tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post6630182224587991454..comments2023-12-28T02:11:22.501+00:00Comments on The Streatham & Brixton Chess Blog: We Used To Be Closer Than ThisTom Chivershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09850710685193416732noreply@blogger.comBlogger60125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-25150001194579790482012-10-07T13:13:37.060+01:002012-10-07T13:13:37.060+01:00Manifestly not good enough. Next time you wish to ...Manifestly not good enough. Next time you wish to make claims on here, please supply supporting quotes.<br /><br />This correspondence is closed. ejhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01582272075999298935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-47684819407643043592012-10-07T11:05:36.661+01:002012-10-07T11:05:36.661+01:00They weren't attributed as quotes; but I do th...They weren't attributed as quotes; but I do think the implication is the same.<br /><br />The receipts are payments to players. <br /><br />The nature of CJ's relationship with these people is being speculated about as relevant to the CAS decision, despite the decision having been made by the board, not CJ.Paul Cnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-67350473758505602742012-10-07T11:03:03.663+01:002012-10-07T11:03:03.663+01:00(For the record, it would be appreciated if Paul&#...(For the record, it would be appreciated if Paul's next comment either substantiates his claim or withdraws it. If it does neither then I am minded to close comments on this thread.)ejhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01582272075999298935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-35393958472021493112012-10-07T10:44:50.652+01:002012-10-07T10:44:50.652+01:00None of that asks
"who exactly got paid wha...None of that asks <br /><br />"who exactly got paid what at Sheffield"<br /><br />nor<br /><br />"how many times has CJ met Garry or Ray".<br /><br />Does it?<br /><br />ejhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01582272075999298935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-43795816724570086472012-10-07T09:53:23.165+01:002012-10-07T09:53:23.165+01:00It is extremely hard to debate with someone who is...It is extremely hard to debate with someone who is moderating your comments without feeling bullied. But I don’t really know how to take the duality of “you’ve not substantiated” and “this is not an open house”. I thought about starting a thread on the ecforum as neutral ground, but it doesn’t seem fair to inflict this on a wider audience, and especially Carl.<br /><br />Anyway “I don't think Paul's points are important”, or “I've already addressed them”, I could walk away from. But the suggestion I was just making things up is harder to ignore. I would like to end this discussion; I don’t think it is a good use of my time. I hoped at the start to influence what is written on this blog, because I think it does harm, but clearly I cannot. So I am now really just responding to the point I am making unsubstantiated claims.<br /><br />I find it hard to accept that you don’t see any evidence for the points I am making. There are whole blog posts devoted to speculation about these things. Anyway. the first few quotes that I see pursuing questions relating to how sponsorship was paid, and the relationship between CJ and Keene and CJ and Kasparov are below.<br /><br />“How much of this controversial £12,600 has been accounted for? For how much of it have CJ de Mooi and the ECF been able to provide receipts and invoices?”<br /><br />“(...) one thinks of CJ, who couldn't be more obviously a puppet if he tied strings to his limbs and had Ray Keene pull on them.”<br /><br />“Did CJ really think up this one on his own? We know that he was in contact with Garry Kasparov - this is mentioned in the entry of January 13. So did Kasparov put him up this? Or, to put it another way, did Kasparov alone put him up to this?”Paul Cnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-74585504934413610332012-10-07T08:10:24.177+01:002012-10-07T08:10:24.177+01:00Shorter Paul C: "I am happy to make allegatio...Shorter Paul C: "I am happy to make allegations, but when I am aked to substantiate them, I cry 'not fair!' and refuse."<br /><br />If you were debating in good faith, you would back up claims that you make, or withdraw them. This comments box is not an open house.<br />ejhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01582272075999298935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-14248996250213020132012-10-06T20:28:51.115+01:002012-10-06T20:28:51.115+01:00I don't really think it is fair that I should ...I don't really think it is fair that I should be required to jump through hoops to continue the conversation. I already responded to the point on 22nd Sep in order to continue the discussion, and now I am being set another precondition.<br /><br />Honestly I think if this debate was in good faith, you would respond to the point I made about bad questions, by saying what good questions are still unanswered. But it seems clear that you do not want to discuss what I see as the substance of the debate and are instead trying to shut it down. Perhaps I am indeed obviously wrong and just not seeing it. Either way, we are wasting our time.<br /><br />It rankles to be accused of dishonesty (again; I recall you accused me of lying on the ecforum too). But I guess that goes to my point that I think you've been too quick to attribute base motives to those who disagree with you.<br /><br />Anyway, on the assumption this is by now largely a private conversation, I'll again try to walk away. Anyone else reading the conversation can probably assume I disagree with your response.Paul Cnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-8181486233975753882012-10-06T20:01:33.840+01:002012-10-06T20:01:33.840+01:00We'll start with my question from last Saturda...We'll start with my question from last Saturday. Given an answer to that I'll reply to the question you were asking and then perhaps we'll deal with some other unsubstantiated allegations upthread.ejhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01582272075999298935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-89421274006591822412012-10-06T19:39:41.164+01:002012-10-06T19:39:41.164+01:00Could you be specific about which things I've ...Could you be specific about which things I've made up?<br /><br />I'd like to have the opportunity to refute any allegation of dishonesty on my part.Paul Cnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-78563165859374027882012-10-06T15:49:22.879+01:002012-10-06T15:49:22.879+01:00Probably just as well, as your "making things...Probably just as well, as your "making things up" privileges are not likely to be indfinitely extended.ejhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01582272075999298935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-21785319313457742332012-10-05T21:59:17.399+01:002012-10-05T21:59:17.399+01:00I've given upI've given upPaul Cnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-7907235868262826092012-09-29T09:16:57.860+01:002012-09-29T09:16:57.860+01:00(I think, on reflection, that I'd like an answ...(I think, on reflection, that I'd like an answer to the question above before I move on to anything else. If that'd be OK.)ejhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01582272075999298935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-1970235291232636122012-09-27T18:07:32.295+01:002012-09-27T18:07:32.295+01:00Asking who exactly got paid what at Sheffield, how...<i>Asking who exactly got paid what at Sheffield, how many times has CJ met Garry or Ray, and so on</i><br /><br />Just out of interest Paul, where and by whom have these questions been asked? I certainly don't remember asking either. Not that my nearing-my-fifties memory is a failsafe guide.<br /><br />I'll try and get on to the rest when I have some time on Saturday (if indeed I do).ejhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01582272075999298935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-79402668322755579252012-09-27T01:01:37.328+01:002012-09-27T01:01:37.328+01:00Whether it's really worth raking over this isn...Whether it's really worth raking over this isn't clear, but the statement by the then prospective CEO in October 2010 could be worth rereading in the context of this thread.<br /><br />http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/C13.11.2-CEO-Election-Address.doc<br /><br />So a prospective CEO starts with the intention of openness and ends with retreating into silence. Is there something about English chess which makes it ungovernable? Actually I think there is. Unlike physical sports, it is possible in chess to retain skills to an advanced age. So it is rather less possible to push players around because they push back.<br /><br />RdCAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-15142497605969534262012-09-26T01:40:36.550+01:002012-09-26T01:40:36.550+01:00Nigel Short in his report on his role as ECF Deleg...Nigel Short in his report on his role as ECF Delegate to FIDE has confirmed that the ECF were approached by Kasparov as to whether the ECF would go along with a legal action in CAS about Vice Presidents. Had the ECF CEO been prepared to admit this straightforward proposition a lot of questioning would not have been necessary.<br /><br />There are issues on the margin as to who GK approached, but he might have assumed, incorrectly perhaps, that the President was empowered to act on the ECF's behalf.<br />RdCAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-10542020816806388132012-09-25T21:47:46.478+01:002012-09-25T21:47:46.478+01:00Sorry Paul C in lag in publishing those. ejh is on...Sorry Paul C in lag in publishing those. ejh is on the road on business and I'm not sure when he might engage. <br /><br />It's me stepping in to Moderate...Martin Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17616856982265044441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-26538928465935119732012-09-25T07:29:20.289+01:002012-09-25T07:29:20.289+01:00Another update fail? This can wait for another tim...Another update fail? This can wait for another time and another place.<br /><br />I wrote something yesterday about the difference between good questions, such as those answered by the ECF document, and bad ones, which create the impression of scandal where there is none.<br /><br />I thought Andrew left in exasperation at being asked pointless questions, not because he was under pressure from difficult ones. Paul Cnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-29830033198244990122012-09-24T20:02:32.246+01:002012-09-24T20:02:32.246+01:00So, ignoring some interesting side issues; ejh and...So, ignoring some interesting side issues; ejh and I are at odds on the question of questions.<br /><br />It is indeed possible to meet each new answer with a question as ejh has observed. The trouble is not all questions, not all difficult questions, are good questions. The two reports the ECF produced on Sheffield Finance and the CAS timeline answered the important questions. We know what the ECF did with its money, we know who made a hash of its distribution. We know if anyone exceeded their powers in the CAS case. We know on what basis the board took its decision. These are the serious questions.<br /><br />Asking who exactly got paid what at Sheffield, how many times has CJ met Garry or Ray, and so on, are not serious questions for the ECF to answer. There’s always confidentiality around financial matters, and rightly so. Every elected person has reasons for standing, be they principled or self serving. These questions are at best pointless, interesting sure; but in an unprincipled, tabloid way. <br /><br />Still if asking pointless questions was only a waste of time. I wouldn’t be so critical. But when ejh says questions have not been answered, anyone not familiar with the detail would assume that means important questions. Since factual answers have been given, that raises an implication of wrong doing, or even dishonesty. One simply can’t imply that about people without proof, and implying it without saying directly it is little better than a direct accusation.<br /><br />I get that ejh thinks there is still something to seek out. His suggestion that AF must have run away from the debate when the questions got to difficult is consistent with that view. But I think it is wrong. AF showed no signs being under increasing pressure. He showed signs of increasing exasperation, but that is more in keeping with the idea he thought the questions pointless and irrelevant than difficult.<br /><br />The idea that the ongoing series of questions has had a positive outcome, that the ECF is now more open, is doubtful. The reports produced were, if anything, overkill for the level of allegations. A deliberate attempt to demonstrate openness by a CEO who felt that was worth a lot of time and effort. He lost patience with this approach when it wasn’t recognised. I can empathise; why bother to do a good job if you are going to be criticised for it as if it was a bad job anyway? Indeed why bother with the job at all.<br /><br />I’m contending a good job was done. The CEOs job is to get all these things done, and he did. Given the circumstances he was working in, if you’ve any similar experience, you have to tip your hat. However, the CEO doesn’t have complete control of policy; he has to respect the wishes of the Board and the Council they represent. If they vote for a CAS action he has to get it done in the best way available; and he did, protecting the ECF from undue risk. Ejh seems to be criticising him though a simplistic lens of “he was the boss”. It makes me doubt his experience of management. So does the failure to recognise that the important question on CAS is whether CJ committed to ECF to action. That he was pursuing this goal independently is neither surprising nor relevant. Board members don’t have to go around holding hands. In my experience they often are often pursing different, even incompatible goals. What is important is whether they stay within their authority, and whether the board approves their actions. <br /><br />So that is just my view. It is worth no more or less than ejh’s. But AF’s view counts for more simply because he has walked a mile in the ECF CEO’s shoes. Responding to his comments by saying “I don’t buy that” isn’t fair or honourable. If you thinking questioning authority is an important value, fine. But straight forwardly dismissing the reasons AF gave for his actions crosses a line, it is an accusation of deceit. He deserved to be treated with more respect.<br />Paul Cnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-67619074914892694612012-09-23T20:45:32.041+01:002012-09-23T20:45:32.041+01:00I shouldn't worry - I suspect operator error.I shouldn't worry - I suspect operator error.John Coxnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-56177214219645168872012-09-23T19:51:43.764+01:002012-09-23T19:51:43.764+01:00I am perturbed.
When a comment goes thorugh "...I am perturbed.<br /><br />When a comment goes thorugh "Publish Your Comment" here, an email is sent to our address, which means a copy would exist of it even if the comment itself were to be deleted.<br /><br />But we've not had any to this thread, since yesterday afternoon, other than those than have been published.<br /><br />Which bothers me.<br /><br />Still, like I say, copy and paste.<br />ejhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01582272075999298935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-56987914366464925962012-09-23T19:17:31.837+01:002012-09-23T19:17:31.837+01:00Yeah, my comment has disappeared as well.
Which w...Yeah, my comment has disappeared as well.<br /><br />Which was - I'm well aware that 'flounce' is not an original term of derision, but it's still a term of derision as opposed to a simple factual description, and arguably an unfair and uncalled for one.<br /><br />John Coxnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-10771122417104989482012-09-23T17:52:49.472+01:002012-09-23T17:52:49.472+01:00when winning the debate has become more important ...<br /><br /><i>when winning the debate has become more important to me that the substance, I think I should back off</i><br /><br />Well, I think this is misplaced. I've not pursued the question of the still-unaccounted-for money - I mean it's not as if there have been a string of posts on here about it, and I'm quite capable of doing such a thing when I think it's necessary. I wrote one post on here about it, and on the chess forum I've scarcely mentioned it.<br /><br />But the important thing wasn't "winning" any debate. It was finding out what happened, and for that reason you can't really stop asking until it's clear you aren't going to get any more answers.<br /><br />Which was true of the Sheffield money - as far as I could see, that was it as far as ever getting more information was concerned. So, enough. But with the CAS shenanigans, the thing was that the flounce occurred right in the middle of the discussion. Nobody was "winning", that wasn't the point. The situation remained (and remains) murky. There was still plenty of "substance" to go. <br /><br />What can you do? I mean what do you think <i>our</i> role is? As far as I'm concerned, one function of blogs is to ask questions. Difficult questions. And if anybody doesn't like that, then I have every intention of ignoring them, because I <i>should</i>. Otherwise you never ask anything worth asking or get any answers worth hearing.<br /><br />All that shouldn't need saying, in my view. It's basic. I'd turn it on its head and ask - when you're telling people they should leave off with the questions, <i>what on earth do you think you're up to? Who appointed you?</i><br /><br />Isn't actually the point at which any debate gets called off likely to be the point at which the questions get uncomfortable? So how do we interpret that? Do we interpret "uncomfortable" emotionally, and say it's getting rough, let's stop it? I can see the point in that. But I think that as long as the questions are put reasonably rather than aggressively, all that's likely to happen is that the questions get called off just when they're getting interesting and useful.<br /><br />Which is what happened, in my view.<br /><br /><i>surely the CEO of the ECF gets to be bigger than the ECForum? If he says it's a considered decision, we have to respect that; don't we?</i><br /><br />I'm not even sure what this means. Of course nobody is obliged to post on that forum, a point I seem to recall making very clearly. <br /><br />So what does "respect that" mean?ejhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01582272075999298935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-5078308754307105552012-09-23T17:52:39.642+01:002012-09-23T17:52:39.642+01:00OK.
I find it hard to believe ejh really thinks h...OK.<br /><br /><i>I find it hard to believe ejh really thinks his opinion is uncontroversial.</i><br /><br />I don't, but then again I haven't said I think so.<br /><br /><i>What I thought was missing from that article was an understanding of what the CEO's role is</i><br /><br />In that article, maybe. I don't necessarily agree. The thing is, the arguments on the chess forum derived from situations where Andrew Farthing's role as CEO <i> was</i> the point, and where I do think I understood what it was, or what it should have been.<br /><br />I think it should, for instance, have been to prevent the organisation being used in other people's poltical manouevres without the organisation's members knowing or understanding what was going on. I think there was a failure there.<br /><br />I also think that there was a failure to properly deal with the extraordinary failures regarding CJ's disbursement of money at Sheffield. You may disagree with me in this, but that's your privilege. I think that pretty much the first duty of any organisation is to make sure its money is properly accounted for. This didn't happen at the time, and it didn't happen subsequently. (The report on the failure was welcome, but that's a different thing to actually <i>accounting </i> for the money.) I thought this was entirely inadequate, and said so. I don't believe the CEO got to the bottom of it - manifestly he did not - and I think I am well justified in saying that he should have. I think this was very wrong. It would have been wrong of me not to say so.ejhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01582272075999298935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-13627637109149462422012-09-23T13:10:59.986+01:002012-09-23T13:10:59.986+01:00Any candidate for ECF CEO and to a lesser extent a...Any candidate for ECF CEO and to a lesser extent any directorship has to consider the extent to which they will become an autocratic ruler. If they are only answerable to the ECF Board and sometimes not even then, that should be known before they are elected. If they are going to be answerable only to the other Board members and the formal ECF Council meetings twice a year, that should be known as well. If they want to claim more openness, than they have to demonstrate how they will achieve this. The EC Forum can act as the on-line equivalent of a press conference, where a representative of an organisation tries to put his own or the organisation's position to those who would like greater clarification. I seem to recall a past board promising greater communication, which fell away when their visions were criticised as being nightmares. They flounced as well, from the ECF Board.<br />RdCAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-2089366787797721402012-09-23T12:54:39.512+01:002012-09-23T12:54:39.512+01:00Thanks for having another go. Yes, I know the syst...Thanks for having another go. Yes, I know the system isn't up to much but we can't apparently do anything about it. Probably a good idea to copy and paste longer comments before posting.(Which you shouldn't have to do, but I recall having to do on various blogs which used Haloscan.)<br /><br />Will get back to the substantive point later.<br /><br />ejhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01582272075999298935noreply@blogger.com