Kasparov vs Ilyumzhinov: the FIDE Presidency battle begins

[Jonathan Rogers]

Can somebody give Roger Edwards a call?

More generally, are any of the Council members having second thoughts about their President, and if so what will they do about it? If one judges people by the company they keep, then we might note that we can add the charming Zurab Azmai to our President's list of close working partners.

Further, I don't really see how Nigel can be legally removed as FIDE Delegate before Tromso. But if this should come to pass, then I would like ordinary Council and Board members to have a replacement ready and to force an election at Council. If only as a matter of appearances, there should be no question of the Board selecting someone recommended by the President, given the President's public efforts to oust the present incumbent.

[David Robertson]

...there should be no question of the Board selecting someone recommended by the President

Indeed there should not.

But that depends how the Board lines up - behind Paulson or not. We know what an invertebrate shower many of them are. But how many can Paulson call on? I'll name two who'll jump through any hoop Paulson cares to present - Phil Ehr and Julian Clissold

[Paul McKeown]

I don't get the impression that many people on this forum think it really matters whether FIDE observes its own Statutes, except as a bone to fight over.

Where on Earth is the evidence to support that statement? Or did you just make it up?

Anyone with an eleven year old's reading comprehension would have grasped that officials ignoring FIDE regulations angers the great majority of posters here.

[John McKenna]

Jonathan Rogers>... Further, I don't really see how Nigel can be legally removed as FIDE Delegate before Tromso. But if this should come to pass, then I would like ordinary Council and Board members to have a replacement ready and to force an election at Council.<

A very good precaution but the attack is two pronged -

Andrew Paulson wrote -

The disclosure of (stolen) confidential documents to the press by an ECF official, along with being against the law, constitutes an ethical violation under item 2.2.10 of the FIDE Code of Ethics as it may cause the English Chess Federation to appear in an unjustifiable and unfavorable light and in this way damage its reputation. This will be referred to the FIDE Ethics Commission for disciplinary action in the coming days.

The recent situation concerning the disclosure of confidential documents to The Sunday Times and a Canadian website by ECF’s FIDE Delegate Nigel Short must be considered inconsistent with his high position in the ECF. Thus, the question of Nigel Short’s removal will be raised before ECF Council in accordance with item A17(2) of the ECF Articles of Association.

The current FIDE Delegate of ECF and perhaps even a replacement could find themselves barred from entry to the court of Kirsan even when it is visiting Tromso.

[JustinHorton]

1. Can I ask, again, whether Paulson has gone to the police about this conduct he claims to be against the law?

2. Why is it a problem for an ECF official to leak documents that are not ECF documents?

[John McKenna]

1. Can I ask, again, whether Paulson has gone to the police about this conduct he claims to be against the law?

2. Why is it a problem for an ECF official to leak documents that are not ECF documents?

I am no legal eagle (though there are a few hereabouts who are) so my answers, based on commonsense, are -

1. Although technically against the law the case in point is minor in criminal terms - this is not Ed Snowdon, Jules Assange or Brad (aka Chelsea) Manning.

2. It is all a question of trust - can you trust what and what not might be leaked by one who has form?

[NickFaulks]

I don't get the impression that many people on this forum think it really matters whether FIDE observes its own Statutes, except as a bone to fight over.

Where on Earth is the evidence to support that statement? Or did you just make it up?

Anyone with an eleven year old's reading comprehension would have grasped that officials ignoring FIDE regulations angers the great majority of posters here.

I know there are people here who like slagging off FIDE in general, but that's different. I posted at length about some quite outrageous events which took place in Tallinn, and didn't get a single bite. Stewart Reuben was unceremoniously dumped in mid-term as a QC Councillor, which cannot constitutionally be done, but I saw no outrage. It now appears that this was advance planning to cull people who were considered likely to be unsympathetic to Kasparov / Leong, and I don't know why the leadership approved it, but they did.

Leong has personally awarded a GM title and an IM title which were turned down when presented in the normal way. I complained, but FIDE simply put them up on the website, and now they're official. My guess is that most people here would just say "how does the ECF get theirs?". Please tell me I'm wrong.

[Roger de Coverly]

Leong has personally awarded a GM title and an IM title which were turned down when presented in the normal way. I complained, but FIDE simply put them up on the website, and now they're official. My guess is that most people here would just say "how does the ECF get theirs?". Please tell me I'm wrong.

There was a thread on here around six months ago which presented some investigations into dubious Norms and rating performances. These seemed concentrated in Eastern Europe or Russia, rather than Asia.

http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5723

The general consensus seemed to be that FIDE weren't greatly bothered about taking action. The investigations were at a basic level of looking for erratic performances and game scores that gave the impression of being fakes. If it gets really blatant, I suppose something might happen. There was a fake tournament in the Ukraine a few years back that even showed some photos. These were quite recognisable as having been taken in the back room of the Pig in Paradise during Hastings.

[NickFaulks]

The general consensus seemed to be that FIDE weren't greatly bothered about taking action.

That was the general consensus among a group of people who didn't necessarily know the full facts. It is serious matter to challenge tournament results which have been reported as correct by the federation, more so when it is a very large and influential federation. In general the best result you can get is an unofficial agreement that they haven't done anything wrong, but they won't do it again. The new Anti-Cheating Commission, whose workings are still something of a secret, has such issues in its remit and may be more aggressive. I can assure you that a list of questionable events has been kept, and this forum is one of several useful outside sources. Please keep them coming.

[PeterFarr]

Leong has personally awarded a GM title and an IM title which were turned down when presented in the normal way. I complained, but FIDE simply put them up on the website, and now they're official. My guess is that most people here would just say "how does the ECF get theirs?". Please tell me I'm wrong.

There was a thread on here around six months ago which presented some investigations into dubious Norms and rating performances. These seemed concentrated in Eastern Europe or Russia, rather than Asia.

http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5723

The general consensus seemed to be that FIDE weren't greatly bothered about taking action. The investigations were at a basic level of looking for erratic performances and game scores that gave the impression of being fakes. If it gets really blatant, I suppose something might happen. There was a fake tournament in the Ukraine a few years back that even showed some photos. These were quite recognisable as having been taken in the back room of the Pig in Paradise during Hastings.

I would argue that the cases discussed last Autumn were all pretty blatant; particularly the Iranian who suddenly leapt to 2500 standard out of nowhere. Its still going on; there's at least one GM title application currently on the FIDE website that is highly suspect; someone suddenly hitting GM standard in a flurry of action after a long career stuck around 2400. I hope Nick is right that the anti -cheating commission is doing something substantive.

I think one reason Nick's post about Tallinn didn't get much response is that it did require quite an effort to dig out and understand what was going on. Also you perhaps needed to know more about who were the people involved: not everyone is an expert on the personnel of FIDE. The Paulson / Kursan Kasparov / Leong stuff is a bit easier to follow, and everyone knows the dramatis personae.

[Paul McKeown]

Leong has personally awarded a GM title and an IM title which were turned down when presented in the normal way. I complained, but FIDE simply put them up on the website, and now they're official. My guess is that most people here would just say "how does the ECF get theirs?". Please tell me I'm wrong.

Sorry, I cannot really decipher what you are saying. If the accusation is that Ignatius Leong gave someone (himself?) a GM title, who was not properly qualified, then that is clearly wrong. I cannot see what connection that has to the ECF, though. If you are trying to say that members of the ECF wouldn't care, so long as some of their own members got titles, then I feel you owe an awful lot of people an apology. If that is your insinuation, then you have made a serious error in your estimation of the honour and self respect of English chess players.

[NickFaulks]

I cannot see what connection that has to the ECF, though.

I did not suggest any connection to the ECF, just regular contributors to this forum. Yes, I do imagine that, if the ECF delegate were able to use a bit of muscle to push through some dubious titles, he would be applauded. Once upon a time that was standard procedure, and I'm not sure it is properly understood that until recently things really had changed.

I asked to be told if I was wrong, and you have. That is good. Pending further comments, and based on the tone of many other posts, I shall still think that you are in a minority on this forum, but would be delighted to be wrong about that.

[NickFaulks]

Sorry, I cannot really decipher what you are saying.

Here is a blow by blow account of the GM title.

1. GM title application received by FIDE, passed to QC.
2. QC considers application, recommendation to PB is NO.
3. At next PB meeting QC recommendation is accepted, application is rejected.
4. After discussion with applicant's federation, QC Chairman tells FIDE office to award title.
5. Federation is informed that title has been awarded, player's card amended to say GM. Card now says title was awarded by the PB at the meeting where the application was in fact rejected.

[Roger de Coverly]

Yes, I do imagine that, if the ECF delegate were able to use a bit of muscle to push through some dubious titles, he would be applauded. Once upon a time that was standard procedure, and I'm not sure it is properly understood that until recently things really had changed.

The late Harry Golombek regularly reported on his advocacy of such matters. I don't think it did any harm apart from gaining the GM titles for world class players perhaps a year or so earlier than they would otherwise have achieved them. Many of the easements he argued in favour of would later be established as standard practice thanks to Stewart Reuben's advocacy. Where British players have been borderline for titles, it hasn't really been the norm requirements but the rating requirements. I'm also aware that any dubious practice in British events has been limited to bending the pairing rules as far as they can stretch.

At IM and GM level, I don't think there are any British players whose titles are anything other than fairly earned, provided a blind eye is turned to the odd bit of manipulating pairings to give them the required chances. At a lower level, the CM title is tarnished by FIDE's past habit of awarding it as a prize to players who would struggle to reach 150 in normal English events.

[NickFaulks]

FIDE's past habit of awarding it as a prize to players who would struggle to reach 150 in normal English events.

past habit... 150... I wish!