Newsgroup: it.hobby.scacchi
Titolo: Lettera aperta di Seirawan alla FIDE

Il GM americano Seirawan ha pubblicato su Inside Chess la seguente lettera
aperta nella quale, dopo avere elencato i danni provocati dall'attuale
dirigenza della FIDE, invita il Presidente Iljumzhinov a farsi da parte "per
il bene degli scacchi". Per chi e' interessato la riporto qui sotto:
"Dear Mr. Iljumzhinov,
The purpose of the present open letter is to register my despair and disgust
over the current plight of FIDE and to highlight the urgent need for
wholesale changes and a fresh start.
No international organization can ever hope to satisfy all of the people all
of the time, but the key problem today is infinitely more serious: FIDE is
no longer satisfying any of the people any of the time. When did FIDE last
take an imaginative, workable initiative that received even a modicum of
support from the chess world?   When did it last deal with a major issue or
event without shooting itself in the foot?  Why has it stood by impotently
as support and respect for it have evaporated, even amongst its traditional
supporters?  When did it last show any respect for the prestige of a game
which is many centuries old?  Above all, why has it allowed itself to become
a laughing-stock through its serial incompetence?
The full catalog of disasters in recent years is too grimly familiar to need
repeating here.   The bouncing checks of Las Vegas and your unpaid
promissory notes are just two well-publicized scandals from the past year
that have made FIDE look clownish and tawdry. The latest debacle has been
described by Peter Parr of Australia.  As you are aware, he has explained in
gruesome detail how the credibility of the entire FIDE title system is being
further undermined, but the Australians aren't the first abusers of the
loophole mentioned by him.  It was, I believe, first discovered by the
Mexican Chess Federation, which contrived to create dozens of new
FIDE-titled players by that particular abuse. With all this coming on top of
the Myanmar ratings scandal, why does FIDE seem so unconcerned?  If FIDE
does not properly respect and protect its titles, why should anyone?  Don't
fairness and rectitude count any more?  Is FIDE really prepared to stand
idly by and permit the wholesale destruction of its title system?  Titles
awarded by FIDE used to mean something. The way things are going, in a few
years' time I may feel obliged to ask FIDE to take back my GM title, as such
titles will not only be worthless but their recipients will find their
integrity questioned.
Credibility is hard won and easily lost.  The recent fiascoes involving FIDE
have been astonishingly numerous and various.  Not all, I concede, are
altogether FIDE's fault.  Top chess masters are strong-willed and there will
always be disagreements and tensions between players and any governing body.
Even so, how on earth has FIDE allowed itself to get caught up in multiple
litigation, highly damaging whatever the outcome, with leading players
Anatoly Karpov and Zsuzsa Polgar?  Was it not your own election pledge to
rectify the estrangement of Kasparov from FIDE events?  Would it be unfair
of me to suggest that besides the players just mentioned, Anand, Kramnik,
Shirov, Morozevich and Galliamova are amongst those with angst towards FIDE?
Are Champions Jun and Khalifman supportive of FIDE and its policies?  For
whom, pray tell, is FIDE working?
Your recent manifesto calling for the formation of a for-profit company to
monopolize chess events hit an entirely new low.   It was so ill advised and
met with such unanimous derision throughout the chess world that serious
questions again arise about the judgment of those behind a harebrained idea
that was such an obvious non-starter.  A FIDE organization which is so out
of touch with the actual needs and interests of the chess world becomes more
or less worthless, and at times it seems that FIDE's prime concern is to
antagonize as many people as possible and to expose itself to maximum
ridicule.  The fact that FIDE's current Executive Board continues to support
your ridiculous manifesto is proof positive that something is seriously
wrong within FIDE's cozy confines.
To quote another prime example, the recent announcement of Tehran as the
site for the upcoming FIDE Championship Finals is a travesty which has left
me, and many others, barely able to contain our rage.  If FIDE insists on
Iran hosting the Finals, it should not be surprised by the inevitable calls
to boycott the event, which in turn will diminish the standing of the
eventual winner.   In whose interest is that?
Your choice and the FIDE Executive Board's acceptance of Iran is a forcible
reminder of your 1996 announcement of Baghdad as a site for the Karpov -
Kamsky FIDE Championship.  Then too, the choice of Baghdad was roundly
criticized throughout the world.  Eventually, you would retreat from this
position, explaining that it had all been a ruse to gain publicity for
chess.  This knuckle-headed deception was a horrendous decision.  Yes
Virginia, there is such a thing as bad publicity.  Even while you were
hoodwinking the world's media you had informed challenger Kamsky that he
faced forfeiture for violating your edict that he contest the match in Iraq.
Such mendacity by you played a not inconsiderable role in Kamsky quitting
the chess world.  Chess had sunk to another new low.  In subsequent
interviews you would explain that Iraq owed a great deal of money to Russia
and that a chess match could be used as an inroad to meeting with the Iraqi
regime at the highest levels to address that debt.  That may be true, but
FIDE exists to serve chess, not Russia's debtors.  Nor is FIDE there for its
President's personal gain.  Whether in Iraq or Iran, your using chess for
such purposes is a clear conflict of interest and a violation of your
fiduciary responsibility as FIDE President.
It surely hasn't escaped your attention that the reality today is that FIDE
is cheapening and destroying almost everything it touches.   Its credibility
in its titles, its rating system, its electioneering, its methods of
governance, its public announcements, its own statutes is now perilously
close to zero.   The current FIDE leadership has so clearly proven itself
incapable of proper governance that there is, once again, renewed discussion
of a replacement organization.
Your legacy is all too clear. Never has FIDE been in such chaos. Never has
its reputation sunk so low. Never has it been so isolated from reality.
Never, in short, has there been a greater or more urgent need for a fresh
start. The disasters over which you have presided have not happened by
accident. We cannot simply wipe the slate clean and pretend that none of it
ever occurred. All those responsible within FIDE must assume the
consequences of their conduct and pay the price for the state in which
organized - or disorganized - chess now finds itself.   After all these
years of mistakes piling upon one another, it is time to say enough is
enough.  The time has come when the interests of chessplayers can be
furthered only if the full present FIDE leadership - and you first and
foremost as President - resign your posts.  I urge you to do so with
immediate effect.  It will then be the mammoth task of your democratically
elected successors to begin work on re-establishing FIDE as a respectable,
and respected, organization, one which helps rather than hinders the
development of chess and seeks to restore the game's dignity worldwide.
On a closing, personal note, I stress that I have no ax to grind about the
past, or any political ambition for the future. My sole concern remains what
is in the interests of chessplayers of all levels throughout the world. The
record shows that although I have never hesitated to criticize FIDE when
necessary, I have sometimes found myself almost alone among masters and
writers in defending it.  Mr. President, it is time for you and your board
to step aside.
On behalf of chess,
IGM Yasser Seirawan"

"Dear Mr. Iljumzhinov,
Diretto, elegante, chiaro.
Sarebbe pero' piu' utile avere chiaro anche il "cosa si vuole" al
posto dell'esistente. Una "sfiducia costruttiva", giacche' criticare
chi governa e' la cosa piu' facile del mondo (quando poi e' litigioso
come quello degli scacchi...).
Ciao ciao.
--
Paolo Fasce

 wrote in message
news:hp5sks4vhdvg4bvvf...@4ax.com...

In generale sono d'accordo con te, ma in questo caso chunque al posto di
Kirsan andrebbe meglio.
In pochi anni ha trasformato il campionato del mondo di scacchi in un torneo
di briscola, snaturando completamente il gioco, ed il fatto che l'ultimo
mondiale si sia giocato a Las Vegas non e' un caso.
L'impatto degli scacchi sull'opinione pubblica, dal poco che era rimasto, e'
andato sottozero.
Personalmente mi fa rimpiangere Campomanes ( non avrei mai creduto di poter
rimpiangere Campomanes....)
La rimozione di Kirsan, sarebbe per me gia' qualcosa di "costruttivo".
Spero che il prossimo presidente FIDE sia qualcuno che abbia giocato a
livello GM (Euwe, perche' non ci sei piu' ??), le cui iniziative non siano
orientate solo a $$$$ e popolarita' coi media, ma anche/soprattutto al
rispetto del gioco, della sua atmosfera, dei suoi valori tecnici.
saluti
m.

La rimozione di Kirsan, sarebbe per me gia' qualcosa di "costruttivo".
Per tutta una serie di motivi che non staro' qui ad elencare, penso
sarebbe utile che a gestire la FIDE ci andasse un europeo. Direi un
francese. A questo scopo dovrebbero lavorare le federazioni "evolute",
per proporre un'alternativa credibile, non per sparare nel mucchio
senza idee da proporre. Prima si organizza l'alternativa, poi si va in
battaglia.
--
Paolo Fasce

 un principio di serie B.
Questa non l'ho capita. Probabilmente mi sono spiegato male io nel post
precedente.
Sono d'accordo che un principio e' un principio.
Ma a me sembra implicito, nella lettera di Seirawan e nelle critiche a
Kirsan, che si auspica come minmo un ritorno allo status quo della FIDE
pre-Kirsan. Questa e' una  mia interpretazione ed e' discutibile, mi rendo
conto.
Se pero' si accetta questa premessa, l'invito alle dimissioni e'
costruttivo, perche' propone un ritorno allo status quo iniziale, che di per
se', IMHO, e' un miglioramento della situazione attuale, non di molto, ma mi
accontenterei per il momento.
In questo senso, come ti dicevo, la semplice rimozione di Kirsan e' qualcosa
di "costruttivo", e non distorce il principio di criticare chi governa in
maniera propositiva.

battaglia.
Per me la puo' gestire anche un aborigeno di Papua Nuova Guinea : piu'
danni del calmucco non potrebbe fare .. :-)))
Saluti alla Danton .. 
Pompeo Silingardi
" E' la mia opinione e io la condivido. "
Henry Monnier - Memorie di Joseph Proudhomme

danni del calmucco non potrebbe fare .. :-)))
Non sono d'accordo. Ribadisco:
"Prima si organizza l'alternativa, poi si va in battaglia."
Ciao ciao.
--
Paolo Fasce

Questa non l'ho capita.
Mi riferivo alla "sfiducia costruttiva". Le dimissioni del presidente
mi stanno bene solo se c'e' un'alternativa programmata, condivisa, con
idee programmatiche chiare. Le dimissioni con un clima da resa dei
conti finale seguente, mi pare non giovino al mondo degli scacchi.
Allora meglio il calmucco. Ma gli europei, ci sono? Esistono?
--
Paolo Fasce