Kasparov vs Ilyumzhinov: the FIDE Presidency battle begins

[NickFaulks]

He is not a liar. The problem is that he might later change his mind.

Obviously, that's the point. I doubt that Kirsan had any thoughts of staying more than eight years when he took the job. The trouble with people like Kirsan and Kasparov is that they can easily convince themselves that they are doing everyone a favour by extending their term.

[Mick Norris]

I have occasionally asked people the following. I have almost never got a coherent response.

WHO, IF YOU HAD THE CHOICE, WOULD YOU MAKE THE FIDE PRESIDENT? Don't worry about such matters as: would he accept office; is he electable? For example, I asked Yasser Seirawan early in 1996. He refused instantly.

Has no-one ever suggested you look in the mirror to get your answer?

[Stewart Reuben]

My conversation with Yasser in 1996 was very brief. On the same wavelength as you, Nick, David Anderton and Nigel Freeman would also be possible.
Susan Polgar is possible.
In FIDE he as used is non-gender specific. That saves writing s/he, his/her etc.
When FIDE was first formed it needed a President who could make decisions on behalf of the organisation because communications were so poor. That way of working remains the case, although no longer necessary.

Some of the complaints made about Kirsan's decisions were not made by Kirsan himself, but by member(s) of the Presidential Board. The highly technical ones he may not even have known about.

To pre-empt Anybody who wants to stand as FIDE President immediately proves that they are unsuitable.

[David Sedgwick]

I have waited years for an opponent who would do less damage than Kirsan, but in my opinion Kasparov does not qualify.

WHO, IF YOU HAD THE CHOICE, WOULD YOU MAKE THE FIDE PRESIDENT? Don't worry about such matters as: would he accept office; is he electable? For example, I asked Yasser Seirawan early in 1996. He refused instantly.

At the risk of Anglocentricity, I think David Jarrett would be excellent.

You say that you have been waiting for a suitable challenger to Ilumzhinov. Yet, when given a completely open choice as to whom you would like to see instead, you opt for the most prominent English Ilyumzhinovist.

[Paul McKeown]

Apparatchik/Silovik. Bought and sold.

[Stewart Reuben]

David Sedgwick >
You say that you have been waiting for a suitable challenger to Ilumzhinov. Yet, when given a completely open choice as to whom you would like to see instead, you opt for the most prominent English Ilyumzhinovist.

Obviously you don't know David Jarrett very well. He, like Nigel Freeman, chose/choose to do their best by chess, trying to steer clear of the politics. I am sure that, had I been closely involved, I wouldn't have lasted three months. Would it have been better for chess had they had the same attitude? David Anderton lasted much longer than I would have done. I have little doubt many in the FIDE PB regretted his going because they recognised his value to international chess.

[David Sedgwick]

Obviously you don't know David Jarrett very well. He, like Nigel Freeman, chose/choose to do their best by chess, trying to steer clear of the politics. I am sure that, had I been closely involved, I wouldn't have lasted three months. Would it have been better for chess had they had the same attitude?

I know both David Jarrett and Nigel Freeman well enough to know that they have played a major role in keeping Kirsan Ilyumzhinov in power for so long.

[JustinHorton]

Susan Polgar is possible.

That would be awesome.

[Chris Rice]

Susan Polgar is possible.

That would be awesome.

Susan Polgar would certainly be a good choice. What about Nigel Short?

1. Well respected, played in just about every country in the world which should be worth a fair few votes;
2. Knows everyone and everyone knows him;
3. Been one of the world's elite for many years; and
4. Has more chess administrative experience than Kasparov.

[Alex Holowczak]

WHO, IF YOU HAD THE CHOICE, WOULD YOU MAKE THE FIDE PRESIDENT? Don't worry about such matters as: would he accept office; is he electable?

Barry Hearn. He has a track record of:
(1) Improving the image of sports with an image problem
(2) Increasing professionals by bringing money and sponsorship
(3) Turning a "pub game" into an international sport
(4) Increasing the fan-base of sports with minority interest

[Kevin Thurlow]

"(1) Improving the image of sports with an image problem"

The image maybe, but has anything actually changed? Admittedly, Hearn has improved his image since he first arrived on the scene, but some of us have long memories.

Susan Polgar? Didn't she have some problems with the USCF? It was all rather murky and it wasn't quite clear who (if anybody or indeed if everybody) acted incorrectly. I think the USCF problems would have an impact on any campaign, whether she was guilty or not.

[John Upham]

Barry Hearn. He has a track record of:
(1) Improving the image of sports with an image problem
(2) Increasing professionals by bringing money and sponsorship
(3) Turning a "pub game" into an international sport
(4) Increasing the fan-base of sports with minority interest

Is it interesting that you suggest BH. He is making a very positive (IMHO) impact upon table tennis (but for trademark and other legal reasons he is forced to refer to it as Ping Pong).

He has brought TT to television using his Matchroom Sport promotion company and his strong links with Sky Sport.

He is promoting a second large event at Alexandra Palace in January and I will be covering it as an accredited media person.

See Official site

[Roger de Coverly]

Susan Polgar? Didn't she have some problems with the USCF?

You might be thinking of this
http://www.uschess.org/content/view/10070/319/

Google will find lots of similar material dating back to the start of the disputes. The basic allegation appears that she and her husband were involved in a dirty tricks campaign against rivals in USCF elections.

[JustinHorton]

Susan Polgar is possible.

That would be awesome.

Susan Polgar would certainly be a good choice. What about Nigel Short?

1. Well respected

But not, perhaps, widely trusted.

[JustinHorton]

WHO, IF YOU HAD THE CHOICE, WOULD YOU MAKE THE FIDE PRESIDENT? Don't worry about such matters as: would he accept office; is he electable?

Barry Hearn. He has a track record of:
(1) Improving the image of sports with an image problem
(2) Increasing professionals by bringing money and sponsorship
(3) Turning a "pub game" into an international sport
(4) Increasing the fan-base of sports with minority interest

Barry Hearn didn't turn a pub game into an international sport. Television did that.

However, what Hearn does do is take professional sporting entities, and promote them (or otherwise use them in order to promote his business interests). Arguably he does this very effectively, albeit he doesn't do so uncontroversially, and among the controversial aspects is that he gets to take control of the entity, which means that if you don't like what he's done you can neither do anything about it nor take it back.

However, that aside, as I say, he can be very effective. But what's going to be the entity in this instance? FIDE doesn't own chess in the sense that Hearn owns professional snooker, or Ecclestone, say, owns Formula 1. It runs the Olympiad and (generally) the world championship cycle. Almost all chess and almost all professional chess is organised outside its direct control, albeit within its rules and its rating system.