I might say something about this on Friday, though quite likely not as I may not have time before then. What I will say is that in Mark Crowther's report, with which I mostly concur, the thing I really agree with is this: players need to start being active in their own national associations and replacing the FIDE delegates that voted for Ilyumzhinovwhich would, among many other things, mean a different approach to that taken by the Karpov and Bessel Kok campaigns.
Stupid question – why don’t the best players get together and drop FIDE and start a rival organization.Isn’t that what the Premier League did to the Football league a decade or so ago
I guess that thought must have crossed many people's minds. But it's an awesome undertaking to build a whole new international chess organisation from nothing.The Premiership was formed under the umbrella of an organisation that already existed - the FA - and of course big football clubs are large corporate entities in their own right. Top chess players are private individuals with limited means and business skills.
Yes, it is a stupid question, because if it's just about "the best players", why is anybody else supposed to give a damn about them?And is "what the Premier League did to the Football League" - either a good example or an appropriate one?Really, what an extraordinary thing to say.
(I mean I'm sorry to come on so strong, perhaps I could have phrased it more gently, but really there is nothing, nothing which annoys me more about the FIDE debate than the idea that it's all about "the best players" who are in some way terribly oppressed by the existence of FIDE.)
But ejh, if the best players say they are oppressed, there must be something wrong with the system because they are the ones who know more about the art and business. No sport/game has befitted by ignoring its best players, don't you agree?