Reports | January 25, 2014 11:55

Leaked Contract Between Kasparov and Leong: Transparency vs. Ethics

Leaked Contract Between Kasparov and Leong: Transparency vs. Ethics

Earlier this week a draft of a contract between Garry Kasparov and Ignatius Leong was leaked to chess media which raises ethical questions but also calls for more transparency in chess politics. Kasparov and Leong made a deal in August 2013 for the Asian region: Leong would help getting Kasparov "10+1" votes in return for large sums of money. Meanwhile, the Kasparov team has put the final version of the contract on its campaign website, stressing the importance of transparency.

Exactly one week ago an email from a "Bill Warth" was sent to several chess journalists which had "THE HUGE DEAL BETWEEN KASPAROV AND LEONG" in the subject field. Attached was Attached was a PDF document (for download here) which seemed to be a contract between Kasparov and Leong:

Through this Agreement the Parties join together in order to achieve their goal of having a real change in FIDE and the Chess World. “GK has declared his intention to run for the office of FIDE President and IL has agreed to take the position as General Secretary in the Kasparov Team. IL shall assist GK and his team at all possible levels in the preparation, planning and execution of the election campaign.”

Here are key points of the agreement:

  • IL will actively work in the election campaign in close cooperation with GK and his team. He will be responsible for delivering 10 + 1 vote from his region, with the effort to deliver 15 votes (not counting China).
  • IL will receive a total amount of $ 500 000 to be paid in agreed tranches between the signing of this Agreement and 1 month before the opening of the FIDE General Assembly in August 2014.
  • After the election of GK as FIDE President and IL as FIDE General Secretary in August 2014, FIDE will establish a new FIDE office in Singapore headed by IL. The main function of this office will be to administer and overlook all the FIDE Commissions and their work. For this work IL shall receive an agreed upon stipend.
  • GK has agreed to open an Academy in Singapore (Kasparov Chess Foundation Asia) in cooperation with ACA. The anticipated opening will take place in November 2013. ACA will organize this event and secure 5 + 1 endorsements (signed proxies) for GKs candidacy for FIDE Presidency.
  • The Parties have agreed to sign a separate agreement between KCF Asia and ACA. As part of this Agreement, KCF Asia will allocate $ 250 000 for each of the four (4) years commencing in 2013. KCF Asia will allocate these funds in 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016. The first instalment, in the amount of $250 000, will be made by November 10, 2013. The second instalment, in the amount of $250 000, will occur by July 10, 2014.
  • Installments for 2015 and 2016 will be agreed upon at a later date by the Parties and are contingent upon the outcome of the 2014 FIDE elections. Should GK not be elected President of FIDE in the 2014 elections, KCF Asia is under no obligation to allocate funds to ACA for the years of 2015 and 2016, and may not be held liable for any unallocated funds for the 2015 and 2016 years.

The body of the email of this Mr Warth (who did not reply to an email) summarizes the contract, and strongly criticized the deal between Kasparov and Leong: “The national federations become a merchandise...”, “it is clear that Ignatius Leong is shamelessly using a shareholders for-profit company (ACA) to profit from an election deal within FIDE.”, “It is shameful that people from national chess federations of Asia are traded for hundreds thousands of dollars by Ignatius Leong and Garry Kasparov.”

Andrew Paulson
Interestingly, a day later the same email and PDF document was also sent to chess journalists by Andrew Paulson, the new President of the English Chess Federation and owner of AGON, which still holds the rights to organize FIDE events. Paulson, who has expressed interest in running for FIDE President himself but hasn't announced anything officially, commented:

“It has been rumoured that this document was going to be released for some time and it has finally today found its way to the internet. I don't know the exact provenance other than it is supposedly the work of Morton Sand (we'll see in the coming days if this is disputed) of the Norwegian Chess Federation who is the legal advisor to Garry Kasparov's FIDE Presidential Campaign. The overheated English prose of the commentator (in green) summarizes how much Kasparov will pay Ignatius Leong for delivering votes of the federations in his region into Kasparov's camp. In the past, one can assume that Leong did exactly the same thing for Kirsan; now Kasparov outbid Kirsan and bought him away. The compensation is a blend of guaranteed fees and success fees. It is important to note that although this document is not signed, the precondition for the terms outlined (Leong's defection to Kasparov's camp) was effected in the weeks immediately following its drafting. This document is only shocking for those who thought that Garry was in some way better than Kirsan ... and for those who feel that using the Kasparov Chess Foundation as a paying agent for buying votes is improper.”

Contract leaked
The Kasparov team initially refrained to comment, but on Monday the Norwegian lawyer Morten Sand, who is also part of the organizing committee of the Tromsø Olympiad, came with a statement (in Word here). Sand, who was the one who had drafted the contract, started by suggesting that the contract was leaked by someone who had access to Ignatius Leong's email account:

“I was asked to draft an Agreement between Garry and Ignatius based on information given to me regarding their future cooperation. On the opening day of the 2013 FIDE World Cup in Tromsø [10 August 2013 - PD], Ignatius and I understood that high FIDE officials possibly had access to the draft Agreement now circulated. I sent it to Ignatius in July, using his FIDE email account. The only way to get possession of this draft is through the administrator of the mail account in FIDE. There can only be political reasons for why this is now made public in such a way.”

On Thursday an ‘announcement’ appeared on the FIDE website written by FIDE Executive Director Nigel Freeman, which addresses this issue:

“After the article of the New York Times, concerning ethical questions regarding the contract between Gary Kasparov and Ignatius Leong, it came to our attention a statement by Morten Sand, the lawyer assisting Garry Kasparov's campaign, that a leaked contract between Gary Kasparov and Ignatius Leong was possible "through the administrator of the mail account in FIDE".

The above statement of Morten Sand is entirely false.

It is obvious that there is an attempt to drive the discussion away from the substance of this issue, i.e. whether such contracts are ethical or not. For the leaking of confidential documents, Garry Kasparov's team should perhaps look amongst themselves.”

On Twitter Mig Greengard, spokesperson for Garry Kasparov, reacted to this statement:

 

Ilyumzhinov: Ignatius, please resign
Meanwhile, FIDE President Kirsan Ilymuzhinov also came with a statement on the FIDE website on Thursday. Mentioning a report by the New York Times posted on Tuesday about the leaked contract, Ilyumzhinov asks Leong to resign:

“After the recent article of New York Times concerning your contract with Garry Kasparov, and the fact that Morten Sand has confirmed its authenticity, there is a serious ethical issue for FIDE and your position as General Secretary, which is damaging the image of our organisation.

In order to avoid further damage, I am asking you to resign from the position of FIDE General Secretary.”

Ilyumzhinov still supported Leong in Tallinn, Estonia at the Executive Board meeting in October 2013. A day after Kasparov announced his team, a number of FIDE Board Members asked for Leong's resignation, but back then Ilyumzhinov didn't see a reason why he couldn't continue working for him.

No personal money
Back to Morten Sand's statement of Monday, which also emphasized that there was no personal money involved:

“The final version of the Agreement was later signed on September 5th. By the time of the signing, the Parties had agreed that all financial support was given with the explicit purpose of chess development and programs. No money was going to individuals. On October 31st  the Kasparov Chess Foundation (KCF) made an Agreement with the Kasparov Chess Foundation Asia Pacific (KCFAP), listing how and for what purpose any transferred money could distributed and spent.

By examining these documents, it is clear that no money can or will be allocated to individuals for personal use.” [Bold by Sand - PD]

Documents published
Six days after the draft was leaked, the Kasparov team posted the final version (here in PDFon its campaign website along with a separate document (here in PDF) that describes an agreement between the Kasparov Chess Foundation and the newly founded Kasparov Chess Foundation Asia Pacific to grant $500,000 for “promoting and encouraging the study and play of chess in East Asia, Southeast Asia and the Pacific Region, as a means of intellectual development.”

There are some differences between the leaked (stolen?) draft and the final contract between Kasparov and Leong. The latter's responsibility to “deliver” 10+1 votes from his region is still there, but the following sentence was added:

“Support from each of these above mentioned federations must materialize in the form of a written and signed statement and/or irrevocable Proxy, before the last tranche of payment takes place.”

The final contract still mentions that “IL will receive a total amount of $ 500 000 to be paid in agreed tranches between the signing of this Agreement and 1 month before the opening of the FIDE General Assembly in August 2014” but adds “as described in 4.1”, which makes it clear that the amount is not intended for Leong personally, but that it entails the agreement between the Kasparov Chess Foundation and the newly founded Kasparov Chess Foundation Asia Pacific.

The final contract also includes:

“If IL has the opportunity to deliver more federations in addition to the agreed 15, on terms as stated above, the Parties will negotiate the financial terms separately and in good faith.”

Asked why it took six days to come with the original contract, Mig Greengard sent this statement:

A campaign and, more specifically, a non-profit organization like KCF, has responsibility to its board, donors, and the signatory organizations. That is, before you make public an agreement presumed private you must notify the relevant parties on both sides. This isn’t only a courtesy, it’s an obligation, both ethical and in some places, legal.

As for rushing out a documents and statements by Morten or Garry or anyone this week, the campaign isn’t going to disrupt its many activities to meet every slander and trick from Ilyumzhinov’s gang or we’d never get anything done. We’ve seen all this garbage before, 19 years of it to be exact. The Kasparov Team wants to promote chess, promote the campaign, and stick to our positive agenda of bringing sponsorship and reform to the chess world. Spending our time responding to hysterical accusations is exactly what Kirsan’s gang hopes we for. We will continue to speak directly with the federations and answer any questions they may have, of course.

We know the old saying, “never wrestle with a pig because you both get dirty and the pig enjoys it.” It’s time to get out of the mud and organize and unite to bring new ideas, new players, and new revenue into chess. It’s time to stop taking from the federations and start listening to them and helping them. If Ilyumzhinov’s FIDE spent half the time it spends on these games to stay in power on promoting chess instead, FIDE and the chess world wouldn’t be in such a mess.

Transparency
By posting the contracts online, the Kasparov team advocates transparency. The accompanying text on the campaign website, by Morten Sand, reads: 

“This is an historic day, as for the first time in 20 years of FIDE elections a campaign team is following the principle of transparency by making public two contracts.”

Nonetheless, for many the deal between Kasparov and Leong will raise ethical concerns. At a press conference in Wijk aan Zee, Kasparov will answer questions today.

Meanwhile, it's not easy to learn more about Kirsan Ilyumzhinov's campaign budget and funds. Nigel Freeman, who is both FIDE's Executive Director Treasurer, said he is “not involved in the campaign”. Berik Balgabaev, who is Ilyumzhinov's personal assistant, did not respond to inquiries.

Share |
Peter Doggers's picture
Author: Peter Doggers

Founder and editor-in-chief of ChessVibes.com, Peter is responsible for most of the chess news and tournament reports. Often visiting top events, he also provides photos and videos for the site. He's a 1.e4 player himself, likes Thai food and the Stones.

Chess.com

Comments

our conor fan's picture

all as corrupt as each other.

Anonymous's picture

Why do you call the item leaked, when it was stolen it said?? Why do you approve of thieves as leakers??

S3's picture

Bradley Manning, Snowden and other deserting thieves also "leaked" info, remember? So the modern defenition of the word is rather vague. But in this case no theft has been proven, at least so far. Leaking is thus an appropriate word.

Btw..everyone should already have known Kasparov was an immoral arse, but the Norwegian connection is interesting. Remember Anand started to lose during the wch when Kasparov arrived?
Was there money transferred back then as well?!

Anonymous's picture

Here FIDE strategically leaked a version that omitted the part about $100% of the money going to chess. Once the full signed version was seen, what is the big deal? The first obligation of any regional representative is to get at least a fair share of resources for his region. Kasparov is and has been traveling the world supporting chess education. What would you prefer: that he simply gives pep talks or that he backs up the talk with financial support?

Sure seems like the reaction to this would have been different if the press didn't get off on the wrong foot by the initial incomplete unsigned version leaked by FIDE. Well played by FIDE in that respect, I suppose -- everyone chasing a red herring as they say and then later naturally reluctant to say "nevermind" when Kasparov corrected the record with the true agreement.

S3's picture

More likely Kasparov altered the contract after the leak. But spending the money is only a paper diversion of course. In reality the green is just meant as a good old fashioned bribe, especially clear since the benefactor will be the one distrubiting the money.

Calvin Amarii's picture

It is sad to see the New York Times so hoodwinked by FIDE. Notwithstanding FIDE for years operating as more or less a criminal enterprise, the Times reporter who covers chess has never been able to report anything beyond Kirsan's cozy relationship with every Hitler-like despot of the moment. In other words, the Times has utterly failed to report on anything that the garden-variety popular press does not also cover. Now the Times falls hook, line and sinker for this story fed to him by none other than FIDE, and publishes an article based on an incomplete excerpts that underscore FIDE's desired spin. The follow-up article in the Times after the full contract was released is pathetic in its attempt to avoid pointing out its original colossal error.

Does the NYTimes reporter really think that this hasn't been done for years by Kirsan, with the difference being no limitation to use all funds for chess purposes?

Anonymous's picture

In America the NY Times is known as a corrupt "news" organization that is happy to go along and support political agendas of the Left. They likely dislike GK because he's an anti-communist.

Calvin Amarii's picture

In fact, it is the best newspaper in the US, and head and shoulders above the rest in foreign affairs and cultural reporting in particular. This makes it all the more notable that it's chess reporter, Dylan Loeb McClain, got so totally swindled by a source of which he should have been most suspicious. It is bad enough that, after years on the chess beat for the Times, he has not uncovered one original story about FIDE despite his desire to be an investigative reporter. But to allow the New York Times to be used as a tool for FIDE's corruption machine is simply unforgivable. I hope that his editors can be made to appreciate the extent of this embarrassment, but indications are that he may continue to try to push this anti-Kasparov story in an unbalanced way in a pathetic attempt to avoid admitting that he was taken as a fool by the very organization he was targeting for years as a reporter but with zero success.

Dylan Loeb McClain's picture

Mr. Amarii :
I suspect that you are not impartial in this matter, but I will reply nonetheless so that others who be reading this thread might have my viewpoint.
First, I and The Times were not hoodwinked by FIDE or a FIDE official. I actually could not believe that a contract like this existed when I received it. It was only after Morten Sand, the lawyer hired by Kasparov, who drew up the contract, confirmed its authenticity that we went ahead with the article.
Second, both the original draft contract and the final version say that money is being paid for chess education and development, but half of it is contingent on the resutls of the election. In other words, the political result of the election is the key to the contributions, not education.
Third, the contract, both in its draft form and its final form explicitly state how many votes Mr. Leong is to provide in return for the financing. Does that sound like contributions for educational purposes? I'll let others decide.
Fourth, the director of the new Kasparov Chess Foundation Asia Pacific, that is supposed to oversee the distribution of the money for educational purposes -- perhaps even to Mr. Leong's Asean Chess Academy, which is a for-profit entity -- is non other than Mr. Leong.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, I am interested in and will report on any topic that I and the editors of The Times believe is relevant and important. I and they have absolutely no biases or predispositions about what we report or what the results of an election should be. I would like to know more about the sources of Kirsan Ilyumzhinov's financing and more about how it is he has been so successful being re-elected in previous elections. I have heard many rumors, but as a matter of journalistic practice, both ethical and legal, I cannot report on rumors. They must be substantiated by hard information in the form of documents, bank statements and/or on-the-record interviews with people who have intimate knowledge of a subject (meaning they are in a position to know, not just they suspect something). I always look for these type of sources, but they are not as easy to find as you and others may think. In the case of the contract between Mr. Kasparov and Mr. Leong, it was a document and it was authenticated. That is why I was and did report on it. As I cannot do these sort of things without approval from higher up editors at The Times, you should realize that they agreed with me about the importance and newsworthiness of the contract.

Anonymous's picture

Am not the only one who would love to read more drafts from thieves in a leading world newspaper.

Anonymous's picture

Media/journalists should fight with each other as often as possible, they are not one family like chess people are. Got fooled into mega advertising chess again, didn't ya?

calvin amari's picture

I repeat my question about whether you believe that a contract of this type, save for fewer limitations on the use of funds for chess purposes, was devised by the parties to the subject agreement out of whole cloth, or whether it was modeled on agreements of the past involving FIDE’s present leadership. If you think this is new, you are the likely only person with a passing knowledge of chess who thinks so. To the extent you believe this is in fact a variation on longstanding practice, and you have not been able to substantiate that view despite the attempts that you mention, that simply leads me to view that as a journalistic failure plain and simple – and not a circumstance that alters reality.

Here we have a case of a story fed to you by FIDE, which you ran with without any reportage about similar (or likely far more egregious) practices by the FIDE leadership. You seem to admit that this likely does not comport with reality, but does comport with journalistic rules. Forgive me but, to me, that still means that that FIDE played the NYTimes like a violin.

How interesting that you site “matter[s] of journalistic practice” preventing you to report on anything other than verified facts as opposed to “innuendo.” Yet without one shred of evidence you state about me: “I suspect that you are not impartial in this matter.” Look it up in your definitionary, sir: this the very definition of innuendo. For the record, I have never met Mr. Leong in my life nor anyone else remotely connected with this story (on either side) except Mr. Kasparov, who I met twice in my life simply as a chess fan and during public events at which he appeared long before his FIDE candidacy. I have no connection with, nor have I ever had a shred of communication with, anyone associated with Mr. Kasparov’s campaign for the FIDE presidency.

Sellars's picture

It usually isn't the reporter who digs a deeper hole for himself in these exchanges,but this mcclain character really steps in it. He is unconvincing. And I agree. Not to be expected from the NYTs.

Anonymous's picture

Is there corruption in journalism, sorry but I really don't follow this. As for Kasparov and his employees, if he wants to be president of course he must pay up first to get whatever rights a president has.

Dylan Loeb McClain's picture

Mr. Amari, I repeat there is a difference between rumor and being able to prove something. Many people have said to me that Ilyumzhinov has bribed people or used other tactics to win the elections. My reply has always been, if you have proof, show me as The Times is more than willing, in fact, would be interested in publishing such proof. Unfortunately, all I have ever received is the same "everyone knows it" reply and "why don't you publish something." That does not meet the standards of The Times. It also does not meet legal standards. Publishing innuendo and rumor is libel. And people and organizations, including The Times, have been sued for such reasons for many years. The Times does not shy away from publishing controversial articles -- it just will not do it without a certain standard of proof.

To the extent that I can, I continue to look for proof of wrong-doing by any person or official connected with chess. I understand that some additional documents have been leaked today and I will go look at them and then discuss with my editors their newsworthiness, according to our standards. Yes, the editors rely on me for perspective, but I am not the final arbiter. It is a joint decision.

Again, it is easy for you or others to say that I have not done my job or tried, but you don't know. You do not know me. You do not know how I work or what I do. In fact, you know nothing about me or my viewpoints. For the record, I have published articles raising doubts about Ilyumzhinov and his motives (for example, this article in the run-up to the 2010 election -- http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/27/world/europe/27chess.html?pagewanted=all -- and this article about the Turkish Chess Federation -- http://gambit.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/24/auditors-report-says-turkish-... ). As I have said, it is difficult to meet the standards of proof we must meet. It is, in my opinion, what separates The Times from many other publications.

As for comments directed to you, you wrote, "Dylan Loeb McClain, got so totally swindled by a source of which he should have been most suspicious. It is bad enough that, after years on the chess beat for the Times, he has not uncovered one original story about FIDE despite his desire to be an investigative reporter. But to allow the New York Times to be used as a tool for FIDE's corruption machine is simply unforgivable. I hope that his editors can be made to appreciate the extent of this embarrassment, but indications are that he may continue to try to push this anti-Kasparov story in an unbalanced way in a pathetic attempt to avoid admitting that he was taken as a fool by the very organization he was targeting for years as a reporter but with zero success." While not strictly personal, the tone is snide and condescending. You launched your attack, as I said, without knowing anything about me or how I work. In was in that context that I wrote that I suspected your were not impartial. Web sites are a haven for people, sometimes using pseudonyms and often under the guise of being "disinterested parties" but really representing one group or another, to make unmitigated and harsh attacks on others. Perhaps I should not have suggested you might not be disinterested. You are right, I do not know you. But that works both ways and your attacks are clearly based on misinformation and are personally insulting. But then dealing with people like you is also, regretably, part of my job.

calvin amari's picture

"You are right, I do not know you. But that works both ways"

Not quite. You see, as an avid reader of the Times and an avid chess fan, I would venture that, since you took over the beat, I have had read every single word you have written about chess for the newspaper and the old blog. You may feel otherwise, but I frankly feel that this more than allows me to form an opinion about your work in this specific regard and to vocalize it in the context of the discussion spurred by the Chessvibes article. If you find that regretable, so be it.

And btw, I note that you still have not answered my question.

Dylan Loeb McClain's picture

Well, of course you are entitled to articulate your opinion. But you are also wrong about what the limitations and possibilities of being a journalist are. It is clear you are not a journalist. And while some people, perhaps many people, think it is as simple as picking up a phone and talking to someone or writing the first hare-brained thing that comes into your head, that is not what real journalism is about. And if you understood what I meant, or had bothered to pay attention, you would understand that I have answered your question.

calvin amari's picture

I do not pretend to be a journalist, but I never disagreed with you about printing stories without sufficient proof. I repeatedly ask the question about whether you personally think that Ilyumzhinov has for years entered into this type of arrangement precisely because I very strongly suspect that you, like virtually everyone else in chess, do personally believe that to be the case. I specifically said that I consider trying but failing to establish this in a manner sufficient to satisfy all appropriate standards is just that -- a journalistic failure. In other words, the “limitations and possibilities of being a journalist” do not preclude the possibility of establishing that Ilyumzhinov has engaged in such conduct, it is simply that you have not succeeded in doing so. (If instead you are saying that, based on your journalistic investigations, you have firmly established and are personally convinced that Ilyumzhinov in this regard is as pure as the driven snow, then I urge you to so state that conclusion.)

The affirmative impression you present in your reportage is that Kasparov and only Kasparov has entered into this type of arrangement. I don’t believe this to be the case and I don’t believe that you believe this to be the case. This is why I find your reportage on the subject agreement imbalanced. I fully understand that you had proof in one case and not the other, but in these circumstances, where there were surely suspicions, I would have expected journalistic judgment to avoid that pronounced lack of balance. If that meant not running with the story FIDE fed to you, so be it.

Dylan Loeb McClain's picture

And that is why you are completely and 100 percent wrong. So if you can prove that Nixon and his minions have broken into the Watergate complex, but you suspect that the Democrats have done the same, you cannot run the story until you can prove the opposite? Or, if you have some sort of real proof that Democrats in the city council have engaged in bid-rigging and kickbacks, you cannot print that until you can prove the Republicans did the same thing? Perhaps we should just allow everyone to say what they want with no attempt to authenticate what is real and what is not? Kind of an endless "he said, she said"? Right. Nice world you want to live in.

I did point out in the article that rumors of corruption and graft have existed for decades. I also went into the history of Campomanes, who was convicted of corruption (but the conviction was overturned on appeal), and how he helped get Ilyumzhinov elected. I also quoted Max Dlugy saying that he had been told that Ilyumzhinov spent as much as $7 million on the previous campaign (although we obviously do not know what he might have spent the money for). If you read to the bottom of the article, or were not so quick to judge and did not have such a distorted and, yes, biased point of view, you would not written what you did.

Good luck to you Mr. Amari. Even when you are completely wrong, you seem to lack the ability to recognize it or to admit your mistakes.

Calvin Amarii's picture

You know very well that this is a false analogy. The Watergate break-in not only stood alone as a crime and notable for that fact in isolation, there was zero reason to believe that parallel conduct of similar proportions was undertaken by the Democrats. Moreover, the story was not sourced by Democratic Party opposition. Here, as you acknowledge to at least a minimal degree while still refusing to answer my question about your personal belief, there were plenty of suspicions -- indeed there may be nobody knowledgable in the subject that either you or I know that does not have deep suspicions. Again, I am not saying that where-the-is-smoke-there-is-fire is a basis for journalistic practice on the level of the Times. I am saying that it is the basis of finding and establishing the fire. Good luck to you in your ability to see no failure as an journalist to establish that proof after years of effort -- to not find a single arrangement or contract of the type that was the subject of your article that was fed to you by the very source about which there are seemingly near universal suspicions.

Dylan Loeb McClain's picture

I'll add one more point, Mr. Amari. Essentially, you want the articles to conform to your beliefs about how things are or should be. That is not reporting or journalism. That is deciding what is true and then writing. That is the antithesis of real journalism, but the perfect example of bias and lack of objectivity. Unlike you, I do not let my personal views get in the way of doing my job. And that is what I am supposed to do.

Anonymous's picture

Go go go Kirsan!

Anonymous's picture

Our mistake. How silly, we thought your job was to FIND the facts. But we now see that your job is to just wait until reputable sources like FIDE serve you selective facts. Thanks for clarifying.

Anonymous's picture

See nytimes feb8. More moral equivalence. Again, no one ounce of originally discovered info.

ejh's picture

Well said, Mr McClain.

Sellars's picture

....If you appreciate Kirsan-style dissembling...

AndyGrant's picture

right. nice dodge mr. m. _way to avoid the question. and what's this 'my-editor-told-me-I-could-do-it-so-it's-not-my-fault' stuff? This just makes you sound childlike plus any editor could not have had all the relvant context and would rely on the writer with relatively obscure subject matter knowledge to use good judgement. ilymuzhinov is laughing up his sleeve at the press here no doubt about it.

Anonymous's picture

I love way the guy invokes Woodward/Bernstein. Delusions of grandeur yet he practically brags about the fact that he can't find any evidence whatsoever about FIDE. An embarrassment.

S3's picture

Painfull knockout of Calvin! Excellent article and reply by Dylan/ the times.

Sellars's picture

You must be joking
More like a whole bunch of wild swings by dylan that were not only misses but met with counterpunche by calvin

Plus he is a wee bit oversensitive, no? Wonder why?

Anonymous's picture

Why? This reporter dude aint got the goods, thats why. Honestly, how hard can it be. The honcho from asia probably has got older agreements.

Anonymous's picture

LOL

Best newspaper in the US?

Derp

Chris's picture

when KI is pushes too much IO may publish his previous contracts with KI.
Good move by Kasparov Team.

Bartleby's picture

Interesting game. Kasparov's main dilemma is that he campaigns for tansparency but has to buy enough votes. Publicizing a vote buying deal is a creative and novel way to handle this dilemma. But I can't see how Mr Leong can like any of it.

I wish GK luck. Let's see how this will work out.

Anonymous's picture

Please leak more contracts from gk's team.

IrotCounsel's picture

Time and again, we have to separate the man Kasparov from the chessplayer. No doubt he is a brilliant chessplayer, but as a person with strong moral fiber, this issue is debatable. No matter how his team play with words like transparency, the end does not justify the means. However, he may argue that alien believer, now Fide head did the same thing in the past as already adverted to, still it reveals who Kasparov is, as a person.

Anonymous's picture

People brought up in communist countries are often broken morally by the experience.

ejh's picture

"Never wrestle with a pig because you both get dirty and the pig enjoys it."

It's all very well for Mig to say this, but they're more than wrestling with the pig, aren't they?

It's also a bit much to bang on about transparency when publishing a secret agreement *which you're only publishing because a draft has appeared in public*. I don't think anybody, including Mig, thinks this is what is meant by "transparency".

Yes, I know what Kirsan is and yes, I know that politics is a dirty game. But this is tatty stuff.

Anonymous's picture

mig stole the phrase from a fide vp who said it before he did.

Anonymous's picture

Go go go Kirsan!

abc's picture

Too much stupidity in the comments so far.

Concrete example:
A local community complains that there are no facilities for children.
So a politician builds a playground for children to play.
Did that politician do anything wrong? After all he is "buying" their votes.

Bartleby's picture

He is buying votes if he contractually obliges the parents who want access to the playground to vote for him in the next election. Or, more to the point, the child molesters.

Anonymous's picture

Wow, abc, your school education failed on you completely. Were you attentive at classes to learn right from wrong?

Nic's picture

Nothing new under the sun... eternal return!

baladala's picture

What might be GK's strategy for the other continents? Make it transparent!

Nic's picture

The strategy for other continents is -fortunately and obviously- the same one, otherwise he would not be willing to compete seriously!

Omid's picture

I don't think Kirsan will ever dare to publish any of his contracts,at least GK did that and I don't consider this,buying vote as long as it's mentioned several times that the money will be spent only for chess programms.

Sghavam's picture

"in order to avoid further damage,I'm asking you to resign" my favourite part!

king's picture

I'm starting to believe that aliens work for kirsan,this guy Bill Warth must be one of them.

KingMeta's picture

It's important to note that the "Asean Chess Academy" - the entity mentioned in the documents - is a for-profit private business venture run by Ignatius Leong. So when it's said that no money goes to "IL" or an individual, that's just not true. They money goes to him via a company or a "foundation" arm. Which is to say - he profits personally. Him and his associates in his business ventures in question. It's also good to remember that Leong will cast his vote as the President of the Singapore Chess Federation (a national body). Is it allowed in that country to solicit/negotiate money in exchange for votes with that money being chiefly directed towards a private venture? Questions for lawyers.

Pages

Latest articles