Repercussions / Fallout from FIDE Elections?

[Kevin Thurlow]

"Justin, the pertinent question is whether Arkady works for Vladimir."

No it isn't - it is the question you were asked. Do you still claim you are independent of all the candidates?

This reminds me of when Paxman asked Michael Howard a question, who replied, "That's not the question" Er, yes it is.

[Roger de Coverly]

but it would seem to suggest that England would not be the victim of any "mean-spirited vindictiveness".

It has been in the past, the English arbiters vetoed from invitations to the Istanbul Olympiad of 2012 being a case in point. The perpetrator of that was present in Batumi, as a Makro supporter. For that matter he banned one of the English Ladies team from competing in Turkish events because of criticisms made of the organisation of a championship event.

[David Robertson]

Nigel said "In this administration 'gens una sumus' only applies to those who voted for the administration. Everyone else gets shafted. This mean-spirited vindictiveness has to stop". England did not vote for the new administration, but it would seem to suggest that England would not be the victim of any "mean-spirited vindictiveness"

Let's hope Dvorkovich and Short display a grace and magnanimity in victory, eschewing "mean-spirited vindictiveness" towards the ECF, while patiently noting the churlishness of the Board, and the defamatory comments directed at them from supporters of the defeated.

[JustinHorton]

"Justin, the pertinent question is whether Arkady works for Vladimir."

No it isn't

Well, it is a pertinent question, even if it is John who is asking it.

This reminds me of when Paxman asked Michael Howard a question, who replied, "That's not the question" Er, yes it is.

A much over-rated interview that, in which Paxman elicited no more information in asking a question eighteen times than he would have with one-sixth of that number. It was all about his ego.

Let's hope Dvorkovich and Short display a grace and magnanimity in victory

In the latter's case at least this would require an abrupt alteration in personality rare in men in their fifties.

[JustinHorton]

Kingpin

[David Robertson]

an abrupt alteration in personality rare in men in their fifties

So we get no respite from your 'personality' either. Must be something to do with 1965

[John Foley]

Do you still claim you are independent of all the candidates?

I won't repeat myself.

[J T Melsom]

Of course John isn't independent of all the candidates. We've all read the thread, and can see the questions he raises and those he studiously avoids. Its just that he has a different understanding of independent to the majority of participants on the thread.

[John Foley]

JT if you do not believe me, I cannot help you further. On any definition of "independence" there should be no beneficial connection between the parties. Hence proving independence is equivalent to proving a negative - a fruitless exercise. To move the discussion forwards, why don't you tell us why you favour Arkady Dvorkovic?

[Roger de Coverly]

On any definition of "independence" there should be no beneficial connection between the parties.

By any definition, Jon Melsom is independent of Malcolm Pein. That is unless he's been moonlighting as a CSC tutor. Someone who runs conferences for Malcolm and in the past has been a named official of CSC doesn't have the same degree of independence.

To use an expression from over thirty years ago, is Dvorkovic "a man you can do business with"?

[NickFaulks]

To use an expression from over thirty years ago, is Dvorkovic "a man you can do business with"?

Pending further evidence, that is my view.

[JustinHorton]

On any definition of "independence" there should be no beneficial connection between the parties.

By any definition, Jon Melsom is independent of Malcolm Pein. That is unless he's been moonlighting as a CSC tutor. Someone who runs conferences for Malcolm and in the past has been a named official of CSC doesn't have the same degree of independence.

This is of course right, but not for the first time I fond myself wondering why it has taken so long for people to notice that Malcolm has cronies, that too many people in ECF positions are beholden to him and so on.

It's like the Englush chess community sees nothing until somebody takes the wrong side in FIDE politics and then suddenly everybody can see them clearly, like putting on the sunglasses in They Live.

Is Dvorkovic "a man you can do business with"?

He might or might not be, but what is not plausible is that he was sent into FIDE to clean it up, which we can say on plenty of evidence already available to us.

[NickFaulks]

Is Dvorkovic "a man you can do business with"?

He might or might not be, but what is not plausible is that he was sent into FIDE to clean it up

Perhaps you're right, but a cleaner FIDE may still be a side effect of his plans. For instance, one of his very first acts was to announce that the proxy system has come to an end. Furthermore, he has said quite explicitly that starting now the Statutes will be respected, a concept with which Makro has never been on speaking terms.

[J T Melsom]

john

I am not supporting any candidate and if you read the thread that would be obvious. I was hoping that somewhere amidst the equivocation and condescension you might explain why your favoured candidate was a good choice. Nobody is perfect but however dark an image of Arkady you choose to paint, I don't see moral rectitude in the alternatives.

[Roger de Coverly]

I am not supporting any candidate and if you read the thread that would be obvious.

Not that anyone's really noticed, but the position of England's FIDE delegate is up for re-election. There is only one named candidate.