My recent post about ChessEver was shared on Reddit with a title focused on my use of the word “communist” for Lichess. I posted a clarification there and want to share it here too. I’ve written critical posts about Lichess before, but that doesn’t mean I don’t respect what they’ve built. I’ve also said many times that my company, ChessEver, has been able to make progress thanks to their work. We’re grateful for that. I don’t see these things in black and white: I can appreciate Lichess and still disagree with some of its decisions. My recent post, where I called Lichess “communist” in the opening, was shared here without the full context or a link to the original. I’ve already apologized to Lichess’s founder, Thibault, for misinterpreting his GitHub bio. I took the wording seriously and thought it reflected his philosophy. He explained that it was satire about labels other people had applied to Lichess. I got that wrong. I didn’t intend the word as an insult or criticism. When I used the word, I was thinking about free access, equal treatment for users, and voluntary contributions to something built for the community. I still see similarities that explain the comparison, but that’s my interpretation, not how Lichess describes itself. I misunderstood the context of the founder’s bio, and I won’t keep using the label. My broader point was about the kind of company I want ChessEver to become: a sustainable business that also contributes to the chess community. That’s the discussion I wanted to have.

#chess It is NOT a good start for the new FIDE administration to ignore and bypass the Ukrainian Chess Federation @UAchessfed in appointing a Ukrainian vice-president without their official approval. In addition to the fact that Mr Podolyak has absolutely no relation to chess, exactly as Mr Kolobkov (RUS) doesn't. At this point, both choices seem to serve only non-chess interests and constitute a co-ordinated attack on the Ukrainian Chess Federation.

A $6 million commitment to help media communications I announce the creation of a FIDE Chess Media Fund, with $1.5 million per year, from 2027 to 2030. This is a minimum commitment of $6 million over four years. The Fund will support projects by national federations to help them build and increase their media capacity to better promote their work and players. This includes support for building digital channels, developing sponsorship materials and receiving practical training and expert support. The fund is open to all national federations. It is important to note that this would be additional funding. The proposed Development Fund programmes would run separately, with a separate budget allocated for that. Our goal is practical. We need more chess in public, and to achieve that, we also need to help federations build capacities on how to spread their message, engage audiences and sponsors. We want to help Member Federations build their own, independent, media voices. This is one of the pillars of capacity building within FIDE which we want to provide. - 2027–2030 - $1.5m annually - $6m minimum personal commitment More info here: drive.google.com/file/d/11pK…

I welcome the @ECUonline decision to maintain its institutional neutrality in the upcoming FIDE presidential elections and to leave the choice to the national federations and their delegates. That seems to me the right approach. Continental organisations bring together federations with different views and priorities. They will not always agree, and they should not be expected to. The job of the candidates is different. We should explain clearly what we want to do with FIDE and what we are prepared to be accountable for. @vishy64theking and I have been doing that throughout this campaign. We have spoken about giving federations more predictable support and putting more resources into development. We also believe national federations should have a stronger voice inside FIDE. Delegates can look at those proposals, compare them with the alternatives and make up their own minds. That is how this election should work.