Kasparov vs Ilyumzhinov: the FIDE Presidency battle begins

[NickFaulks]

Meanwhile the Canadians have gone another way ....

Admittedly a small sample, but a poll at their discussion forum is quoted as giving completely the opposite result.

To judge from the recent comments in the thread below, the decision is controversial among Canadian players. But what do they matter?

http://www.chesstalk.info/forum/showthr ... -Elections

The pattern seems to be that GK's story sounds good to the general chess public, whereas those who have had dealings with him wouldn't touch him with a very long pole. The first group is of course larger, but the second might be considered better informed. It's a conundrum not restricted to chess.

[Roger de Coverly]

The pattern seems to be that GK's story sounds good to the general chess public, whereas those who have had dealings with him wouldn't touch him with a very long pole.

Why is it the reverse with Kirsan? Is there, shock horror, money involved for those who support and work with him?

[NickFaulks]

The pattern seems to be that GK's story sounds good to the general chess public, whereas those who have had dealings with him wouldn't touch him with a very long pole.

Why is it the reverse with Kirsan? Is there, shock horror, money involved for those who support and work with him?

This election is about Kasparov, as has always been true of anything in which he is involved. If it were simply an affirmation of what you call the Life Presidency, I think we all know which way it would go.

[Roger de Coverly]

If it were simply an affirmation of what you call the Life Presidency, I think we all know which way it would go.

I would have thought that Kirsan would use his influence and pull strings to defeat or sideline anyone
put up against him.

If it was about defeating Kasparov, why not put up a successor untainted by association with aliens, zero default etc, in the hope of attracting support from the traditional hard core of anti-Kirsan federations?

[Jonathan Rogers]

The pattern seems to be that GK's story sounds good to the general chess public, whereas those who have had dealings with him wouldn't touch him with a very long pole.

Why is it the reverse with Kirsan? Is there, shock horror, money involved for those who support and work with him?

This election is about Kasparov, as has always been true of anything in which he is involved. If it were simply an affirmation of what you call the Life Presidency, I think we all know which way it would go.

Yes - exactly the same way! Every FIDE election is about getting rid of Kirsan, and the apparent impossibility of doing so. The identity and plausibility of each different opponent is a sideshow. Kasparov has his faults, but these faults have very little to do with why he is losing. I mean, even Bessel Kok lost. Only someone from Qatar would stand a chance against Kirsan!

I will join Nigel Short and RdC on this one - what is your take on Gabon, Nick?

[NickFaulks]

If it was about defeating Kasparov, why not put up a successor untainted by association with aliens, zero default etc, in the hope of attracting support from the traditional hard core of anti-Kirsan federations?

This is going around in circles. The answer is that, faced with the appalling prospect of a Kasparov presidency, Kirsan's outright supporters allied with those who are, to say the best of it, ambivalent about him, to guarantee a win. It would have been a very dangerous time to find a new face who might possibly have an accident.

By the way, I hope you were not suggesting in an earlier post that Canada's decision might have been the result of bribery.

[Roger de Coverly]

By the way, I hope you were not suggesting in an earlier post that Canada's decision might have been the result of bribery.

It looks as if the current Canadian President is pro-Kirsan and has persuaded enough of the "Governors" to either abstain or vote with him. This is notwithstanding a forthcoming AGM which will presumably appoint a new Board.

Contributors to their discussion board are not happy.

Here's one

Let me publicly state that I do not support the executive's endorsement. I find it an embarassment for the Federation.

[Paul McKeown]

This election is about Kasparov

Even Comical Ali would have baulked at that statement.

All FIDE elections are about Kirsan Ilyumzhinov and his history of political violence and graft with Russian federal politics, bizarre beliefs and his corruption of the electoral process within FIDE.

[NickFaulks]

Yes - exactly the same way!

I think you are just wrong. There are very many federations who would support a sensible candidate instead of Kirsan, and are only waiting for one to appear. I think I am well enough connected to know what I'm talking about.

You say "I mean, even Bessel Kok lost". I sometimes wonder whether there were two different elections in 2006, and I missed one of them. What I saw of the Kok team was Geoffrey Borg, Ali Yazici and a kitchen cabinet that was the Amsterdam equivalent of the Bullingdon Club. In Bermuda we were originally very excited by Bessel's emergence as a candidate, until it became clear that the whole thing was just a game, and their only campaign slogan was that David Jarrett was a crook. Yasser Seirawan, the one serious person in the group, was embarrassingly sidelined.

I know nothing of Gabon, but doubt that this is under the control of the FIDE Executive as alleged, because if it were it would have been handled much better. As I have said, I expect Margaret Murphy and her Commission to sort out this and several other such cases which seem to be a mess.

[Roger de Coverly]

There are very many federations who would support a sensible candidate instead of Kirsan, and are only waiting for one to appear.

I doubt any "sensible" candidate could afford it, or would be prepared to run the gauntlet of the character assassination, opposition from the Russian state and other dubious practices likely to be deployed in support of the incumbent.

If hardly anyone with a vote wanted Kasparov as FIDE president, there would have been no need for hatred sites such as fidenot4sale.

We still don't know and probably never will, whether the Andrew Paulson ECF role was an attempt to subvert the ECF's likely continued opposition to the Kirsan presidency.

[Graham Borrowdale]

... There are very many federations who would support a sensible candidate instead of Kirsan, and are only waiting for one to appear...

I guess the difference is that some federations advocate continuing to support Kirsan, unless and until a suitable alternative candidate comes along. Some constituencies prefer the approach of getting rid of him and judge that the fire might not in fact be worse than the frying pan.

[Jonathan Rogers]

Yes - exactly the same way!

I think you are just wrong. There are very many federations who would support a sensible candidate instead of Kirsan, and are only waiting for one to appear. I think I am well enough connected to know what I'm talking about.

You say "I mean, even Bessel Kok lost". I sometimes wonder whether there were two different elections in 2006, and I missed one of them. What I saw of the Kok team was Geoffrey Borg, Ali Yazici and a kitchen cabinet that was the Amsterdam equivalent of the Bullingdon Club. In Bermuda we were originally very excited by Bessel's emergence as a candidate, until it became clear that the whole thing was just a game, and their only campaign slogan was that David Jarrett was a crook. Yasser Seirawan, the one serious person in the group, was embarrassingly sidelined.

I know nothing of Gabon, but doubt that this is under the control of the FIDE Executive as alleged, because if it were it would have been handled much better. As I have said, I expect Margaret Murphy and her Commission to sort out this and several other such cases which seem to be a mess.

I grant you that in the 2006 campaign I received several emails from Borg for no apparent reason whatever ....

But really, I might as well repeat the questions I put to Andrew Paulson on this forum last autumn. How can you possibly have a less "sensible" candidate than someone who puts off every proper commecial sponsor in the world? And further - even if Kok did fight a bad election, or if Karpov seemed to have little idea what he would do, and so forth, well obviously you should elect that person anyway and you will at least then have a fighting chance that a "sensible" candidate will find it worth his while to challenge him the next time. The process of finding good candidates only starts when there is recognised to be a genuine vacancy. In other words, if there is a dearth of sensible candidates, and many anti-Kirsan federations are just waiting to support one, then that is because any such candidates are themselves waiting for Kirsan to die or to be toppled. In the meantime, Kirsan is indeed the only possible winner of each and every election.

[David Sedgwick]

We still don't know and probably never will, whether the Andrew Paulson ECF role was an attempt to subvert the ECF's likely continued opposition to the Kirsan presidency.

It's true that we shall never know with 100% certainty.

However, there is very little doubt in my mind that that was the objective both of Paulson himself and of those who put him up to standing for ECF President.

[Nigel Short]

Nick Faulks gives the same glib, buck-passing answer which Nigel Freeman gave - failing to answer any point of substance. Can you not follow an argument, sir? The federation of Gabon has been recognised by FIDE for years, until it committed the crime of supporting Kasparov. Ditto Afghanistan. What is it you don't understand? Why can't you recognise electoral fraud when it slaps you in the face? Which point made by the lawyer Ank Santens do you actually disagree with?

While an Electoral Commission is an improvement on the General Assembly, I do not share your optimism that it will deliver an unbiased verdict. One of the 5 members, Bharat Singh, is actually RUNNING on a pro-Kirsan ticket in Asia - a grotesque conflict of interest. Darcy Lima is also a notorious Kirsan stooge. And the political sympathies of at least one other member are well known. In short, the Electoral Commission has an in-built pro-Kirsan bias.

[NickFaulks]

Darcy Lima is also a notorious Kirsan stooge.

I assume this is a generic term for people with whom Short is not in agreement.