Which Candidate Should the ECF Support in the FIDE Presidential Election?

[Roger Lancaster]

This forum is at its worst when contributors are making allegations and counter-allegations against one another. Frankly, that's all small beer in the context of machinations at FIDE. I'm probably not in a complete minority in feeling that, while neither Kirsan nor Macro have track records at FIDE of which any self-respecting person would be at all proud, Nigel hasn't actually demonstrated what qualities he has to suggest that he's the man to put things right. Of course, he may do this in the remaining months. Meantime, despite entreaties in The Times, I can't see any compelling reason for the ECF to support anyone.

[NickFaulks]

Meantime, despite entreaties in The Times, I can't see any compelling reason for the ECF to support anyone.

Even when one of its own directors has stated publicly that he endorses the establishment candidate and expects to play a central role in the new administration? A decision by the ECF Board to deny him support would look rather pointed.

[Matt Mackenzie]

I agree with Justin to some extent. But I don't really see an equivalency between Short's misdeeds and those of Kirsan.

I'm not really sure about Makro. My inclination is to think the worst of him, given his long association with Kirsan. He certainly seems to have been accused of a lot, notably by Danailov. BUt I don't kno how much of it is fair and/ or proven.

Who is, of course, pure as the driven snow himself

[Matthew Turner]

Kirsan has encouraged chess in smaller, non-traditional chess playing countries for his own political ambitions. However, that is a perfectly noble aim in itself. Nigel has played in a huge number of countries and generally taken the game to a worldwide audience. I am sure that he has his own selfish reasons for doing that too. However, I think it is perfectly sensible to support Nigel to continue the general theme of FIDE policy but without the baggage that comes with Kirsan.

[Roger de Coverly]

A decision by the ECF Board to deny him support would look rather pointed.

Surprisingly enough, the ECF doesn't exist to fulfil the self appointed ambitions of M Pein.

The ECF Board are exposed whichever way they go as support for Nigel would incur the ire of ejh and those who think the same way. I'd guess the popular vote would be in favour of Nigel and against the FIDE establishment and those who would climb into bed with it.

[NickFaulks]

Surprisingly enough, the ECF doesn't exist to fulfil the self appointed ambitions of M Pein.

It is a lot easier to agree on what it doesn't exist for than on what it does exist for!

[Brian Towers]

Nigel hasn't actually demonstrated what qualities he has to suggest that he's the man to put things right.

I disagree, although I think your bar is rather low. The mere fact that he is taking a prominent lead in trying to uncover the trail of FIDE's funds plus a general mushy western belief in democracy suggest that he does have some qualities required to put things right. Full disclosure: I voted, albeit tongue-in-cheek, for Nigel in the above poll.

The one serious telling point against Nigel, which nobody seems to have pointed out, is that he is a bit of a dilettante in the world of chess administration. The one time he had a go, as ECF FIDE rep, his next Olympiad coincided, as they do, with FIDE meetings and he found that the admin ruined his chess and promptly gave up the admin.

I think it is less a question of whether he would give up playing to be an administrator as whether he could do so. For most of his life chess has been most of his life. I suspect he is an addict, hooked, and would find it impossible to break the habit.

[Angus French]

... the current FIDE Administration supported the re-election of Kirsan in 2012 and the two previous elections.

Wasn't Dr. Siegel (at least) new in 2014 (2014 rather than 2012)?

[NickFaulks]

Wasn't Dr. Siegel (at least) new in 2014 (2014 rather than 2012)?

Yes, it was 2014 in Tromso. It will be interesting to see whether he remains on the establishment ticket for the 2018 election - the current nonsense is not at all what he signed up for.

[Roger de Coverly]

Wasn't Dr. Siegel (at least) new in 2014 (2014 rather than 2012)?

There had been two previous elections and two previous non-elections, so he should have been well aware what he was signing up to be part of.

[Angus French]

Wasn't Dr. Siegel (at least) new in 2014 (2014 rather than 2012)?

There had been two previous elections and two previous non-elections, so he should have been well aware what he was signing up to be part of.

Well, he wasn't part of a previously-supporting administration as stated.

The first time Dr. Siegel came to my attention was when I read his Treasurer's report to the 2016 FIDE Congress. Later, he was interviewed by Peter Doggers. He didn't come across to me as an establishment person but rather as someone diligently doing his job. For example:

"Agon had informed the FIDE Presidential Board that the Berlin tournament did not generate enough revenue, and so they asked not to pay the $80,000," FIDE Treasurer Adrian Siegel told Chess.com. "Of course I did not agree. We need the money." But the Presidential Board went their own way and agreed with Agon.

and also:

[on unbudgeted travel costs for delegates from South Korea] Siegel said: "Kirsan [Ilyumzhinov, the FIDE President - PD] wanted to invite them hoping that they would be interested in organizing a big event. I said more than once that we didn't have the money to pay their travel costs." But Siegel got overruled.

[David Robertson]

Overruled. Overruled. By pluckily he stuck in there. Ah yes, such integrity. Such dedication to financial probity that he stuck it out. A real FIDE trooper! Frankly, an empty crisp packet could do a better job as Treasurer

[Roger Lancaster]

Nigel hasn't actually demonstrated what qualities he has to suggest that he's the man to put things right.

I disagree, although I think your bar is rather low. The mere fact that he is taking a prominent lead in trying to uncover the trail of FIDE's funds plus a general mushy western belief in democracy suggest that he does have some qualities required to put things right. Full disclosure: I voted, albeit tongue-in-cheek, for Nigel in the above poll.

The one serious telling point against Nigel, which nobody seems to have pointed out, is that he is a bit of a dilettante in the world of chess administration. The one time he had a go, as ECF FIDE rep, his next Olympiad coincided, as they do, with FIDE meetings and he found that the admin ruined his chess and promptly gave up the admin.

I think it is less a question of whether he would give up playing to be an administrator as whether he could do so. For most of his life chess has been most of his life. I suspect he is an addict, hooked, and would find it impossible to break the habit.

I'm not flatly stating that Nigel doesn't possess the qualities "to clean up FIDE" but simply that, as far as I'm aware, he hasn't yet demonstrated them. The fact that someone can criticise, even cogently criticise, how a task is being performed doesn't mean that he or she could perform the task better. Nor, of course, does it mean the opposite - it's a fairly neutral attribute. But can anyone point to any major achievement -- better still, achievements -- which positively suggest that Nigel would have the know-how to reform an organisation such as FIDE?

[Matt Mackenzie]

Kind of thought that was the point of the blogs.

Justin is a Nigel hater

He may well be, but I haven't seen many coming forward on here to show that the things he has recently written are *untrue*.

[Carl Hibbard]

Kind of thought that was the point of the blogs.

Justin is a Nigel hater

He may well be, but I haven't seen many coming forward on here to show that the things he has recently written are *untrue*.

Correct and I don’t agree with the smear campaign comments but I will review the complaints tomorrow now.