CFC Presidency

[Paul Bonham]

Re: CFC Presidency

I'm the vanguard of the "old boys' network?? Boy are you out to lunch.

What I have disrespect for... ...are arguments made via innuendo or outrageous unsupported claims. I also don't like ad hominem arguments or arguments that amount to little more than "shouting" or "bullying". I also don't care for long-winded statements where it becomes very difficult to tell exactly what the poster is arguing for or against, and where it mostly seems to be irrelevant.

Well, first we have this from
http://www.chesstalk.info/forum/show...1895#post81895

"In any event, I'm not currently a voting member, although I'm darn inspired to return just to be able to "legitimately" shout people down. After all, freedom of speech is a right. Which must be controlled...." (emphasis mine)

Given that you want to limit free speech and shout people down, it's no surprise that you would support Drkulec... who supports KI... who supports Putin.

In my 5 years on this site, I haven't seen you once post anything constructive. With you, I notice you only speak up to defend the status quo against anyone who's cutting too close to the bone (which you call "bullying" as if you are the supreme authority on such matters). Yeah, it's all about shouting people down and limiting their freedom of speech. You're welcome to come to the USA and see how far that idea gets you.

("disrespect" is a noun, not a verb)

Ahem...

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disrespect
Merriam-Webster
to say or do something that shows a lack of respect for (someone or something). Full Definition of DISRESPECT. transitive verb. 1. : to have disrespect for.

Doh! No wonder you can't understand long-winded arguments. You know, Steve, if you can't fathom the language, maybe you should just keep your ideas of what's irrelevant to yourself. The rest of us have vital points to make. What YOU call bullying is of no consequence to us.

[Michael Yip]

Re: CFC Presidency

I would some cheap doable goals
-update the links part of the website
-redistribute some of the content between the CFC mag and site so there is something interesting to read once in a while.

That should take 10mins or a year :)

Maybe a program like 'Sign up a new member get yours extended 6 months(or a year?)'. I don't believe in the membership model so it's not something I am interested in.

Good luck

[Sid Belzberg]

Re: CFC Presidency

If you are busy, who will do the work which is required? Names, please. What is the budget for this?

How do you intend to increase the membership to 5,000 by Sept. 2015? Will this be members who are paying the current membership costs?

Is it fair to say you have no real experience administering a chess federation?

Is it your intention to change the Canadian vote for FIDE president without agreement from the executive if you become CFC president?

Mr Ruben your questions seem to be the best so I would like to say something about this. I considered running for CFC President myself and not just to get an endorsement for my friend Gary. I have a long track record of donating generously to the CFC without expecting anything in return. I simply love chess and in my case it was a very positive life changer for me.
I decided not to run for the CFC President as I have several other commitments that I am responsible for. I have known Sasha and Nava for over 30 years and they are good and honourable people. Sasha has been involved in several interesting business ventures and is very good at getting deals done. When he called me about 10 days ago asking for advice I told him that he is very likeable but he needs someone to help him with a solid background in administration, accounting, and finance.

As he said in the announcement he is working together with Nava and I have every confidence that the administration and accounting will go smoothly with her involvement. Obviously the in coming executive will be involved in this as well as they should, as a team.

The other advice I gave Sasha was to stress that preservation of the balance sheet of the CFC is essential and that any new expenses must be accretive, that is they are covered by corporate sponsorship or new revenues. Sasha alludes to this in the last part of his announcement but the above is a bit more precise.

With the help of the Kasparov Chess foundation and myself I have every confidence that we can succeed in the goals and the programs outlined above. I plan to discuss with Sasha if he is elected ideas abut completely revamping the chess.ca website to make it a truly exciting place for young chess players to go to from all over Canada and perhaps even make chess.ca an exciting place to visit for chess players (especially young players) world wide! For example the Kasparov Chess Foundation is setting up organizations around the world. Imagine kids in classrooms being able to compete in international tournaments hosted by chess.ca. My background is in creating truly great and leading edge technology so I believe i can be of help in this area.

Gary is one of the truly great promoters of chess in the world and he lives next door to us. I am sure we can get him to help promote chess in Canada and restore excitement in this game.

An endorsement for Gary by Canada will have to be in agreement with the executive.

The CFC missed a huge opportunity recently in turning down my offer of my reinvolvement in the chess scene. I fully endorse Sasha and will pledge to help out when and where I can if he wins.

[Steve Douglas]

Re: CFC Presidency

Well, first we have this from
http://www.chesstalk.info/forum/show...1895#post81895

"In any event, I'm not currently a voting member, although I'm darn inspired to return just to be able to "legitimately" shout people down. After all, freedom of speech is a right. Which must be controlled...." (emphasis mine)

Given that you want to limit free speech and shout people down, it's no surprise that you would support Drkulec... who supports KI... who supports Putin.

You seem to be irony-impaired. I am NOT seeking to limit free speech. Both Mr. Belzberg and Mr. Starr have made statements about what should be "allowed" to be posted here. That was the context of my post. Perhaps your dictionary doesn't have a definition of "sarcasm".

Personally, I prefer a printed edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (8th edition) over various on-line sources. The word "disrespect" as a verb came into colloquial use in the past decade due to its bastardization by assorted sports personalities and purported sports "journalists", the latter of whom should know better.

Perhaps you should read the first chapter of the Rex Stout book "Gambit" (kind-of appropriate) about the proper use for a Webster dictionary.

Steve

[Steve Douglas]

Re: CFC Presidency

Congratulations, Steve, on your recent appointment as Vanguard of the Old Boys' Network. Huzzah! Huzzah! : l

Hi Peter:

Well, I do have a van. I'm a bit troubled about this. After all, some people are born Vanguards, some achieve Vanguardness, and others have Vanguardness thrust upon them. I'm going to have to contact Jean Hebert right away. I'm not sure if I can continue in the role of his "attack dog" anymore. That was another mantle which I did not seek but I hope I have carried it well.

I'll consult the "old boys network" right away.

Steve

[Gary Ruben]

Re: CFC Presidency

Mr. Belzberg, I understand you generously sponsored chess some time ago and the outcome was positive.

I don't know if a wedge issue such as the FIDE presidency will swing the CFC presidency vote. Certainly the article in the Globe and Mail wasn't flattering and I fully intend to not renew my subscription when it expires. I won't send hundreds of dollars to purchase a newspaper subscription from a company which writes such a negative article on chess.

Chess.ca could use a face lift. To make it meaningful a server would be nice and could be used as a inducement to sign up new members. People who play elsewhere might be interested in buying a membership. The problem is such a server would be expensive and like you say, the CFC balance sheet strength must be maintained. Chess club seem to be fewer and smaller. There are so many places to play chess online.

I try to deal in reality and probability. I don't think Mr. Kasparov can win the FIDE presidency and think the only purpose a CFC endorsement would make is to show solidarity with our large neighbour to the south. I'm doubtful Mr. Starr can win the CFC presidency. There are many entrenched governors (I suppose they are now called voting members) who likely tend to like the status quo.

From my point of view Vlad has done a decent job for the CFC over the past year and spent a lot of time with the organiztion continuing as a non profit. I'm of the impression he will be rewarded with a second term. Of course it's a guess.

[Sid Belzberg]

Re: CFC Presidency

[[B"Example: for the past several days, Sid Belzberg has had an offer on the table for Vlad to consider. Publicly posted here on ChessTalk. The response from Vlad on ChessTalk: absolute silence, until he just posted yesterday something about claims that FIDE supported Russia's annexation of Crimea are false, and so Vlad hasn't changed his stance. This is according to emails and tweets from FIDE officials. Well, duh! Charles Manson is probably still maintaining his innocence too!

But let's forget about FIDE and Russia for a moment, let's focus in on Sid's offer. As Kerry Liles posted, Sid was more than magnanimous in trying to set aside all the insults Vlad had sent his way and just make something work between them. Sid showed that he can be forgiving and extend an offer in the pursuit of what is best for Canadian chess. But here's the key: Sid wrote that Vlad could contact a few people, a certain Michael K and even Garry Kasparov himself, if Vlad wanted corroboration or evidence on the FIDE / Crimea claim."
[/B]

"I count seven emails from Sid yesterday. Michael K was copied on all of them and responded to one of them. I probably made a similar number of emails back to them. I also had some email exchanges with Rick Roth Director of Communications for the Canadian Foreign Affairs minister the Hon. John Baird, P.C., M.P. It is not in my job description as CFC president that I have to keep Paul Bonham informed of my correspondence on a national holiday no less".


This is true. However the only question I saw you ask Michael K was what my relation to Gary was with respect to the campaign. Michael K answered this. At no point did you communicate with him on any other topic despite the fact I offered for Michael K and Gary to put you on the line with the president of the Ukrainian Chess Federation so they could give you the evidence you sought that these claims that FIDE considers tournaments played in Crimea as under the jurisdiction of the Russian Chess Federation. Instead you parrot propaganda put out by the FIDE administration.

I did not see anything in the statements the Vice Article quoted that the Canadian Government considered that the CFC was doing anything wrong. They made it clear that the CFC is an independent organization and is free to do as it sees fit. I am puzzled why you thought it was necessary to call them to confirm this. The fact is that Canada has levelled sanctions against many Russians that are close to Putin and if anyone would have a problem it would not be the CFC but Kirsan that if that came to pass would actually create a problem for the CFC that I warned about in prior threads.


Speaking of that you have stated in earlier posts that you did not believe that Kirsan was involved with Putin on account of the fact that Putin appointed someone else as the governor of Kalmykia. I invite readers of chess talk to view this link put out by the World Affairs Journal , established in 1837. It is a bimonthly international affairs journal that argues the big ideas about US foreign policy. It unequivicolly shows that Kirsan is very closely involved with Putin and FIDES policy = Russia's policy =Putins Policy= Russian controlled Crimea. Furthermore it shows that the US govt has already added some of Kirsan's close colleagues to the sanctions list.

http://worldaffairsjournal.org/blog/...17;s-chess-war

[Sid Belzberg]

Re: CFC Presidency

Mr. Belzberg, I understand you generously sponsored chess some time ago and the outcome was positive.

I don't know if a wedge issue such as the FIDE presidency will swing the CFC presidency vote. Certainly the article in the Globe and Mail wasn't flattering and I fully intend to not renew my subscription when it expires. I won't send hundreds of dollars to purchase a newspaper subscription from a company which writes such a negative article on chess.

Chess.ca could use a face lift. To make it meaningful a server would be nice and could be used as a inducement to sign up new members. People who play elsewhere might be interested in buying a membership. The problem is such a server would be expensive and like you say, the CFC balance sheet strength must be maintained. Chess club seem to be fewer and smaller. There are so many places to play chess online.

I try to deal in reality and probability. I don't think Mr. Kasparov can win the FIDE presidency and think the only purpose a CFC endorsement would make is to show solidarity with our large neighbour to the south. I'm doubtful Mr. Starr can win the CFC presidency. There are many entrenched governors (I suppose they are now called voting members) who likely tend to like the status quo.

From my point of view Vlad has done a decent job for the CFC over the past year and spent a lot of time with the organiztion continuing as a non profit. I'm of the impression he will be rewarded with a second term. Of course it's a guess.

Mr Ruben,
I agree that Vlad has done a good job in transitioning the CFC to a NFP and appreciate that it was a non trivial undertaking. Unfortunately Vlad misunderstood my relationship with Gary and also took an email actually sent by my spouse to one of the executive members out of context. The result was an unfortunate spiralling of events that led to bad publicity in the Globe and Mail and other places. More importantly the CFC has deprived itself of great opportunity that I hope can be renewed with Sasha.

As far as the reality is concerned let me show you the real numbers backed up by actual letters of support that refute among other claims that Kirsan is winning in Africa. Gary is winning in Africa, Asia by a small margin, by a large margin in Europe , but is well behind in the Americas. The result is that the race is very close and not predictable.
Below is the link that substantiates what I am saying with actual facts and not propaganda by Kirsan.
http://kasparov2014.com/2014/07/01/e...team-kasparov/

Even if Kasparov loses the election the fact that Canada would support him would be vital in getting his help through the Kasaprov Chess Federation that the CFC so badly needs.

[Steve Douglas]

Re: CFC Presidency

I did not see anything in the statements the Vice Article quoted that the Canadian Government considered that the CFC was doing anything wrong. They made it clear that the CFC is an independent organization and is free to do as it sees fit. I am puzzled why you thought it was necessary to call them to confirm this.

Oh for pity's sake. Must you insist upon being disingenuous?

This is the relevant part of the article:

Ottawa is none too happy with the decision.

"The government's position towards the Putin regime are well known,”Rick Roth, Director of Communications for Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird, told VICE. "While this is an independent organization that can make its own determinations, we would ask the Canadian Chess Federation to consider the message this sends to those in Russia."

And you are now criticizing the CFC president for contacting Mr. Roth to ask for clarification and implying that this is some sort of over-reaction on his part because the *quoted* parts somehow don't support this contact.

Say what? An article said that Ottawa (i.e. the Canadian government) was "not happy" with the CFC's decision. So the CFC contacted the government rep quoted in the article to inquire about whether that was in fact true. Why is this somehow wrong?

Steve

[Sid Belzberg]

Re: CFC Presidency

Oh for pity's sake. Must you insist upon being disingenuous?

This is the relevant part of the article:



And you are now criticizing the CFC president for contacting Mr. Roth to ask for clarification and implying that this is some sort of over-reaction on his part because the *quoted* parts somehow don't support this contact.

Say what? An article said that Ottawa (i.e. the Canadian government) was "not happy" with the CFC's decision. So the CFC contacted the government rep quoted in the article to inquire about whether that was in fact true. Why is this somehow wrong?

Steve

Thank you for your well thought out and polite response. My main point is that it is obvious that Ottawa would not have a problem with the CFC. In case you have not noticed Canada is the most outspoken critic in the world of Putin. Kirsan happens to be very close to Putin but Vlad has consistently stated that he does not believe it in many of the threads here. Below is a link to an article that is unequivocal in showing that Kirsan and Putin are close. It is not unreasonable to assume that Ottawa would not be happy with the CFC's choice but would have absolutely no problems with the CFC itself.

http://worldaffairsjournal.org/blog/...17;s-chess-war

[Paul Bonham]

Re: CFC Presidency

...the only question I saw you ask Michael K was what my relation to Gary was with respect to the campaign. Michael K answered this. At no point did you communicate with him on any other topic despite the fact I offered for Michael K and Gary to put you on the line with the president of the Ukrainian Chess Federation so they could give you the evidence you sought that these claims that FIDE considers tournaments played in Crimea as under the jurisdiction of the Russian Chess Federation. Instead you parrot propaganda put out by the FIDE administration.

This revelation on Vlad's lack of investigation or even interest in anything the "Kasparov people" had to provide does not surprise me one bit. I already knew just by intuition that Vlad had made no efforts at communication of this nature. Vlad's personal creed is likely to be "I don't want to believe" when it comes to anything that upsets his rigid world view.

I even call into question Vlad's statements that in the early stages of the FIDE election process, he tentatively supported Kasparov. I believe Vlad would purposely make that up to have everyone think he actually made some kind of fair assessment of the candidates. As we are seeing, nothing could be further from the truth.

It looks like Vlad's own statement -- "All will be revealed in the fullness of time" -- is coming back to haunt him.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: CFC Presidency

And you are now criticizing the CFC president for contacting Mr. Roth to ask for clarification and implying that this is some sort of over-reaction on his part because the *quoted* parts somehow don't support this contact.

Say what? An article said that Ottawa (i.e. the Canadian government) was "not happy" with the CFC's decision. So the CFC contacted the government rep quoted in the article to inquire about whether that was in fact true. Why is this somehow wrong?

Steve

Its wrong because the executive gets to sleep secure in the knowledge that the Canadian government is not "not happy" with us. FUD. It seems to be the stock in trade of the Kasparov campaign. I can see why some people are scared of them. Though they should reflect that having people scared of them is not a good thing when you are dealing with a secret ballot.

I figured that if a would be talking head who can argue from the left or right or middle can talk to the government, the president of the Chess Federation of Canada can too. The government seemed very pleasant to deal with. If I lived in Ottawa we might have gone out for a beer if I drank beer.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: CFC Presidency

Thank you for your well thought out and polite response. My main point is that it is obvious that Ottawa would not have a problem with the CFC. In case you have not noticed Canada is the most outspoken critic in the world of Putin. Kirsan happens to be very close to Putin but Vlad has consistently stated that he does not believe it in many of the threads here. Below is a link to an article that is unequivocal in showing that Kirsan and Putin are close. It is not unreasonable to assume that Ottawa would not be happy with the CFC's choice but would have absolutely no problems with the CFC itself.

http://worldaffairsjournal.org/blog/...17;s-chess-war

Looks like an opinion piece to me.

[Halldor P. Palsson]

Re: CFC Presidency

The Federal Government has no interest in chess. We owe them nothing. That ship sailed when CRA went after our charity status.

Mr. Starr as a CFC Presidential candidate on a crusade to elect GK simply sucks. I do not know of whether he has ever run anything that might be called organized chess through the CFC. Nothing pops up if you enter him as a TD.

In nutshell, we used to have just under 200 folks that ran CFC rated tournaments in Canada - we are now at about 100 or so and it shows in our membership stats. We have to get more TDs and organizers. We do nothing in that department - obstacles and fees have tuned out dozens of these guys from running chess tournaments and this has to change.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: CFC Presidency

You seem to be irony-impaired. I am NOT seeking to limit free speech. Both Mr. Belzberg and Mr. Starr have made statements about what should be "allowed" to be posted here. That was the context of my post. Perhaps your dictionary doesn't have a definition of "sarcasm".

The irony is on you, because whatever Mr. Belzberg and Mr. Starr have posted about what should be allowed here, it pales in comparison to your rants about bullying, shouting, innuendo, ad hominen attacks... you have made yourself judge and jury of ChessTalk. And the worst part is, just like with Nigel Hanrahan, it's the people you disagree with that are doing all the bullying. Why is it always that way? Do you think it might be.... because the people who constantly cry "Abuse! Bullying!" don't have a leg to stand on?

Given that, it should not surprise you that your attempt at sarcasm gets interpreted as your actual position. And I still believe it IS your actual position.

Personally, I prefer a printed edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (8th edition) over various on-line sources. The word "disrespect" as a verb came into colloquial use in the past decade due to its bastardization by assorted sports personalities and purported sports "journalists", the latter of whom should know better.

Perhaps you should read the first chapter of the Rex Stout book "Gambit" (kind-of appropriate) about the proper use for a Webster dictionary.

Steve

There you go, folks: the self-appointed old boys network spokesman, here to tell everyone what dictionary is the only dictionary we should all be using. Don't you DARE make bastardized use of the language! The language is written in stone, never to change! Just like chess!

Nice try, old boy. Now go play with your grandchildren if you have any... they might teach you a few new words.