An Open Letter to the Estonian Correspondence Chess Federation

Jüri Eintalu

Please exclude me from the membership of the Estonian Correspondence Chess Federation.

I no longer pay the membership fee, I no longer participate in competitions organized by the Estonian Correspondence Chess Federation, and I no longer represent the Republic of Estonia in correspondence chess.

All my games as a representative of Estonia have ended by now. (I drew all four games in the Baltic/Sweden friendly match.)

Justification

Last year, in 2022, the International Correspondence Chess Federation (ICCF) adopted two fundamental decisions.

The first decision established that ICCF member states could also be expelled or temporarily suspended for non-financial reasons.

In doing so, however, no set of rules was adopted for which reasons and how the activities of the member states may be suspended.

Another decision suspended the participation of Russia and Belarus in ICCF activities, citing the war in Ukraine.

However, this decision did not correspond to good legal practices and was also of morally dubious value.

First, this decision was retrospective because the penalized conduct began before adopting the new rulebook.

Second, this decision was discriminatory and selective. For example, US correspondence chess players were not punished for the fact that the US had started wars in Afghanistan, Iraq or Serbia.

Third, this decision applied collective punishment because the sportspersons were punished for the decisions of their homeland government.

Fourth, the method of counting votes was absurd and not transparent when decisions were made. Neutral and non-voting countries were excluded from the calculation without distinction; at the same time, there was no established quorum — the minimum number of countries that must vote (positively or negatively) for the meeting to be capable of making a decision.

It was necessary to reach 2/3 of the votes to pass decisions. However, the decision-making mechanism used was such that the decision could have been adopted even if only 3 countries had voted resultant (for example, the USA and the UK “Yes” and Russia “No”) and all the others had remained neutral.

In other words, a system was used where remaining neutral or not voting acted as a positive vote “Yes”. Because if the countries that remained neutral had been included in the total number of those who voted, the proportion of those who voted in favour would have remained less than 2/3, and such decisions would not have been adopted.

My complaints to the Estonian Correspondence Chess Federation

According to the data from ICCF, the Estonian Correspondence Chess Federation initially had not nominated a representative for this vote. Still, in the end, the name of one particular person appeared there. However, according to the data from ICCF, this person either remained neutral or did not participate in the vote (the ICCF does not specify this important nuance).

The Estonian Correspondence Chess Federation website did not have any information about this voting, nor was a relevant e-mail sent to the correspondence chess players. Furthermore, the organization’s website also lacked information about the voting results, and the results were not announced in e-mails either.

The opinion of the Estonian Correspondence Chess Federation members, on whose behalf the Estonian representative at least formally participated in the vote, has not been asked, nor has there been any discussion or voting in Estonia.

I have never received any response to the official inquiry I sent, before the vote, through the ICCF website, to the official representative of the Estonian Correspondence Chess Federation.

That the Estonian Correspondence Chess Federation can still send e-mails to correspondence chess players is evident from the fact that recently, in an e-mail sent to many addresses, the Estonian Correspondence Chess Federation invited Estonian correspondence chess players to participate in a friendly match as representatives of the Estonian team.

I do not regard it possible to belong to an organization on behalf of whose members essential (and weird) international decisions are made in such a way that the opinion of the members of the organization is not asked, their questions are not answered, and they are not even informed afterwards about the vote or its results.

With respect

Jüri Eintalu

Tallinn, March 29, 2023

ARE RUSSIA AND BELARUS NOT SUSPENDED FROM THE ICCF?

Russia and Belarus seem to have not been suspended from the international correspondence chess federation ICCF.

The ICCF Extraordinary Congress tried to suspend the Russian and Belarus federations.

Online voting was carried out from 27 April — 09 May 2022.

ICCF's homepage does not provide a clear result. I do not see it. The link to that Congress disappeared recently (and later, it is changing again!).

The downloadable table of the voting results does not show at once what country made what decision.

An excerpt from the results:

EC 2022-003 Suspend the Russian Federation — Void if EC 2022-001 is Defeated

For 33, Against 10, Abstain 14

I calculate that FOR: 58%.

EC 2022-01 — Amendment of ICCF Statute Article 17 — required 2/3 votes. The result was:

For 34, Against 10, Abstain 13

I calculate that FOR: 60%, which is less than the required 2/3 or 67%. 

Thus, it seems that the ICCF failed to change its Statute to allow the suspension of Russia and Belarus based on majority voting.

Unfortunately, in my homeland Estonia, there is no information available on how our representative voted (if he voted) and based on what considerations. 

The national federation has not officially responded to my question sent through the ICCF server. I also do not see any relevant news on the national federation's website.

KARJAKIN, CARLSEN AND VOLTAIRE

The international chess federation FIDE banned outstanding grandmaster Karjakin from participating in FIDE tournaments for 6 months because Karjakin publicly justified the Russian invasion of Ukraine. 

The world champion Carlsen has taken a stance concerning Karjakin's attitude and also FIDE's ban. Among other things, Carlsen said: 

"Obviously, I don't agree with Karjakin in anything, but is it correct to ban people for opinions we don't tolerate?"

Tarjei Svensen, 

Carlsen on Karjakin: “These types of attitudes can't be accepted”, 

Chess24, 5 April 2022

As a philosopher, I strongly support Carlsen's attitude.

Voltaire was one of those philosophers who defended freedom of speech. Often, the following sentence is attributed to Voltaire:

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

This quotation is in good accordance with Voltaire's views. Unfortunately, it was not Voltaire who said so. It was someone else. — It was Evelyn Beatrice Hall in the 1906 book The Friends of Voltaire by S. G. Tallentyre which was the pseudonym of historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall. See, for example: 

Quoteinvestigator, "Voltaire". 

Thus, some of Carlsen's attitudes are similar to Voltaire's attitudes. 

CARLSEN KARJAKINI MÄNGUKEELUST

Carlseni arvates pole Karjakinil Ukraina sõja küsimuses õigus, ent sellest hoolimata polnud õige ka FIDE otsus keelata Karjakinil võistlustel osalemine sel põhjusel, et Karjakin väljendas oma vaateid Ukraina sõja kohta. 

Tarjei Svensen 

Carlsen on Karjakin: “These types of attitudes can't be accepted” 

Chess24, 5 April 2022 

Filosoofina ma tugevalt toetan Carlseni hoiakut. 

Carlseni hoiak on sarnane filosoof Voltaire'i hoiakule. Sõnavabadus tuleb jätta ka neile, kelle arvamus meile ei meeldi.

JUSTIFYING THE UNJUSTIFIED WAR

Chess grandmaster Sergey Karjakin received a six-month ban from the international competitions, and his appeal was dismissed. When the international chess federation FIDE initiated the case, it accused Karjakin of supporting the unjustified war:

“FIDE Council condemns any public statement from any member of the chess community which supports unjustified military action…”

(The concepts of “justified war” or “just war” can be found in the encyclopaedias.)

However, Karjakin not only approved that war but also presented some arguments to convince us that this war was justified.

In sum, Karjakin’s fault seems to be the following:

He tried to justify the unjustified war.

If a sportsperson tries to justify the unjustified war, it results in 6 months ban from international competitions.

But what if a sportsperson presents strong arguments to justify the unjustified war? Whether the punishment should also be more serious? For example, it results in a 6-year ban from international competitions.

But what if a sportsperson succeeds in justifying that war?

He presented compelling arguments to justify the unjustified war.

Probably, that sportsperson should be jailed for 170-years. Because it is impossible to justify the unjustified war, and if someone succeeds in doing the impossible, it should be regarded as the greatest crime.

KARJAKIN's APPEAL DISMISSED

"Sergey Karjakin's Appeal Dismissed", FIDE, 06 May 2022 

Thus, Karjakin still cannot play in the candidates' tournament because he publicly approved the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Karjakin, in turn, writes (in Russian on his Telegram channel "Карякин. Zа спорт!") as a response that he is proud that his grandfather was a great soldier, and he complains that there are Nazis in Ukraine.

Karjakin criticises Kasparov.

Kasparov demands that Russian chess players who want to play in international tournaments should publicly disapprove Russian invasion of Ukraine.

https://t.me/karjakinchess/351

https://t.me/karjakinchess/361

ICCF TO VOTE ON RUSSIA AND BELARUS SUSPENSION

The International Correspondence Chess Federation (ICCF) is about to change its Statute and then apply the Amendments retrospectively to suspend the Belarus Federation and Russian Federation. 

The ICCF has announced an Extraordinary Congress without explicitly explaining the reason. 

Online voting begins on April 27 and ends on May 9, 2022. The required majority to change the Statute is 2/3. 

The proposals made are dubious from a legal and moral point of view. 

Article 17 

Under Article 17 of the current Statute, the activities of a national correspondent association in the ICCF can be suspended or stopped only for non-payment of the membership fee. On this basis, Venezuela, which is in a confusing situation, was recently expelled from the ICCF in turbulent circumstances. 

However, it is intended to amend Article 17 so that one can be expelled or suspended for reasons other than financial ones: 

"The Executive Board is empowered by Congress to propose suspension or dismissal of member federations for non-financial reasons."

Only "self-evident" is mentioned as a "consideration". 

However, the only thing that is self-evident is that the aim is to punish Russia and Belarus for the Ukraine invasion — even if they do not say it. 

But why has the ICCF not understood the obvious thing before, and only now — especially in the context of the Russian/Ukrainian war? In the context of the war in Iraq or Afghanistan, the ICCF has not taken such a matter for granted... 

Article 10 

Article 10 says: 

"ICCF is a democratic association and does not discriminate based on race, skin colour, sex, language, religion, political, or other opinions, national or social origin, property, birth origin or any other status. ICCF observes strict neutrality with respect to the internal affairs of member federations and affiliated organizations". 

The proposal is to modify Article 10 by removing the following words, "national or." 

First, this amendment is redundant if the aim is to suspend Russia and Belarus. Russia and Belarus are the states, not nations. Punishing the state for the state's actions, like starting a war, is not the same as a punishment based on the nationality of the citizens of that state. 

Second, this amendment is dangerous as it removes a barrier to real discrimination. For example, the amended Statute would allow excluding Israel from the ICCF based on Jewishness and implemented by the majority of votes. 

However, if the amendment to Article 10 fails, it does not prevent suspending Russia and Belarus. 

Suspending Russia and Belarus 

The next nuance is that the amendment to Article 17 of the Statute is to be implemented retrospectively — Russia and Belarus are to be suspended based on a clause in the Statute adopted after Russia started the war against Ukraine. It is a backwards-looking jurisdiction: 

"If approved, this change to the ICCF Statutes would take effect immediately after approval of Congress (with the requisite 2/3 minimum votes of those voting)."

"Suspend the Russian Federation in accordance with ICCF Statute Article 17."

This is also called an ad hoc argument (an argument, evidence, law, etc., used specifically for the present case). 

The status of Russia and Belarus is to be voted at the same virtual congress under a new clause in the Statute. Evidently, the Ukraine war is kept in mind. But they are not going to vote, retrospectively, for example, about the membership of the US, on the basis of the still ongoing US occupation of Iraq. 

However, no justifications are given here. Only the majority is quoted as the "rationale":

"The ICCF Executive Board called for an Extraordinary Congress to consider the request from a majority of delegates to suspend the Russian Federation."

This means that anyone can be expelled from the ICCF if the majority wants to. Every delegate may even have a different reason why to do that. But, of course, their reasons may converge. For example, imagine that the strongest grandmasters are in country A. The other countries compose the majority. So they may get rid of country A. Simply vote it out. 

Conclusion 

It is difficult to avoid the impression that the chess players/administrators are not so bright and not so moral. The proposals made are discriminative and ad hoc. One may even say that despotic. They would probably understand it only when they themselves become the victims of such legal creativity. 

It is far from being a general and entrenched rule that every country that starts a war or occupies another country should be suspended from the international sports organization. Instead, it looks like politicizing the international sports organization and choosing the side — but only in the current international conflict. 

FIDE SHOULD BAN KASPAROV

Instead of Karjakin, FIDE should have banned Kasparov

On 24 March 2022, Garry Kasparov has published an article "Breaking Point" in his political journal "Kasparov.ru".
https://www.kasparov.ru/material.php?id=623CD605B0359

If FIDE was able to interpret the FIDE's Code of Ethics in such a way as to ban Karjakin for 6 months, then, they should give a lifetime ban to Kasparov.

Suppose that a man who does not understand chess, or even does not know the rules of chess, makes propaganda that some opening variation is winning for White. He does not provide any analyses of the position and even reports the position incorrectly. He argues that White has an attack and is always silent about the fact that Black has the extra rook. He is talking only about one corner of the chessboard.

The picture is exactly the same when the chess player Kasparov is talking about politics. Kasparov does not provide any analyses. He merely makes propaganda. He mentions only those facts that are suitable for his propaganda. His facts are indeed dubious.

On what ground thinks Kasparov that Russia is blackmailing the world with its nuclear weapons? Let him quote Putin exactly together with exact references to the original source. We would like to check whether Kasparov has taken something out of context, whether he presents his interpretation of Putin's talk as the real text. Let him also explain in what sense and why he thinks that Russia is blackmailing more than the US, referring to one's nuclear weapons.

Kasparov:

"Today, Putin is using nuclear blackmail... Only next time it will take place on the territory of Poland or Estonia."

On what grounds asserts Kasparov, that Putin would blackmail with the nuclear weapon such countries that do not have nuclear weapons on their territory? And in what sense can Putin blackmail on that territory?

Kasparov:

"Arguments sound absolutely meaningless - 'we cannot allow a third world war' when it is already underway."

Covertly, Kasparov makes war propaganda here. If the West would follow Kasparov's suggestions, the Ukraine war would extend to the whole of Europe, perhaps to the US as well. While in the Ukraine war, during one month, perhaps less than 100 000 people have been killed, following Kasparov's hysteria would lead to tens of millions of people killed.

Kasparov's mistake is exactly the same as Karjakin's mistake. Karjakin also refers to the killed Donbas people, to Ukrainian Nazis, and Karjakin also warns that if Ukraine's extreme nationalists will not be stopped, the whole of Europe would be in danger.

Karjakin's justification of the Russian invasion of Ukraine is dubious, however. During 8 years since 2014, in Donbas, 15 000 people were killed. During the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022, more than 15 000 people were killed during the first two weeks of the war.

Both Karjakin and Kasparov do not understand that people are not chess pawns. In real-life, any exchanges of pawns are unwelcome, since every such exchange means two killed people.

FIDE, however, has banned Karjakin for making war propaganda. But it is Kasparov who should be banned first and forever.

---

Approximate translation of Kasparov's article:

I cannot say with certainty that Putin will not use nuclear weapons. But we must answer the question: can concessions to Putin reduce this risk? Any concession to the dictator increases his impudence. Today, Putin is using nuclear blackmail as his last card in this game. And if this blackmail works, and it still works, then it means that he will use this card all the time. Only next time it will take place on the territory of Poland or Estonia. And then the West will face a dilemma: either dissolve itself and end the historical path of Western civilization, yielding to a gopnik with nuclear weapons, or enter into a military clash that will take place in much worse conditions than now.

Arguments sound absolutely meaningless - "we cannot allow a third world war" when it is already underway. But we continue to hear them from all sides. However, we must not forget that these statements come from people who have given wrong advice over the years about how to build relations with Putin. These are people who in business would have been fired long ago. They compromised themselves with absolutely incorrect assessments of the geopolitical situation, but now they continue to give advice on how to proceed.

I recently tweeted about the RAND Corporation. This is one of the leading research centers in the US, which deals with military issues and advises the US government. In January of this year, they released a large detailed article that explained why Ukraine should not be supplied with weapons. The article said that the Ukrainian army would fall apart in a few days, this army had no chance to resist Putin, and the supply of weapons to it was money down the drain. I ask the question: are these people still advisers to the American administration? Do they still advise the White House? Did they apologize in any way for their mistake?

We have come to a point where everything must change. The whole world, the systems of relationships will change, but in order to save this world, we need to understand that in a war with Putin there can be no draw, unlike chess. Either he wins or we win. The victory of Ukraine will mean the collapse of the Putin regime. And this is the fundamental idea that must be brought to the consciousness of Western society in the hope that it will be able to influence its cowardly and corrupt politicians.

THE INTERNATIONAL CHESS FEDERATION FIDE IS DEAD

FIDE started its activities after the Second World War and organized the most corrupt world chess championship of all time, "The Hague-Moscow 1948", in which the Soviet chess player Botvinnik became the world champion. 

Botvinnik was abnormally resultative against Keres, the representative of Estonia, occupied by the Soviet Union. 

By now, however, FIDE has gone beyond what is reasonable.

On March 2, 2022, the FIDE Council issued a statement on the war in Ukraine:

The Official Statement of FIDE Council

• FIDE states that Russian and Belarusian flags may not be used in FIDE competitions.
• FIDE terminates all sponsorship agreements with the state of Russia or Belarus or with state-controlled companies.
• FIDE will discuss the issue of "supporting unjustified military action" statements by grandmaster Sergei Karjakin in the FIDE Ethics Committee. — This committee has just decided that Karjakin will not be able to play in the FIDE competitions for 6 months, so he will not be able to play in the World Championship tournament where he was eligible to play.
• FIDE does not organize any chess competitions or events in Russia and Belarus. (This place in the FIDE statement is particularly absurd because it refers to the safety of chess players, but instead, the war is going on in Ukraine, and there are serious security problems in Ukraine at the moment.)

The problem is the justifications provided by FIDE.

We can first read about human rights in the text of the FIDE statement.

— On what basis does the chess federation FIDE decide that Russia and Belarus have violated human rights in the Russian invasion of Ukraine?

Starting a war is not a violation of human rights. However, concerning human rights violations during the war, on what basis does the chess organization decide that the Russians and not the Ukrainians are violating human rights in this war? On what basis do chess organizers decide that war crimes in this war are committed by one party and not the other?

Next, on what basis does the chess organization FIDE assume that human rights were not violated in Ukraine before the war? Who gave the chess judges the mandate to decide that the Ukrainians did not commit war crimes and genocide in Donbas — as Russia claims they did?

The FIDE statement then states that FIDE is against wars and condemns the use of military force to resolve political conflicts:

"FIDE stands united against wars as well as condemns any use of military means to resolve political conflicts."

— If FIDE does condemn the use of military force to resolve political conflicts, FIDE should also have condemned Ukraine's violations of the Minsk peace in Donbas. According to reports from the OSCE Mission to Ukraine, the situation on the dividing line with the Donbas separatists worsened in early 2022, with minesweepers fired as many as a thousand times a day, with most hits in the separatist areas.

If FIDE is indeed against the wars, why has FIDE not made similar statements against the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, for example? The war in Iraq has been going on for 19 years. The United States has still not completely stopped occupying Iraq. Millions of people have been killed in that war, while the war in Ukraine has only lasted a month, and the death toll is apparently below 100,000.

Regarding Karjakini's question, FIDE also uses the argument of unjustified military action:

"FIDE Council condemns any public statement from any member of the chess community which supports unjustified military action..."

— On what basis do the chess judges decide which war is justified and which is not?

I, too, believe that Russia's full-scale war against Ukraine is not morally or legally justified.

For example, suppose Russia's accusation that Ukraine carried out genocide in Donbas is justified. However, it seems complicated to justify the decision to attack Kyiv, which is far from Donbas, to defend the civilian population of Donbas. At first glance, it would seem more natural for Russia to deploy its troops only to the separatist regions of Donbas for this purpose.

The paragraph above is just a fraction of the possible debate on whether or not Russia's war in Ukraine is justified. This fragment alone shows that the issue is complex. Different parties here have different understandings of the facts and cause-and-effect relationships. New facts may emerge that we do not yet know. It is also necessary to be familiar with the Geneva Convention and other articles of international law to take part in the debate. Finally, Russia has more excuses, such as the need to defend itself against NATO invasion. Whatever the right verdict, it is evident that chess judges cannot competently make this decision!

However, what is certain now is that Russia has at least mitigating circumstances — while the United States did not even have any mitigating circumstances when it invaded Iraq and Afghanistan.

So we know now that there were no chemical weapons in Iraq, and the talk of these weapons of mass destruction was a fiction to justify a war. We also realize that Iraq posed no military threat to the American motherland, America, because America is on the other side of the globe, and Iraq did not have intercontinental missiles or nuclear bombs.

FIDE's condemnation of "supporting an unjustified war" may well prove to be a ban on proving that the war is in fact justified; in such a variant, it would simply prove to be a dogma that war is unjustified, a dogma that must not be doubted.

However, if FIDE were indeed against unjustified wars and support for such wars, FIDE should have condemned the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Unfortunately, after a long search on the FIDE website, I would say that FIDE has never even discussed these topics.

When the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq broke out, most people in Europe and the United States supported these wars, either openly or tacitly. It was only thanks to the work of Julian Assange and Wikileaks that Western audiences learned that the West had committed war crimes in these wars. However, FIDE has not responded in any way to the fact that some chess players have publicly agreed to these wars.

In conclusion, I find the FIDE statement and decisions extremely hypocritical. Although FIDE makes anti-war declarations, it only defends Ukraine and attacks only Russia. The wars launched by the United States have not been criticized or responded to by FIDE.

Therefore, I simply do not believe that the real purpose of FIDE is to prevent wars, condemn them, protect human rights, prevent war propaganda, prevent war crimes, and so on.

In fact, the FIDE decision is an example of the politicization of sport and, moreover, of the biased politicization of sport. FIDE has chosen a side in the war and turned itself into a weapon in the hands of one side against the other.

As a result, I no longer participate in FIDE tournaments, and I no longer recognize an organization like FIDE.

I am also considering interrupting my correspondence chess tournaments in the ICCF, which is officially under FIDE. However, the ICCF has not yet taken such abrupt decisions as FIDE.