My resignation as FIDE Rep

[Brad Thomson]

What I find disturbing is that there must be hundreds of people who have benefitted from Hal's organizing skills over the years.

If it were not for Hal, none of you would have had to put up with myself for all of these years.

[Brian Profit]

Any update on the FIDE investigation? I just did a fast scroll through the pages in this thread and I count, roughly:
- 14 people who are supportive of Hal
- 1 person (Vlad) who is against Hal
- 3 people (Fred, Neil, and Francis) whose position is unclear.

What I find disturbing is that there must be hundreds of people who have benefitted from Hal's organizing skills over the years - enjoyed his tournaments; had opportunities to test themselves against stronger players and improve their game. Many of those people, I assume, are members here at Chesstalk. But only 14 could speak up and be supportive? I know the chess player stereotype is the spineless nerd but seriously people - surely there comes a time when you have to stand up and be heard.

I played in my first CFC tournament in London, ON that was run by Hal in 1984 or 1985 at Fanshawe College. I have met him at numerous tournaments over the years and have never had any reason to question him. I find it difficult to imagine Hal purposely doing something that he felt was not the right thing to do. If you told me to chose Hal or random corrupt FIDE official, I would not hesitate to side with Hal. The fact that someone changed his email and we are still debating if Hal is in the right is amazing to me. Someone changed it and they changed it for a reason. If Hal had it out for someone after this, I would have it out for someone too. FIDE has been corrupt for decades. They have been a joke since the 1980's and the people there have more experience at being corrupt and fewer morals and unfortunately, Hal is the victim.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Any update on the FIDE investigation? I just did a fast scroll through the pages in this thread and I count, roughly:
- 14 people who are supportive of Hal
- 1 person (Vlad) who is against Hal
- 3 people (Fred, Neil, and Francis) whose position is unclear.

What I find disturbing is that there must be hundreds of people who have benefitted from Hal's organizing skills over the years - enjoyed his tournaments; had opportunities to test themselves against stronger players and improve their game. Many of those people, I assume, are members here at Chesstalk. But only 14 could speak up and be supportive? I know the chess player stereotype is the spineless nerd but seriously people - surely there comes a time when you have to stand up and be heard.

I am not against Hal. I am against some of the actions that Hal has taken including in the CFC presidential election of 2020 including specifically leaking some information from executive discussion and spinning it in a way where he tried to make my actions appear sinister. We were good friends right up until I declined to take an ill advised action contrary to the advice of Les Bunning. Fred McKim defused the problems in the elections by explaining what had happened in the thwarted action just a few months before the election. I fully supported Hal at the time of the 2018 FIDE election. I offered to go fully public and wage an all out information war on social media and in the media on everything and anything associated with this situation. Hal did not want to do that at the time because it would burn bridges at FIDE. I had no ambitions at FIDE. At one point, Hal entertained the idea of running for FIDE president.

With respect to the attempt at extra-judicial punishment for the person that Hal blamed for his situation, it was simply that we had a discipline procedure in place. Hal did not want to use that discipline procedure. The discipline procedure required twenty days notice and the opportunity for the person to answer to the charges. Further, any discipline was subject to the voting members overturning it. There was no legal way to go around these requirements which leaves illegal ways. Asking someone to resign is something anyone can do. It carries legal consequences and requires that you explain why you are asking them to resign. It carries significant risks and legal consequences if you haven't allowed the person to exercise due process rights in the bylaws and in the law. I am bound by my fiduciary duty to the CFC, not to undertake actions that can lead to significant legal risk to the CFC or to myself and the other directors. Hal's actions and statements exacerbated that legal jeopardy in the event that the situation landed in court.

The whole situation needed to be solved at the FIDE level and not the CFC level. Some elements of FIDE wanted it to be solved on the CFC level.

I was particularly irritated by the claim that I was an impediment to the formation of an ethics committee which might have dealt with this situation. The ethics committee proposed in the election would have been stacked with close friends of Hal Bond. In seven years, Mr. Bond had not broached the idea of an ethics committee though there was already one on the books from many years before I became president. It was not implemented likely from lack of volunteers. It is not my job to propose every initiative. Hal never proposed an ethics committee as far as I recall.

FIDE filled me in on their perception of Hal Bond. I had cautioned him on appearing to be too much of a gadfly. Specifically, he strongly criticized them over some financial projections which he claimed were unrealistic. I told him not to make that criticism as it was likely that the administration knew more than he did and if the projections appeared too rosy that it would come out in the next year's financial statements. I doubted that FIDE President Arkady Dvorkovich would make unfounded and overly optimistic projections if he didn't have the funding in place. He is a serious man. Apparently, Hal did not take my guidance and thus he was shown to be wrong when a sponsorship deal was announced shortly afterwards.

[Nikolay Noritsyn]

On another note, I see a possible agenda item on the CFC April 11-18th meeting is an attempt by Nikolay Noritsyn to remove Vlad as president of the CFC.
Perhaps more details will appear on the meeting thread(s) over on the CFC board...

here:
http://www.chesscanada.info/forum/sh...ng-April-11-18

Hi Kerry,

Its not quite like that. Since I did not get a reply from the Directors, I posted publicly. The details are here: http://www.chesscanada.info/forum/sh...-CFC-President

Best Regards,
Nikolay

[Brad Thomson]

Relating partial sequences of contentions to a forum that it for the most part without inside knowledge of this affair serves little purpose in my opinion. Tell us Vlad, in your opinion how did the email get leaked, and how did it get doctored? The normal approach of detectives is to ask the simple question, who stood to gain? The most immediate answer to this question is, Mr. Tsypin and yourself. Of course, appearances can sometimes be deceiving, but your obfuscation has lead many to presume yourself to be the other guilty party (the leak-er of the email), along with Mr. Tsypin (the doctor). You are acting very much like a guilty man by offering the sorts of comments that you do. If you were to speak clearly and offer explanations that are plausible, as opposed to ridiculous theories about intercepted emails at airports, then you might be entitled to the benefit of the doubt. But your own comments convict you.

[Kerry Liles]

Hi Kerry,

Its not quite like that. Since I did not get a reply from the Directors, I posted publicly. The details are here: http://www.chesscanada.info/forum/sh...-CFC-President

Best Regards,
Nikolay

Thank you Nikolay for the clarification and the link to a more up to date thread.
Best of luck to you (or anyone for that matter) who has to navigate the nonsense of the NFP act as it applies to the CFC.
It boggles my mind that an organization like the CFC has to be governed by such an obtuse set of regulations. Ridiculous.
Nevertheless, the CFC is stuck with it I guess and as in the case of the NHL (and other organizations) only the lawyers benefit.

Kerry Liles

[Neil Frarey]

So long as the Chess Federation of Canada continues to suckle FIDE's teat ... in one form or another (re: missing 60k, re: Anton etc.) these sorts of conflicts will continue to occur.

Chess in Canada at grass root & street level does not require FIDE.

Don't need FIDE to survive! Don't need FIDE to thrive!

Period.

[Vlad Drkulec]

The normal approach of detectives is to ask the simple question, who stood to gain?

Okay Columbo, what did I stand to gain? More work? Perhaps I could give up my chess lessons by which I earn a living and work longer hours for free for the CFC? Quit being ridiculous.

This rickety Death Star has multiple thermal exhaust ports built in and I know exactly where they are.

As far as I could tell the original email was innocuous but some at FIDE were angry about even the unforged version. They should try being CFC president for a few days. Sheesh!

[Brad Thomson]

As far as I could tell the original email was innocuous but some at FIDE were angry about even the unforged version.

How did FIDE get the unforged version?

[Neil Frarey]

Okay ... what did I stand to gain?

Vlad called me the same day and confirmed that he had been contacted by Vadim and Berik, and €20,000 from FIDE was being offered to the CFC if I am replaced.

...sponsorship deal was announced shortly afterwards.

...this is too damn easy.

[Vlad Drkulec]

How did FIDE get the unforged version?

Hal gave it to them.

[Vlad Drkulec]

...this is too damn easy.

Some heavy forging AND misleading editing going on there Neil conflating two very different situations four years apart. No application was filled out in 2018. Hal remained FIDE rep. Much ado about nothing.

[Neil Frarey]

Some heavy forging AND misleading editing going on there Neil conflating two very different situations four years apart. No application was filled out in 2018. Hal remained FIDE rep. Much ado about nothing.

I think the word you're looking for is 'truncated'.

Forgery is what you're familiar with ...as in Hal's email.

[David Cohen]

I first met Hal when we played each other at a tournament in Kitchener in 1984 (thanks Ed Thompson!). We played a few more times over
the years (Ottawa, Arnprior, Kingston), usually a draw - he liked Alekhine's Defence and I didn't. Mostly I know Hal from his volunteer
role as Canada's FIDE Representative. I've found volunteering to be rewarding personally, but I also learned never to expect a 'thank
you'. All the more so in the Canadian chess community, unfortunately. So, I'll just take this opportunity to say a public 'Thank you'
to Hal, for a lot of years of hard work that benefited us all.

Regards,

David
David Cohen, IA
Toronto

[Brad Thomson]

Hal gave it to them.

I presume that Hal gave the letter to them after they received the forgery, so as to demonstrate to them that he was not the author of the forgery. We still have the question of who leaked the original to Mr. Tsypin. Vlad, I will continue to give you the benefit of the doubt. If you did not leak the letter, do you have any idea who did? I am not asking you to name this person, I am only asking if you suspect anyone in particular? We know that it had to be someone on the Executive, unless Hal himself sent the email to someone else, or forged it himself, which does not seem to be the case. Given that neither yourself, nor Hal we shall presume, leaked the original, who else may have done so? In other words, who else exactly is on the Executive? Do you agree that one of these names must have been the leak-er? Or do you subscribe to the hacked at the airport theory?