Interesting Read About FIDE

[Sid Belzberg]

Enjoy!

http://theuglytruthaboutfide.blogspo...1_archive.html

[Nigel Hanrahan]

criminal privatizations? Hell, yeah.

Hah. Mostly unsubstantiated claims and feverish, frothing, antediluvian Cold War Russophobic conspiracy theories, but sometimes one can find a little gem among the toadstools.

There is a reference to "criminal privatizations", i.e., making private what should be public and robbing the public purse, and I must say that the expression is a good one. I've always thought privatization was criminal anyway. It's good to see a confirmation of that from such an unlikely source.

[Sid Belzberg]

Re: criminal privatizations? Hell, yeah.

"frothing, antediluvian Cold War Russophobic conspiracy theories"
Yep that's it!

[Nigel Hanrahan]

hell yeah.

Ya missed "feverish" Sid. ;)

[Vlad Dobrich]

Re: hell yeah.

Nigel,
Has it occurred to you that you may be, just may be, supporting an international multi-million $ criminal organization?
And they're probably not cutting you in for a piece of the pie! Or are they? If not, they probably consider you a dumb flunky who'll do as he's told for the good of the cause (chess).

[Nigel Hanrahan]

Re: hell yeah.

Nigel,
Has it occurred to you that you may be, just may be, supporting an international multi-million $ criminal organization?
And they're probably not cutting you in for a piece of the pie! Or are they? If not, they probably consider you a dumb flunky who'll do as he's told for the good of the cause (chess).

lol. I form my own opinions thank you, whatever others may think. Far too many people simply parrot, bird-like, the views of their own governments and somehow think this is "independent" thinking. I sometimes think that we in North America are the most brainwashed people on planet Earth. But that is just ... my opinion.

FIDE is probably no worse than the IOC or FIFA; I think we hear a lot about FIDE simply because there is less success bending it to the will of countries like USA, UK, Canada than there is with the IOC. If you're a sports fan, then the question is, how much are you willing to put up with to see the star athletes compete? Personally, I have much less interest in the (IOC) Olympics due to the politics there, the little lawless/above the law fiefdoms that are established wherever the Olympics go, the shocking waste of public resources that could and should be spent better elsewhere, etc., etc., etc.. But I also admire the athletes even if the system is corrupt, even if some are cheating, one way or another, because of the genuine human drama involved. We all like to see underdogs win.

As for FIDE, I just think Kasparov would be a catastrophe. He's shown already his great skill in alienating so many people, in making enemies, in repeating dangerous and war-like Cold War stereotypes ad nauseam. The dangerous combination of politics in the Kasparov camp seems to bring together some of the most venomous and harmful views in a cabal of zealotry: scapegoating an entire country and its President to justify the campaign, threats and endless bullying even before the election, a track record of miserable failure in every electoral office that Kasparov has sought, flight from his own country after such miserable failure, financial irregularities and serious doubts about his ability to do anything good for chess globally, a confession that his past attempt to create a rival World Championship was a terrible mistake, etc., etc., etc.. Ilzhuminov only has to be less bad to be worth supporting.

The IOC and, I think, FIFA, are terrible examples. FIDE is, therefore, no surprise. But it could be worse. I really think Kasparov would be worse.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: hell yeah.

As for FIDE, I just think Kasparov would be a catastrophe. He's shown already his great skill in alienating so many people, in making enemies, in repeating dangerous and war-like Cold War stereotypes ad nauseam. The dangerous combination of politics in the Kasparov camp seems to bring together some of the most venomous and harmful views in a cabal of zealotry: scapegoating an entire country and its President to justify the campaign, threats and endless bullying even before the election, a track record of miserable failure in every electoral office that Kasparov has sought, flight from his own country after such miserable failure, financial irregularities and serious doubts about his ability to do anything good for chess globally, a confession that his past attempt to create a rival World Championship was a terrible mistake, etc., etc., etc.. Ilzhuminov only has to be less bad to be worth supporting.

If everything you and Vlad Drkulec are saying about Kasparov is correct, this is a serious blow to the doctrine that chess helps one learn to make optimal decisions in other areas of life. The greatest chess player who ever lived being a complete dufus when it comes to both business and politics appears to indicate that chess is HARMFUL to making good decisions and judgements.

And that idea does have a bit of legitimacy to it. That's because chess is NOT life like so many people say. Chess excludes chance, so that people who spend their entire lives studying chess could indeed tend to over-rely on events following a logical sequence of cause and effect.

So all the studies that show chess helping children achieve higher math scores and what not miss the point. Yes, the children's math and logical skills are developed more quickly... but SERIOUS devotion to chess over many years could be, and by both Kasparov's and Fischer's examples seems to be, harmful in adult life to handling the chance and randomness that is part of everyday life.

If you disagree, how do you explain that a tactical and strategic chess genius can't develop and see to completion an effective political and business strategy to simply win an election? Even if KI is buying votes, there should be a strategy against that, and Kasparov should be able to formulate and execute that strategy. Yet all I keep seeing from your posts and Drkulec's posts is that Kasparov is blundering and commiting huge mistakes.

[Tom O'Donnell]

Re: hell yeah.

It is indeed a mystery. Some possibilities:

1) GK has surrounded himself with so many "yes-men" that he figured the rest of the world would just do as they were told.
2) He underestimated the degree of incestuous cronyism between FIDE officials and some national officials.
3) He never really hoped to win but only to make waves and garner publicity for something else.
4) He wants to win "clean" even if that means he loses.

Or maybe he is just proof of Bryon Nickoloff's theory that chess officials generally hate strong players. ;-)

If you disagree, how do you explain that a tactical and strategic chess genius can't develop and see to completion an effective political and business strategy to simply win an election? Even if KI is buying votes, there should be a strategy against that, and Kasparov should be able to formulate and execute that strategy. Yet all I keep seeing from your posts and Drkulec's posts is that Kasparov is blundering and commiting huge mistakes.

[John Coleman]

Re: hell yeah.

Whether you like it or not, chess players are notoriously lazy and prone to being late for their games.

In another thread, Bindi Cheng gives a possible reason why success in chess is not a good predictor for success in life.

(BTW, I don't find chess players "notoriously lazy", but I hang around mostly with juniors (i.e. unskilled players).)

[Nigel Hanrahan]

reply to Paul B

If you disagree, how do you explain that a tactical and strategic chess genius can't develop and see to completion an effective political and business strategy to simply win an election?

No truly "free" election can be guaranteed like that. Also, Tom O'Donnell has made an excellent reply to this as follows: "He never really hoped to win but only to make waves and garner publicity for something else." The whole shrill Russophobic tone of Kasparov's campaign is the "something else". Also, by negative campaigning, as any Republican strategist in the USA will know, you also "poison the well" and make any initiatives by your rival be less successful and prepare the ground for "next time". Finally, certain kinds of strategies in the information war simply work by virtue of literally drowning out other voices - even though most of the information is falsehoods and nonsense. I think you are being a bit too "logical" here yourself. Think out of the box a little.

So all the studies that show chess helping children achieve higher math scores and what not miss the point. Yes, the children's math and logical skills are developed more quickly... but SERIOUS devotion to chess over many years could be, and by both Kasparov's and Fischer's examples seems to be, harmful in adult life to handling the chance and randomness that is part of everyday life.

Chess has value in itself just as music, visual art and literature have. You really don't need other reasons to like it. But there is always the possibility of too much of a good thing.

[Tom O'Donnell]

Re: hell yeah.

When I moved from Montreal to Ottawa c. 2000, and began working for CMA in Ottawa, I was an assistant TD to their tournaments for the first couple of years working with the late great Paul Maisonneuve.

I'd introduce myself to parents, talk to kids about their games after the tournament was over, etc. I never saw anyone else do this. Eventually I had no time over weekends to help, but would still come down every tournament for an hour or so to introduce myself to more parents, talk to more kids, etc. Even then, I never saw a single other person do this. At some point I think I literally had about 80% of the students in town. Some of the other teachers back then wanted to know the secret. I told them:

1) Show up.
2) Show interest.
3) Wait for word to spread.

But it was too much work for them and as far as I could tell no one did it. I am not sure this is only a chessplayer problem, but ya I would say many chess teachers I have met are even lazier than I am, which is quite an achievement. ;-)

In another thread, Bindi Cheng gives a possible reason why success in chess is not a good predictor for success in life.

(BTW, I don't find chess players "notoriously lazy", but I hang around mostly with juniors (i.e. unskilled players).)