One of the most active people and motors of European chess is always ready to discuss development, policy, and more. At Chessdom are pleased to talk to Mr. Theodoros Tsorbatzoglou. In a previous interview he said to us, “We represent the Europe of the many, the Europe of the ‘equal rights’ Nations“. Today he is running for yet another term as ECU Secretary General and we wanted to know his stance on the hot topics of the day.
Thank you for taking the time for this interview. You are running again for ECU Secretary General of the ECU 2030 team. This will be yet another term for you in office. Why should delegates renew your mandate?
Because the role of Secretary General is ultimately about delivery: governance, execution, and institutional continuity. Over the last cycle we have strengthened professionalism in communications, improved coordination across projects, and supported a programmatic approach where initiatives are documented, measurable, and scalable. I’m asking for renewed trust to continue modernizing how ECU serves federations efficiently, transparently, and with a clear federations-first mindset.
What do you see as the biggest challenges for European chess in the next four years?
Three challenges stand out. First, raising organizational standards across events and services while keeping access fair for federations of different sizes. Second, modernizing operations—digital tools, reporting, and communication, so the ECU becomes faster and more consistent. Third, building sustainable partnerships as with the “Super Foundation” that strengthen development and visibility without compromising governance and integrity.
There has been recent criticism that ECU leadership is too centralized? Is this a problem for ECU?
Centralization becomes a problem when it limits participation or slows responsiveness. The right balance is strong governance with open access with clear rules, predictable processes, and support structures that empower federations to act. Our goal is not to centralize power. It is to standardize delivery so federations can benefit consistently. ECU during our term created seven Commissions that were non-existing and they are bring in to work with us several people with great experience and efficiency, ECU is now the Union of the Many, with more than 40 people involved in daily operations and everyone knows that the ECU door is open to any good administrator, trainer, arbiter, commentator, etc.
Development support is a sensitive topic. How will you ensure fairness across federations?
Fairness comes from transparent criteria, clear categories, and simple procedures. Support should be designed so that federations with limited staff can still participate. The goal is not complexity; it’s adoption and measurable impact. The ECU must be a platform that enables federations, not a gatekeeper. We are establishing an annual development fund of at least 200,000 euros.
At Chessdom we have special sensitivity about historic or major regional events. Across the globe they have been disappearing and chess tradition is slowly lost with their demise. What is your approach to supporting regional events and historic competitions specifically in Europe?
Regional events are part of Europe’s chess identity and they also provide real competitive opportunities and federation engagement. The right approach is institutional cooperation, clear frameworks, and support aligned with ECU standards and calendar integration. The objective is continuity, professionalism, and added value for participating federations. Mitropa Cup, European Small Nations Championships, Glorney and Gilbert Cup, Balkan Championship are among the annual federations’ tournaments could be placed under ECU umbrella and co-funding.
We really want to delve into the topic. What is your response to those who say the ECU focuses too much on elite events and not enough on grassroots?
It’s not either/or. Elite events raise prestige and visibility; grassroots and development grow participation and sustainability. The ECU must do both, but with systems that connect them in education, social chess, women’s development pathways, and federation support models that are measurable and scalable.
So how are Chess Education, Social Chess, and Women in Chess connected?
They are connected by the same logic: access, standards, and measurable outcomes. Social chess expands participation through inclusion and community engagement. Education builds structured pathways through schools and teacher training. Women in chess strengthens participation, safety, visibility, and leadership. Together, they form a development ecosystem that federations can implement with clear tools and reporting. We have published a detailed program for each area.
Digitalization is a recurring theme. What does it mean beyond “being online”?
Digitalization is infrastructure: it reduces barriers, standardizes delivery, improves reporting, and makes support scalable. It also strengthens accountability i.e. what was delivered, to whom, with what outcomes. For federations, it means easier access to training, resources, and modern communication standards without needing large budgets. As I said in the Bucharest conference, digitalization is today a matter of survival not of progress any more.
The Romanian EU-funded C.E.S.S. project is often referenced. Can you explain for the general audience why is it relevant at ECU level?
Because it demonstrates that chess can attract serious institutional resources (4.5 million euros) when it is presented as a modern, digital, skills-based program with clear governance and measurable outcomes. The value for Europe is the blueprint: methodology, structure, reporting standards, and implementation know-how that can inspire other federations to modernize and build credible partnerships with public institutions. ECU will partner with this program following the 18th of July. I advise you to take a detailed look at https://ecu2030.org/romanian-chess-federation-secures-e4-5m-in-eu-funding-for-landmark-c-e-s-s-project/
Sponsorship and commercial strategy can raise concerns, for federations, for tournaments, and for players.
Sponsorship must be professional, transparent, and aligned with the values of European sport. Partners should receive clear deliverables and high-quality activation, while ECU governance remains strict and credible. Commercial growth is not the purpose—it’s a tool to strengthen events, development, and visibility in a sustainable way. We have announced a cooperation with the biggest supporter of chess in Europe the “Super foundation”, we have a big sponsorship hub in Monaco, while we are looking to extend our cooperation with Sense Robot. And I can reveal now that a second big company from China wants to cooperate with ECU and we are starting talks.
A sensitive one: is ECU independent? What does “independence” mean to you in practice?
Independence means the ECU makes decisions based on its statutes, its member federations, and the integrity of European sport—free from external political pressure and free from private influence. It also means transparency: clear governance, documented decisions, and predictable processes. Independence is not a slogan; it is the daily discipline of protecting the institution. This how we acted the last years when we had to take critical decisions that affected and our membership.
In that regard, what is your stance on the Ukrainian Chess Federation?
The ECU has stood with the Ukrainian Chess Federation consistently over these years, not only in words but through sustained institutional support and cooperation. In times like these, a European federation must show solidarity, continuity, and respect, thus ensuring that Ukrainian chess remains present, protected, and supported within the European chess family.
We remember you were the only chess official, and possibly the only sports official, to visit Ukraine at the start of the war.
I went because solidarity cannot be remote, I believe presence matters. It’s easy to express support from a distance; it’s different to show up under difficult conditions. I was, to my knowledge, the only chess official to visit Ukraine at that time, and I did it to send a clear message: Ukrainian chess is not alone, and European chess stands with it.
But really, was it a symbolic visit, or did it have practical outcomes?
It was symbolic in the sense that presence matters, but it was also practical: it reinforced direct institutional contact, improved understanding of real needs, and strengthened cooperation. In crisis conditions, the first responsibility of an institution is to maintain reliable relationships and continuity. But I need to add that I had and a personal motivation. As a Greek with a history of resisting strong and numerous aggressors, I admire the resilience of the Ukrainian people, and I wanted, even for a short time, to witness their daily life. This is a story I can tell my grandchildren and the most touching moment in my chess career.
Many believe people who say sport should stay out of geopolitics?
Sport should not be used as a political instrument, but sport also cannot pretend reality does not exist. The ECU’s role is to protect the integrity of chess and support its members. Standing by a member federation under extreme circumstances is not politics. It is institutional responsibility and human solidarity.
What message do you want to send to Ukrainian players, officials, and the federation today?
That the ECU respects their resilience and remains committed to supporting Ukrainian chess and their sports jurisdiction as part of the European chess family. The message is simple: you are not alone, and your place in European chess is unquestionable.
Quite a clear stance. Now back to the elections. How did you compose your team ticket, and what is the logic behind the lineup?
The logic is competence and balance. We built a team that combines governance experience with delivery capacity across key areas in events, development, education, social projects, communications, and institutional modernization. The goal is not representation for its own sake; it’s a team that can execute a program and serve federations consistently. We increased also women’s representation that is our goal for each gender. (Ed. note: see the ECU 2030 team here)
There are two more tickets in the race. What makes your ticket different from the alternatives?
Two things: a published, structured program and a clear delivery mindset. We are presenting not only names, but documented priorities and a system approach. A measurable progress, modernization, and federations-first service. The difference is seriousness in execution.
In that regard is your ticket continuity of the work so far or a change?
It represents both. Continuity in institutional stability and standards, and change in modernization and delivery systems. European chess needs reliable governance, but it also needs faster, more professional execution. We aim to combine stability with progress.
Let’s go global now. With FIDE elections also in focus, some people argue that if ECU officials are loyal to a specific FIDE election candidate, the ECU cannot remain fair or fully dedicated to Europe. How do you respond? What is your view, should the ECU take sides?
I understand the concern, and I agree with the principle behind it: the ECU must be independent, fair, and dedicated to Europe, not to any external political agenda. The ECU’s legitimacy comes from its statutes and its member federations, and decisions must be taken transparently, with equal treatment for all.
We have also succeeded in separating the ECU Congress and elections from the FIDE elections. Previously, the ECU elections took place either one day before or one day after the FIDE elections. This underestimated the ECU as an institution, as all discussions were related to and influenced by the FIDE outcomes. Today, we are pleased to see that the discussion is focused on the European Chess Union.
At the same time, FIDE future is also important, individuals may have personal views, federations will take position, but the institution must be protected by clear governance, documented processes, and accountability. My position is simple and I have expressed it many years ago: the ECU cannot be run as an extension of any FIDE campaign. It must remain a strong European institution focused on federation service and development with measurable programs, modern standards, and equal opportunity across Europe. If the ECU is strong and credible, it can cooperate with any international leadership from a position of confidence, always protecting European interests and focusing on development outcomes.
Honesty required here. Elections sometimes attract rumors about corruption or vote-buying. How would you handle any allegations of bribery around ECU elections?
I fully trust all European federations and delegates that will not discuss or accept any such offer if such methods be used in the European chess level. I know almost all of them and I am sure for their integrity.
Speaking for all sports and not particularly for chess, any attempt of bribery is not “politics” or “campaigning” is a serious criminal matter. If credible evidence exists, it should be documented and reported through the proper channels, and it must be handled with full respect for the law and due process. We shall act decisively in such practices. At the ECU level, we must also insist on strict compliance, transparency, and clear procedures, so the election is protected and the integrity of European chess is not compromised.
We know of several delegates that are still undecided. What is your message to them?
Judge the candidates by seriousness and delivery capacity: clarity of program, respect for federations, and the ability to modernize the institution without creating division. Take into account the source of the funds they promise. Our partners and sponsors are Europe-oriented, with a clear source of funding. I welcome questions and accountability. European chess deserves leadership that is professional, stable, and focused on measurable progress.
Looking at today’s probabilities, how do you estimate your chances to win the ECU elections?
In elections you should never speak with certainty. Delegates decide, and I respect that process. What I am sure about is the seriousness of our work: we have presented a clear team, published program sections, and a federations-first approach focused on measurable delivery and institutional integrity.
So I’m optimistic, but disciplined. We will continue to engage with delegates respectfully, answer every question, and let the quality of the program and the credibility of the team speak for itself.