Post
by Nigel Short » Sun Dec 21, 2008 1:43 pm
I will confine myself to a few observations in reply to Paul McKeown:
a) "Nigel Short does rather wrap himself in red, white and blue, doesn't he? I recall, for instance, his recent drivel on Chessbase about Scotland, Wales, (Norn) Ireland, Jersey, Guernsey, etc."
I expressed the desire to play for the country of which I am (and presumably you are) a citizen. Is there something inherently unreasonable about this? Why, exactly, should this be "drivel"?
b) "Gerry Walsh may or may not be a "useless tub of lard", but he should still be left in his dignity. He has done many good things for chess in England, perhaps his light now shines less brightly than it once did- that is for the ECF AGM (or GW himself) to decide. I recall, for instance, that GW was the prime mover in the Teeside 1972 tournament, which was certainly thr strongest in England since the Staunton Memorial 1951 or perhaps even since Nottingham 1936."
I give full credit to Gerry Walsh for his pivotal role in the 1972 Teeside tournament. Perhaps it is not insignificant, however, that this event took place as many as 36 years ago. As can be seen from the correspondence in the Atticus forum, The President of the ECF only responded to an e-mail, addressed directly to him from the most senior member of the England chess team, and of legitimate interest to all English chess players, after a delay of several days and being prompted to do so by Stewart Reuben. His reply - in essence, "none of my business" is grossly irresponsible , but unfortunately very typical.
c)"Stewart Reuben's responses to NS seem to be temperate, well thought out and reasonable. They certainly indicate that the problem which exists is not easily legislated against and cannot be dealt with as simplistically as NS would like to paint it."
The implication is, of course, that the words of NS are intemperate, ill thought out and unreasonable. I am very well aware that FIDE regulations cannot be changed at the drop of a hat. However the ECF delegate, who holds a position analogous to that of an MP, can put forward legislation. David Anderton did so very effectively when he was our representative. There is no indication that Gerry Walsh has ever even thought about any of the issues that affect international chess, let alone done anything about them (please name a single proposal of his) during his long tenure as ECF Delegate. For example, how did he vote on the proposed changes to the FIDE Grand Prix from which our leading player, Michael Adams, has now withdrawn, in disgust? How did Gerry Walsh vote on the changes to the time control which has rendered the civilised tempo of the EU Championship in Liverpool and the Gibraltar tournaments illegal? Did he make a speech in defence of our practices? Do we have a clue? Well, we don't know, because Gerry Walsh doesn't answer to anyone.
Furthermore, the instransigence or corruptness of FIDE is no excuse. The ECF is quite capable of introducing its own regulations for eligilibility for the English team.
d) "Short and Adams might have a better moral case with regard to the British, if they actually bothered to turn out rather more regularly than they do."
Just like Luke McShane and Matthew Sadler, who have made their decisions to work elsewhere, for Goldman Sachs and Hewlitt Packard respectively, primarily on economic grounds, Michael Adams and myself have done the same with the British Championship. We judge (rightly or wrongly) that it is usually not worth our while, which is why I have only appeared at event once in the last 20 years. I would suggest that the repeated failure to attract England's leading players to the national championship is a damning indictment of the state of British chess. Perhaps you would rather have me abandon chess become a lawyer, like my brother? I will leave others to judge whether that would be in the interests of the game in this country.
...
g) "SR rightly points out that the ECF does try hard to make sensible selections based on nationality, residence and FIDE affiliation and furthermore points out that Ingrid Lauterbach's personal situation is best known to her and is, for the rest, uninformed (and perhaps erroneous) speculation." I believe that I already mentioned that Ingrid lauterbach informed me herself that she has not lived in the UK for the last 7 years. There was no speculation involved.
Last edited by Nigel Short on Mon Dec 22, 2008 11:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
