If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
It seems to me that no one can answer me satisfactorily why it is an acceptable outcome and not an abuse of power and position to have Salov boycotted out of chess and then to celebrate publicly this outcome. I don't know much about Salov beyond what I have been told of the situation and what I have read after several internet searches to confirm what I was told privately.
Vlad, I didn't hear a story about Salov, but after reading you posting, I've decided to do some search on the Internet. It seems that probably the guy got some mental issues, started blaming Jews, masons and Kasparov (as their representative) in all his troubles as well as in many other crimes. There is a lot of information about this on Russian websites and also in Salov's magazine "Shahmatnyj Satyricon". It's not clear why he really stopped playing chess, but it doesn't surprise me if many organizers didn't want him at their tournaments. Unfortunately, there is very limited information on English websites, but I've found a couple of interesting links: Players who have retired and a comment at Chess Ninja
We also need to be concerned with consequences if we vote against Kirsan and he loses. I have heard a great deal about why we should vote against Kirsan but relatively little on the subject of why we should vote for Garry. Its not too late to start. Dispel these creeping doubts which are fueled by the tactics of the GK supporters. There is a certain petulance being exhibited which I am trying hard not to charge to the GK campaign.
Why in this entire discussion has no one raised the possibility of an abstention of Canada's vote? If both candidates are distasteful, abstention is the means of getting that message across. Does abstention carry some penalty from FIDE, such as loss of zone status or something similar?
Vlad, you say you have 'heard a great deal' about why we should vote against Kirsan. You have also put forth your own reasons for voting against Gary. Can these two factors not be reconciled by an abstention?
In any democratic system, eligible voters are urged to be sure and exercise their right, which is translated as actually casting a vote for a running candidate (assuming there is no possibility of a write-in candidate). But the right to vote, inadequate as it may be, does include a third option: to register as a voter and then not to vote.
If FIDE actually discourages that third option with some sort of penalty, I would call that an anti-democratic system. The right to abstain from voting is as important as the right to vote. The United Nations recognizes this and allows abstention and reports abstentions. Abstaining shows disapproval with all options presented, and often there is very good reason to express such disapproval. According to everything you've written here, Vlad, abstention appears to be the only action you could actually live with. Not very often, but sometimes a large enough block of abstentions can cause a nulling of the election and / or a revising of the options presented for a future election.
Vlad, I think your heavy-handed approach with Sid, publicly declaring he is someone used to getting his own way (without any backing evidence provided) was a mistake and I think you should apologize for it. Even if Sid does in so many words say that he won't sponsor Canadian chess unless Gary is voted for / endorsed, you must recognize that he has the perogative as a sponsor to make such statements. It is his money. He is not 'commanding' you.
Here in the U.S., major corporations or wealthy individuals put their money into only one political party or the other and no one questions their perogative to do this. It is one of the weaknesses of democracy that votes can be and often are bought, but it is one of the tenets of such free societies that people can do with their money what they want within the bounds of legality and morality.
If Sid had said something like (and this is totally hypothetical, I am not representing Sid would ever think of doing this) he would drop sponsorship if Canada ever votes for a non-Caucasian candidate, that's a different matter because of the obvious racism. But here, he is just expressing his desire to see a particular candidate elected. He considers this candidate good enough for chess that he (Sid) would sponsor chess in Canada again if that candidate won. Even if other sponsors feel otherwise, we shouldn't alienate Sid by declaring that he's treating us like a trained dog. He is expressing an opinion that the chess community is free to ignore, but considering that he is a rare person who puts money into such a poor ROI enterprise as Canadian chess, we should afford his opinion a good degree of reflection if not respect.
So Vlad: consider a voting abstention as something you can morally live with, and consider apologizing for unnecessarily mischaracterizing a key figure in the Canadian chess sponsorship community. Nigel Hanrahan's claims to the contrary, Sid did not offend you. He used the term 'unprincipled' to characterize the behaviour of the Executive as a whole if they vote based on threat of recrimination.
Your reply to Nigel was very appropriate (basically telling him to butt out) and kudos for that. Nigel, as he always does, points the accusing finger of 'personal insult' only at those who disagree with Nigel's own views (something I find very psychologically unsettling about Nigel).
You could also better respond to Ken Craft when he mentions the 'appearance' of conflict of interest. The integrity of Hal Bond isn't in question for you and others who know him, but you can't simply state that and expect that to be good enough. As you've pointed out, legally you are ok, but in a variation of the parable you quote, is any frog going to give a ride to the thing-that-appears-to-be-a-scorpion just because the lion who lays down the law says the thing is harmless? In this case, the frogs are any members of the Canadian chess sponsorship community who might think despite legalities that there is an APPEARANCE of conflict of interest. And those frogs may not give a ride to Canadian chess.
I also saw you mention this in another post in this thread: "I see GK supporters overthrowing federations and their leadership, ignoring the rules and where necessary rewriting the rules or attempting to rewrite the rules." You didn't substantiate this with any links or other corroborating evidence. Even though people can Google, it's still considered bad practise in any debate to make unsubstantiated claims. I'm sure you've learned this from the climate change debates, but still, here it is, a very major unsubstantiated claim. This makes you look weak and desperate. If someone does Google and can't find out what you're talking about, your whole credibility is undermined.
All CFC members reading this post should consider that your elected President who says he is guided by what is best for the CFC and chess in Canada has just unnecessarily turned away a highly prized sponsor from any future sponsorship of chess in Canada, by treating that sponsor with almost total disdain. And why? Because that sponsor expressed an opinion as to who would be best to lead FIDE that doesn't agree with your President's opinion. Your President misconstrued the expression of that opinion as coercion, in fact he termed it a 'command' to fall in line. Horribly bad judgment, and if you believe there was coercion, you deserve the loss of future sponsorship you just got.
Sid, if you are reading this and you have an interest in investing in a new way to play chess that can bypass FIDE altogether, create something totally new in chess and offer you real ROI potential (actual $$, not goodwill) at minimal risk, you should PM me. I have a business plan you may be very interested in.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Why in this entire discussion has no one raised the possibility of an abstention of Canada's vote? If both candidates are distasteful, abstention is the means of getting that message across. Does abstention carry some penalty from FIDE, such as loss of zone status or something similar?
Vlad, you say you have 'heard a great deal' about why we should vote against Kirsan. You have also put forth your own reasons for voting against Gary. Can these two factors not be reconciled by an abstention?
In any democratic system, eligible voters are urged to be sure and exercise their right, which is translated as actually casting a vote for a running candidate (assuming there is no possibility of a write-in candidate). But the right to vote, inadequate as it may be, does include a third option: to register as a voter and then not to vote.
If FIDE actually discourages that third option with some sort of penalty, I would call that an anti-democratic system. The right to abstain from voting is as important as the right to vote. The United Nations recognizes this and allows abstention and reports abstentions. Abstaining shows disapproval with all options presented, and often there is very good reason to express such disapproval. According to everything you've written here, Vlad, abstention appears to be the only action you could actually live with. Not very often, but sometimes a large enough block of abstentions can cause a nulling of the election and / or a revising of the options presented for a future election.
Vlad, I think your heavy-handed approach with Sid, publicly declaring he is someone used to getting his own way (without any backing evidence provided) was a mistake and I think you should apologize for it. Even if Sid does in so many words say that he won't sponsor Canadian chess unless Gary is voted for / endorsed, you must recognize that he has the perogative as a sponsor to make such statements. It is his money. He is not 'commanding' you.
Here in the U.S., major corporations or wealthy individuals put their money into only one political party or the other and no one questions their perogative to do this. It is one of the weaknesses of democracy that votes can be and often are bought, but it is one of the tenets of such free societies that people can do with their money what they want within the bounds of legality and morality.
If Sid had said something like (and this is totally hypothetical, I am not representing Sid would ever think of doing this) he would drop sponsorship if Canada ever votes for a non-Caucasian candidate, that's a different matter because of the obvious racism. But here, he is just expressing his desire to see a particular candidate elected. He considers this candidate good enough for chess that he (Sid) would sponsor chess in Canada again if that candidate won. Even if other sponsors feel otherwise, we shouldn't alienate Sid by declaring that he's treating us like a trained dog. He is expressing an opinion that the chess community is free to ignore, but considering that he is a rare person who puts money into such a poor ROI enterprise as Canadian chess, we should afford his opinion a good degree of reflection if not respect.
So Vlad: consider a voting abstention as something you can morally live with, and consider apologizing for unnecessarily mischaracterizing a key figure in the Canadian chess sponsorship community. Nigel Hanrahan's claims to the contrary, Sid did not offend you. He used the term 'unprincipled' to characterize the behaviour of the Executive as a whole if they vote based on threat of recrimination.
Your reply to Nigel was very appropriate (basically telling him to butt out) and kudos for that. Nigel, as he always does, points the accusing finger of 'personal insult' only at those who disagree with Nigel's own views (something I find very psychologically unsettling about Nigel).
You could also better respond to Ken Craft when he mentions the 'appearance' of conflict of interest. The integrity of Hal Bond isn't in question for you and others who know him, but you can't simply state that and expect that to be good enough. As you've pointed out, legally you are ok, but in a variation of the parable you quote, is any frog going to give a ride to the thing-that-appears-to-be-a-scorpion just because the lion who lays down the law says the thing is harmless? In this case, the frogs are any members of the Canadian chess sponsorship community who might think despite legalities that there is an APPEARANCE of conflict of interest. And those frogs may not give a ride to Canadian chess.
I also saw you mention this in another post in this thread: "I see GK supporters overthrowing federations and their leadership, ignoring the rules and where necessary rewriting the rules or attempting to rewrite the rules." You didn't substantiate this with any links or other corroborating evidence. Even though people can Google, it's still considered bad practise in any debate to make unsubstantiated claims. I'm sure you've learned this from the climate change debates, but still, here it is, a very major unsubstantiated claim. This makes you look weak and desperate. If someone does Google and can't find out what you're talking about, your whole credibility is undermined.
All CFC members reading this post should consider that your elected President who says he is guided by what is best for the CFC and chess in Canada has just unnecessarily turned away a highly prized sponsor from any future sponsorship of chess in Canada, by treating that sponsor with almost total disdain. And why? Because that sponsor expressed an opinion as to who would be best to lead FIDE that doesn't agree with your President's opinion. Your President misconstrued the expression of that opinion as coercion, in fact he termed it a 'command' to fall in line. Horribly bad judgment, and if you believe there was coercion, you deserve the loss of future sponsorship you just got.
Sid, if you are reading this and you have an interest in investing in a new way to play chess that can bypass FIDE altogether, create something totally new in chess and offer you real ROI potential (actual $$, not goodwill) at minimal risk, you should PM me. I have a business plan you may be very interested in.
“If there’s one thing I’ve learned in politics, it is: never make a decision until you have to.” (Margaret Thatcher)
To influence and justify my potential endorsement? I don't need to influence, nor justify my potential endorsement. I know what the sentiment on the executive is and was and I know what my initial vote in the straw poll was. I did not feel strongly enough about my initial choice to argue vociferously one way or the other. I put it at 50.5% for one candidate and 49.5% for the other with me being willing to listen and be influenced by reinforcing and alternative points of view. This poll and thread is a continuation of the consultation process and not the vote that will decide how the executive will vote in this matter. It is meant to inform me and should be considered as one of a number of steps that I have taken to help me arrive at a decision.
How do you consider this poll you started, was it one of the vital few or one of the trivial many of the number of steps you considered? I just wish that you make right, critical and informed decisions on the boardroom which was exactly the opposite when you made wrong decisions on the chessboard as evident to the steady and trending decline of your current CFC Rating.
How do you consider this poll you started, was it one of the vital few or one of the trivial many of the number of steps you considered? I just wish that you make right, critical and informed decisions on the boardroom which was exactly the opposite when you made wrong decisions on the chessboard as evident to the steady and trending decline of your current CFC Rating.
On the poll I did want to generate discussion and see what people thought and in particular what some particular people thought. On that count it was successful. Part of my job as a director and president of the CFC is to keep the governors and the Canadian chess public informed about what is going on at the CFC.
I have health problems which make it difficult to play chess at times particularly after having a class that runs late into the evening the night before or the day of tournaments which require a long drive to get to. I get issues with blood sugar both high and low. At times I forget to take my medication and this causes problems.
I don't take my rating that seriously. If I did I wouldn't participate in tournaments where I am putting my rating on the line with some of the little monster chess kids that I teach and where if I win every game I gain two points for the tournament and if I lose one game I lose thirty two points. So far I have won nine games in a row against them but I expect that I will lose at some point as have the other two adults (with similar ratings to mine) who have played more than one game with them. These days I get more joy working with kids and watching and learning about their latest triumphs. We have three kids in Windsor that have broken the 1800 USCF barrier with several more close on their heels.
I am fairly certain that after my tenure as CFC president comes to an end I will turn more attention to playing chess and can almost guarantee that my rating will return back into the 2100 to 2200 CFC range as long as I can control the health issues which I have been able to recently and can start playing some outside players beyond these monster Windsor kids.
Last edited by Vlad Drkulec; Tuesday, 13th May, 2014, 10:50 AM.
Vlad, I didn't hear a story about Salov, but after reading you posting, I've decided to do some search on the Internet. It seems that probably the guy got some mental issues, started blaming Jews, masons and Kasparov (as their representative) in all his troubles as well as in many other crimes. There is a lot of information about this on Russian websites and also in Salov's magazine "Shahmatnyj Satyricon". It's not clear why he really stopped playing chess, but it doesn't surprise me if many organizers didn't want him at their tournaments. Unfortunately, there is very limited information on English websites, but I've found a couple of interesting links: Players who have retired and a comment at Chess Ninja
Did the mental instability arise later in part as a result of the boycott? I did find hints and indications in my web search which at least confirmed what my private sources told me.
Did the mental instability arise later in part as a result of the boycott? I did find hints and indications in my web search which at least confirmed what my private sources told me.
What are your accusations of Kasparov's wrong doing regarding Salov?
Your reply to Nigel was very appropriate (basically telling him to butt out) and kudos for that. Nigel, as he always does, points the accusing finger of 'personal insult' only at those who disagree with Nigel's own views (something I find very psychologically unsettling about Nigel).
Sid Belsberg: "So as a sponsor of Canadian Chess i will put a question to you, why would I not be turned off by an executive that shows that they are unprincipled? "
That's a personal attack in my books and I told Sid so. He then provided his own explanation. What's your explanation for your personal attack? Or are you one of those people who start to shout when they are called on such personal attacks and cry, "Poor me! I'm so oppressed!" Your reply will be very instructive.
Keep up the personal attacks and I will do my job as moderator. I call them as I see them. And I also feel free to participate in the debates. Try to keep up.
Dogs will bark, but the caravan of chess moves on.
Re: Endorsemeent over Vote: FIDE Election for President
Originally posted by Paul Bonham
Here in the U.S., major corporations or wealthy individuals put their money into only one political party or the other and no one questions their perogative to do this. It is one of the weaknesses of democracy that votes can be and often are bought, but it is one of the tenets of such free societies that people can do with their money what they want within the bounds of legality and morality.
Many keen observers of US political life now openly compare that country to a plutocracy (rule by the rich) due to the horrific campaign financing rules that allow the super-rich to dictate who is likely to succeed. Google is your friend. [This is my debator "hat"]
If Sid had said something like (and this is totally hypothetical, I am not representing Sid would ever think of doing this) he would drop sponsorship if Canada ever votes for a non-Caucasian candidate, that's a different matter because of the obvious racism.
If there is any "obvious racism" on ChessTalk then bring it to my attention and I will open a can of whup ass on the offending individual. This may be just another of your clumsy expressions, but hypothetical racism associated with another person on ChessTalk isn't much better. I don't really care about all your caveats - try to stay away from such "accidents" OK? [This is my "moderator" hat.]
Maybe you should try writing out your entries to ChessTalk in longhand. That way, you can check what you've written.
Have a nice day.
Last edited by Nigel Hanrahan; Tuesday, 13th May, 2014, 01:26 PM.
Reason: hats
Dogs will bark, but the caravan of chess moves on.
Can these two factors not be reconciled by an abstention?
Possibly. The executive has not come to a decision so that may be an option.
Vlad, I think your heavy-handed approach with Sid, publicly declaring he is someone used to getting his own way (without any backing evidence provided) was a mistake and I think you should apologize for it. Even if Sid does in so many words say that he won't sponsor Canadian chess unless Gary is voted for / endorsed, you must recognize that he has the perogative as a sponsor to make such statements. It is his money. He is not 'commanding' you.
Actually he is saying that if Gary is voted for and endorsed by the CFC and Gary wins that he might support Canadian chess again. My information is that Gary is unlikely to win which is confirmed by the early returns. I am surprised that the English Chess Federation has not endorsed Gary as I understood that the coup engineered by the GK supporters was successful. In any case what I was hearing from the GK supporters was at odds with what I was hearing elsewhere and by elsewhere I don't mean KI supporters.
If the CFC wants its president to be an obsequious boot licker at the first whiff of money with multiple strings including impossible conditions attached then they really need to find someone else to fill the job. I could put that a bit more crudely but there may be kids reading.
Here in the U.S., major corporations or wealthy individuals put their money into only one political party or the other and no one questions their perogative to do this. It is one of the weaknesses of democracy that votes can be and often are bought, but it is one of the tenets of such free societies that people can do with their money what they want within the bounds of legality and morality.
If Sid had said something like (and this is totally hypothetical, I am not representing Sid would ever think of doing this) he would drop sponsorship if Canada ever votes for a non-Caucasian candidate, that's a different matter because of the obvious racism. But here, he is just expressing his desire to see a particular candidate elected. He considers this candidate good enough for chess that he (Sid) would sponsor chess in Canada again if that candidate won. Even if other sponsors feel otherwise, we shouldn't alienate Sid by declaring that he's treating us like a trained dog. He is expressing an opinion that the chess community is free to ignore, but considering that he is a rare person who puts money into such a poor ROI enterprise as Canadian chess, we should afford his opinion a good degree of reflection if not respect.
So Vlad: consider a voting abstention as something you can morally live with, and consider apologizing for unnecessarily mischaracterizing a key figure in the Canadian chess sponsorship community. Nigel Hanrahan's claims to the contrary, Sid did not offend you. He used the term 'unprincipled' to characterize the behaviour of the Executive as a whole if they vote based on threat of recrimination.
Actually Nigel, like most objective readers did get it right. Its just that I don't need to hide behind a moderator. I can defend myself. At least I can defend myself if I am allowed to be brutally honest. If some can't handle the truth as I see it then don't read what I have to say. I am not a perfect person. I make mistakes. I get angry when people get trampled on and as CFC president I am entitled some respect particularly when someone is demanding that I do something which I have not been persuaded is in the best interest of Canadian chess. I can be persuaded by logic but I am always going to be aware of actions which speak louder than words.
Your reply to Nigel was very appropriate (basically telling him to butt out) and kudos for that.
I hope it was more along the lines of thanks for offering to protect my back but I can handle it though sometimes I reply when I am tired. I tend to be less diplomatic at those times.
Nigel, as he always does, points the accusing finger of 'personal insult' only at those who disagree with Nigel's own views (something I find very psychologically unsettling about Nigel).
Nigel is okay. We disagree on some issues. Agree on others. I get the gift of insult often, especially on ChessTalk and other forums. Like any gift you don't have to accept it. If someone is insulting often I usually will not respond to them unless they raise some issue which needs to be addressed. We need opposition but reasoned opposition to help us keep from sticking to the stubborn defense of untenable positions and ideas.
You could also better respond to Ken Craft when he mentions the 'appearance' of conflict of interest. The integrity of Hal Bond isn't in question for you and others who know him, but you can't simply state that and expect that to be good enough.
I will respond better to Ken but probably on the private governors forum. Part of the duty of being a director and president is that I am not supposed to discuss certain confidential matters in public. Under current CFC, FIDE and Canadian laws we do not have a problem though I will have to examine all of the ramifications carefully to make sure of my position.
I also saw you mention this in another post in this thread: "I see GK supporters overthrowing federations and their leadership, ignoring the rules and where necessary rewriting the rules or attempting to rewrite the rules." You didn't substantiate this with any links or other corroborating evidence. Even though people can Google, it's still considered bad practise in any debate to make unsubstantiated claims.
I don't need to google when I have personal experience. If I had cooperated with what was attempted we would be voting for and endorsing GK. I have little doubt on that.
I'm sure you've learned this from the climate change debates, but still, here it is, a very major unsubstantiated claim.
Everything will come out in the fullness of time.
This makes you look weak and desperate. If someone does Google and can't find out what you're talking about, your whole credibility is undermined.
With them I will lose credibility for a while until the full realization hits them. The truth comes out eventually at least for those who pursue it. For those who don't I am content to let them continue to sleep. I have pretty much predicted the course of this whole Canadian branch of the campaign right down to picking who will do what a month or so before they did and where the challenges will come from. The plot twists are quite predictable.
All CFC members reading this post should consider that your elected President who says he is guided by what is best for the CFC and chess in Canada has just unnecessarily turned away a highly prized sponsor from any future sponsorship of chess in Canada, by treating that sponsor with almost total disdain. And why? Because that sponsor expressed an opinion as to who would be best to lead FIDE that doesn't agree with your President's opinion.
I don't subscribe to your version of the events. I have tried to be kind but perhaps have not been kind enough. I assign a value to my time and the opportunity cost of being CFC president both in terms of the money I could earn if I wasn't so occupied and the time and energy I could be pouring into Windsor children's chess if this didn't absorb so much of my time. I am fairly certain that my shepherding of the NFP file saved the CFC quite a bit of money. We are not in a position where we have to bend over just because someone might at some point sponsor something if we do what he says and if that results in an extraneous outcome which we have little control over and has little likelihood of occurring.
The CFC is not served by having a pushover as president. Sid has his personal interests. We have our interests. I have to look after our interests and not his and not Garry Kasparov's. I like many elements of his campaign. I like many of the people who are associated with his campaign. I even like Garry Kasparov despite some of his tendencies and the behaviours of some of his supporters. That does not mean that I can act on the basis of my personal feelings if that act will be against the CFC's best interest.
Your President misconstrued the expression of that opinion as coercion, in fact he termed it a 'command' to fall in line. Horribly bad judgment, and if you believe there was coercion, you deserve the loss of future sponsorship you just got.
The net present value of the offered sponsorship was less than the opportunity cost associated with it.
Sid, if you are reading this and you have an interest in investing in a new way to play chess that can bypass FIDE altogether, create something totally new in chess and offer you real ROI potential (actual $$, not goodwill) at minimal risk, you should PM me. I have a business plan you may be very interested in.
Last edited by Vlad Drkulec; Tuesday, 13th May, 2014, 03:11 PM.
What are your accusations of Kasparov's wrong doing regarding Salov?
Ask one of your Russian chess friends or do a careful google search. It seems to be common knowledge. I am not making accusations. I am not even asking for explanations, just assurances that such things wouldn't happen again. So far I don't even have that.
Last edited by Vlad Drkulec; Tuesday, 13th May, 2014, 02:45 PM.
Re: Endorsemeent over Vote: FIDE Election for President
I did a Google search. I found Spragett's blog from 2010, and another blog, both citing rumors that Kasparov (among others) was telling organizers not to invite him to tournaments. I note that these same blogs also note that Salov appears to show mental issues, was attacking several persons and organizations, and that the rumors are unsubstianted.
I'm beginning to consider changing my vote from either to "none of the above". Abstention looks better every day.
Tweet
Comment