Why Is Chess Trapped in World Politics?

Sport has always had a remarkable ability to bring people together when politics divides them. Chess demonstrates this perhaps better than almost any other sport. Two players can come from countries with opposing governments, different political systems, cultures and beliefs, yet sit across the same 64 squares and compete under exactly the same rules. For a few hours, nationality becomes secondary. What matters is preparation, skill, courage, strategy and the decisions made over the board.

That is one of the most important values international sport should protect.

Yet the developments surrounding the 2026 FIDE Presidential Election raise an uncomfortable question: is world chess becoming trapped in geopolitical battles that should be fought somewhere else?

It would be unrealistic to suggest that sport can completely isolate itself from world politics. International sporting organisations operate within national and international legal systems. Sanctions, diplomatic relationships, wars, visa restrictions and government decisions inevitably affect them. FIDE cannot simply ignore applicable law, and nobody involved in sport should be considered above it.

However, there must be a boundary. Politics may influence the environment in which sport operates, but political power should not become a substitute for sporting rules, due process and democratic elections. That distinction becomes especially important when external political decisions have the potential to determine who can realistically contest for the leadership of a global sporting organisation.

The situation surrounding FIDE President Arkady Dvorkovich demonstrates exactly why this discussion matters.

On 23 July 2026, Dvorkovich announced that he was voluntarily suspending the exercise of his presidential powers and duties after being included in sanctions connected with Russia. He rejected the decision against him and indicated that he intended to challenge it. Importantly, Dvorkovich did not formally resign from FIDE. Instead, the sanctions created circumstances in which continuing to exercise his presidential responsibilities could potentially create complications for the organisation.

As a result, FIDE Deputy President and five-time World Champion Viswanathan Anand assumed the presidential responsibilities on an interim basis.

The timing of these developments cannot simply be ignored. Dvorkovich had already expressed his intention to seek another term as FIDE President, while the presidential election is scheduled for 26 September 2026 in Samarkand, Uzbekistan. In practical terms, a major geopolitical decision fundamentally changed the circumstances surrounding the incumbent FIDE President only around two months before national chess federations were due to vote.

The authorities imposing the sanctions have provided their reasons, while Dvorkovich has rejected their justification. ChessSL is not a court, nor is it our role to determine the legality of those sanctions. But the international chess community has every right to ask a different question: should geopolitical decisions made outside the chess world be capable of dramatically reshaping a FIDE election immediately before voting takes place?

Whatever one’s personal opinion of Dvorkovich, the consequences for the election were substantial. The landscape changed almost overnight.

Before these developments, Timur Turlov, President of the Kazakhstan Chess Federation, had been expected to contest alongside Dvorkovich as his candidate for Deputy President. Once Dvorkovich’s situation changed, Turlov stepped forward as a candidate for FIDE President himself. Standing beside him as candidate for Deputy President is Viswanathan Anand.

That created the Timur Turlov–Viswanathan Anand ticket, which ChessSL believes offers one of the most compelling leadership combinations available to world chess today.

However, almost immediately after the Dvorkovich situation, attention began turning towards Turlov himself.

His background, his former Russian citizenship, his current Kazakh citizenship, his sanctions status and questions surrounding his electoral declarations have all become part of the debate surrounding his candidacy. Rival presidential candidate Wadim Rosenstein has publicly called for FIDE’s Electoral Commission to examine Turlov’s eligibility and, if the relevant requirements are found not to have been met, to disqualify him.

Every candidate seeking the presidency of FIDE must comply fully with FIDE’s Electoral Rules. Supporting Turlov should not mean protecting him from legitimate scrutiny. If credible evidence exists that he, or any other candidate, has failed to meet FIDE’s requirements, the Electoral Commission should examine that evidence independently, fairly and transparently.

Nobody should be above the rules.

But there is also an important difference between legitimate scrutiny and attempting to remove a candidate from the democratic process through political pressure.

The FIDE Electoral Commission has already preliminarily declared the Turlov–Anand ticket valid and admissible, alongside the other presidential tickets, while leaving established procedures available for eligibility complaints. That is precisely how questions about a candidate should be handled. Evidence should be submitted, rules should be applied consistently, the candidate should be given the opportunity to respond, and an independent body should make the determination.

What should concern the chess community is the possibility that nationality, geopolitical connections or sanctions imposed outside FIDE increasingly become tools through which sporting elections are influenced.

After what happened to Dvorkovich, this concern cannot simply be dismissed.

First Dvorkovich. Now questions are being raised around Turlov. Where does this direction eventually lead?

If Timur Turlov satisfies FIDE’s eligibility requirements, the answer should be simple: allow him to contest and let the world’s chess federations decide whether they want him as President.

If his opponents believe he is the wrong person to lead FIDE, they should explain why. They should challenge his policies, examine his business record, question his governance plans, scrutinise potential conflicts of interest and compare his programme against those of the other presidential candidates.

Then they should convince the national federations.

That is what elections are designed to achieve.

If another candidate has a better vision for international chess, present it. If another candidate has a stronger development programme, demonstrate it. If another candidate can attract greater investment, strengthen governance more effectively or offer a better future for developing chess nations, make that case to the voting federations.

Then defeat Turlov at the ballot box.

There is an enormous difference between telling voters, “You should not vote for this candidate,” and telling them, “You should not be allowed to vote for this candidate.”

The first is democratic competition. The second requires an exceptionally strong justification grounded in established rules and due process.

World chess should be extremely careful about crossing that line.

It is also important that Timur Turlov is judged on his complete record rather than being reduced simply to the country in which he was born.

Turlov has served as President of the Kazakhstan Chess Federation and has become increasingly involved in the international development of chess. Through Freedom Holding Corp., his involvement in the sport has extended far beyond election campaigning.

Freedom has supported major international chess competitions and development initiatives. It was involved in major FIDE events including the World Rapid and Blitz Championships in Almaty and the World Championship Match in Astana. The organisation subsequently expanded its engagement with international chess and became an official partner of FIDE development programmes, supporting areas such as competitions, players and coaches, chess education, training centres and talent development.

Turlov’s involvement in international chess did not begin when he decided to seek the FIDE presidency.

That is important.

Many candidates can make promises during an election campaign. It is more meaningful when someone can demonstrate that they were already investing time, resources and organisational capability into the sport before asking for votes.

World chess needs that kind of investment.

Despite its enormous worldwide following and rich history, chess still has considerable commercial potential that remains underdeveloped. Many national federations operate with limited financial resources. Young players from developing countries struggle to afford international competition. Coaches and arbiters need stronger development pathways. Tournament organisers require better infrastructure and sponsorship. School chess needs long-term investment. Digital chess continues to evolve rapidly, while major international competitions need sustainable commercial partnerships.

The future President of FIDE therefore needs to understand much more than tournament regulations.

Modern international sporting leadership requires the ability to build partnerships, attract investment, understand technology, create sustainable financial structures and communicate the value of the sport to governments, businesses, media organisations and international institutions.

Turlov brings significant experience in those areas.

His record suggests that he views chess not simply as a sporting event to sponsor from time to time, but as an ecosystem capable of long-term development. That approach has the potential to be extremely valuable to FIDE.

Then there is Viswanathan Anand.

The strength of the Turlov–Anand ticket cannot be assessed without considering what Anand brings to it.

He is a five-time World Champion, one of the greatest chess players in history and one of the most respected personalities the sport has produced. His influence extends far beyond India. He has inspired generations of players across Asia and around the world, while maintaining an international reputation built on excellence, professionalism and respect.

More importantly for this election, Anand is not merely a famous former player attached to a campaign.

He already has experience within FIDE’s senior administration. He has served as Deputy President and is now exercising presidential responsibilities on an interim basis following Dvorkovich’s suspension.

The combination therefore becomes particularly interesting.

Turlov brings business leadership, investment capability, technology exposure, organisational experience and experience running a national chess federation. Anand brings elite sporting knowledge, international credibility, institutional experience and a deep understanding of what chess players need at the highest level.

One understands how capital, technology and organisational development can expand an institution.

The other understands chess at a level very few people in history ever have.

That combination of business leadership and chess leadership, investment and sporting credibility, modernisation and institutional knowledge is why ChessSL believes the Turlov–Anand ticket deserves serious support.

That does not mean they should receive a free pass.

Supporting a candidate should never mean refusing to question that candidate. Turlov should answer legitimate questions about his business interests, governance approach, electoral declarations, potential conflicts of interest and his plans for FIDE. The same standards should apply equally to every presidential candidate.

Serious scrutiny strengthens sporting organisations.

But scrutiny should help voters make informed decisions. It should not become a strategy for ensuring that voters never receive the opportunity to make a decision at all.

This distinction is fundamental.

Scrutinise Turlov. Challenge him. Question him. Investigate legitimate concerns. But if he satisfies the rules, let him contest.

The Dvorkovich situation should make international chess particularly cautious about the growing relationship between sanctions and sporting elections.

Sanctions are instruments of foreign policy. Governments and international political organisations use them to pursue geopolitical, economic and security objectives. Whether particular sanctions are justified should be determined through the appropriate political and legal processes.

However, sporting organisations also have to consider what happens when those external measures directly alter their internal democratic processes.

If a sanction imposed shortly before an election can effectively remove one potential candidate from the race, and geopolitical arguments are then directed towards the person who replaces him, international chess faces an uncomfortable question: where does legitimate legal compliance end and political influence over sporting governance begin?

There is no simple answer.

FIDE cannot disregard the law, and sporting administrators cannot claim immunity simply because they work in chess.

But sanctions should never become a convenient alternative to winning an electoral argument.

The objective of a sporting election should be to win the confidence of the voters, not to make sure those voters never receive the opportunity to choose an opponent.

This principle is much bigger than Timur Turlov or Arkady Dvorkovich.

Political relationships change. Governments change. Alliances change. Wars eventually end, and new conflicts emerge. Countries that are political partners today may find themselves on opposite sides tomorrow.

Today, the controversy involves individuals connected historically to Russia.

Tomorrow, geopolitical tensions may involve a candidate from another country, another region or another continent.

If international sport accepts political pressure as a normal mechanism for determining who can realistically seek sporting office, the precedent may eventually affect everyone.

FIDE is a global organisation.

It does not belong to Europe alone. It does not belong to Russia, Kazakhstan, India or any single political bloc.

It represents national chess federations across Europe, Asia, Africa, the Americas and Oceania.

When those federations meet to elect their leadership, their voices should matter.

The 2026 FIDE Presidential Election should therefore be about the future of chess itself.

The candidates should be debating how FIDE can become financially stronger, how developing chess nations can receive greater support, how talented young players can gain more opportunities, how chess education can expand internationally, how technology can transform the sport, how FIDE can attract major global sponsors, and how governance and transparency can continue to improve.

Those are the battles worth fighting.

Those are the questions that should determine the next FIDE President.

On those questions, ChessSL believes Timur Turlov has a record worthy of serious consideration.

He has demonstrated a willingness to invest in chess. He has supported major international competitions and development programmes. He has experience leading the Kazakhstan Chess Federation. He understands business, finance and technology, and he has already shown an interest in developing the wider chess ecosystem.

Alongside him stands Viswanathan Anand, one of the most respected players ever to sit at a chessboard and an administrator who already understands FIDE from inside its senior leadership.

For ChessSL, the combination represents a strong opportunity for the future of world chess.

We therefore support Timur Turlov for FIDE President and Viswanathan Anand for Deputy President in the 2026 FIDE Presidential Election.

That endorsement does not mean other candidates have nothing to offer, nor does it mean Turlov should avoid legitimate scrutiny. It simply means that, based on the direction we believe international chess needs to take, the Turlov–Anand partnership offers significant potential.

Others are entirely entitled to disagree.

That is exactly why elections exist.

If there is credible evidence demonstrating that Timur Turlov does not satisfy FIDE’s Electoral Rules, let the appropriate independent authority examine it and make a decision through due process.

But if he satisfies those rules, let him stand before the world’s national chess federations.

If you believe he is the wrong candidate, challenge his vision.

If you believe another candidate has a better plan, present it.

If you disagree with his policies, explain why.

Convince the federations.

Build a majority.

And defeat him with votes.

Do not use world politics to achieve what should be achieved through a chess election.

Because once international sport accepts the principle that geopolitical pressure can determine who voters are permitted to choose, the consequences will extend far beyond one candidate and one election.

Today it was Dvorkovich.

Today the questions surround Turlov.

Tomorrow it may be someone completely different.

Chess has survived wars, ideological confrontations and enormous political divisions. During some of the most difficult periods of modern history, players from opposing sides continued to meet across the board.

The chessboard has always represented something powerful: once the game begins, the pieces do not know the nationality of the player moving them.

That tradition is worth protecting.

Politics will continue to exist. International conflicts will continue. Sanctions will continue. Laws must be respected, and FIDE’s own rules must be respected.

But within those realities, international chess should protect the democratic ability of its member federations to determine the direction of their sport.

Let legitimate complaints be investigated fairly.

Let every candidate meet the same standards.

Let every eligible ticket present its vision.

Let the chess world scrutinise them.

Let the federations debate them.

And then let the federations vote.

ChessSL believes Timur Turlov and Viswanathan Anand deserve the opportunity to lead world chess into its next chapter.

Those who disagree should defeat their vision with a better vision.

Those who oppose their candidacy should defeat them with votes.

Not with geopolitics.

Let the candidates contest. Let the federations choose. Let chess decide the future of chess.