Emergency Board Meeting - Draft Minutes

[JustinHorton]

It's an election with two candidates

So are many elections. Many people abstain nevertheless, for what you're well aware are all sorts of perfectly honourable reasons. They are normally able to do so without people claiming that it means they in fact support one candidate or another.

[Mick Norris]

That's a rancid argument, though, isn't it? And given how many Kirsan people are in Kasparov's camp now, it's also an absurd one.

It's an election with two candidates, If you refuse to vote for candidate A, then abstaining or voting for candidate B contributes to B's re-election. If you want to see another four years of Kirsan as FIDE President for life, then say so.

Zurab v Silvio, Garry v Kirsan - you might well be hoping for a third candidate in each case; you might be trying to work out the lesser of 2 evils (I'd need a lot of convincing that the ECF should vote for Silvio or Zurab rather than abstaining); you might be hoping that someone won and then stood down for a better candidate

[Angus French]

If you accept that neither of the candidates for President of FIDE is adequate,

The problem is that if you are anti-Kasparov, you are pro-Kirsan. Do not underestimate the depth of feeling built up against the FIDE establishment and some of its proposals over the last 20 years amongst those in the UK who actually play or are arbiters for semi-international chess. That's not even to mention the Rotten Boroughs version of what FIDE insiders call "democracy".

That quote of Andrew Paulson's has had its context removed. What Andrew Paulson was explaining (full post here) was the concept of an Anglophone group... Regardless of who wins the FIDE election, the ECF could seek to influence decision making through the establishment of an Anglophone group and pushing to get English chess people onto FIDE committees.

[JustinHorton]

In my view, the insistence that everybody must vote for them or be pro-Kirsan is a characteristic of the Kasparov camp: it's a bullying, intolerant characteristic too. And it's one which costs them, I think.

[Paul McKeown]

This thread would be more informative without the chest beating, the itoldyousos and the general piffwibble. Can those not actually involved in some way or another refrain from parading their egos here, please?

[Angus French]

Andrew Paulson helpfully omits that I was strongly in favour of his candidacy for President and publicly stated so. However this was after he gave me many assurances which have now turned out to be lies.

The text quoted above doesn't - in my reading - fit with what Malcolm Pein is quoted as saying in the recent Chess.com/Chessvibes article, Leaked Agreement Between Ilyumzhinov & Paulson Suggests Conflict of Interest.

Malcolm Pein, tournament director of the London Chess Classic and Chief Executive of Chess in Schools and Communities, told Chess.com: “Andrew told me on at least on two occasions that Kirsan is the majority shareholder [of Agon].” The last time was “shortly before the ECF elections”, said Mr Pein. This was in October 2013.

If Andrew told Malcolm twice before the ECF elections that Kirsan was the majority shareholder of Agon, how was it that Malcolm was strongly in favour of Andrew's candidacy for ECF President? Was Malcolm seriously misquoted by Chess.com/Chessvibes? And, if he did speak to Peter Doggers, the journalist who wrote the article, how did that come to happen?

[David Sedgwick]

What Andrew Paulson was explaining (full post here) was the concept of an Anglophone group... Regardless of who wins the FIDE election, the ECF could seek to influence decision making through the establishment of an Anglophone group and pushing to get English chess people onto FIDE committees.

I don't know why the proposed Anglophone group was one of the issues which made David Openshaw unhappy with Andrew Paulson. I shall ask David at some point.

I also don't know why Andrew considered its establishment necessary in order to get English nominees appointed to FIDE Commissions.

At the opening ceremony of the Candidates Tournament in London last March, Nigel Freeman (FIDE Treasurer and Executive Director) said that he would like to see more English people coming forward. David Openshaw and I each discussed the matter with Nigel during the Candidates.

Hence the task of finding suitable people began before Andrew came on the ECF scene.

[Sean Hewitt]

Note: Malcolm Pein, Sean Hewitt and Alex Holowczak, among others, were eager to be put on Commissions under this initiative.

I cannot speak for others, but in my case this is demonstrably false. I have been in contact with FIDE about joining the Qualifications Commission since 13 June 2013; considerably before I met or spoke with Andrew Paulson and six months before the Anglophone idea surfaced. To try to link my interest in the QC to this Anglophone committee is disingenuous.

EDIT : To clarify that this correspondence was in a purely personal capacity, following my recommendation as to how FIDE could improve the accuracy of ratings for junior players.

[John McKenna]

Above Sean speaks for himself and that is good but does not say if his contact with FIDE was in a purely personal capacity or as an ECF official. If the latter did he have in mind the broader kind of approach that Andrew Paulson put forward later and does he see any merit in a safety-in-numbers concept by the ECF - Anglophone or not? Because, it seems to me that a number of English individuals who have entered the land of FIDE have at least become quixotic even if they have avoided going native. (I am not suggesting, even for a moment, that either such fate would befall Sean.)

[David Sedgwick]

Because, it seems to me that a number of English individuals who have entered the land of FIDE have at least become quixotic even if they have avoided going native.

I wouldn't wish to speculate about which individuals you may have in mind, but I suspect you're thinking more of those who have aspired to high office in FIDE or the ECU than to those who have served as members of FIDE Commissions.

I was a member of the FIDE Arbiters' Commission from 2006 to 2010. I don't think I'm any more quixotic now than I was ten years ago.

Others may disagree, of course.

[John McKenna]

Perhaps David would at least admit to being a shade more exotic for his time served on Devil's Island.
Did he ever feel outnumbered and alone there I wonder. How and why did he escape?

[Andrew Camp]

[Paul McKeown]

Let me +1 Andrew Camp's perceptive and incisive post.

[JustinHorton]

Andrew Paulson helpfully omits that I was strongly in favour of his candidacy for President and publicly stated so. However this was after he gave me many assurances which have now turned out to be lies.

The text quoted above doesn't - in my reading - fit with what Malcolm Pein is quoted as saying in the recent Chess.com/Chessvibes article, Leaked Agreement Between Ilyumzhinov & Paulson Suggests Conflict of Interest.

Malcolm Pein, tournament director of the London Chess Classic and Chief Executive of Chess in Schools and Communities, told Chess.com: “Andrew told me on at least on two occasions that Kirsan is the majority shareholder [of Agon].” The last time was “shortly before the ECF elections”, said Mr Pein. This was in October 2013.

If Andrew told Malcolm twice before the ECF elections that Kirsan was the majority shareholder of Agon, how was it that Malcolm was strongly in favour of Andrew's candidacy for ECF President? Was Malcolm seriously misquoted by Chess.com/Chessvibes? And, if he did speak to Peter Doggers, the journalist who wrote the article, how did that come to happen?

Indeed if Malcolm considers he was lied to, it might be helpful if he were to detail what lies he thinks he was told, and when.

[Paul McKeown]

Indeed if Malcolm considers he was lied to, it might be helpful if he were to detail what lies he thinks he was told, and when.

Why? Wouldn't it simply be further fodder for the fruit-loop brigade, much out in force currently?