Announcement of England Teams for European Team Championship

[Jonathan Rogers]

John,

I think that you read my posts with more excitement than you imagine that I write them. Even so, please try to quote me in context ...

It might be that anyone is better than Gerry Walsh; and perhaps that is enough to justify supporting Short, especially in the absence of any other willing candidate. But my point was, of course, that some of the support for Short on this forum, which might be taken to suggest that he, by contrast, is the best possible candidate, has been rather overblown.

[Simon Spivack]

My reason for preferring Nigel is that he is likely to be much more trouble than Gerry. Complaining about a change in venue in Argentina is all very well, but rather ineffectual: money talks.

The Furies demand that Larisa Judina be not forgotten. It may suit the Kremlin to tolerate a certain tinpot dictator. Indeed, many professional chess players effectively back him. And I don't even know what Nigel's opinion is. But an awkward customer is what FIDE should get. What is the downside?

[Roger de Coverly]

What is the downside?

There are a number of areas where Nigel has expressed views which which would (probably) be opposed by the British chess public in general and the ECF in particular. I can think of two for certain and possibly a third.

The certain two are his opposition to the concept of re-pairing of no-shows and the idea that the other British Isles federations (except Ireland) should lose their separate FIDE status. The possible third is his position on default times.

So to what extent would he abide by "collective responsibility "?

[Carl Hibbard]

There are a number of areas where Nigel has expressed views which which would (probably) be opposed by the British chess public in general and the ECF in particular. I can think of two for certain and possibly a third.

Will the ECF board go as far as to express a preference for Gerry do you think?

I can see a lot of back patting as a thanks for service Gerry and a bit of a landslide when it comes to this particular vote

[Sean Hewitt]

There are a number of areas where Nigel has expressed views which which would (probably) be opposed by the British chess public in general and the ECF in particular. I can think of two for certain and possibly a third.

Will the ECF board go as far as to express a preference for Gerry do you think?

I can see a lot of back patting as a thanks for service Gerry and a bit of a landslide when it comes to this particular vote

I don't see how Nigel's cause is helped by the fact that there was no election address from him in the AGM documents. It makes it difficult for the "neutral" to vote for him when they don't know what he stands for.

[benedgell]

Frankly I wouldn't particularly want either Gerry Walsh or Nigel Short to be FIDE Delegate. Gerry does seem to hide away from taking on FIDE on their more controversial decisions, which I have no doubt Nigel would have argued against both loudly and with great weight attached to his opinion. However, if you look at some of Nigel's statements, are they really the sort of comments that the ECF wants to be associated with? His public comments on the European Team Championships selections, for example. It's hard to say if he wants this post to try and protect his own position as an active international player, or protect the right's of every ECF Fide rated player. Certainly an election address of any form (and I appreciate he's been a little busy with the Efimenko match), showing what he intend's to do to help FIDE Rated players would help to this end.

[Simon Spivack]

I believe it is important to differentiate between domestic tournaments, such as weekend swisses, and their international counterparts. Derogations from the Laws have always been possible for domestic tournaments.

his opposition to the concept of re-pairing of no-shows

I presume opposition to the repairing of opponents of no-shows. As hinted at above, this won't matter to a lot of players even if it is introduced. Furthermore, a lot of FIDE regulations (for this won't be a Law of chess) do not have to be practised by international tournament organisers. For instance, the drawing of lots. This hardly comes across as a deal breaker to me.

the idea that the other British Isles federations (except Ireland) should lose their separate FIDE status

It is not something I am prepared to fight over, but I am more inclined towards Nigel on this one. This sort of petty nationalism is rather disturbing, although I accept Nigel may not agree with me about nationalism, he might not echo what Doctor Johnson famously said about patriotism. I am, however, not so convinced that there is a majority of English opinion opposed to a Great Britain Team: perhaps I should get out more often.

So to what extent would he abide by "collective responsibility "?

Well we do know that Gerry will not always abide by ECF Council decisions! I offer as proof the Chess Centre Limited farrago. There may be cogent reasons why its directors don't want to see an effective wind-up, for instance they don't want to see a diminution of their empires, but I have yet to see a compelling argument from an impartial observer. It seems to me that all our officials should abide by decisions, failing which they should stand down or be replaced. An undertaking to accept collective responsibility could be asked from all the candidates.

[Jonathan Rogers]

I believe that Short is against repairings in the event of no-shows, period, and in favour of disallowing derogation from that rule.

Now, the vast majority of FIDE rated players in England surely do disagree with that. When they fork out £500 or more of their own money to play in an internationally rated swiss, they want to play all the games, and further, having a default win in a nine round Swiss might already mess up their norm chances, where applicable. In round one! It's a good example of Short, as an Olympian GM, having an utterly different perspective from the majority on the ground.

So I'm with Roger on this. Some members may recall that I raised this example when Short's candidacy was first raised.

[Roger de Coverly]

differentiate between domestic tournaments, such as weekend swisses, and their international counterparts

It's increasingly blurred these days as 5 round weekend tournaments can be (and are) internationally rated. In any event, lots of "amateurs" play at events such as Hastings, Gibraltar etc.

I presume opposition to the repairing of opponents of no-shows.

In particular at the Isle of Man, Nigel walked out of the tournament when asked to play a different opponent in the first round.

As far as I am aware, the practice of the re-pair was introduced into British chess when Nigel was a junior, so he should have been aware of it. When you hear stories about the first rounds for international junior events being delayed for hours while the arbiters try to sort out who is present, the merits of getting 95% of the games under way at the nominal start time become clear.

I am, however, not so convinced that there is a majority of English opinion opposed to a Great Britain Team

Wales only ceased being an "English" union (like the SCCU) in about 1970. Scotland was separate from the late 1920s. For as long as FIFA allow separate football teams, FIDE should allow separate chess teams.

[Alex Holowczak]

the idea that the other British Isles federations (except Ireland) should lose their separate FIDE status

It is not something I am prepared to fight over, but I am more inclined towards Nigel on this one. This sort of petty nationalism is rather disturbing, although I accept Nigel may not agree with me about nationalism, he might not echo what Doctor Johnson famously said about patriotism. I am, however, not so convinced that there is a majority of English opinion opposed to a Great Britain Team: perhaps I should get out more often.

At the end of the day, I don't see that ever happening. The only way he could get that to happen is if Wales and Scotland agree. As the Scottish Championship proved, they're quite happy enough on their own. As for Wales, in terms of Olympiads, I'm not sure there are any Welsh players who would be part of a British team. Therefore, I don't see any benefit of union, and I doubt the Welsh will, they'll just see it as stopping their players playing in Olympiads. Although I disagree completely with Short on this issue, I don't think he's ever going to bring about the change he wants. It seems to have far too much opposition. I reckon the same would be true of re-pairing. What he does offer though is a voice who can speak out against the other dodgy things that FIDE do, such as changing the rules of the World Championship half way through. His opinion on that sort of thing holds far more credibility than Gerry Walsh's.

[Roger de Coverly]

At the end of the day, I don't see that ever happening. The only way he could get that to happen is if Wales and Scotland agree.

FIDE has a track record of making unfair and dubious decisions. It would not be beyond the bounds of possibility for it to decide to only recognise one federation for the United Kingdom. This might be Chess Scotland of course, particularly if the ECF was causing trouble to the FIDE establishment.

What he does offer though is a voice who can speak out against the other dodgy things that FIDE do, such as changing the rules of the World Championship half way through. His opinion on that sort of thing holds far more credibility than Gerry Walsh's.

Exactly - the problem is whether what Nigel considers dodgy is the same as everyone else within the ECF or wider English chess community.

[Alex Holowczak]

What he does offer though is a voice who can speak out against the other dodgy things that FIDE do, such as changing the rules of the World Championship half way through. His opinion on that sort of thing holds far more credibility than Gerry Walsh's.

Exactly - the problem is whether what Nigel considers dodgy is the same as everyone else within the ECF or wider English chess community.

This is where an election address would be helpful.

[Ian Thompson]

In particular at the Isle of Man, Nigel walked out of the tournament when asked to play a different opponent in the first round.

Did he walk out when asked to play another opponent, or did he walk out after being defaulted for refusing to do so, which he was within his rights to do under the FIDE rules?

When you hear stories about the first rounds for international junior events being delayed for hours while the arbiters try to sort out who is present, the merits of getting 95% of the games under way at the nominal start time become clear.

So why don't they do what is commonly done in foreign tournaments - require players to sign-in a couple of hours before the first round and only pair those who have done so. Problem solved (and if the organisers wish, they can still pair latecomers against each other).

[Jonathan Rogers]

Ian, my understanding is that he was defaulted because he was not entitled to refuse the repairing. The organisers had announced that they were exercising their right to derogate from the default FIDE rules on this.

[Ian Thompson]

Ian, my understanding is that he was defaulted because he was not entitled to refuse the repairing. The organisers had announced that they were exercising their right to derogate from the default FIDE rules on this.

There is a report on the incident here http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=1225. This indicates that Short was right (and somewhere else on the ChessBase website I think you'll find a report that some FIDE committee agreed with that).