by Kirsan. It appears this rumour was not totally unfounded, even though AP claims personal ownership. If Agon were a mainland British company, they would have to publish Accounts which would disclose this. As it's a Jersey company, there aren't the same laws requiring such disclosures.

The statement of Agon ownership is here

http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php ... on#p123334

I believe Jersey law permits any number of curious structures. Without being an expert, is it possible that a Jersey Company could be 100% owned by A, but the profits, if any, are shared by A,B and C? Actually I think that's even possible under mainstream British law. You have two classes of share A and B, one voting and the other non-voting. If you hold 100% of the voting A shares, you control ("own") the Company, but profits are also distributed to the B shareholders.

[Chris Rice]

Whether the upper echelons of FIDE actually got to see this email is unknown. It could easily have been copied by an IT administrator and sent to the New York Times to make a few dollars.

I have just noticed this, and it annoys me, although Chris will probably not understand why. I have worked with both the upper and lower echelons of FIDE for some years, and have not always found the former to be as scrupulous as one might wish. Until the other day, Ignatius Leong somehow remained among that number, which I consider reflects equally badly on him and on those who allowed him to stay.

On the other hand, I have nothing but admiration for the "lower echelons", a small band who do an excellent job. There is only one IT administrator, Vladimir Kukaev, and he is a thoroughly honest individual. The casual comment quoted above is a most unpleasant slur on the character of a person about whom the writer knows nothing.

Could the password have been used by someone else, perhaps one of the politicians? I cannot rule that out, and I believe that if you know what you're doing, tracks can be erased, so we may never be sure. My bet would be that, if the truth ever can be established, the source is elsewhere.

Nick, just to be clear I was trying to make the general point that anyone in FIDE could have potentially leaked that email. I wasn't pointing the finger at Mr Kukaev in particular who may well be, as you say, a stand up guy. For me it's clear that Morten Sand's technical incompetence has led to this situation. I see in an interview that is on the ChessVibes and Susan Polgar sites http://www.chessdom.com/interview-with-morten-sand/ that he admits he is technology-wise incompetent and then disappointingly starts accusing everyone else including Mr Kukaev and Andrew Paulsen of leaking the email to divert attention from his faux pas and the contents of that email.

[NickFaulks]

Chris, thanks for the reply and the link. What a mess!

[John McKenna]

Chris, thanks for the reply and the link. What a mess!

It looks like a mess but is it really just that? Earlier Chris Rice used the words "unbelievably stupid" about what led to the series of media events we now see unfolding. A conspiracy can to tailored to fit the 'crime' but conspiracies are so out of fashion they are laughed off the catwalk long before ever hitting the street. Nobody will wear them in public but they are still being manufactured and used in all walks of life -usually when 2, 3, 4 or more people gather together for mutual gain.

[JustinHorton]

I'm told Paul Truong assisted Morten Sand with his email. Can that possibly be right? Paul Truong somehow has some involvement in this?

[Chris Rice]

Here's the relevant bit from Morten Sand's interview:

"During the stay in Tromso, Ignatius could not access his FIDE.com account. So he was asking for help. Actually he asked Paul Truong, “Can you fix this for me?”, Paul answered that this is difficult, so he went to Vova [Vladimir Kukaev] and after a while he managed to set it straight. It functioned again."

[JustinHorton]

Any particular reason it was Truong? Just happened to be passing?