Tim Wall's Ukraine Resolutions

[Roger Lancaster]

If I read David correctIy, his argument is that a compromise reached between two peopIe with divergent views shouId per se be acceptabIe. That's often but not aIways the case. This strikes me as one of the exceptions.

[David Sedgwick]

If I read David correctIy, his argument is that a compromise reached between two peopIe with divergent views shouId per se be acceptabIe. That's often but not aIways the case. This strikes me as one of the exceptions.

I don't claim that a compromise of that nature should per se be acceptable. I do claim that those who reach such a compromise should not be accused of dishonesty for so doing.

On the substantive issue, Council will decide later today.

[NickFaulks]

So this motion is effectively asking the UK chess community to say no to the FIDE President because he is a Russian. I wish the proposers were honest enough to say that.

That would be nice, although David is not one of the proposers. It is not clear to me why Dvorkovich is less fit and proper now than he was four years ago. To be fair to the ECF Board, they opposed him then, even if the reasons may have been closer to home.

[David Sedgwick]

I do wish you'd stop this 'maligning nonsense'. I took a break from this place in the hope you'd calm down when I resumed posting, but no such luck.

I have deleted the sentence in question.

[J T Melsom]

David

I am grateful for the removal of the accusation. I should perhaps have said that the compromise/composite motion lacks transparency rather than honestly, as it is no longer in my view coherent irrespective of the integrity or otherwise of those who have drafted it.

I feel I must return to your attitude to my posts. I don't accept that posters in this place have the right to post views and then not only opt not to answer legitimate and polite questions from specific members of this community but make a show of letting them know that. That doesn't seem to be in the spirit of this place at all, but is becoming all too common. I'm within community standards for the most part - I'd like you to observe those standards as well and not diminish other contributors with valid contributions just because of the name on the post. I may not post with the accumulated chess world experience of others or the eloquence in my prose, but I am a chess player normally posting after thinking and deserve to be treated with a basic level of respect.

[Paul Cooksey]

I'm planning to vote against the motion, unless I hear something in the meeting that changes my mind.

My view on sport and politics is that sport should be trying to stay out of politics as much as possible, while recognising that it is not always possible. If the UK Government had sanctioned Dvorkovich I think I would be in "not always possible" territory. But voting for the motion because I believe the UK should have sanctioned Dvorkovich, that is further than I would want to go.

I don't want the ECF to campaign for things, even if they are things I agree with, beyond chess. I am not saying Malcolm should support Dvorkovich. Just that I don't think I should tell him not to. I want him to exercise his own judgement on what is in the best interests of chess.

[NickFaulks]

If the UK Government had sanctioned Dvorkovich I think I would be in "not always possible" territory.

I wouldn't even go that far. When the Russian Chess Federation appears to be acting as an agent of its national government we are quite rightly critical, so why the double standards?

[JustinHorton]

Council believes that, in view of these actions, as Russian Deputy Prime Minister from 2012-18, including during Russia’s illegal annexation and occupation of Crimea and involvement in conflict in Eastern Ukraine from 2014 onwards, Mr. Dvorkovich is not a fit and proper person to hold the post of FIDE President at this time.

Can we take it then that - given the references to 2014 and 2012-18 - he never has been a fit and proper person to hold the post?

As you correctly quoted, the motion states that Dvorkovic is not a fit and proper person to hold the post at this time.

I am sure you understood my point very well, David, but just to say it plainly, given that the events to which you refer took place before he became President, surely we must infer that he was not* necessarily a fit and proper person at that time too?

[* EDIT]

[David Sedgwick]

I am sure you understood my point very well, David, but just to say it plainly, given that the events to which you refer took place before he became President, surely we must infer that he was necessarily not a fit and proper person at that time too?

I have inserted what I think was a missing negative.

I did understand that that was the point you were making. I don't accept the validity of your inference. Circumstances have changed since 2018.

[JustinHorton]

Well could you spell out why the annexation of Crimea was not an issue previously and why having been Deputy Prime Minister was not an issue previously? Why were they items to be neglected then but items of urgency requiring resignation now? Why did they fail to render Dvorkovich "not a fit and proper" person in the first place?

[Chris Goodall]

Justin has a point. Dvorkovich is sitting in Russia, in December last year, knowing that FIDE considers him a fit and proper person to lead them, and complaining about the behaviour of his former boss Putin.

That former boss decides to invade Ukraine, and suddenly Dvorkovich's position is untenable?

We want chess officials to distance themselves from Putin, don't we? Why would any chess official want to defect from Team Putin to be stabbed in the back like that?

David's changes to Tim's resolution have only made it more explicit that yes, stabbing Dvorkovich is what we are doing, and the back is what we are doing it in.

[David Sedgwick]

I am grateful for the removal of the accusation. I should perhaps have said that the compromise/composite motion lacks transparency rather than honesty, as it is no longer in my view coherent irrespective of the integrity or otherwise of those who have drafted it.

Thank you. It was the apparent suggestion of dishonest conduct to which I took exception.

I feel I must return to your attitude to my posts. I don't accept that posters in this place have the right to post views and then not only opt not to answer legitimate and polite questions from specific members of this community but make a show of letting them know that. That doesn't seem to be in the spirit of this place at all, but is becoming all too common. I'm within community standards for the most part - I'd like you to observe those standards as well and not diminish other contributors with valid contributions just because of the name on the post. I may not post with the accumulated chess world experience of others or the eloquence in my prose, but I am a chess player normally posting after thinking and deserve to be treated with a basic level of respect.

That is rather how I feel.

I don't like being at loggerheads with anyone on this Forum. Apart from anything else, it is not a very productive use of my time or that of the other person.

Could I suggest that we each take due note and reflect on what the other has said and try to move on.

[J T Melsom]

I am happy with the suggestion that we take due note and reflect. Online debate is tricky, but although some find a voice online that they wouldn't have in other situations and can be emboldened by that, I am sure I'd react to your posts the same way if we were in a pub. I've never seen debate as a popularity contest. But I can recognise when criticism is aimed at my views/actions rather than at me. With all due respect your reaction to having your views challenged suggests this is something you still have to get used to. It is a difficult lesson to learn but a crucial one.

[Roger Lancaster]

Well could you spell out why the annexation of Crimea was not an issue previously and why having been Deputy Prime Minister was not an issue previously? Why were they items to be neglected then but items of urgency requiring resignation now? Why did they fail to render Dvorkovich "not a fit and proper" person in the first place?

VaIid questions but, as I've pointed out eIsewhere, the statement that Dvorkovich was Deputy Prime Minister ("DPP") invites the inference that he was the deputy to the Prime Minister which was never the case. The 2012-18 Medvedev Cabinet incIuded 9 persons hoIding a DPP post incIuding one, not Dvorkovich, whose titIe was First DPP. The person in the current UK government to whom Dvorkovic's roIe most cIoseIy equates is Kwasi Kwarteng with a roIe covering business, energy and industry.

[JustinHorton]

That's a point, but it's nothing to do with the point I'm making or the question I'm having no success getting answered.