With barely a breath caught after the Tal Memorial and Carlsen's amazing win at the World Blitz, it's on to the FIDE World Cup in Khanty-Mansiysk. 128 players battle for cash and two one spots in whatever FIDE can sell as its superfluous additional stage of the candidates cycle en route to challenging the winner of next year's Anand-Topalov match in 2011. As originally designed, the World Cup winner faced the Grand Prix winner in a match, the winner of which would be the challenger. Simple, clear, and everyone would have to, you know, PLAY, in order to qualify. Instead we've got rating qualifiers, a wildcard, and Ilyumzhinov's second cousin for all we know. But I digress. Certainly putting both finalists into the candidates makes the final match into a serious anticlimax. The real tension will be in the semifinal matches that decide who goes on to the next stage. [I was going on an outdated version of the rules. Only the Cup winner goes to the next stage. Apologies.]
It might not make for a rigorous world championship system or quality chess, but these giant knockouts, Ilyumzhinov's legacy, are popcorn-munching fun. Upsets are the rule, providing fans with all the oohs and ahhs of a Bruckheimer film every few days on schedule. The stress is enormous. The list of players is impressive, with Gelfand, Ivanchuk, Svidler, Gashimov, Radjabov, Morozevich, and Grischuk at the top. I think Leko is the highest-rated player not to appear who hasn't already qualified for the candidates. (Topalov/Anand, Aronian, Kramnik, and Carlsen. Kamsky is also in, but is playing here anyway.)
Some items of interest in the pairings for round one, which begins Saturday. The only two Romanian players, former semi-finalist Nisipeanu and Lupulescu, are paired. Judit Polgar appears to be through to the second round already, as her opponent, Pavasovic of Slovenia, is apparently a no-show or a very late dropout. 28 players represent Russia. There are nine Chinese, nine Ukrainians (Karjakin still listed as Ukraine, wassup?), and, bizarrely, ten Americans. (Average rating of the Ukrainians, 2682. Americans, 2606. Just sayin'.) Six Egyptians!? The USAers are led by Gata Kamsky, the winner of the last big KO here in 2007. It shows what a rough year or so Kamsky has had that he's only the 27th seed this time. US champ Nakamura is playing in the London Chess Classic and ceded his slot.
The oldest player in the field is IM Obodchuk, 54, an organizer wildcard from Khanty-Mansiysk and who plays for the IPCA. (International Physically Disabled Chess Association. Don't ask.) After him comes Alexander Ivanov, a year younger. Yangyi Yu, Hou Yifan, and Ray Robson are the youngest, all born in 1994. So, Negi, and Russia's Sjugirov are all 1993. We have the pairings but not the the bracket breakdown, so it's hard to play favorites and dark horses. I guess we could figure it out, but it's late... Games begin at 3pm local, 7am NY time. Where is Khanty-Mansiysk? Josh Friedel can tell you how to get there.
Uh, Mig, I do believe 3 pm in Siberia is 5 am EST.
Just sayin'
Does one of the losing semi-finalists qualifies if Kamsky get to the final? How do they decide who qualifies if that happens?
rdh, will you attend the london chess classic?
Live games at official site are rather disjointed I do not like them, the link is here http://cup2009.fide.com/round.php
I truly prefer watching at Chessdom, they will have Kamsky featured http://www.chessdom.com/world-cup-chess-2009/kamsky-rogelio-antonio-game-1-live
That is of course if the players got to Khanty...
@Mig: "putting both finalists into the candidates ..."
Do you know for sure? If so, when was this decided, what did I miss?
To the best of my knowledge, there are eight players in the candidates, namely
- two match losers (Kamsky and Anand/Topalov)
- two rating qualifiers ([probably] Carlsen and Kramnik)
- two from the GP series (Aronian and ?)
- one organizer wildcard (Radjabov or Gashimov)
- only one spot left for the World Cup
Or was the last GP tournament cancelled? Last time I checked, it was supposed to be held in Astrakhan, Russia in late April 2010 - when the venue (a newly built opera house) will be available and the weather will be nice in the area.
The full pairing list (posted by Muadhib on Chessvibes a while ago) is at
http://img688.imageshack.us/img688/1064/2009worldcup.png
As sups already mentioned Kamsky, he has some particularly interesting matches ahead of him. If he wins in the first round (I would expect so), whom might he face next?
Round 2: Sutovsky(!)
Round 3: Ivanchuk(!)
Round 4: (increasingly hard to predict) Malakhov, Eljanov or Inarkiev
Round 5: Svidler or Shirov?
Again, the online transmission of the game sucks.
I can read the moves, but the board remains empty (no pawns or pieces).
Why on earth is it so difficult for organizers to organize this important aspect of their tournaments correctly ?
Mig (17.11): ”Here's your Tal World Blitz item, sorry about the delay... I've only had time to glance at a few games, mostly Carlsen's with Garry, so will save highlights until the event concludes tomorrow.”
Mig (21.11): "With barely a breath caught after the Tal Memorial and Carlsen's amazing win at the World Blitz, it's on to the FIDE World Cup in Khanty-Mansiysk."
That’s it?!
I hope that you will have the opportunity to give us a few more thoughts on the World Blitz. I’ve been eagerly waiting to read more. :)
Indeed I shall. Will I see you there?
Clearly transmission from the World Cup is in a sad state. Whereas organisation and trasmission at Tal Memorial was brilliant!
Oh well, I presume there will be a courier leaving Khanty-Mansiysk within the week...
"I presume there will be a courier leaving Khanty-Mansiysk ..."
How long will it take him to Moscow on horseback??
Mig, chessdom.com has the brackets.
At least the results are now available on the tournament homepage - I wonder when we get to see the corresponding game scores.
Numerous draws and the following surprises:
Yu Yangyi - Movsesian 1-0
Efimenko - Milos 0-1
Gustaffson - Inarkiev 1-0
The most surprising draw must be Pono's with white against a (just) below 2500 opponent.
Mig: 28 players represent Russia..nine Chinese, nine Ukrainians, ten Americans. Six Egyptians!?
I think I counted at least 7 Indians minus the top 2 (Anand & Harikrishna)
Egypt is the strongest chess country in Africa.
'Egypt is the strongest chess country in Africa'.
That's not saying very much.
I must admit I like the World Cup, there are always plenty of interesting games to follow. Take a look at Nisipeanu's game today, very entertaining. Now the tie-break includes 4 rapid games, and a bunch of blitz games before armagedon , so luck is less of an issue. Whoever wins this will have played 16 classical games plus a number of rapid and blitz games, no mean feat. I think Fide has moved in the right direction with the new candidates system including qualifiers from Grand Prix, ratings, World Cup, etc. Very logical in my humble opinion.
Let's hope the organizers can get the live transmission right for the second round tomorrow. Does anybody know what the issue was?
Not logical in the slightest to do to a LIVE CYCLE. Very logical to do to the next cycle if you are planning it years in advance.... no logic either to the way it was announced... a 'candidates tournament will be constructed... we don't know who it will include or when/where it will be held... we'll get back you ... MAYBE."
Off topic but in his interview with Mirzoeva, Anand says - "I think it is harder to catch a player red-handed, accepting advice, than it is to dream up penalties. So that means that somebody might cheat, and hope FIDE would not catch him. But this dishonest player will immediately feel the change in people’s attitudes to him, the majority of his colleagues will break off relations with him, and he might stop getting invitations to tournaments."
Any guesses if he is hinting at any one in particular?? /)
It is easy to criticize Fide but at the end of the day it is difficult to find sponsors for chess events. Just like any good chess player, who has to adapt his/her long term plans in accordance with the moves played by his/her opponents, Fide has had to change course as events unfolded. As Lord Keynes once quipped when asked why he had changed his opinion on a certain subject: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, Sir?"
I hope to be there 1 day at least. Can't pass up the opportunity to see 1 former WC and 1 future.
I was replying to rdh above. The reply to feature doesn't seem to always work on my phone.
The logical candidate has not stopped getting invitations to tournaments, therefore I conclude he has not cheated! However, there is a lot of animosity towards him from elite GMs, but I suspect this has more to do with his manager.
Please don't start that nonsense again.Everyone is entitled to a presumption of innocence until proved guilty. Mere innuendoes, however frequently repeated, do not suffice.
I was tempted to write: "damning with faint praise" (Pope), but thought it uncharitable.
"...presumption of innocence until proved guilty..." By all means, let's not throw anyone in jail or ban them from the game until we are sure beyond a reasonable doubt that they've gone astray. But personal decisions (e.g., don't leave your kid alone with a reputed child molester even he hasn't been tried and convicted) discussion of issues (e.g., player X has done y and z to raise suspicion; players n1, n2, n3, etc. have severed ties).
Yup. Cheating at chess, child molestation, it's basically the same thing. Throw in murder there while you're about it, why not? How about treason? Arson? Carjacking? Mail fraud? Spitting on the city's pavements? Jaywalking? Playing the Budapest?
Playing the Budapest is the CAPITAL crime.
"It is easy to criticize Fide but at the end of the day it is difficult to find sponsors for chess events. Just like any good chess player, who has to adapt his/her long term plans in accordance with the moves played by his/her opponents, Fide has had to change course as events unfolded. As Lord Keynes once quipped when asked why he had changed his opinion on a certain subject: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, Sir?"
I agree. There are several things I dislike about the present FIDE administration. However, some "strange" decisions have been forced, due to bad global economics.
There'll be daily blitz events at the London Classic.
"It is easy to criticize Fide but at the end of the day it is difficult to find sponsors for chess events."
Uhm, could it be that the difficulty in finding sponsors may have to do with FIDE itself? If I was heading a larger corporation, I might well chip in to help sponsor a serious part of the World Championship cycle -- but NOT with the present state of things, whereby there is lack of transparency, and a fickle and corrupt FIDE leadership.
Change FIDE, and the sponsors will come!
Bingo. And changing a live cycle discourages sponsors by the obvious corruption, favoritism and lack of communication & transparency.
Dump FIDE. Start a new world chess organization that is not controlled by third-world dictators and you might actually get some progress...
There is no need to dump FIDE , enforcing truly democratic rules should be enough to gradually improve things around.
IMO opinion the cornerstone rule would be that no president could be reelected more than one time and mandates could only last 4 years , also no country should be allowed to have 2 consecutive presidents in office.
"IMO opinion the cornerstone rule would be that no president could be reelected more than one time and mandates could only last 4 years , also no country should be allowed to have 2 consecutive presidents in office."
AND World Championship matches should be REQUIRED held in a neutral country!!!
AND no changes to live a cycle for World Championship contenders!!
"Can't pass up the opportunity to see 1 former WC and 1 future."
Remember you could be referring to just one guy.
@Articstones & #coleague :
Both of you are right of course , i didn't mention that kind of rules because i have the feeling that if FIDE were a real democratic institution professional players would have the opportunity to vote against such things .
Perhaps, but I think it will be 2, although there may well be 2 future WCs and 1 past.
I think the problem with FIDE is the "true democratic" rules. Where some African country with 2 IMs and no GM has as much vote as, say, Germany. During the elections, one candidate promises them a box of new chess watches (which, I assume, CAN be done in a way that does not violate the law) and they vote for him. After all, Kirsan is very well democratically elected.
On the other hand, if the voting was "No. of GMs playing for a federation=No. of votes", Bessel Kok would have won the election.
I think the only way this can work is if the European countries who actually spend the most money on chess just drop out of FIDE and form their own federation.
And there will be one or two WCh candidates (depending on how you define the "shortlist") from the more distant past. Korchnoi will be guest of honor, commenting on the games and giving a simul.
http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5928
Robson just got punked...he has really no talent...looks like americans are one and done as usual..well the super bowl is coming up!!
MaybeRobson should have spent some of his 40g on opening prep to not get beat in 30 minutes..and Josh maybe should have had a half-dozen less pizzas put to greater prep.
Maybe Ray should get a coah who is more interested in helping him then himself, there are some talented americans not including Josh "the joke" Friedel but Lederman and others but they need help to be helped not ignored by our great players - Christiansen, Sierawan, and Defermian.
What's up with Obodchuk-Gelfand, drawn in 12 moves? I realize it's not easy for a 2400-guy to beat Gelfand, but he should at least try, rather than giving up the match like this. Is he just grabbing rating points? I'm sure there's a lot of other people who would have liked his wildcard spot.
Maybe it's worthwhile pointing out how those two players got into the World Cup in the first place: Robson via a presidential wildcard (nice idea, but maybe this came a bit early?), Friedel as runner-up from the zonal 2.1 AKA US championship - only because Nakamura has other plans for the coming weeks. Now they can collect their 4,800$ appearance fee and catch a few planes to return home ... .
First summary: the six Egyptians scored together two draws and ten losses, time to say goodbye ... . From the ten Americans, two (the highest-rated) qualified for the next round, three will play tiebreaks and five are eliminated.
Main surprises:
Movsesian - Yu Yangyi 0.5-1.5
Dominguez - Smerdon 1-1
Navara - Laylo 1-1
GM Jobava may be one of the best prepared GMs on planet Earth. He once beat the then #4 in the world (GM Bareev) in a 34 move game, where the final position was still in his home preparation. Good chance the first game against Robson was prep as well, judging by the character of the game. He is also about 130 rating points higher-rated than Robson. GM Friedel lost to a player 150 rating points above him.
Not making excuses, but trying to provide some context. Then again, why allow context to dilute good trolling?
Does anybody know why Leko is not playing? I never have any high hopes for Leko though.
Aingle Pack
This tournament is not for sissies. One cannot win this with +2! The World Cup is street fighting and not the cozy atmosphere of elite chess tournaments.
Yasser Seirawan lives in Netherlands, Nick DeFirmian lives in Denmark. The appearance fee is not $4,800 but $6,000. Robson is quite good and one day will be an elite GM, just give him 2 years. The kid is the youngest GM in the world right now don't forget. Of course I realize the posts against Robson are just hatespeech trolling on America.
4,800$ is the net amount, 6,000$ is before taxes, FIDE fees, whatever (I took this information from the Chessvibes reports).
To my knowledge, Robson is coached by Onischuk, what's wrong with him? Jackson Brown, can you give details or are these just empty insinuations? Does it play a role that Onischuk is an immigrant GM?
it was not I that said anything was wrong with Onischuk.
@jackson brown: I am sorry you feel that way, but understand how you could say that. I have known Yasser very deeply and personally for almost a decade now, writing daily and always visiting yearly. He is one of the most considerate, well informed, giving, kindest persons. He cares deeply about others, the fate of the US and ready to help others, in and out of chess. He is also retired from chess and whatever he is occupied with, no matter how great our chess is, is larger than chess now. As we mature, we go to the next level, whatever it is. You never know who bleeds inside, or why, or what larger frame they are challenged by for greater good. Lets not judge. We all try, we all suffer, many do the best that they can. Take care, sir. Its good that you care.
*
@ed: I really like your comments. I reTweeted the one about Keynes last night, and it got RT three times. Thank you. Very astute!
*
@Mig: I love your blog, and deeply appreciate your hard work. This is the best user commentary in all of chess on the web. Always not back bitting? No. But never without great insights. You deserve great acclaim and applause. Thank you.
*
David Korn, Seattle dkTransform at chess tactical server
You're quite right and we ought to extend your logic as follows:
1. If Bessel Kok had won the election, all would now be well with FIDE- like GMA and FIDE Commerce.
2. FIDE should learn from the UN- swap the democratic nonsense of the General Assembly for the power-play of the Security Council and all is well- the world is at peace for ever.
3. The best chess administrators come from the countries with the highest number of GMs and their competence varies directly with the average ELO of their compatriots.
4. The non-African federations like USCF, ECF, ECU are perfectly run and have no problems at all.All that Sloan/Goichberg/Polgar palaver did not really happen. Not sure about the Asian and South African federations yet. Ditto for Australia/New Zealand and the South Pacific countries.
Hardy Burger I understand your point. I am a Kenyan and I would agree with you that African input in general is not much. Chess is not a cultural thing back here like it is in Europe and places like India. Most of our African federations are corrupt (the one here in Kenya most definitely is). Our officials can be bribed easily and Kirsan continues to stay in power.
But remember, our federations and officials do not speak for the African chess players. We bear the brunt of their corrupt ways directly. African players are not strong vis a vis the rest of the world. But chess is also loved on our continent. I will agree with you on the chess politics front that maybe the FIDE pratice of one vote per federation is wrong. But on the purely chess front I think you should cut us some slack. We got an Egyptian drawing with ponomariov...it's a small achievement but at least it's a start for us.
I am sure the day will come when Africa will have a number of grandmasters and our federations will be more efficient. That's not the case at the momemnt but have faith in us! One day it will happen!
'That's not saying very much.'
Why not stating something very obvious if there is the slightest possibility of insulting others?
Bravo!
C'mon, no need for the hyper-reaction. I'm quite sure that Hardy, like the rest of us, will be happy to see the day "when Africa will have a number of grandmasters and our federations will be more efficient."
Computers and the internet open many possibilities for Africa, as for all other places not associated with strong chess traditions. It's only a matter of time.
I know, that part of my comment was directed at jackson brown.
BTW, regarding Seirawan: he still plays the occasional game in the Dutch competition (generally players rated 100-300 points lower than his current 2649). And I saw him watching at Corus - wearing a VIP nametag, else I might not recognize him ... . So he hasn't completely quit chess. Still I fail to see why he should be morally obliged to coach Robson - not only but also because Robson already has a coach.
Mehul, it seems you missed that Hardy Berger's comment was 100% irony ... .
But to all those criticizing FIDE: What are the alternatives? Those which have been tried weren't successful either ... . And: which other sports federations "are perfectly run and have no problems at all"? I don't think this is the case for International Olympic Committee or FIFA (International Soccer Association), to name just the most prominent ones.
Bottomline: It's easy (and legitimate!) to point out that things go wrong, it's much more difficult to suggest how they could go better.
The one country one vote policy is correct ,what makes it a joke is the fact that it is used under a pseudo dictatorial regime to continue in power.
It is only the head of the monster what needs to be chopped , no need to attack the weaker federations , gens uma abracadabra etc.
If chess professionals were consulted before changing decisive aspects of the WCH cycle no one would ever think of blaming federations with few GMs about who they vote.
Thanks cat/nariu.
I didn't mean to insult anyone and have spent many hours bemoaning the poor state of organization of chess in Africa. Nigeria is a good case in point- tremendous potential muzzled by maladministration and corruption.
"But to all those criticizing FIDE: What are the alternatives?"
The alternative is to clean up FIDE, make the decision-making process transparent, and make the leadership accountable.
Other posters here have also listed reasonable, bare-minimum requirements.
Interesting interview with Hou Yifan here >http://interviews.chessdom.com/yifan-hou-khanty-mansiysk
Thomas, thank you. Good points. Yasser has RETIRED from professional chess but yes, does play league games, much ICC and Playchess at times (beat Rabajov in 5 0 quite soundly, 2715+ not an easy matter), but quitting chess and retiring are indeed different. He has is still much engaged with the chess community, commentary, writing, broadcast.
*
In any event, yes, the younger grandmasters sometimes need something, and they get it from somebody, especially if they want it. As I recall, Nakamura said he didnt have a trainer in recent years, but made extensive use of chess engines to review games, not unlike Anand said recently.
*
Finally, imperfections aside in the FIDE schema, in the Keynesian sense as Ed wisely said, A. it is erratic but also--in the sense of Popper's Logic of Scientific Discovery--pragmatic if not falsifiable, and B. imperfect as it is, it is something. Great chess players will assemble, from the Grand Prix, Grand Slam, Topolov/Anand, etc.
*
Peace to all of you, dk
Thanks for the words of praise David. Lord Keynes was a fascinating character, much in vogue these days due to the global financial crisis. A lot has been written about Keynes the economist. Less is known about Keynes the investor & money manager. A precious little book by the title "Keynes and the Market" was published recently about the subject. Initially Keynes was a mere short term speculator trying to figure out "what average opinion expects average opinion to be" (his own words). He did not achieve much success with this short term speculative strategy and later in his life changed his style to what today would be considered value investing, buying securities at depressed prices for the long term when they had fallen out of favor with Mr Market. An earlier incarnation of Warren Buffet! He died a rich man.
Mehul,
You missed the irony of Hardy Berger comments and took it literally. These problems are all relative and its rather easy to point out problems in resource-deficient regions.
BTW, an El-Gindy drawing Ponomariov is not news. He actually BEAT Ponomariov in 2007 before losing in tiebreaks. Let's not sell him short.
This idea about African corruption is an troubling issue, but it is no less than the problems we find in Europe, the USCF and India. Mehul you mentioned India, a country that stays in the news with one controversy after another. Certainly these nations have stronger players, but the chess conditions are far different from what we find in Africa. As you know, all the money goes to football.
In fact in the past thirty years FIDE had been embroiled in a fight to unify a chess world split by selfish interests out of Russia (The three K's) and America (Fischer). Kasparov bolted FIDE to form his own organization and then bolted again to delay unification for another 3-4 years. There is enough blame to go around, but to bring African federations in this matter is a bit unfair Mehul. Hardy Berger was making sarcasm at this point, not an actual statement.
I only hope that Anand holds the crown a bit longer to bide time for the new generation. If Topalov or Kramnik reclaim the crown, we will again be saddled with a split crown, poor sportsmanship, no hand-shaking, toiletgates, cheating accusations and all sorts of madness. In the latest New In Chess, Topalov mentioned cheating once again in the back page interview.
With Anand, at least we can hope his even temperament and humble persona will keep our chess world whole.
HardyBerger: Did you really call the UN general assembly "democratic"?
> If Topalov or Kramnik reclaim the crown, we will again be saddled with
> a split crown, poor sportsmanship, no hand-shaking, toiletgates,
> cheating accusations and all sorts of madness.
While I'm certainly rooting for Anand to hang on, I'm not aware that anyone (other than Topalov/Danailov) has suggested that Kramnik is guilty of poor sportsmanship, much less cheating.
Any idea why Koneru Humpy isn't playing? She does seem to qualify with her rating (2600+).
Kapalik
It seems that Seirawan made the step(s) that are common, indeed there unavoidable in physical sports once past a certain age (35-40): out of active competition, into coaching, journalism, (management?). According to his rating card, he obtained FIDE Senior Trainer status in 2004 - no idea what that takes, which kind of exams it requires ... in any case Rybka and Fritz wouldn't qualify ,:) .
"the younger grandmasters sometimes need something, and they get it from somebody, _especially if they want it_"
The last part is important, and I guess (but little if anything do I know) that Seirawan is not the type of person providing unsolicited advice. Maybe Robson and Seirawan can talk to each other in January when the younger one will play Corus C (info from Susan Polgar's site)?
On FIDE affairs: I would be the last one to suggest that Iljumzhinov's eternal reign is an ideal situation. Yet on the plus side:
- FIDE may learn from past experiences: Determining a world champion in a knockout lottery didn't gain much acceptance in the community, this concept was apparently abandoned again [the World Cup is OK to provide one spot into the cycle]. Changes during an ongoing cycle were also duly and rightly criticized.
- The GP concept, while having practical problems and receiving much scorn, is IMO also a step into the right direction: a rather transparent qualifying scheme at the start, and clear winners at the end (reminiscent of zonals and interzonals in the old days). To those categorically against wildcards: organizers and sponsors want them, professional chess needs organizers and sponsors.
What doesn't help IMO is spreading new rumors on the WCh cycle. @Mig: You are probably busy, but if you find time - could you please answer my earlier comment (#5 in the current thread)?
On the last paragraphs, I second Ashish's reply: What would have happened if Kramnik had regained his WCh title (defended his match title?) by winning rather than losing against Anand in Bonn? Back to "split crown, poor sportsmanship ... and ... madness"?!
BTW, in fairness (even) to Topalov - though he isn't fair himself towards his "enemies": In the NIC backpage interview, the journalist first brought up the issue of cheating:
Q Is the problem of cheating in professional chess underestimated or exaggerated?
A Watch the videos from the Elista 2006 match.
Of course Topalov is fully responsible for his "typical" answer, he couldn't even blame Danailov .... . I don't know who does those interviews for NIC (that question was the only one that is not routinely asked to everyone). In the given case - unlike Bulgarian newspaper interviews subsequently quoted at Chessdom - it wasn't just a matter of providing keywords/asking a question while already knowing the answer.
What's going on in the rapid tiebreaks? Two games finished after 12 moves:
Khalifman-Fier 1/2 (can't wait for the blitz!!??)
Shabalov-Baklan 0-1
My strong impression is that Bessel Kok failed with his sponsorship initiative, well, because FIDE is behind it after all. We remember that story with their logo, right?
And giving weight to the votes is not something extraordinary. In corporate business, shareholders vote according to the number of shares they hold, not "all people are equal so everyone who has a share has 1 vote". And isn't that also true in EU parliament? Don't the countries have votes proportional to their population? It isn't ONE VOTE per country, is it?
HardyBerger: Did you really call the UN general assembly "democratic"?
I suggested that it was more democratic than the Security Council.
"SCANDALE IN TURKEY"
Anybody seen what happened in Turkey? They did not play the national anthems of the winners, despite that this is the tradition and was done two years back when the world junior championship was held in Turkey. Seems like FIDE is not the only problem around
No disrespect to Robson or Onischuk but if Robson is to reach his potential then imho he needs a coach full time, Onischuck is too busy with his own chess to do so. I mentioned Sierawan, Christiansen, and Defermian as I wrongly believed they lived in the US and would be good candidates, as well as Joel B. Maybe I am wrong but for Robson to reach his potential I would think his main coach should be devoted to him 100% in what are these crucial years (nowadays anyway) to reaching the top as being young really helps, for example all the invites Carlson, Radjabov, even Cuarano are getting because of age/rating. And gongrats to Finegold, maybe next time he will get a chance.
Interesting interview with Caruana here:
http://interviews.chessdom.com/fabiano-caruana-khanty-mansiysk
This one - as well as others (so far Hou Yifan, Gashimov, Robson and Dominguez)- is actually from the World Cup homepage:
http://ugra-chess.ru/eng/interv_e.htm
In the Caruana interview, I like the ignorance of the interviewer ("For Italian, you speak good English") - Caruana considers this "nothing special" .... .
And this is Robson's answer to "Who is your coach?": "Alexander Onischuk. But I don't work with him very often. He is busy playing in many tournaments. We meet some three times per year."
Fair enough - I understand what Jackson Brown means. But does Magnus Carlsen meet his new coach much more often face-to-face?
Magnus where working with Kasparov two weeks in August. Then they met for a couple of days in September, and, Magnus spent a few hours with his coach in Moscow the day after winning the World Blitz Championship. Not very often taking into account that the cooperation has lasted for, well, since eastern?
It's past 11:00PM in Siberia, Akobian and Tregubov are still playing blitz games - the first drawn one might decide the outcome of their match. In any case, the winner is .... Ponomariov who will play one of them tomorrow.
some stats from round 1 based on country:
USA: Only Kamsky, Onishchuk and Shabalov out of 10 prevail after round 1.
IND: Only Sasikiran, Ganguly and Sandipan Chanda remain of the 7 total
CHN: 6 of 9 go through.
EGY: 0 of 6 Egyptians go through
UKR: 6 of 9 Ukranians go through
RUS: 17 of 27 go through.
FRA: All 4 of 4 France go through !!
quote
And giving weight to the votes is not something extraordinary. In corporate business, shareholders vote according to the number of shares they hold, not "all people are equal so everyone who has a share has 1 vote". And isn't that also true in EU parliament? Don't the countries have votes proportional to their population? It isn't ONE VOTE per country, is it?
end quote
****
Here is a suggested solution.
Establish 3 tiers of voting rights based on # of players with FIDE ratings.
Tier 1 = 1 vote in the FIDE assembly
Tier 2 = 2 votes
Teir 3 = 3 votes
Presumably...tier 3 voting nations are also paying the top FIDE membership fees (i.e. in the past, there was a sliding scale with a maximum based on # of rated players etc).
With FIDE reducing the requirements for FIDE rating, this may produce some odd shifts in the # of tier 1, tier 2 and tier 3 countries...
...but it should avoid a situation where Mozambique has equal vote to Germany.
It should also make it harder -- but not impossible - for a FIDE presidential candidate to ignore Europe and sweep Africa/Asia and win the presidency.
A simple change like this -- which is more in line with true representative democracy/republicanism (rather than mob rule democracy) ought to go a long way toward enforcing some sanity on FIDE decisions.
"USA: Only Kamsky, Onishchuk and Shabalov out of 10 prevail after round 1.
IND: Only Sasikiran, Ganguly and Sandipan Chanda remain of the 7 total
CHN: 6 of 9 go through.
EGY: 0 of 6 Egyptians go through
UKR: 6 of 9 Ukranians go through
RUS: 17 of 27 go through.
FRA: All 4 of 4 France go through !!"
It's a matter of chess culture?
*ducks & runs*
But let's not disrespect the Round 1 losers. Shulman, for example, put up epic resistance, saving match point twice.
Some more statistics: In 14 cases (out of 64), the lower-rated player won [Akobian-Tregubov still undecided while I am typing]. Chinese players were involved in five of these upsets, including four of the five on the highest boards (=largest rating difference). This also includes Bu Xianghzhi-Pelletier 0.5-1.5, where the Chinese player was rating favorite.
A few responses to your argument.
1. There is no suggestion that FIDE maladministration is caused by the dearth of Europeans (or other superior people) in the top echelons.
2. Why stop at tiered voting based on number of rated players? Why not the number of arbiters, number of tournament organizers, average ELO rating, GDP per capita etc.
3.I think your apartheid-like democracy would make all decent people cringe and will not solve any of the current problems.Let me remind you of the numerous problems in the british, French, Dutch and US chess federations to name but a few.
4. Democracy might be an inconvenience at times but it is the best of the worst solutions. There is nothing stopping various interest groups from applying pressure within the overall democratic structure, however many unworthies are in it.
Akobian and Tregubov tied 8-8 after 8 blitz games
Well said.
@excellent jackson brown. thank you.
@manu. wow. your video's linked through your handle are fabulously good. i have been in the visual fields for the last 50 years, and am very picky. bravo!
@ed, thank you. dk
Harish: USA: "Only Kamsky, Onishchuk and Shabalov out of 10 prevail after round 1."
And Akobian!
4 import ex-soviets.
steven: "4 import ex-soviets."
It's fantastic that they have chose to live, play, and teach in the US--fabulous contributions to US and world chess. огpомное спасибо, Дуже дякую, paldies, and Մերսի to the four of them, resp.
All of the interviews on the official site are good, if short. Unfortunately for Mig, we hear Hu saying men are better players... maybe she is just stating the current situation, and not saying by nature. Also she mentions that the Chinese team members who do not succeed on to round 2 will stay to help/coach those who do move forward - do any other countries work that way? I doubt either the Americans or the Russians will, though maybe the Azeris, as they are a close bunch.
Those of you who are older will remember that the older FIDE democracy had the same vote-buying problems as the current one. Mr. I is no exception, as the previous president also won by giving out cigars and more to the poorer federations to gain their votes. We hear that the same problems are found at the IOC, with even more expensive vote buying. Is this form of vote-buying corruption endemic to our organizational democracies?
Again, on the vote buying of organization democracies, I am less bothered by "gifts" to whole federations than personal gifts. It is one thing for a chess politician to promise a big tournament or federation money or a chess center, when that does not directly benefit the voting delegate. What is unacceptable corruption is when the chess politician promises personal favors, cigars and champagne, ladies of the evening, and especially, hidden monies in envelopes, in return for votes.
"Is this form of vote-buying corruption endemic to our organizational democracies?"
That reminds me of the best political bumper sticker I ever saw? Where, you ask? Why, in the US of A, of course! :
"SUPPORT DEMOCRACY. BUY A POLITICIAN."
Very kind of you , thx !!
I suggest you should play like an Egyptian.
HardyBerger wrote:
1. There is no suggestion that FIDE maladministration is caused by the dearth of Europeans (or other superior people) in the top echelons.
2. Why stop at tiered voting based on number of rated players? Why not the number of arbiters, number of tournament organizers, average ELO rating, GDP per capita etc.
3.I think your apartheid-like democracy would make all decent people cringe and will not solve any of the current problems.Let me remind you of the numerous problems in the british, French, Dutch and US chess federations to name but a few.
4. Democracy might be an inconvenience at times but it is the best of the worst solutions. There is nothing stopping various interest groups from applying pressure within the overall democratic structure, however many unworthies are in it.
****
What an odd view of representative democracy you have!
The US Congress (not known as a source of "apartheid") is split precisely along these lines -- the House members are apportioned by state population, and the Senate is apportioned by equal state representation. Nobody would say that the House is a form of "apartheid" democracy because it is based on population!
Indeed, if FIDE is supposed to make decisions for CHESSPLAYERS then it makes sense to apportion decision-making input according to the number of actual chessplayers that exist in a particular federation.
Are you accusing the founding fathers of American government to be "apartheid democracy" advocates -- that is absurd!
Another example: Prussian govt representation was apportioned by how much tax you paid -- on the theory that the more tax you paid, the more stake you had in the overall success of the nation-state.
These are points to consider when discussiong FIDE votes.
It might prove very illuminating to run the numbers...on past votes (i.e. votes for president, votes on rules, votes on world title cycle) to see how they would have played out via a tier 1-2-3 system vs. the existing 1 federation/1 vote system.
As for the problems inside the US federation -- I am acutely aware of them and you must not realize who you are preaching to.
" Indeed, if FIDE is supposed to make decisions for CHESSPLAYERS then it makes sense to apportion decision-making input according to the number of actual chessplayers that exist in a particular federation."
Not at all , just use the vote tool among chess professionals to find out what is the best way of ruling them...
FIDE takes care (or should take care) of many different important things that have nothing to do with professional chess , the one country one vote system is perfectly fair for that matters.
Your selective system has many flaws, ( like federations buying players to have more power ) but the bigger problem is that it goes against promoting chess .
Why would a bigger federation help a weaker one to promote the game and have more players? Making corruption the only rule will not help democracy...
The only thing that needs to be done is to enforce a genuine democratic system , everything else will come afterwards .
Manu commented:
" Indeed, if FIDE is supposed to make decisions for CHESSPLAYERS then it makes sense to apportion decision-making input according to the number of actual chessplayers that exist in a particular federation."
Not at all , just use the vote tool among chess professionals to find out what is the best way of ruling them...
FIDE takes care (or should take care) of many different important things that have nothing to do with professional chess , the one country one vote system is perfectly fair for that matters.
Your selective system has many flaws, ( like federations buying players to have more power ) but the bigger problem is that it goes against promoting chess .
Why would a bigger federation help a weaker one to promote the game and have more players? Making corruption the only rule will not help democracy...
The only thing that needs to be done is to enforce a genuine democratic system , everything else will come afterwards .
****
Mob rule is not good government (Cicero).
I think you are under the false assumption that FIDE is only about professional/elite players.
This is understandable on a blog about elite players...but FIDE is not only about professionals. It is about amateur play -- in fact many events/programs are run for mid-level players (2000+ ELO). National federations exist for amateur player needs -- the professional side is an outgrowth of the health of amateur chess in any federation.
The rating system is a prime example -- the FIDE rating system serves many federations that do not have their own system. It is not run for the top 100 -- in those countries, it is run for EVERYONE.
So, polling the top players is an extremely poor way to run FIDE...because FIDE is about far, far more than just the top players. An oligarcy of top players is just as bad (if not worse) as an oligarcy of organizers or chess politicians.
In fact, we should step back and remember that FIDE is run for the benefit of the national chess federations...NOT individual players. The members of FIDE are national federations - not players.
This is important because it emphasizes that FIDE's responsibilities (i.e. world title cycle, rating system, etc) are national federation responsibilies. FIDE is not a big club where the emphasis is on "how can we provide bigger/better prizes for the club champion" -- it is a trade organization that answers the question "how can we run events/programs that support national federation interests". These are two VERY different questions.
The world title cycle is one of those interests because it supports the need to popularize chess (and because serving pro players is one of -- but not the only or even primary -- need of national federations.
Manu asks several questions:
Why would biger federations help smaller ones? Um, because it is the right thing to do? Because it helps grow the overall chess economy? Because political alliances are built on mutual support? Because...by forming a super-organization (FIDE), the individual federations are freed from making that decision? (Isnt' this the same as asking why a national government should support the states or provinces...i.e. once the super-organization is in place, it attends naturally to its constituent parts as part of the purpose of the super-organization...in a way that no single smaller part could do.)
Wouldn't federations buy players to have more votes? Um, players have to play -- so adding amateurs to events would only increase one's vote (from tier 1 to tier 2 to tier 3) if they actually get on the rating list.
And there are already rules for players changing federations. If we used total rated players, then it wouldn't matter if GM X changed federations, as adding/losing 1 player certainly wouldn't matter in the slightest. Adding 1,000 players might matter...and it adds incentive to add them. Again, this seems to be confusion over pro players vs. total players.
I'm a little surprised that Manu seems more concerend with $$$ handouts to smaller federations (which he -- correctly -- thinks are enhanced by the 1 federation/1 vote system, which is a form of patronage).
I don't really care about that -- if FIDE were richer, it could give cash subsidies to tier 1 federations. It already does so in the form of the tiers for FIDE dues --smaller federations PAY LESS, which is a form of subsidy if you are getting the same level of voting rights.
I do care whether decisions on the world title cycle, chess rules and other basic matters...depend equally on the votes of Germany and Mozambique. They should not depend so, and the tier structure is one way of ensuring that the world title cycle is not designed by Mozambique.
(Agreeing with Thomas here): Mig, there is only one Candidate qualifying from the World Cup, says this FIDE document from June 2009: http://www.fide.com/FIDE/handbook/regscandidates.pdf Unless FIDO has changed its mind again, which is entirely possible.
" I think you are under the false assumption that FIDE is only about professional/elite players."
Not at all , that's why i pointed out that the problems that affects professional players could be solved by consulting them via vote , and that your proposal is not only unfair but also unnecessary...
In fact i was the first to point out that FIDE has other responsibilities than to rule the elite chess...
"So, polling the top players is an extremely poor way to run FIDE..."
Nop , polling top players is an excellent way to perfect the rules that affects them , i never suggested to make top players vote on other issues...
I found very estrange how you seem to know and like democracy a lot but still want to go without its most important tool : the vote...
"In fact, we should step back and remember that FIDE is run for the benefit of the national chess federations..."
And yet you want to go with a system that would make some federations more powerful than others ...
" Why would biger federations help smaller ones? Um, because it is the right thing to do? Because it helps grow the overall chess economy? Because political alliances are built on mutual support? "
I dont know if you are being naive or just hypocritical , it is pretty obvious that bigger federations would like to remain on top of the decision making process and just because of that have no interest on helping the weaker ones to evolve.
The tier system would create even more corruption , problems and discrimination , solving nothing in the meantime.
And on top of that it is just plain unnecessary !
Want some sophisticated democracy ? What about having a real one for starters ? What about having presidents that could not be on office for decades? What about making professional players use the ballot to solve their own problems ?
Lets have a simple and transparent system to choose FIDE's leaders , lets make sure every president leave his office after a reasonable period of time , lets make sure we have presidents from each federation (like in the rotary club) , lets hear what professionals have to say about their activities , same thing with teachers and arbiters.
If we achieve that , we can use the apartheid theme on more important issues , like blogging.
"Are you accusing the founding fathers of American government to be "apartheid democracy" advocates -- that is absurd!"
If you are giving history lessons, you should read up some first!The founding fathers were much worse than apartheid, they held slaves, and wrote a constitution which specified the lesser worth of those slaves.
Back to chess (or close to at least):
Polling the top players for decisions about top level chess is a horrible idea! They will of course vote in their own best interest, which does not agregate to the best interest of chess. One simple example: The majority of top level players can only dream to fight for the WC title, but if everybody below the top 20 votes for a knockout cup, then they too will have a shot at the title...
I'm saying that FIDE is about chess, and chessplayers. You can make the voting with "No. of rated players >1600" if the GM-based system seems discriminatory. You are instead saying that each different-colored thingy on the political map should have one vote.
If Russia has, say, 100K rated chessplayers, and some xyz-land has 1, then assigning both countries 1 vote means that each chessplayer in Russia has 100.000 times less say than the guy from xyz-land. This is not, in my understanding, what democracy is.
You can quote me Animal Farm or cry that I am denouncing democracy, but I'm not. In EU, citizens vote: that's why in the parliament every country has vote which is roughly proportional to its population. It is not one vote per country.
"The founding fathers were much worse than apartheid, they held slaves, and wrote a constitution which specified the lesser worth of those slaves."
Ducking the issue of slavery was the only way to get the Southern states to sign on to the Constitution, but why let facts get in the way of good spin? P.S. you're a dipshit.
Thanks for elevating the tone, shams.
The whys can always be argued and used as apologies for what actually happened, but what was actually done is the facts. Confusing the facts with the spin is bad, but calling the apologetics for the facts and the actual outcome for the spin seems especially confused. Nice try to spin it though...
And yes: the south was actually a part of the founding assembly, not a separate approval assembly, you can not say "the founding fathers" and not count those you disaprove of.
I'm not trying to start a history thread, just wanted to point out what I thought was strange logic from chesspride.
I'm not trying to start a history thread, just wanted to point out what I thought was strange logic from chesspride.
****
Since I live in a REPRESENTATIVE democracy (aka a republic), not a direct democracy...it is with some sadness that I see posts where representative democracy is viewed as some anti-democracy evil.
Hasn't anyone read On Mob Rule by Cicero?
Direct democracy is terrible -- mob rule votes deprive others of rights.
Representative democracy is where reasoned debate and respect for all groups can be found.
FIDE has problems *precisely* because it is direct democracy at the national federation level -- assigning equal votes to very unequal federations who have very unequal stakes in the success of the organization.
A move to representational government would enhance FIDE.
heya, whatta you-a saying about mob rule, eh? You want I call Tony?
I too live in a republic with representative democracy ,( a mixed system between the both ,actually) and i don't see representative democracy as evil , in fact the one country one vote system is a representative democracy in itself...
What is peculiar about your claim is that the order of merits you want to introduce as a system of differentiation between federations is both unfair and counter productive ...
On the other hand you seem to ignore the fact that FIDE is not a real democracy , but a dictatorial regime (or a private company if you will) enriched with ballots every now and then .
Every effort will be in vain until we manage to establish a fair and democratic leadership in FIDE , which is after all the one practical and feasible thing we can really do after all ...
too many " after alls" in the last sentence , sorry im working.
Actually Kirsan was democratically elected.
Every system has its advantages and disadvantages. The current is vastly discriminative against players, as I explained above. I don't see your point, Manu
Actually Sadam Husseim was democratically elected too , you know ...
If a person is allowed to remain in the presidency for decades there is no use to call it a democracy, even if the vote tool was used to elect him...
My point is very clear , lets start by having a real democracy first and see how it goes.
" Politicians and diapers have one thing in common , they both should be changed regularly and for the same reason."
Chesspride,
Your arguments are confused, convoluted and illogical. Do you really think your proposed system would end the chaos in FIDE? If you do, what is your evidence for this? To reiterate, the problems of FIDE are not caused by the voting system and your tiered-voting is not an effective panacea.
Chesspride,
As for taking umbrage on behalf of 'the founding fathers of American democracy', extolling unsavoury Prussian democratic ethos and your other meanderings, they don't detract from the basic poverty of your initial argument and the unrealism of your solution.
HardyBerger wrote
Chesspride,
Your arguments are confused, convoluted and illogical. Do you really think your proposed system would end the chaos in FIDE? If you do, what is your evidence for this? To reiterate, the problems of FIDE are not caused by the voting system and your tiered-voting is not an effective panacea.
****
Both Ilyumzhinov and Campomanes were elected by collecting votes from second and third world nations with little/no chess infrastructure.
The will of the major federations is often thwarted by the 1 federation/1 vote scheme -- proxy voting, promising finanacial assistance in return for votes, promising help with titles or tourneys for votes -- these matter if you can win an election with 30 African or Asian federations in your pocket. If you have enough proxy votes, you can ignore the will of Europe and North America.
How is it "confused" to say that?
How is it "confused" to say that if votes were allocated according to number of rated players or chess infrastructure...that those election results would have been vastly different?
And how is it confused to use a measure -- such as # of rated players on the FIDE rolls -- that would ENCOURAGE growth of chess in exactly those federations who are not already at the maximum tier.
If you have a tier 1, tier 2, tier 3, tier 4, tier 5 system...then a federation that GROWS will increase its voting power.
Today, smaller federations have no voting incentive to grow -- there may well be financial incentive locally.
Indeed, some of them prefer to stay small so that the same folks stay in power and go to Olympiads and so forth.
I see no reason why Mozambique, Zambia and Sri Lanka should have equal say (in chess) to Germany, France and the Netherlands...unless (and until) there are equal numbers of rated players in each federation.
The irony is that many "player-based" governance schemes (PCA) are based on the idea "if we just concentrated power in a few (player) hands, all would be well."
That doesn't work too well if GM X (aka France) has equal say with 1250-rated (Mozambique).
I don't disagree that both the Campo and Ilyumzhonov FIDE regimes were elected by dubious means. What I find puzzling is your assumption that the competence of a nation's administrators might have any relation to the number of rated players... Do the names Raymond Keene, Burt Goichberg, Susan Polgar, Paul Truong, Sam Sloan etc ring any bells? Are these representatives of advanced chess countries our examplars of administrative competence? Do we have any reason to believe that the shenanigans in USCF, ECF, ECU etc will suddenly disappear once these guys get elevated to FIDE office?
Thanks for lead on Cicero! Also, cf. Crowds and Power by Canetti
'Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system'.
* Cicero Pro Murena 36 * Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
HardyBerger wrote
don't disagree that both the Campo and Ilyumzhonov FIDE regimes were elected by dubious means. What I find puzzling is your assumption that the competence of a nation's administrators might have any relation to the number of rated players... Do the names Raymond Keene, Burt Goichberg, Susan Polgar, Paul Truong, Sam Sloan etc ring any bells? Are these representatives of advanced chess countries our examplars of administrative competence? Do we have any reason to believe that the shenanigans in USCF, ECF, ECU etc will suddenly disappear once these guys get elevated to FIDE office?
****
You are correct that USCF governance hasn't exactly shined recently, but consider the number of persons who were "taken in" by certain elected officials.
I was not one of them -- I recognized the danger quite early.
However, when elections are run as popularity contests...don't be surprised if popular candidates win.
Ironic isn't it that your example illustrates the danger of direct democracy -- and underlines the vital nature of representative democracy. The parties you mentioned were elected under direct democracy.
BTW the USCF (zone 2.1) would not necessarily be top tier under my proposal. Other federations have more FIDE rated players and make greater efforts to generate them.
Of course, many other federations lack their own rating system and so must use the FIDE system for more internal purposes -- USCF has its own system.
Even so -- this is another point in favor of my system. My own federation would *not* necessarily be favored or guaranteed a top tier vote.
Off-topic, but more interesting (even to most chess players) than FIDE politics:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aaTPPYJCsLFU
(Read past the headline and first few paragraphs, the story actually has far more to say than some wet-behind-the-ears Harvard economist - he's 30, which is barely old enough to complete one's Ph.D - talking his own book. Hard to understand why the reporter/editors put his talk at the top.)
¨Even so -- this is another point in favor of my system. My own federation would *not* necessarily be favored or guaranteed a top tier vote. ¨
You failed to prove any point until now , so i don´t understand what are you talking about , and you keep calling the one country one vote a ¨direct democracy¨ when in fact is a clear example of representative democracy...
You can repeat that apartheid is cool 100000 times , that is not proving anything.
What made Campomanes and Kirsan such a huge problem for chess is that they remained too long as presidents , we would have a better FIDE if presidents had reasonable periods of time in office .
Manu wrote:
You failed to prove any point until now , so i don´t understand what are you talking about , and you keep calling the one country one vote a ¨direct democracy¨ when in fact is a clear example of representative democracy...
You can repeat that apartheid is cool 100000 times , that is not proving anything.
What made Campomanes and Kirsan such a huge problem for chess is that they remained too long as presidents , we would have a better FIDE if presidents had reasonable periods of time in office .
****
FIDE is an organization of national federations, not players -- thus, 1 vote/1 federation *is* a direct democracy.
What would be more "republican" with a small "r" would be if the larger chess countries had greater representation than the smaller chess countries.
Campo's "problems" had nothing to do with time in office. They had everything to do with the fact that he won elections by holding the proxy votes of 30+ federations without active/working chess programs. Thus, he owed his position to...what?
FIDE seems hell-bent on adding every small nation-state they can find as a FIDE member -- thus increasing the direct democracy problem.
Do you really think that if the European nations answered the call to "breakaway" from FIDE that they would use the same 1 federation/1 vote model?
" FIDE is an organization of national federations, not players -- thus, 1 vote/1 federation *is* a direct democracy."
Each federation represents the players of its country , thus its a representative system ...
Your presumption that some federations deserve more power than others and that with that power they would make better decisions is just wrong , maybe you forget that the actual president of FIDE "belongs" to the strongest federation of them all...
"Do you really think that if the European nations answered the call to "breakaway" from FIDE that they would use the same 1 federation/1 vote model?"
Which call? your call? And besides, who cares? splitting the chess world again would be a huge mistake.
" Campo's "problems" had nothing to do with time in office. They had everything to do with the fact that he won elections by holding the proxy votes of 30+ federations without active/working chess programs. Thus, he owed his position to...what?"
It is a great mistake from your part to assume that lasting for an indefinite amount of time in office has something to do with democracy and only shows the real intentions behind your "tier" system ...
Making some federations more powerful than others is just an impractical idea , full of resentment and counter productive in almost every way.
Im sorry , but seeing that you couldn't point out a single verifiable benefit from it i have to let go this debate.
I seem to remember that someone did the math on this for the last election, and found that if votes were given the member countries according to the amount of GMs in each country, the result would have been exactly the same.
Anybody have the math or remember where it is?
What kind of verifiable benefit you want us to demonstrate Manu? We are talking about hypothetical situation. According to you, there should be no change in any complex system ever, because the benefits will be (almost) never verifiable beforehand.
Number of times you can run for re-election has little to do with democracy. That's an auxiliary rule for elections that most democracies have adopted, but has nothing to do with the concept of democracy itself.
This system has voted and re-voted and re-voted for Compo, and then Kirsan. You say if there was a cap on number of re-elections, there would be a nice guy now. No? After Compo the new guy wasn't nice, was he? There would be another Compo or Kirsan who would bribe, as usual, half of the voters and win the election. You hope you would run out of bad guys if you change them fast enough?
Then, we are not talking about some deterministic thing, like "no good federation would vote for Kirsan". True, Russia, Armenia, Israel - chess superpowers, voted for Kirsan. But if you assigned everyone weights according to the number of chessplayers, guess what-majority vote would NOT go to Kirsan.
You have two federation-that of Germany and xyz-land. xyz-land has 3 rated players. Germany has Bundesliga, organizes WCh match in Bonn, Dortmund and Mainz. They want chess developed, want good image for it, they bring corporate sponsors and promote chess to a great extend. They need FIDE to cooperate with them and to ensure a fair and professional environment for the players and fun for the fans.
xyz and still has 3 rated players. They need a box of new DGT watches so that they can blitz on the weekend. They don't care about global chess development and events and such. If there was another guy so that one of them didn't have to wait while the others play, that would be nice: that's the extend they are interested in development of chess globally.
In 5 years, FIDE fails to do anything positive for the professional chess and delivers a box of watches to xyz-land. Germany votes against them, xyz-land votes for.
And this will happen as long as xyz-land has as many votes as Germany. If you cap the number of re-elections, there will be another Kirsan, another Compo or Azmaiparashvili. The voters remain the same, and their incentives remain the same.
Don't get me wrong: Capping the number of re-elections is a great idea, and I am all for it. I argue that it is a weak measure compared to the big problem, which is: today, majority of the voters are those who do not care.
One nation-one vote is indeed fair and democratic.
I am therefore actively campaigning for the following changes which will redound to the benefit of all humanity and which have nothing to do with FIDE/chess politics:
1) The former USSR to reconstitute itself into a single nation.
2) The European Union to merge into a single nation.
3) The irreconcilable differences between the 50 U.S. states to be recognized, and the U.S. to break up into 50 separate nations. Or better yet, the irreconcilable differences between the 5000 or so U.S. counties be recognized, and the U.S. to break up into 5000 separate nations.
And, finally, since this is, after all, a chess blog, a chess-related suggestion:
A tag-team boxing/chess match pitting Sam Sloan against Susan, the winner to receive all 5000 votes from the former U.S.A. for the presidency of FIDE.
Oops. Forgot to delete "tag-team." Left over from a previous draft where Sam and Bill Brock were to take on Susan and Paul.
Why is all this talk. I dont see any raeson for it all.
IM Stoopid=Luke(maybe).=Annoying(certainly).
I am nto trying to annoy I just say why all this talk about politcs and democracy and not chess. I am not trying to annoy.
"Number of times you can run for re-election has little to do with democracy."
That is simple wrong , democracy grows and learn from each election , every time the power is renewed new chances of righting wrongs arise and it is well known that the proximity of ballot make the politicians a lot more diligent with their tasks .
And besides , one of the possible consequence of a bad administration is losing the next ballot , without a reasonable cycle every president can do what he wants and still remain in office...
"What kind of verifiable benefit you want us to demonstrate Manu?"
I don't know , it is such a bad idea that i have nothing to hint , but based on your dislike for some elemental features of democracy i believe you would feel a lot more comfortable living in a monarchy.
This argument has reached the point where the detractors of the idea are being asked to improve it ..., so don't get mad but there is not much incentive to continue with this...
That is simple wrong , democracy grows and learn from each election , every time the power is renewed new chances of righting wrongs arise and it is well known that the proximity of ballot make the politicians a lot more diligent with their tasks .
And besides , one of the possible consequence of a bad administration is losing the next ballot , without a reasonable cycle every president can do what he wants and still remain in office...
"What kind of verifiable benefit you want us to demonstrate Manu?"
****
I think Manu might do well to study the transition from the Roman Republic to the Roman Empire -- when leaders bought votes with tracts of land and promises.
Real democracy (i.e. republics where representative govt flourishes) requires that decision-makers be *insulated* from the ballotbox so that they make the right (hard) choices.
So that they vote their consciences.
To hear someone say "I don't believe X but my constituents want it so that's how I will vote" turns my stomach. It is precisely what Cicero warned about.
''Real democracy (i.e. republics where representative govt flourishes) requires that decision-makers be *insulated* from the ballotbox so that they make the right (hard) choices''.
Now I can see where you're coming from.
Off-chess again, but this always sounded pretty good:
"Your Representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion."
-Edmund Burke, 1774