Tweet
Over the past several weeks I have had an opportunity to speak directly with representatives of each of the three principal campaigns for FIDE President. Since the CFC Board will eventually have to decide how Canada will vote, I thought it might be useful to summarize some of those discussions for the Voting Members.
We have made no commitment to any of the campaigns. My objective in these discussions has been to listen to what each group proposes, explain something about the CFC and Canadian chess, and maintain relationships that will allow Canada to work constructively with whichever administration is ultimately elected.
Wadim Rosenstein
I met Wadim Rosenstein and members of his campaign during the WR Chess event in Miami in July. I had also met several people associated with his group during my trip to Lima.
I used the opportunity to explain what has happened with Canadian chess over the past decade: the substantial growth of the CFC, the expansion of our major events, our financial stability and the fact that Canada is interested in contributing to international chess rather than simply asking FIDE for money.
My general impression of the people I have met from the Rosenstein campaign has been positive. They have been interested in maintaining a dialogue with Canada, and I believe we should be able to work constructively with them if they are successful.
Jan Buettner
On July 31 I participated in a lengthy Zoom discussion with Jan Buettner, Beatriz Marinello and Malcolm Pein.
Again, I spent some time explaining the development of Canadian chess, including the growth of CFC membership and the record 722-player CYCC in Ottawa.
One of the more interesting parts of our discussion concerned FIDE development programs. I explained that I would prefer to see FIDE help national federations become stronger and more self-sufficient rather than creating permanent dependence upon development funding.
Jan expressed a similar philosophy, saying in effect that he wanted FIDE's success to depend upon the success of its federations rather than federations depending upon FIDE.
We also discussed Canada's particular circumstances, including the relationship between the CFC and FQE. I made clear that I would not favour FIDE recognizing provincial or other sub-national organizations in a manner that undermined national federations, and their response on that issue was reassuring.
Timur Turlov
I subsequently had approximately a half-hour conversation with Timur Turlov.
Timur discussed a number of ideas for the future of FIDE, including the use of technology, a CRM-type system for chess organizations, schools programs, training resources and ways of building a more integrated international chess ecosystem.
He indicated that an early version of some of these ideas has already been applied in Kazakhstan and that he sees potential for considerably broader application.
We also discussed development funding. Timur indicated that he intended personally to invest in a development fund.
I explained my own preference that FIDE use development resources not simply to subsidize federations indefinitely but to help them develop the capacity eventually to become more self-sufficient.
I also explained the growth of the CFC and our approach in Canada. As with the other campaigns, my message was essentially that Canada is not approaching the FIDE election by asking what a candidate will give us in return for our vote. We are interested in an international environment that helps successful federations become stronger and allows us to contribute something ourselves.
The conversation was cordial and left a positive impression.
Where Does That Leave Canada?
The interesting difficulty is that I have come away with positive impressions of all three groups.
That is probably a good problem to have.
Canada is also in a somewhat unusual position. We are not dependent upon FIDE development funding, and consequently we have the luxury of considering the election principally from the standpoint of what we believe will be best for international chess and for Canadian chess over the longer term.
I have given each campaign essentially the same message: we are not looking for handouts, we value the relationships we have developed within FIDE and FIDE Americas, and we would like to see FIDE help national federations develop the knowledge, expertise and institutional capacity required to succeed.
I also think it is important that we maintain constructive relationships across the campaigns. Whoever wins will be responsible for governing FIDE, and Canada should be in a position to work effectively with that administration.
At this point, we have made no commitment to any of the campaigns. The decision on which candidate Canada will support is a decision for the CFC Board.
There is still time before that decision needs to be made, and I expect we will learn considerably more about the candidates, their teams and their programs before the Board determines how Canada will vote.
We have made no commitment to any of the campaigns. My objective in these discussions has been to listen to what each group proposes, explain something about the CFC and Canadian chess, and maintain relationships that will allow Canada to work constructively with whichever administration is ultimately elected.
Wadim Rosenstein
I met Wadim Rosenstein and members of his campaign during the WR Chess event in Miami in July. I had also met several people associated with his group during my trip to Lima.
I used the opportunity to explain what has happened with Canadian chess over the past decade: the substantial growth of the CFC, the expansion of our major events, our financial stability and the fact that Canada is interested in contributing to international chess rather than simply asking FIDE for money.
My general impression of the people I have met from the Rosenstein campaign has been positive. They have been interested in maintaining a dialogue with Canada, and I believe we should be able to work constructively with them if they are successful.
Jan Buettner
On July 31 I participated in a lengthy Zoom discussion with Jan Buettner, Beatriz Marinello and Malcolm Pein.
Again, I spent some time explaining the development of Canadian chess, including the growth of CFC membership and the record 722-player CYCC in Ottawa.
One of the more interesting parts of our discussion concerned FIDE development programs. I explained that I would prefer to see FIDE help national federations become stronger and more self-sufficient rather than creating permanent dependence upon development funding.
Jan expressed a similar philosophy, saying in effect that he wanted FIDE's success to depend upon the success of its federations rather than federations depending upon FIDE.
We also discussed Canada's particular circumstances, including the relationship between the CFC and FQE. I made clear that I would not favour FIDE recognizing provincial or other sub-national organizations in a manner that undermined national federations, and their response on that issue was reassuring.
Timur Turlov
I subsequently had approximately a half-hour conversation with Timur Turlov.
Timur discussed a number of ideas for the future of FIDE, including the use of technology, a CRM-type system for chess organizations, schools programs, training resources and ways of building a more integrated international chess ecosystem.
He indicated that an early version of some of these ideas has already been applied in Kazakhstan and that he sees potential for considerably broader application.
We also discussed development funding. Timur indicated that he intended personally to invest in a development fund.
I explained my own preference that FIDE use development resources not simply to subsidize federations indefinitely but to help them develop the capacity eventually to become more self-sufficient.
I also explained the growth of the CFC and our approach in Canada. As with the other campaigns, my message was essentially that Canada is not approaching the FIDE election by asking what a candidate will give us in return for our vote. We are interested in an international environment that helps successful federations become stronger and allows us to contribute something ourselves.
The conversation was cordial and left a positive impression.
Where Does That Leave Canada?
The interesting difficulty is that I have come away with positive impressions of all three groups.
That is probably a good problem to have.
Canada is also in a somewhat unusual position. We are not dependent upon FIDE development funding, and consequently we have the luxury of considering the election principally from the standpoint of what we believe will be best for international chess and for Canadian chess over the longer term.
I have given each campaign essentially the same message: we are not looking for handouts, we value the relationships we have developed within FIDE and FIDE Americas, and we would like to see FIDE help national federations develop the knowledge, expertise and institutional capacity required to succeed.
I also think it is important that we maintain constructive relationships across the campaigns. Whoever wins will be responsible for governing FIDE, and Canada should be in a position to work effectively with that administration.
At this point, we have made no commitment to any of the campaigns. The decision on which candidate Canada will support is a decision for the CFC Board.
There is still time before that decision needs to be made, and I expect we will learn considerably more about the candidates, their teams and their programs before the Board determines how Canada will vote.
Comment