To kick off, this one is about Malcolm Pein's editorial from the current issue of CHESS, regarding which we present some excerpts and some questions.
First, let's look at this section, which states that Paulson lost Malcolm's confidence as a result of Malcolm learning of the AGON/FIDE agreement.
How convincing is this claim? On Chessvibes, we read the following:
Now, in the ECF elections, Malcolm issued a statement strongly supporting Paulson. But by his own account, he was told, prior to those elections, that Kirsan was a majority shareholder in Paulson's company.
1. How can something that, by his own account, he already knew when he backed Paulson, have caused Malcolm to lose confidence in him?
2. Why would Paulson have "openly admitted" something which is not true and which is not to his advantage to have claimed?
Next, a passage where Malcolm refers to the various controversial agreements made by the FIDE Presidential candidates with their associates.
3. Given that even the published agreement involves Kasparov paying Leong's organisations in return for votes delivered, can anybody explain how that isn't morally equivalent to what Paulson was prepared to agree to?
4. Given that Kasparov only published the contract after the draft appeared in the New York Times, as opposed to when it was made - in other words, when his hand was forced - why does Malcolm consider that publishing the contract is somehow to his credit?
Lastly, here's a passage wherein Malcolm discusses the directors' coup against the President.
Malcolm states that "this" - the Paulson/FIDE agreement - is "the thrust of the issue".
Now Malcolm is acquainted with most or all the people involved in the ECF dispute. It is improbable that he had no contact with any of them in between the motion of no confidence and the publication of his editorial and he is unlikely to have been in the dark as to what was happening and why.
5. This being so, where does this statement leave the claim that it's entirely about Paulson's relationship with the ECF Board - and absolutely nothing to do with FIDE or chess politics?
Answers and comments would be appreciated.
16 comments:
The current position of the now President less ECF Board is that it intends provisionally to instruct Nigel to vote Kasparov in the FIDE Election. Support for Zurab and AP in the ECF election and appointing AP to the ECF's Delegate to FIDE for the length of the ECU meetings is being proposed for approval to the next meeting of ECF voting membership.
Whatever other difficulties there were between AP and the rest of ECF Board, these were swept under the carpet by AP's resignation.
Nigel Short objects very strongly to the support for the Zurab ticket and it remains to be seen whether the voting membership will concur.
Latest ECF board summary unofficial minutes
http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Snapshot-of-7-March-2014.pdf
RdC
It's clear that Malcolm is completely wrong in stating that this is about the AGON - FIDE contract. It's obviously about the relationsip with the board, with the contract being a side issue.
I've been told that the board are secretly hoping that council vote against the motion to appoint AP as delegate for the ECU elections. If that's true, then it makes sense that they agreed to propose the motion just to get rid of him straight away.
It's clear that Malcolm is completely wrong in stating that this is about the AGON - FIDE contract
In what way is it "clear"? As the piece above points out, Malcolm knows the people involved and is in touch with them. So how come he was under this apparently totally wrong impression?
I've been told that the board are secretly hoping that council vote against the motion to appoint AP as delegate for the ECU elections. If that's true, then it makes sense that they agreed to propose the motion just to get rid of him straight away.
It does, but that would also be a fairly treacherous and dishonorable way to behave, wouldn't it? Is there a point where we start worrying about that, rather than just trying to fix things to obtain our preferred outcome and pretending how we do it doesn't matter?
Maybe that point comes, but this surely isn't it. Assuming they really couldn't work together anymore, what do you think the Board should have done?
Blame game isn't it. If the ECF Council votes against the Zurab ticket, then it wasn't the Directors who are at fault, but the ungrateful representatives of leagues, counties and Congresses.
There was after all a majority in favour of AP as President, so the meeting might decide it still supported him in a limited context.
The actual motions and Agenda have yet to be published. When they are, the supporting papers may give an indication of how much support the Board are giving for the Zurab motion.
RdC
@ejh - it's clear just from reading the minutes.
For your 'theory' to be correct, not only would Malcolm have to have had the inside track but (and this is important) the minutes would have had to be falsified. Given that the board was not unanimous, I think the chances that this happened without there being a hue and cry must be nil.
Assuming they really couldn't work together anymore, what do you think the Board should have done?
Behaved with less cynicism and treachery on the one hand and more honesty and openness on the other?
The whole stupid saga has been an insult to the intelligence right from Paulson's nomination, if you ask me.
not only would Malcolm have to have had the inside track
You make it sound like that's somethign difficult: in fact he only had to know and be in contact with the people involved, which he patently was. It's explaining how he was somehow totally mistaken which is the difficult thing here.
but (and this is important) the minutes would have had to be falsified.
Absolute nonsense. Why?
Assuming they really couldn't work together anymore, what do you think the Board should have done?
Behaved with less cynicism and treachery on the one hand and more honesty and openness on the other?
Is a more concrete answer possible? In a normal board, a quick exit solution would be found but there was no obvious exit route here. What we have looks cynical - obviously they don't much want AP to have ECU vote, and I understand you not approving of the probably insincere recommendation to Council - but what else was to be done?
@ejh - you've either not read the minutes, or you're ignoring them because they don't fit with your conspiracy theory. Shoddy work either way.
The minutes make it clear why each individual director voted the way he did, and why the board got rid of AP. Reading them, it is clear that the FIDE - AGON contract was a side issue at best.
You're alleging that the contents of those minutes are false, and that the FIDE - AGON contract that was the real reason. It is your assertion that is absolute nonsense. Even worse, it is absolute nonsense for which you have not a shred of evidence.
It seems to me, reading the minutes, that the board are to be commended for taking the action that they did in resolving the matter quickly.
Look at the minutes of the Board meetings of 19 Jan (ordinary meeting) and 8 Feb (emergency meeting). Look at what the Directors say or don't say in each. Look at the agenda for the 8 Feb meeting. Consider the fact that the 8 Feb meeting was called by six of the Directors without the knowledge of the other three, one of whom was the CEO and another of whom was a Non-exec.
The chess establishment (with Pein carrying influence) closing ranks in support of "our Nige"? Hard not to that's what it is - with straw man arguments put up to obfuscate.
The chess establishment (with Pein carrying influence) closing ranks in support of "our Nige"?
I would have thought that likely.
The thing is that those who would have to adjudicate, the voting members at ECF Council, would be likely to close ranks as well. Blame years of anti-Kirsan propoganda by the chess press if you will, but it's very hard to see support for a pro-Kirsan motion, as attempting to dismiss Nigel would almost certainly be portrayed.
AP obviously was elected last October, but I don't believe that, unlike Gerry Walsh, he has built up a power base that would support him against challenges.
RdC
Does anyone else's head spin at the presence of five unidentified people in this conversation?
You're alleging that the contents of those minutes are false
Whatabsolute nonsense. I'm plainly not alleging that. I could only be alleging that if there was no middle ground between
entirely about Paulson's relationship with the ECF Board - and absolutely nothing to do with FIDE or chess politics
and something like
nothing whatsoever to do with Paulson's relationship with the ECf Board - and absolutely everything to do with FIDe or chess politics.
There's a term for this fallacy, but I can't remember what it is off the top of my head.
Does anyone else's head spin at the presence of five unidentified people in this conversation?
A bit. Blame it on our stupid Blogger comments system though.
If the discussion gets heated I might ask people to use consistent names or handles, but at the moment I think we're OK.
Incidentally, this is not the first time I've been accused of having a conpiracy theory for a conspiracy I've not sought to name. Curiously the previous occasion was when opposing Paulson.
Wikipedia says "False dilemma (false dichotomy, fallacy of bifurcation, black-or-white fallacy) – two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there are more."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy
Yes, I think that's what we're looking for
Post a Comment