<2006–2009. Happy years for chess. Several matches for the title were played. Chess world is unified. The number of top tournament increases alongside with earnings of professional chess players.>

I have been concerned about this. Why is it that Ilyumzhinov gets no credit for his leadership in the clearly improved conditions of elite level chess? And more importantly, when a candidate says the chess world is in terrible shape, what changes is he exactly proposing? Even Danailov leaves me more assured about what he can do for chess.

I have been concerned about this. Why is it that Ilyumzhinov gets no credit for his leadership in the clearly improved conditions of elite level chess?>

Agreed, but to be honest, the one man mostly responsible for unifying the chess world with all the positive things that came from that is Vladimir Kramnik.

<And more importantly, when a candidate says the chess world is in terrible shape, what changes is he exactly proposing?>

Yep. Still waiting to find out what he plans to actually do.

Plus, his choice to ally with Kasparov makes me both question his judgement and fear the consequences of his victory.

<After Kasimdzhanov becomes new World knockout Champion, Kasparov of course receives a right to play a match for the title against him>

Or presenting hearsay about Kasparov that doesn't seem too relevant to support the view that Kirsan is better suited to lead FIDE than Karpov:

<They say that at the Bled Chess Olympiad, having his turn for a move, but just seeing Ilyumzhinov in the playing hall, Kasparov rushed to hug and kiss him>

Bareev also talks about <a desperate effort> of Kasparov and Karpov involving <violating the Statutes> of the Russian Chess Federation (no such violation by Dvorkovich is mentioned after his nominating Kirsan after claiming to have talked with a couple of board members on the phone instead of having an actual vote by the members, as in Karpov's case...).

<Karpov-Kasparov rapid chess match in Valencia. The announced series of similar matches does not take place due to the absence of interest in the world to their creative and sportive components.>

Whether this is correct or not seems to be a matter of interpretation. Also, it's possible for nuances to change in translation. A bit petty to accuse him of making up facts if you don't know for sure what he means.

http://od-news.com/index.php?option...

The most important thing, in my opinion, is to make clear what his proposals are. So far, Karpov has not.

As for the whole "chess is a sport" thing... well, it's a mind sport, that's quite clear to all of us who follow it; but it's not going to be in the Olympic Games any time soon.

Me too, in any case I'm no fan of Karpov, but Kirsan has been sitting safe for 15 years, introduced knockout World Championships and sudden cycle changes, and there's no reason that he should hold his position for life. It can only be a good thing with change now and then at such a post.

Khalifman declares that he has no preference between the two but at the same time sounds much more pro-Kirsan than pro-Karpov:

<There are pluses and a few minuses in Ilyumzhinov’s work>

<Karpov has no program>

<With Ilyumzhinov, when problems arise, he reaches in his own pocket, gets money and solves them. With Karpov, it is absolutely unclear for me how he would solve the problems>

I would like to see someone who has held a top spot on the IOC, <International Olympic committee> get it. Such a person will be used to having worked in the international arena, under close scrutiny and guidelines.

<Ron>
If chess was an Olympic sport, then all players would have to face random drug testing. With the amount of coffee that some players drink during games, there is a chance that they could have too much caffeine in their system!