Manifesto of Nigel Short

[Nigel Short]

MANIFESTO OF NIGEL SHORT (CANDIDATE FOR THE POST OF ECF DELEGATE TO FIDE AND THE ECU)

If elected to the above post, I intend to:

1) WORK WITH THE ECF TO RAISE SPONSORSHIP IN ENGLAND
Sponsors are attracted by big names. As England’s best known chess player, I am well placed to work with the ECF Board, and the new incoming President in particular, to bring much needed sponsorship into English chess.

2) BRING MONEY-SPINNING EVENTS TO ENGLAND
Certain tournaments, like the European Youth Championships, are immensely profitable for the organising nation – which is why competition to host these events, among Greece, Montenegro, Spain, Turkey, France etc. is so fierce. Hundreds of children, along with a vast array of coaches, parents and siblings, have to be accommodated and victualed for the best part of a fortnight. With such vast expenditure, it is easy to see why six figure profits are by no means uncommon.
I fear the current ECF Delegate to FIDE, in his capacity as Deputy President of the ECU, has squandered an enormous opportunity not only to burnish the ECF’s prestige by bringing such events to our shores, but also to significantly bolster the federation’s finances.

3) BRING OPENNESS, COMPETENCE AND ENERGY TO THE POST OF ECF DELEGATE TO FIDE
The job of ECF Delegate is an immensely important one. FIDE decisions affect all chess players, but disproportionately those who play international chess -professional players, in particular.
Astonishingly, our current Delegate, rarely, if ever consults with the very people whom these FIDE decisions affect. For example, this gross negligence led to Michael Adams withdrawing from the World Cup, when FIDE changed the competition rules adversely mid-cycle, without a murmur of protest from the ECF Delegate. Unfortunately, not even the Delegate’s admirers have a clue how he votes on a vast array of subjects. Not only is he effectively unaccountable, he is inactive, to the point of being inert.
It is thus no surprise that the overwhelming majority of England’s chess elite, including the entire national team, publicly endorse me. It is my duty to represent all English players, but unless we provide an environment where talent can thrive, the game in our country will be condemned to rank mediocrity.

[Roger de Coverly]

Certain tournaments, like the European Youth Championships, are immensely profitable for the organising nation – which is why competition to host these events, among Greece, Montenegro, Spain, Turkey, France etc. is so fierce. Hundreds of children, along with a vast array of coaches, parents and siblings, have to be accommodated and victualed for the best part of a fortnight. With such vast expenditure, it is easy to see why six figure profits are by no means uncommon.

You wonder whether England can compete on price particularly with the Turkish resorts. For example next month's world youth http://wycc2009.tsf.org.tr/ is in a 5 star all-inclusive beach side hotel. It's impressive - I've been there on a conventional non-chess holiday. Ignoring the mouth watering prices quoted by the Turkish federation for the duration of the tournament, I was able to get a quote for November outside the chess dates of £150 per person for a double room for 7 nights. That's all inclusive meals and facilities included 5 star. Trying the same for example on Torquay can only match that sort of price for a guest house B&B.

The last time the BCF/ECF tried to put on a FIDE event was, I think, the Euro team in 1997 (?). That was due to be in Torquay but various people suggested to Kirsan that Torquay would be too expensive and it was moved to Georgia.

[Stewart Reuben]

Roger >The last time the BCF/ECF tried to put on a FIDE event was, I think, the Euro team in 1997 (?). That was due to be in Torquay but various people suggested to Kirsan that Torquay would be too expensive and it was moved to Georgia.<

What actually happened in Elista is that it became obvious there was considerable disquiet over the cost of Torquay for the teams, despite the fact that the cost was part of the bid.
At the meeting of the European Chess Union Gerry and I conducted a role call of the federations and whether they would come. As I had suspected, it was too unpopular for the ECF to take such a gamble. so we withdrew. It had nothing whatsoever to do with Kirsan who has no right to interfere in continental issues and does not do so.
There were then 10 bids fo the event and the ECU selected the least suitable in Batumi. I guess it cost a large number of the federations more than if it had stayed with Torquay.

In 2008 I prepared a business plan for the World Youth (U18 to U8) to take place in London in 2012 at the Excel Centre. The problem is that the much higher cost in London means that we can't expect the visitors to pay a high premium. It may be possible to find that document on the ECF website for early 2008. Because of costs the event needs sponsorship and/or lottery money of £1.3 million.
The project has not been on my list of priorities since April 2008 as obviously I have been too busy. But we still have an option on the event. Turkey have remained true to their promise that they would not bid against us if we made a serious bid. But the clock ticks.
Stewart Reuben

[Matthew Turner]

It seems to me that this has been hastily written and ill thought out. In my view
1 Has nothing to do with the post of FIDE delegate
2 Is completely impractical
that leaves us with 3 which is a genuine point and is a reason for supporting Nigel. However, even in this point the idea that it is only the top male players that matter comes through and will put some people off.

[Rob Thompson]

It seems to me that this has been hastily written and ill thought out. In my view
1 Has nothing to do with the post of FIDE delegate
2 Is completely impractical
that leaves us with 3 which is a genuine point and is a reason for supporting Nigel. However, even in this point the idea that it is only the top male players that matter comes through and will put some people off.

1 may well have nothing to do with the post of FIDE delegate, but merely having a name that a large number of people actually recognise on the board will be useful for English chess in general, so it's a reason for supporting Nigel anyway.

[Matthew Turner]

The FIDE delegate isn't actually on the Board. However, if Nigel wants to raise the profile of English and raise sponsorship, then great lets utilise this. We can create a post for him Commercial Director or whatever - get him on board and away we go. I don't really see why this means he should be the FIDE delegate, which is frankly peripheral in terms of profile.

[Paul McKeown]

The FIDE delegate isn't actually on the Board. However, if Nigel wants to raise the profile of English and raise sponsorship, then great lets utilise this. We can create a post for him Commercial Director or whatever - get him on board and away we go. I don't really see why this means he should be the FIDE delegate, which is frankly peripheral in terms of profile.

I would suggest President as a suitable non-executive role!

[Stewart Reuben]

If I had a meeting with a potential sponsor then I could hardly do better than have Nigel by my side. He also has valuable contacts. If to secure his services in this way, it is a condition is that he become FIDE Delegate, that is a very strong argument in his favour.
The same arguments apply to C J and Adam Raoof.
Stewart Reuben putative ECF Director of Marketing.

[Jonathan Rogers]

Stewart, you are remarkably lucid at 2.37 in the morning!

I actually think that, in the circumstances, this is the best way to argue Nigel Short's case (Martin Regan has occasionally done this too). By which I mean, instead of arguing that the ECF Delegate position is suddenly of hitherto unsuspected importance and that the future of English professional chess depends upon NS speaking up against FIDE measures as ECF Delegate (and that this matters more than representing the views of non-professional players), argue instead that NS is needed to work alongside you and others in marketing, for the good of everyone in English chess. To those who object that NS is not temperamentally suited to the role of ECF Delegate, one then just shrugs one's shoulders and says that the ECF has never made a point of going out of its way to secure the best possible candidate for the position.

[Nigel Short]

Fine, Jonathan. I have no problem with that - as long as I get the votes. However, you fall into a common mis-assumption: why on Earth do you imagine that Gerry Walsh represents the interests of non-professional players? You have no idea how he votes and nor does anyone else. I challenge you to name a single motion that he has submitted to the General Assembly during his entire period in office. I would suggest, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, that Gerry's over-riding priority is to keep as chummy with as many of the FIDE bigwigs as possible in order to secure jobs for himself. He is certainly very successful at that.

[Jonathan Rogers]

Nigel, I made no assumption about GW. Perhaps you are referring to the passage where I said that your supporters should not be urging the point that it is more important that the ECF Delegate defends the interests of professional players than non-professionals. I said that in order to illustrate that many of the arguments made on your behalf were likely to meet all sorts of opposition, whereas Stewart's line above is much more likely to persuade the floating voter. I didn't say that GW is presently furthering the cause of non-professional players. I am very much aware that I know nothing about what he actually does.

[Kevin Thurlow]

"It is my duty to represent all English players, but unless we provide an environment where talent can thrive, the game in our country will be condemned to rank mediocrity."

The first part is good enough for me. Speaking as a mediocre player, I want the top players to have good conditions as it might filter down to my level. Sensible FIDE Laws should be a requirement for everybody. I note elsewhere that a somewhat unpleasant personal attack was made on Nigel, but then he got told off for responding to it. I always find it odd that people think it is OK to make abusive comments (etc.) about someone, but it is not OK to retaliate. Diplomacy doesn't always work. To be blunt, a number of FIDE officials should be made to face a fully-fit Flintoff without protective equipment...

[Roger de Coverly]

Sensible FIDE Laws should be a requirement for everybody.

The debate with Nigel could be about
(a) whether FIDE laws should even apply to domestic "mickey mouse" events
and
(b) what "sensible" laws should actually say.

Still at least we're able to have this debate. The verdict of the forum so far on Nigel's candidacy is only about two-thirds in favour. The verdict on the existing incumbent is, so far, null points.

http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php ... w=viewpoll

[Jonathan Rogers]

Yes well, we already know that GW's supporters do not subscribe to this forum - but they are out there and in some high places too.

It is more worrying that this poll, taken on this forum to gauge support for NS, which ought to be like polling for Labour support in the North-East of England or for Tory support in the shires, actually reveals a significant number of people who know of GW's shortcomings but would still, if given the choice, vote for nobody rather than for NS and take the risk of allowing GW to win.

I think that this is because the campaign has been misdirected. Hyping the importance of the ECF-delegate and NS's suitability for the role seems to me to be a bit like Black attacking on the queenside in a Classical King's Indian.

In my view, NS would be better off just restricting himself to a couple of reasons why he wants the post - helping out Michael Adams is a good example and also makes the point that he has his support - and more broadly promising to do what he can publicity-wise to help the ECF (saying that he would like to work with Stewart would also be tactically wise, given the affection and esteem in which SR is held among many likely voters). Meanwhile , his supporters can lobby the floating voters with suggestions of how much good might be done for the ECF overall with NS on board, and can retort if necessary "since when has anyone really cared who the ECF Delegate is, anyway?"

[John Philpott]

Nigel sent his manifesto to the ECF Office this morning, and I can confirm that it has been published on the website in the section that contains the other ECF Council papers at http://www.englishchess.org.uk/index.ph ... &Itemid=28.

One of the candidates in another of the contested elections has expressed concern to me about the publication of an election address received late on the grounds that this provided an unfair advantage in terms of being able to draft the address in the knowledge of the text that the opponent or opponents have already submitted. I do not believe that this is a relevant factor in this particular case: Nigel has commented on Gerry Walsh's address in this Forum but not in the manifesto itself. However, in advance of the 2010 elections I think that it might be appropriate to amend the Procedural Bye Laws to tighten the rules in this area.