Replacing FIDE - What if?

This is a topic for discussion/hammering out a what-if scenario...what would it realistically take to replace FIDE, and how fast could it really be done?

Some talking points

- The FIDE ratings list is easily copyable to seed a new organization's ratings pool

- It would take probably Carlsen and a number of top GMs to jump ship...how many?  Consider the failed PCA effort...

- What would it take to set up a working infrastructure for handling national federations, tournaments, etc. online?

- How would the switchover be handled?  How would clubs and tournament directors make the jump, and what would realistically incentivise them to do so?

- What is FIDE's real revenue, and how easy it is to swap out FIDE with a "plug and play" approach that says "run your events exactly as you do today, except get your info here and send your money here..."?

This is just a fun group exercise.  Can a viable alternative be designed?

Before you worry about building the committee structures and all that other fun stuff you want to "hammer out",  I think you should have stated at least one compelling reason to do this--something that you demonstrably you can do better than the current organization.

It won't do to say, "Bring more money to chess". You have to explain how.

I'm sure I don't really need to enumerate reasons that FIDE might need replacing ;)...as I said, this would be an exercise in design and organizational buildout.

As for stating one thing I could do better...I could inform the 64 potential invitees for the FIDE women's championship sooner than 2 weeks before the event that it would be postponed for several months...allowing them to, you know, play in other tournaments and otherwise advance their careers without sitting in a holding pattern. 

I would also have avoided the hypocrisy of not allowing a requested postponement of the WCC match by Carlsen, but postponing the women's championship instead, which really did not need postponing except for FIDE's complete failure to secure a location on time, as they had promised.

Oops, that's 2 things.

Those may be reasons to replace the President of FIDE, not the organization.

Surely you have some positive reasons for starting a new federation that will offset some of the cost of the decade or more of confusion while the two competing federations struggle for primacy.

Not again. Kasparov himself says that splitting away from the FIDE was the biggest mistake of his chess career.

Has anyone asked Kasparov about that quote since the latest election? ;)

There's no getting rid of Kirsan.  FIDE's delegates all have equal voting power.  Russia's and India's votes, for example, are the same as any country, no matter how small/uninvolved in chess.  There's a senate, but no house, and the disadvantages of this arrangement have been known since at least the 1700s ;).

The leaders of these small federations owe their livelyhoods to FIDE, and as each new one is added, Kirsan's lifetime position at the head of FIDE becomes even more secure.  So, unless you plan to assassinate Kirsan, it's either scrap FIDE (and if done correctly, it should take 2-3 years, not 10...the key is setting up an infrastructure that makes the choice relatively seamless), or wait 'til Kirsan steps down due to old age ;).

Regardless though...once again...this would be a group exercise for fun, requiring many members' expertise and knowledge to figure out.  You'll notice a distinct difference between calling for Kirsan's head and this thread's premise.  If I posted a thread about coming up with a better version of the US Constitution, would that mean I am calling for an actual revolution?  Do you have any input on the actual subject at hand?

I'm just tired of the same old garbage on the forums...but when people try to introduce something different, they usually get a bunch of pedantic stick-in-the-mud responses anyway.  That attitude is exactly why trolls love posting here.  They know that they can post the same unoriginal drivel a million times, and chess.com members will always respond the same way ;).  

Another attempt at some new content derailed, I guess.  Maybe I should post a "Fischer hates women chess players because IQ is tied to chess performance" thread...I can do the trifecta of tired, worn out subjects...

It would be better to change FIDE from within, but like mentioned above would be impractical. 

I think a good idea would be further integration with various national chess leagues and more FIDE open tournaments overall.  Truly open and not just women and children tournaments.  Not necessarily big ones but also weekend tournaments could have some FIDE oversight too.  This is to make FIDE ratings more approachable for more people around the world and negate the need for serious long travel all the time, negating some of the disadvantage of being lesser off. 

 Also instead of representing countries various GMs could represent different sponsoring corporations like NASCAR with their cars. 

Maybe it would be better to return of the days of Steinitz, when the title was the property of the World Champion. FIDE seem less and less capable of finding sponsors and arranging both the men's and the women's World Championship anyway. One might just as well skip the pretense of meaningful cycles and wait for a sponsor to cough up money for Caruana or Giri to play a title match, that's how it has been most of the time anyway.

Why would any country have to be involved at all, much less run things? :)

Anarchy and nationalism are not mutually exclusive concepts, though :).

A worldwide chess organization could be run largely online with distributed servers and no real fixed locations/headquarters, couldn't it?

I'd rather go with the Google approach.  Just make something so damn good and easy to use that it doesn't matter who your competitors are or what they do ;).  

And that is the problem with FIDE. They are shills for the Russian federation. Starting another orginization where one single country is the power behind it would end with another flawed and corrupt system. If FIDE is to be replaced it needs to be a truly WORLD based orginization.

Open and honest decisions in place of the favoritism, corruption, and inept actions of the past.

Here's a few things I'd like to see...

First, there should be a term limit set for the president and officers of the org. One and done!

The guy I'd love to see as the first president of a new orginization would be Yasser Seirawan. He is an intelligent and well spoken man. Thought of very highly world wide. And would be a very good representative for a new chess org.

I'm not a TD...do any TDs want to comment about what it would take for them facilitate tournaments from an online chess platform?  There's two points of view here:

1. The dream - what you'd like to see

2. The reality - what you do now

You guys are dreaming. Corruption in federations are widespread and endemic. See the soccer federation, for example. Also, when you add russia (or brazil) into the mix, then even more corruption, and permanency in power (or puppet in power) arises.

You must be dreaming, too, to have dug this 3 year old thread up on a search ...