ECF FIDE Delegate

[Roger de Coverly]

It occurs to me (JEU) that the post of FIDE Delegate should be elected by those whose livelihoods are affected by FIDE and the ECU.

Fair comment

I really don't see that the bulk of the voters at council (who might be more interest in adjournments, adjudications and game fees) should influence this choice. Maybe I am being controversial...?

But they (the voters at council) should represent players who are affected by FIDE decisions such as international rating rules, move rates, default times, re-pairings or otherwise, half-point byes, mobile phone bans, writing move in advance bans, 10.2 etc., etc.

That said, the Cleveland one has rarely indicated what he personally, or the ECF collectively supports.

[Carl Hibbard]

That said, the Cleveland one has rarely indicated what he personally, or the ECF collectively supports.

Nothing is going to stop Gerry is it, some "voters" will be concerned about Nigel's abrasive nature, whilst others will be thanking him for many years of service - the thoughts and feelings of a long GM approval list will probably have little effect on the outcome of this vote!

[John Upham]

That said, the Cleveland one has rarely indicated what he personally, or the ECF collectively supports.

Maybe Lawrence Cooper could comment on this?

I'd be curious to know how frequently GFW canvasses the opinions of Englands professional players and players who regularly partake in FIDE / ECU events.

When was the last time GFW disagreed with FIDE and argued his case?

Has the time come for the English equivalent of the PCA and it would represent professional players to FIDE and ECU and ECF could focus on game fee and other weighty matters? Maybe I should start a thread on this?

[Alex Holowczak]

That said, the Cleveland one has rarely indicated what he personally, or the ECF collectively supports.

Nothing is going to stop Gerry is it, some "voters" will be concerned about Nigel's abrasive nature, whilst others will be thanking him for many years of service - the thoughts and feelings of a long GM approval list will probably have little effect on the outcome of this vote!

Particularly given that 90% of the electorate will not be aware of it.

[Carl Hibbard]

Particularly given that 90% of the electorate will not be aware of it.

The lack of an election address will also be seen in a negative light...

[Alex Holowczak]

Has the time come for the English equivalent of the PCA and it would represent professional players to FIDE and ECU and ECF could focus on game fee and other weighty matters? Maybe I should start a thread on this?

Then you get into the realm of amateur v professional, and need to come up with criteria for who is professional and who isn't. I understand that McShane is often unavailable for events due to other work commitments which are nothing to do with chess. By definition, he is amateur. Therefore, he couldn't be in a PCA, and would have no say on the FIDE delegate, which is probably more meaningful to him than the concerns of the amateur game. I think it's a can of worms that should be left unopened.

You could point out that Short's policy of uniting England, Scotland and Wales as being more relevant to the concerns of the current electorate.

Particularly given that 90% of the electorate will not be aware of it.

The lack of an election address will also be seen in a negative light...

Absolutely. Personally, I think that should be Short's priority, rather than canvassing the opinion of GMs.

[Eoin Devane]

Particularly given that 90% of the electorate will not be aware of it.

The lack of an election address will also be seen in a negative light...

Surely submitting an election address would enable him to make the above points to a greater proportion of the electorate.

[Ben Purton]

Say England and Scotland were to merge as countries. EngScot say?

This would have to be put to a national referendum.

I guess many chess players don't get that.

[Ben Purton]

Sorry both nations would have to vote

[Alex Holowczak]

Say England and Scotland were to merge as countries. EngScot say?

This would have to be put to a national referendum.

I guess many chess players don't get that.

That point elsewhere on here. This is why I would rather have Short as delegate, because I don't think his policy towards a united team has any chance of coming to fruition, and he'll be much more vocal towards some of FIDE's nuttier decisions.

[Ben Purton]

Id rather vote for Gerry Walsh

[Nigel Short]

For the sake of clarity: if elected ECF Delegate to FIDE, I have no intention of pushing for a United Kingdom chess federation. Although the current anomalous situation is neither justified on logical or historical grounds (Scotland's first application to join FIDE in 1928 was vetoed unanimously) there are far more important battles to be fought than this one.

[Peter Rhodes]

Nigel,

when you address the council to urge them to vote for you, I hope you will use the phrase "NO REWARD FOR FAILURE" regarding your competitors

I think that phrase pushes the message home quite nicely.

[Laurie Roberts]

And returning to the subject of this thread ...

Nigel has asked me to publish this message:

You are very welcome to mention that I am currently soliciting the support of England's GMs (I only started yesterday). So far, I can state that the following have agreed to publicly back me:
1, Michael Adams
2.Stuart Conquest
3.John Emms
4.Glenn Flear
5.Stephen Gordon
6.David Howell
7.Gawain Jones
8.Raymond Keene
9.Jon Levitt
10.David Norwood
11.Dr. John Nunn
12.Jonathan Parker
13.James Plaskett
14.Michael Stean
15.William Watson
16.Peter Wells
17.Simon Williams

Incidentally that is 16 out of the first 17 replies I have received (Nigel Davies has abstained, but assured me he definitely would not be supporting Gerry Walsh). I am expecting to supplement this list over today and tomorrow. If one considers that FIDE decisions primarily concern those who play international chess and professional chessplayers in particular, it shows either a great trust in myself or a resounding lack of confidence in the incumbent. One might rhetorically ask what motions the ECF Delegate has tabled before the FIDE General Assembly during his entire period in office? Where was his murmur of protest when FIDE adversely changed the rules of the World Cup mid-cycle which led to the withdrawal of the one English participant, Michael Adams? What words has our Delegate ever uttered to protest against such abominations of inanely time-controls and two rounds a day?

It occurs to me (JEU) that the post of FIDE Delegate should be elected by those whose livelihoods are affected by FIDE and the ECU.

I really don't see that the bulk of the voters at council (who might be more interest in adjournments, adjudications and game fees) should influence this choice. Maybe I am being controversial...?

I agree that this post affects Professional (or internationally active) players so it is their views that really count. It would be nice if future elections for this post were undertaken by only those ECF players with a FIDE rating. Now, I realise we're a federation and can't have One Member One vote and all that (without fundamental upheaval). But there could be a vote of the FIDE players in an on-line poll and then each delegate with a vote would be morally obliged to vote for that person or explain why they hadn't?

[Roger de Coverly]

It would be nice if future elections for this post were undertaken by only those ECF players with a FIDE rating.

FIDE rules are adopted by the ECF (in preference to writing its own national set of rules). Therefore what FIDE decides is to an extent forced on the ECF. Why else do you think you write the move down after playing it? The rule was changed in 2004 by FIDE.

My contention is that it's not just the internationally rated players who are affected by FIDE decisions. I'd like to say that the current delegate consults and reports widely - but I can't. Does he ever tell Council anything or ask for their opinions?