Nigel Short wishes Gerry Walsh 'Merry Xmas & Begone!'

[Nigel Short]

Thanks to Simon Spivack for highlighting the disgraceful absence of Gerry Walsh's signature on the ECF's letter to the FIDE Ethics Commission in the case which the FIDE Vice President, Zurab Azmaiparashvili brought against me. One would have thought that it might have been the job of the ECF President to protect the interests of English players. Alas, for a long time Gerry's main interest in international affairs has been to protect his own junketing. Antagonising important members of the FIDE Presidential Board such as Azmaiparashvili and his close friend FIDE Deputy President Makropoulos, with their powerful powers of patronage, would not have suited Gerry's purpose. It is yet another egregious example of the ECF Delegate serving nobody's interest but his own. It should be noted that the independent FIDE Ethics Commission upheld, or at least accepted as plausible, my claim that Azmaiparashvili cheated, by retracting a move, to win the 2003 European Championship. Furthermore I supplied evidence, which was again accepted, that he head-butted a security guard at the Calvia Olympiad. It should be noted that either of these two points, under the FIDE constitution, is amply sufficient to disqualify Azmaiparashvili from office. Regrettably, as the charge was brought against me, and not Azmaiparashvili, the Ethics Commission did not have the power to act upon the obvious implications of their conclusions. Amusingly I was mildly reprimanded - the lightest possible punishment - for terming him a "dunderhead" - a decision which even my great detractor, John Saunders, ridiculed in BCM.
Rather than supporting my efforts to clean the Augean stables of FIDE, Gerry Walsh has shown his great willingness to live among them. It is no wonder he is well-liked there: he is tame and never critical of anyone. The ECU and FIDE presidential Board know his game well. Give him a few junkets and they can count on his support. How, exactly, may I ask, is this in the interests of English chess?

[JustinHorton]

First the election in which Nigel Short stood for the post of delegate to FIDE.

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/organisa ... _oct06.htm

Note the number of votes for "none of the above", what were these voters up to?

I'm not sure I'm not missing something here (Simon may be driving at something which has eluded me) but the "none of the above vote" actually appears to be lower for that election than any of the others.

[Simon Spivack]

First the election in which Nigel Short stood for the post of delegate to FIDE.

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/organisa ... _oct06.htm

Note the number of votes for "none of the above", what were these voters up to?

I'm not sure I'm not missing something here (Simon may be driving at something which has eluded me) but the "none of the above vote" actually appears to be lower for that election than any of the others.

There is the general observation that I believe delegates should vote; if they don't like the alternatives then they should nominate a more palatable candidate. It seems plausible that some abstained from voting in the ECF polls out of ignorance, which was disappointing. Delegates are supposed to represent more than themselves, they should make an effort.

In the case of the election for FIDE delegate, there could have been no excuse of ignorance. Nigel was very much a known quantity, thus this observation was even more applicable; the reduction in the number of "none of the above" I interpret as a partial acceptance of this. It was certainly the case that the former World title challenger would have been far more abrasive when interacting with FIDE than the ECF President. That would have been a good thing, FIDE was no longer run by Fridrik Olafson or Max Euwe; had it been, I'd have favoured a more emollient stance.

[Sean Hewitt]

It was certainly the case that the former World title challenger would have been far more abrasive when interacting with FIDE than the ECF President.

It's conceivable (although I am not among that number) that delegates who did not support GW might not have wished to support NS for this reason and hence felt compelled to vote none of the above. I would certainly do this if I felt none of the nominees were suitable.

[Greg Breed]

It strikes me that all this talk about deposing the current President is absolutely pointless unless there is someone willing and able to take over. Is there? Clearly the role is demanding if done to the standards that the membership expects and should therefore be undertaken by someone with time on their hands. In other words, a retired person.

If I win the lottery within the next 30 years I will gladly stand for the role and would donate a portion of my new found wealth for the greater good of chess, however, as that is very unlikely, we need an alternative delegate. Is there anyone willing to stand in Gerry's place? If so, make it known along with what you want for the future of chess and how to go about it and I'm pretty sure you would get elected!

[benedgell]

I imagine if I spoke to club members in my area about how they viewed Gerry Walsh's presidency, probably about half wouldn't know who Gerry Walsh is, and a large majority of people who do know who he is (myself included) would be satisfied as long as the game fee doesnt rise too steeply. 2 questions that perhaps someone could answer:

1: What has Gerry Walsh done wrong/ badly as ECF president that effects the average club player?

2: Were Gerry Walsh to stand down/ be forced to stand down, what alternatives would there be?

[David Robertson]

Dear Benedgell - it's not clear to me whether you are a person or a hair cosmetic; presume the former

You ask: What has Gerry Walsh done wrong/badly as ECF president that effects the average club player? The list is long, historically detailed and related entirely to chess & its prospects. Depending on your benchmarks, Gerry Walsh has done 'nothing wrong' relative to the extermination of peoples, the destruction of the planet or the annihilation of its wildlife. He has invaded no sovereign state; poisoned no ethnic tribes; passed on no deadly virus; and barely affected the bodies to which he has been delegate. It's fair to say a tub of lard would have had more impact.

But ask instead: what has Gerry Walsh done right? Here one struggles for answer. A tub of lard can be used to grease a frying pan: that's good if one wishes to cook bacon. But Gerry Walsh greases more than a frying pan, not least because he enjoys his pork. More seriously, the onus is on Gerry Walsh fans to itemise what he has done right. Let's start with that incredible offer of 250,000 free chess sets!!! Oh wait....

You ask: Were Gerry Walsh to stand down/be forced to stand down, what alternatives would there be? A genuine tub of lard will do in the interim. Meanwhile, people will be forced to focus on the gravity of the problem. Despite behaviour to the contrary from time to time, chessplayers collectively aren't irredeemably self-destructive. First create a vacancy; thereafter, a suitable candidate will emerge.

David
Atticus CC

[IM Jack Rudd]

Ben Edgell is certainly a person, and a record-holder: he is, we believe, the youngest player ever to have been captain of the Somerset chess team. (I'm the second youngest; he took over from me when I resigned after four years in charge.)

[Carl Hibbard]

I imagine if I spoke to club members in my area about how they viewed Gerry Walsh's presidency, probably about half wouldn't know who Gerry Walsh is, and a large majority of people who do know who he is (myself included) would be satisfied as long as the game fee doesnt rise too steeply.

The thing is the first half should (or would...) know if clearly some progress had been made in say the last ten years?

[JustinHorton]

It is a measure of the incredible mindset of the ECF that when its most famous chess player should offer his services as a volunteer – the federation should think itself in such a position of strength that it is able to turn the offer down.

To my mind it was a no brainer - and we showed yet again that we have no brains.

Well, not really: there's more to the post than being a famous chess player and people were and are entitled to ask themselves how any given individual would perform in that (or any) post regardless of their past achievements on the chessboard.

For what it's worth, I was agnostic on the issue: I found myself weighing up whether a willingness to loudly raise questions of corruption in FIDE (the thing Nigel does that I like most) was likely to be cancelled out by a tendency to pointlessly alienate everybody in sight (the thing Nigel does that I like least). I never made up my mind on this and I suspect that had I been among the voters there would have been six abstainers rather than five. I do however think there's some strength in the point Simon Spivack makes above, that if there were going to be a new set of people elected there would be some point in electing the whole slate.

On another question, I really think it would be helpful if the personal attacks on Gerry Walsh were to cease. A good case surely does not need to be badly put.

[Laurie Roberts]

If I can attempt to summarise:

The point being made on the one hand is that most players turn up, pay and play, get a grade and are generally pretty happy with life so there isn't a large sea of discontent amongst the vast majority of amateur players.

The points being made by others are that there are wider aspects of the game the ECF is involved in which this mass of players are largely unaware of; such as the role the ECF has in promoting chess, in improving access to, and coaching of, the game for younger players, and - as Nigel notes - support for the professional players. Even though these points don't affect the vast majority of players, they will undoubtably be happy to put pressure on their club, league or congress delegate to vote for someone who offers an improvement on these points provided that either a) their game fee doesn't go up massively; or b) if the game free does go up or compulsory membership is introduced - they can see that this extra money is being well spent..

If people want change, they need to propose an alternative candidate and explain to the mass membership how he/she could do better on the latter points than the incumbent. In my experience, people are most likely to elect someone who represents their views, is prepared to speak up and be in a minoroty of 1, who communicates with the membership well (that's the grasss roots and the professionals) in a 2-way dialogue and whose success can be measured by whether or not condiditons for chess players (amateurs and professional) have improved (or are improving) at the end of their term.

I don't know Martin Regan but he seems to have been regarded rather well by most people on these points. I'm still rather confused as to why he resigned but I wasn't in the committee rooms and didn't see at first hand what frustrations he encountered. Mrs Summerscale also seems to be very highly regarded by all who encounter her. I'm sure there are many other candidates. who could do the job; it's whether they want to that's the case in point. And there will always be resistance to change so such a person needs to have endless bounds of patience.

[Ben Purton]

Ben Edgell for president!!

[Matthew Turner]

I actually find Nigel Short's comments unhelpful, because discussing whether or not Gerry Walsh is a 'tub of lard' masks the true debate. Ever since I have been involved with the ECF(BCF) Gerry Walsh has been completely ineffective in all his roles within the organisation.
For many within FIDE, Gerry is the face of English chess and one cannot get away from the impression that Gerry's only interest in chess is to further his own role within FIDE.
I have never accused Gerry of lying, either publicly or privately and I fully accept his statement that the ECF and BCF have never paid for his mum's expenses. However, I wish Gerry had taken the opportunity to say either that no chess organisation had paid for his mum's expenses, or that he always paid for them himself. Whilst there is speculation that Gerry is simply on a junket for himself and his family this is surely damaging for the reputation of English chess at home and abroad.

[Sean Hewitt]

Getting back to the topic, there are as I see it two problems with the President. The FIDE delegate issue is a seperate discussion.

Firstly, the current incumbent is not, in my opinion, good in post. He does not appear to be a good communicator and does not appear to be a good "face" for English chess. These faults apply equally to his role as FIDE delegate.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, is the actual role itself. As things stand, there can be a power struggle between CEO and President. CEO might well think he is running the ECF, and in my opinion he certianly should be, but he then finds that the real power is vested in the President. This should change so that the President is a titular role only, allowing the CEO to run the ECF.

Therefore, the solution as I see it is that we need a credible candidate, prepared to stand against GW and able to beat him, who is prepared to implement changes to the very role itself to make it a figurehead position. Such a candidate may or may not stay on after the role has changed (thats not relevant) but they should be prepared to let the CEO run the ECF.

[Simon Spivack]

I thought Carl had asked for this to be put to bed unless there is evidence . In any event its not the concern of English players paying either game fee or membership if FIDE or whatever other organisation pays Gerry for his servies as an international arbiter.(its another issue if some one else should get a kick of this ball from time to time)
The ECF does not pay for his mother as confirmed by Martin Regan who of all people will know.

The allegation was always absurd. Anyone with more than a minimal knowledge of chess organisation in the UK would have known this. The one person I knew who consistently made this allegation was psychotic, probably because of drug abuse. Here is a link to a formal denial. Unfortunately, no matter how often there is a denial, there is a recrudescence. I have reprised the text below; however, I have no objection to its removal should Carl consider this wise.

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/organisa ... _oct06.htm

Statement by Gerry Walsh President and FIDE Delegate of English Chess Federation (ECF)

Last update: Tuesday October 17, 2006 16:08

This statement is issued following legal advice.

It has been brought to my attention that allegations of financial impropriety have been circulating in respect of my attendance at FIDE and ECU events.

It has been suggested that my mother has benefited from ECF funding on occasions when she has travelled with me to such events.

That allegation is defamatory and I categorically deny the same.

No costs for my mother have been borne by ECF.

On the occasions where there has been a block booking, e.g. an Olympiad, I have always paid to ECF those costs attributable to my Mother. Our Office Manager and the relevant Directors will confirm that this has always been my practice.

This issue is not limited to my involvement as President and FIDE Delegate as the Office Manager as well as the Chief Executive, the Finance Director, the International Director, the Chairman of the Finance Committee and the Auditor would all be implicated if there were any truth in the allegations.