Talk:Garry Kasparov/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Kasparov was not beaten by Deep Blue

He won the first match and Blue won the second, 1 - 1. The representatives of Blue declined/withdrew from a another game which would have determined the winner and end the tie. Kasparov would undoubtedly have won the third match considering the second math, "Blue didn't beat Kasparov, Kasparov beat Kasparov". The weight on his shoulders and the propaganda stirring around this machine resulted in a self jinx. Nevertheless, Kasparov was unbeaten.

-G

--- He was up against a 3,000-pound bundle of 512 computers bear-hugging 200 million moves a second to beat him. Kasparov, evaluating a measly two or three moves a second, still managed to win one game and tie three more in the six-game contest

---

A couple of questions: Where does he live nowadays? In what language is he writing his books? Where can I find more articles by him?

---

He first started learning to play chess after studying a chess problem set up by his parents, and proposed a solution to it.

I don't understand. How can you start learning to play chess after solving a chess problem? The rules of chess are not intuitive.

No idea, but he studied this chess board for quite some time and then offered a possible solution to his parents, who seemed a little surprised too. They then decided to teach him to play chess. Does sound strange, but its been mentioned in quite a number of books and magazines I've read over the years.

Also there's quite a distinction between learning the moves of chess, and learning how to play chess well. The first can take a month, the latter a lifetime and not succeed. I'm referring to Garry learning to play chess in regards to making a living with it, not learning the basic moves - apologies.

I made a revision to the line in question. Hopefully, it should be clearer. fvincent 19:28, Dec 3, 2003 (UTC)

Since a citation is called for in the article, allow me to quote the following from: Unlimited Challenge, An autobiography by Garry Kasparov with Donald Trelford, ISBN 0-00-637358-5 :

"My parents used to like solving the chess problems which were published in our local Baku neewspaper, Vyshka. At the time, I did not play chess, although I was always close by, studiously following each move of the pieces on the board. Once, to my parents´ utter amazement, I suggested how to solve a problem. My father said, "Well, since he knows how the game ends, he ought to be shown how it begins", and with that he began explaining the rules to me. In a short time, it became difficult to drag me away from the game, and a year later I was already beating my father." Sir48 22:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

---

His first name is Gari or Gary ???

Neither. Since he's Russian so it would be in Cyrillic (Don't even ask me about the spelling combinations of Korchnoi, Ivanchuk and Nimzowitsch I've seen - its all because the names are non-English, and created in "other" letters :-) ). A rough translation would be Garri, but commonly in English print he's referred to as Garry (two R's in both cases).

• He changed it from the original Gari to Garry because 13 is his lucky number; born on the 13th, 13th champ, "Garry Kasparov"=13 letters.

---

What would Gary Kasparov do when his in midgame with his wife during a picnic and the rain starts tumbling down? She's about to defend a check mate move - does he stay and get wet for the kill or does he call it a draw (effecting the win/loss ration). It's tough, I'll give you that.

---

I'd like to see some discussion of politics. I remember his playing under the Russian flag in perestroika time in spite of being born in Azerbaijan. It seems interesting. -- Error 02:43 May 7, 2003 (UTC)

Well, during the time of perestroika he played for the USSR, of course (and Azerbaijan was part of the USSR), but since then he's played for Russia, yes. I don't think it's particularly significant politically - it's just that he's lived in Russia for most of his life, hasn't he? There's something that could be said about politics here, though - Kasparov's been heavily involved in the politics of chess, and I think he had some involvement in Russian politics following the collapse of the USSR. --Camembert

Probably I remembered something like http://www.mark-weeks.com/chess/90kk$$.htm  :

Both players should have displayed the flag of the Soviet Union, but Kasparov chose to use the new tricolor Russian flag to show support for Boris Yeltsin. Karpov protested on the grounds that FIDE rules dictated that "miniature flags of the nations to which the players belong are to be placed on the table". Appeals jury Lim Kok An and Bessel Kok decided that there would be no flags.

And was he ethnically Russian, Armenian or Jew?

-- Error 03:34 May 7, 2003 (UTC)

Answering myself http://pkchess.bizland.com/chesspress/chesspress6/cpress6_4.html :

Can we forget that he was the first who fought successfully even in the Soviet times to ban the monopoly of the Soviet government on the earnings of Soviet sportsmen and chess players? Or that he was the first to play under the Russian flag against Karpov in New York in 1990 when the communists were still in power in the Soviet Union? Can we forget his help to the Chernobyl victims or the Armenian refugees during the pogroms in Baku in January 1991?

And http://www.twoplustwo.com/digests/excharch_dec00_msg.html

Quiz #1: Kasparov's parents are Jewish and Armenian, he was born in Azerbaijan, and he chooses(in the past, at least) to play under the Russian flag. 'What' is he?

-- Error

Ah yes, I see what you mean - I forgot about the 1990 business. He's certainly been very politically involved - you're right, it'd be interesting to see something about that side of him here (I'm not the person to write it though, I fear). --Camembert

Garri Kasparov is a rat. I clearly remember in the old communist days of the Soviet Union how he was a 'proud' member of the communist party and how he pretended to be dedicated to the party. When things started to change, he adjusted accordingly, and when the game was over (no pun intended) he started to bad mouth the old system. His chess politics have been even more hypocritical and dirty. It should be noted also that he is the only grandmaster known so far, to have cheated in an official chess game and caught on camera. In Linares 1994 tournament, he was playing black again J. Polgar ... he moved his knight to a square that would have been a losing move for him, he let go of the piece, then he grabbed the knight again and put it on another square. After the game it was shown that his cheating was cpatured on a camera. This is Garri Kasparov in a nutshell. Also, his main strength in chess is his home preparation and database-like memorized openings, as clearly evident from most of his games.

Yeah, well, most Communists stopped actually believing in the Party after about 1970-1980, but simply said they believe in it: a. to stay alive and b. to avoid censure by the government. Tom Clancy novels describe that well. ugen64 02:06, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)

'J'adoube.'

You're entitled to your opinion of course, but I don't see how anybody can seriously believe that in light of Kasparov-Topalov, Wijk aan Zee 1999. --Camembert

---

Where does this estimated X3D Fritz rating (2807) come from? --Camembert

Answering my own question: it's quoted as 2807 on X3D's site. I'd like to know how they came up with the number, but I'll guess we never will. --Camembert

I am not sure where the rating of that particular chess program/machine comes from, but I can tell you something about this subject. I used to be an active tournamet chess player. Many official tournaments allow computer chess programs to participate just like a regular human player. Usually the programmers who write chess programs like to take their programs to tournaments for obvious reasons. Therefore, in the case of such programs, their rating is based on their performance in chess tournaments just like any regular player.

Yes, I know that, but this particular version of Fritz was, as I understand it, tweaked compared to other versions specifically for Kasparov, and had not played (publically) against any rated player before this match. I suppose they based the rating on the performance of other versions of Fritz. My curiousity was aroused, really, by the unusually precise nature of the estimate - normally, when people guess at the rating of programs, they'll say "oh, it's about 2750" or "around 2600" - some nice round number like that. 2807 seemed spookily precise to just be guessing at it. Still, we've got the source for the estimate now, so I'm happy. --Camembert

---

This page was listed on Wikipedia:Brilliant prose candidates. At User:Eloquence's suggestion I added some headings. However I don't mind if the content writers of this article don't like it and want to revert to the plainer version. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 13:25, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I like it. I was going to do something similar myself, but was too lazy :) --Camembert

---

human's days are numbered.

Xah P0lyglut 04:56, 2003 Dec 13 (UTC)

---

Here: ...as well as defending his title three times against his arch-opponent Karpov.
Anatoly Karpov: ...fighting Kasparov in over five arduous World Championship matches...
Seems inconsistent to me. -- Jao 17:21, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It may seem so, but it is not. The first match was played in 1984 - Karpov was champion and Kasparov was challenger - the match was abandoned without result. The second match, still with Karpov as champion, was the following year - Kasparov won. The two subsequently played three more matches (in 1986, 1987 and 1990) in which Kasparov was defending his title. Therefore, five matches played, three of them with Kasparov defending his title. (Unless you mean the fault is with the tautological "in over", which gives the midleading impression there were more than five matches) --Camembert

The context at Anatoly Karpov with "remained" seemed to exclude the 1984 and 1985 matches, though. (And yes, "over" has to mean "more than", but that's not what I thought of.) But the new wording is very clear, thanks for that. -- Jao 21:04, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I feel it should be mentioned how he puts his watch on the table and when he is confident he will win, he puts it back on his arm. This is just something I heard today. Maybe someone who knows more of these little things that are to him in his way of acting during matches or general personality - like in Bobby Fischer - could add to this and write it somewhere in there? --Lenton 15:55, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, it's an interesting little habit, that, probably worth mentioning at some point (not sure how we'd work it into the article though). I remember as a kid when I saw his watch-related antics, I began to imitate him in my own games (to my disappointment, it didn't make me a better player). I don't know if it's really that he puts his watch back on when he's confident of winning, however, so much as when he thinks the game is basically over, win, lose or draw. Maybe I'm wrong about that. --Camembert

---

No discussion of his rivalry with Karpov? I had inserted it into the Karpov page, perhaps we should do so here?--Etaonish 14:48, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Historical revisionism and Kasparov

On the Historical revisionism page, it states, Finally the term "historical revisionism", or simply "revisionism" is used sometimes to refer to specific revisionist theories associated with the famous chess player Garry Kasparov, which believe that the events of what are known as the last 3,000 years occurred in either a much shorter or a much longer time frame, and attempts to explain how. Does anybody know what they are talking about? If Kasparov is involved, why is nothing said about this on this page? ChessPlayer 12:46, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

I've never heard of it before. It sounds like the sort of belief that somebody might hold, but I've never heard of Kasparov holding it. I'm going to remove that paragraph to talk:historical revisionism. --Camembert

I have once heard some wacko theory that the middle ages was something like 400 years shorter than we think it was, however, I do not remember where I read it. Danny 17:01, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Turns out I was wrong. In case anybody is interested, see Talk:Historical revisionism for the end of this (slightly bizarre) story - Danny found an article by Kasparov showing he does indeed believe this stuff.

We could put a mention of this in this article, I suppose. We probably also ought to mention his involvement with Russian politics (wasn't he on the team of that Presidential candidate who got kidnapped in the elections this year (or was it last year? I forget)). I'll probably do it myself eventually if nobody else does, but I'd need to look some stuff up. --Camembert

FWIW: "About five years ago, I came across several books written by two mathematicians from Moscow State University: academician A.T. Fomenko and G.V. Nosovskij. The books described the work of a group of professional mathematicians, led by Fomenko, who had considered the issues of ancient and medieval chronology for more than 20 years with fascinating results. Using modern mathematical and statistical methods, as well as precise astronomical computations, they discovered that ancient history was artificially extended by more than 1 000 years. For reasons beyond my understanding, historians are still ignoring their work." [1]

See New Chronology (Fomenko) — the theory Kasparov supports. — Monedula 07:23, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi folks... I added a line (actually, a paragraph) about that, before reading the talk section here... I hope you don't oppose. Perhaps you would like to put it somewhere else in the page?... I'm still looking for more references on Kasparov's support to history revision. Fun fact: this page is one of the first pages in google when you look for "kasparov fomenko". -- nwerneck, 02 Dec 2005 02:34:25 -0200

Apparently this got deleted? It seems fairly well-documented and interesting, so I changed "other achievements" to "other" and added a line about it there. I know it's better to contribute than to complain, but it would be nice if this article had a section dedicated solely to Kasparov's political and other non-chess activities--they probably deserve more attention than the article currently gives them P4k 07:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the correct section to say this, but: With Garry making the rounds on American Media, and with him begin very active in Russian politics, It should be appropriate for the section "Politics" to be a main chapter, not a subchapter beneath "retirement". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.114.223.30 (talk) 00:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

King pawn opening

The article Kasparov versus The World mentions Kasparov's "normal king pawn opening." This article doesn't mention it at all. Can someone add it and explain it? — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:34, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't mean anything, I think you may have misunderstood it. Kasparov likes playing e4, or the king pawn opening. That's really all it is. --Etaonish 15:51, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

2004 update of stale sentence

As of 2004, Kasparov will play this match with the current FIDE World Champion, Rustam Kasimdzhanov, although whether these plans will come to fruition remains to be seen. In the meantime, Kasparov continues to play in tournaments, with good results on the whole. This sentence was from the article. It imply a continuous state, but since 2004 is over, i tacked it here. I can't tell whether the game was played, so i couldn't update the sentence.

• "But their match in Dubai, a prelude to a match with world champion Vladimir Kramnik, was cancelled by the governing body of chess, Fide, after financial guarantees by the promoters failed to be offered. Kasparov is not pleased". [2] It seems they never played the game in question. --Wk muriithi

Well, the situation is still somewhat in flux: Dubai is definitely off, but there has been talk of the match being held in Turkey instead (frankly, I think the chances of it taking place are tiny, but that's another story). I'll update the article a bit. --Camembert

Photo

Does anyone else think the photo of him at the top of the page is hugely unflattering? While it does embody his focus, it seems to me that we could find a better photo. --Ronincyberpunk

I may be wrong, but I seem to remember that the reason that particular photo was included was because we felt pretty sure it was OK from a legal perspective; if I remember rightly, it is a frame from a web broadcast of Wijk aan Zee 2001, and people felt that just as the use of a single frame of a movie would count as fair use in the right context, so this would also count as fair use. That's not to say that we couldn't get away with using other photos as fair use (I really don't know if we could or not), but I think that's the reason we're using this particular one at the moment: it's considered pretty safe. --Camembert

Phrasing of Intro

Surely it would be clearer to phrase "last undisputed champion and classical champion"? Also adding mention of losses Septentrionalis 18:38, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

Kasparov is described as "possibly the strongest human chess player in the world" - Surely a computer cannot be described as a player anymore than Wikipedia can be described as an intellectual. Remove the word "human". Atolmazel 04:56, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Protection?

Featured articles sometimes should be protected, as prominent targets for vandalism. Are all the vandals being blocked? Should this page be protected?-SV|t|th 21:40, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You can also see Kasparovs games here http://www.chessmaniac.com/Games/MyChessViewer/kasparov.htm

Deep Blue debate?

I remember Kasparov having issues with the way the second match against Deep Blue ended. I think he wanted to play Deep Blue again, and IBM left, saying Deep Blue had won, and that was that. Anyone want to add details on this? Venice 15:25, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it's important to remember that the entire match, including the winnings, were paid for by IBM. Kasparov lost, but he walked home with $400,000 of IBM's money, so he didn't do too badly. Yes, he wanted a rematch. Who wouldn't? With the possibility of taking another $400K (or maybe $700K for a win)? I don't know if anyone else offered to sponsor the match, but IBM declined. Look, it's not really a chess match. It's a publicity stunt. Does anyone doubt that an unbeatable chess machine is possible? Shoaler 14:13, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My hunch is that Kasparov would have had excellent chances in a re-match, because he could have learned more than Deep Blue in the interim. But what incentive did IBM have for a re-match? They were in it for the publicity, and Deep Blue winning again couldn't have possibly given them as much publicity as the first victory, whereas losing would have nullified much of their positive press. Furthermore, Kasparov was such a poor sport, essentially accusing IBM of cheating after one of his losses, I wouldn't be surprised if that factored into IBM's decision to refuse a rematch. --Fritzlein 15:42, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

povness

Please people, using expressions like "demolishing the field" is opinionated and completely unencyclopedic. State only the facts, and don't interpret their importance or value. Leave that to the reader. ✈ James C.

Request for references

Hi, I am working to encourage implementation of the goals of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Part of that is to make sure articles cite their sources. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Wikipedia. The Fact and Reference Check Project has more information. Thank you, and please leave me a message when a few references have been added to the article. - Taxman 18:57, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

I added a reference as requested for Kasparov's statement about World Championship chances following the 1978 Sokolsky Memorial. Search for Sokolsky in the linked interview. Skip Jordan 08:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Why dosen't it mention about his match against the internet? http://classic.zone.msn.com/kasparov/PressRel.asp

We actually have an entire article devoted to that game: Kasparov versus The World. But you're right, it should be mentioned in this article too (with a link to that one). I hope someone will do it; I'm feeling rather lazy at the moment... --Camembert 15:26, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

"Greatest player ever"?

Even the qualified "arguably the greatest player ever" or "arguably the strongest player ever" seems POV and highly controversial to me. Saying he is the greatest player ever is just subjective, depending on what you mean by "greatest" or how we decide who the "greatest" player is. It would be better to leave this up to the reader in my opinion. Saying "strongest player ever" is a bit better, but still controversial, given the fact that he was not world champion when he retired, and at least three other chessplayers were very close if not equal to him in terms of skill (Anand, Leko, Topalov, and of course Kramnik). Would it be better to say he is "one of the strongest chessplayers ever"? This would seem more accurate, less controversial, and less in need of qualification. --Malathion 05:28, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

In view of Kasparov's highest-of-all-time ELO rating, his having the highest rating in the world for many years, his bazillion tournament wins, his holding the world championship for 15 unbroken years -- longer than anyone in history besides Lasker -- stating that Kasparov is "arguably the strongest player ever" strikes me as a simple statement of fact. Certainly if one were to write a book today (as Euwe, Chernev and others have done in the past) addressing the issue of who the strongest player ever is, one would be ridiculed mercilessly (and rightly so) if one failed to discuss Kasparov as a contender for that distinction.

--Frederick R July 1, 2005

Vandalism

How can we get this article protected? I'm not familiar with the procedure here. --Malathion 19:47, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You could put a request on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection (a request on this talk page may also get a response). I don't think it needs protecting any more though - the vandalism seems to have stoppped - so I'll leave it be for now. --Camembert 20:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Maybe we can try removing the protection now? --Malathion 29 June 2005 03:09 (UTC)

Done. I must admit, I didn't realise it had been protected until just now (must have missed that on my watchlist). --Camembert 29 June 2005 10:51 (UTC)

This article does not mention his peak rating

Garry Kasparov's peak rating was 2851, which was listed in the July 1999 FIDE rating list. It is the highest FIDE rating ever achieved, the closest one to it was Kramnik's 2811 rating which was listed in the January 2002 and April 2002 rating list.

Kasparov's social life

Can we add a section detailing Kasparov's social life? I envision it would talk about Kasparov's wife and former wives, his children, and the fact that he talks many languages. Last I heard, he speaks 15 languages, can anyone confirm this?

Banja Luka

I've never heard this story (under "Early Career") about Kasparov playing at Banja Luka only because the Russian Chess Federation thought it was a junior tournament, and it sounds like a crock. This was a very strong GM tournament (the article says average rating 2595), so evidently no one else was confused. And why the hell did the Soviets also send former World Champion Petrosian (born 1929) if they thought it was a junior tournament?? (See http://www.queensac.com/archive/tournaments/banjaluka1979b.htm for the players in the tournament.) --Frederick R July 1, 2005

Image

Does anyone else think we need a new image? In that one, he's covering most of his face, and we can't really see what he looks like. Some alternatives I've found:

File:Kasparov-story.jpg File:Kasparof-fth.jpg

I'll look for more in a bit. --Malathion 02:45, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Category:Russian chess players

Please note, that Kasparov is citizen of Russia, so article Garry Kasparov is in Category:Chess players by nationality->Category:Russian chess players --ajvol 09:15, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Maybe we should remove the other categories then? Unless he holds dual citizenship? --Malathion 09:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

He holds only Russian citizenship (since 1990) and lives in Moscow, as I know. --ajvol 10:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

What counts as trivial information?

I see that a properly documented story about Kasparov being pelted with eggs counts as trivia, whereas an undocumented one about someone hitting him over the head with a chessboard is not. Why? RachelBrown 14:50, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

his studies/field?

there is nothing mentioned in the bio about his classic studies. has he attended any university if yes what was his university field?

My guess is great chess players aren't that exceptional in other mental feats, that's why we don't hear about them (and obviously what's been said about Fischer is exaggerated and if not why wouldn't he perform some task like memorising hundreds of cards etc. if he really could do things like that)

Weinstein is German, not English

Daverocks's comments on his latest edit was: "69.244.34.232, "English" in that context does not imply that the origin of the name is English, but explains what "Vajnshtejn" would be in the English language". This got me wondering. Kasparov is a Russian who is descended from Germans originally named Weinstein. What has this got to do with the English language? Apparently nothing.

If he still went by his original name, we'd be spelling it in English as Vajnshtejn, Vajnshtajn, Vainshtain, or Vainshtein or some similar variant. The spelling can differ depending on the transliteration system used, but they would all start with the letter V. On the other hand, Germans would spell his name Weinstein (with the letter W) because that is their natural way of transliterating the Russian letters into German; and it would be silly to render it any other way given that it was Weinstein to begin with. Back to English, how can Weinstein be "what Vajnshtejn would be in the English language", when Vajnshtejn is already a transliteration of his Russian cyrillic-letter name into English? This is transliterating Russian into English, then translating that word from English into English, which is nonsensical.

The true explanation is that because German uses the same alphabet as English, there is no transliteration involved and a word in German is left untouched when quoted in an English language context. (We don't re-spell Wagner as VARGNER, or Weber as VAYBER.) "Weinstein" is NOT what his Russian name would be in the English language, but what it would be, and is, in the German language. This is English Wikipedia, not German. Given that he no longer uses the name but is now Kasparov, it's actually a very minor point, but since his name change is mentioned and since we're committed to accuracy, it is correct that we spell his original name Vajnshtejn. My quibble is with the explanation currently there. There needs instead to be a note that it would appear as Weinstein in German and is sometimes written that way when the German version of the transliterated name is quoted in English-language contexts. There, whew. Anybody have a shorter way of saying that? JackofOz 12:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

History revision

He is also a supporter of history revision, and of Fomenko's new chronology.

Does somebody have a source for this claim? At first glance it looks a bit crankish...--Robert Merkel 06:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Not sure if anyone has found a source yet, but he does believe in this stuff; at least, I heard him say so myself, talking about King Arthur being a Russian immigrant or something very much on the bizarre side about King Arthur from Slavic lands, being in the 1300s or something, I forget what year but it was completely outrageous. So he hardly keeps it a secret, and was enthusiastically discussing to (not with!) someone about it. Smyslov 21:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It was widely reported a few years ago (I learned about it on Chessbase), and I've found a copy of Kasparov's article, called Mathematics of the Past, at http://www.new-tradition.org/view-garry-kasparov.htm DOSGuy 06:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain what history revision means?--Bryan 14:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

History Revision or "Revisionism", are clearly movements for reviewing history, specially the chronology of the events. Mr. Kasparov seems to be a supporter of a special group of revisionists, centered on this russian researcher called Fomenko. There are pages here in wikipedia explaining the thing, like New Chronology (Fomenko). The only reference we do have about Kasparov´s connection is an article by him in the official site. It seems like he also wrote a prefacee to a book on the subject, but I couldn´t find it in Amazon.

I believe that, if he is an open supporter of this movement, he is using his fame to attract attention to it. Nothing more fair then including a line about it in his wiki... -- NIC1138 15:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

2008 election

Where has Putin stated he wil change the constitution and run for the third consecutive term as the president of Russia? AFAIK he has repeatedly said he will not change the law and run for presidency. —mikko (speak) 10:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

It's stated in the December issue of the Atlantic Monthly that though he's denying that he will change the constituion that he's expected to do so. It says:

'Now Moscow is awash in rumors that in 2008 Putin may seek election to a third term- a move currently prohibited by the constitution, but easily arranged'.

The magazine doesn't give any source on this, so it's not very reliable. I guess we could reword the article to reflect that.(Narkstraws 17:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC))

Hogwash. Not only is some magazine hardly a scholarly source, but it never claims he is seeking to change the constitution. For example, a legal third-term could be achieved by becoming prime minister, and the president stepping down, placing Putin once again in the president's seat. This may sound tricky but it's all legal in the constitution. I think he's unlikely to stay on as president personally. There was an article recently in the Wall Street Journal about him seeking a sort of "Father of the Nation" position, probably more likely, perhaps. All that I think we can say for sure is he will retain tons of power, and why not, I don't even know the last time our US President had approval ratings like Putin's, but if I had to guess it would probably be 1777. --67.185.228.150 (talk) 07:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Category "Jewish chess player"

I've removed this category, because Kasparov is neither Jew by belief nor by ethnicty. According to Jewish religious laws, a child born to a Jewish father and a non-Jewish mother (like in this case) is considered "non-Jewish". See Who is a Jew?:

• "... According to Halakha (Jewish law and traditions), only a child born to a Jewish mother is counted as Jewish. A child with a Jewish father and a non-Jewish mother is considered a non-Jew. Although an infant conversion might be contemplated in some circumstances (such as in the case of adopted children or children whose parents convert), children who convert would typically be asked if they want to remain Jewish after reaching religious adulthood, which is 12 years old for a girl, 13 for a boy. This standard is applied within Conservative and Orthodox Judaism. ..."

Tajik 10:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not run from an Orthodox Jewish pov. See this web site, which classifies him as Jewish, so we can and will.[3] 24.226.10.98 01:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

No it doesn't, it calls him half-Jewish, which is true, because his father was Jewish. I agree Wikipedia shouldn't be bound by the Orthodox Jewish POV, but it should follow the majority POV (or majority POVs if there are competing ones). According to the Wikipedia Who is a Jew? article (which I'm relying on because I've no idea otherwise), more liberal Judaism accepts someone as Jewish if they have one Jewish parent... AND consider themselves to be Jewish or have been raised Jewish. I'm happy to categorise Kasparov as Jewish if he himself considers himself Jewish, but as far as I am aware he does not. In summary, http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/ is not enough evidence for me. To classify Kasparov as Jewish I'd like one of 2 things: either evidence a that a substantial portion of Judaism (not necessarily majority) consider one Jewish if one has a Jewish father, OR a statement by Kasparov that he considers himself Jewish. Rocksong 01:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Forget all the "rules", because A. it's original research to apply a definition to a person to decide what they are or are not (especially when there's disagreement on the definition), B. These are all religious rules anyway and have no application to ethnicity, which "Jewish" is, C. if you use the rules (which you can't anyway), you can not list anyone as Jewish on Wikipedia unless you have a family tree that tracks their background to the beginning of time. For all you know, they had a maternal ancestor 500 years back through the direct line who was not Jewish, therefore they aren't. So you can't theoretically list anyone as Jewish unless they have formally converted. (A good example is Adrien Brody, people ran around screaming how he was not Jewish because he had a Jewish father and a non-Jewish mother. Well, recently it turned out his maternal grandmother was Jewish, too (she converted away, but that doesn't matter), so "suddenly" Brody is Jewish! See how random this all is? Also D. remove the Armenian category if you plan to remove the Jewish one. It certainly isn't fair and the sources say he is "half Jewish and half Armenian". I also don't see the problem with "half" (if a person is a "part time politician", you would include them in the politicians category, would you not?). Especially since the Jewish Virtually Library included him. Not to mention that a Jewish Chess Players Stamp collection included him[4]. In any case, please stop trying to use these rules on Wikipedia. 24.226.10.98 02:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It's reading of widely available documents, not original research. The Jewish Library does NOT call him Jewish. It calls him half Jewish. Even the very definition at the http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/whojew1.html says, According to Reform Judaism, a person is a Jew if they were born to either a Jewish mother or a Jewish father. Also, Reform Judaism stresses the importance of being raised Jewish; if a child is born to Jewish parents and was not raised Jewish then the child is not considered Jewish. So, according to both Jewish virtual library and Wikipedia "Who is a Jew?" article, he's not Jewish, not according to ANY of the camps. Lots of people claim him as Jewish, e.g. that guy who wrote the book on chess stamps. But that's just one author's opinion. Analogies with "half Armenien" aren't helpful, because Judaism itself has set up this matrilineal descent thing, something Armenia doesn't do. But since you seem to feel strongly, I can't be bothered continuing this, though I'd be happier if you can show a substantial opinion (doesn't have to be majority) that Jewish father = Jewish, or if Kasparov considers himself Jewish. Rocksong 06:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Stop giving me definitions. You may not use these definitions unless they have been specifically applied to Kasparov. We have several sources that include him as "Jewish". That's all we need. There is absolutely no definition for the Jewish ethnicity, and it isn't relevant anyway. Wikipedia editors can't deduce who is or is not Jewish based on whatever standards they prefer. You can only report what reliable sources have said specifically on the person in question. Since we have a few of these sources that call him Jewish, we have no reason not to call him that pending sources that call him "not Jewish". As for the Armenian category, it needs a source that calls him "Armenian", btw, but I guess the "half Armenian" thing will suffice. 216.221.81.98 07:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Out of the many other sources i found, this one calls him a "Jewish Armenian", so I guess that OK's the Armenian category as well[5] 216.221.81.98 07:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Succession boxes

I retooled the succession boxes to be more accurate and representative of the "disputed" nature of the World Chess Championship. They used to look like this:

Which seems to indicate that Kasparov held two titles simulatenously: the World Chess Champion and the FIDE Champion. The boxes make it look like the chess schism occured earlier than it actually did. This is not the case. The explanation at World Chess Championship#Chaos (1993 - ) is adequate for those unfamiliar with this. That box scheme reeks of revisionism. Fortunately, whoever added this box did not go back to all of the (undisputed) World Champions and added the FIDE box as well. This would be like going back and adding the Confederate States of America president box to all US Presidents before Lincoln. Additionally, Veselin Topalov, the current FIDA champion can in no way be thought to be Kasparov's successor. I replaced those boxes with this:

Which I think adequately represents the fact that Kasparov has two "successors". I listed the FIDE Champion above the PCA Champion for no other reason than the fact that Kasparov remained the PCA Champion which he was not the FIDE Champion. Although I'd be open to an alternative proposal, I do think that whatever succession boxes we ultimately end up with need to emphasize Kasparov as the last "undipusted" champion. Again, read the explanation linked above if you need more information on this. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 12:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually Kramnik never became PCA champion, that would have been an impossibility because PCA folded before the match began. I have thus fixed the succession box. Dionyseus 02:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Your method is actually not an improvement. It makes it seem like Kasparov was champion for three separate time periods. If Kramnik gained a title with a different name, which I doubt, that should be noted parenthetically in both instances, but I would like to see a source if you wish to call him the Braingames champion, they were just the corporate sponsor. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 19:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Fine, here's one where Kramnik is referred to as Braingames World Champion [6] . This article refers to Kramnik as the new Braingames World Champion [7]. This article refers to Kramnik as the Braingames World Chess Champion [8]. This article refers to Kramnik as the Braingames World Champion [9]. This article refers to Kramnik as the Brain Games World Champion [10]. This other article refers to it as the Braingames title [11]. I feel that it is unnecessary to provide more sources and will restore the succession box to the more accurate version. Dionyseus 19:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Dionyseus, your revision of my edits creates the same problem Savidan mentioned: it makes it look like his post-1993 title appeared out of thin air. It also doesn't address the point that (in its supporters' eyes) the legitimacy of the title does not come from the sponsoring organisation, but the fact that Kasparov (and later Kramnik) claimed "lineage" to all the previous undisputed champions. In that sense "Classical" is a good a term as any to describe the title Kasparov held (and Kramnik now holds). I think we can agree that there are two claimed titles: FIDE, and the one Kasparov lost to Kramnik in 2000. Therefore, I submit that there should be only two rows in the box. I called the second row "Classical", applying Kramnik's name retrospectively. I'm open to other suggestions (e.g. "World Champion by defeating the previous world champion" but that's a bit long), but whatever it's called, it deserves to be a title in its own right. And it deserves to be a single title, because that's what its supporters call it. To its supporters (a significant proportion of chess fans, perhaps the majority) there is a world title which Kasparov won in 1985 and lost in 2000, and for NPOV that deserves to be mentioned. In short, I'm a bit annoyed at your edit and I'm tempted to just revert it back, but first I'd like to hear from other contributors. p.s. I'm pretty sure the box is wrong anyway, because PCA folded before 1999 and Braingames weren't around until 2000. Rocksong 00:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually Kasparov's 1993 title did pretty much appear out of thin air. He simply created the PCA and decided to hold his match outside the auspices of FIDE as if he can make all the rules. My succession box not only informs the reader that Karpov succeeded Kasparov as the FIDE Champion and that Kasparov became the PCA Champion, it also informs that the PCA later folded and was replaced by Braingames, and that Kramnik succeeded him. I see nothing wrong with the box as it is at the moment. Let the reader decide in their mind if they want to regard the PCA/Braingames title as "classical" or whatever they want, the fact is that the title was first called PCA World Champion, and when that organization folded it was replaced by Braingames World Champion. As for the dates, that is a small matter and can easily be modified if it is demonstrated to be incorrect. Dionyseus 00:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The 1993 title didn't appear out of thin air. Kasparov was the undisputed World Champion at the time, and he forked the title which is not appearing out of thin air. FIDE and so-called "Classical" World Champion are the only titles recognized by the chess world at large. "Braingames Champion" is not worthy of a succession box. 165.189.91.148 15:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I've been away from this for a little while. This is what the succession box now looks like:

This is inaccurate because it makes it seem like the the "undisputed" World Chess Champions were always the FIDE line. More accurately, Kasparov was the last undisputed world chess champion and was suceeded by Karpov as the FIDE champion and then himself as the PCA champion. As the PCA champion, he was succeeded by Kramnik only with the title "Classical" champion because the PCA went under financially. Thus the following is appropriate savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 21:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Inaccurate. The PCA folded in 1996.Rocksong 04:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

What you say is true. However, the first match that Kasparov played after the PCA folded was in 2000. There's no reason that his title could change without playing a match. Thus, although Kramnik can't accurately be called the PCA champion, Kasparov was. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 04:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's nonsense to talk of Kasparov as PCA champion until 2000 when there was no such organisation as the PCA after 1996. If you're going to redo the boxes, you'll have to come up with a better format. Otherwise I vote that they be reverted. Rocksong 04:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Rocksong is correct here, and I still believe my version of the box is the most accurate. In 1998 Kasparov was referred to as the WCC (World Chess Council) Champion. [12] . The 1998 Shirov-Kramnik qualifier match was held by the WCC. Braingames organized the 2000 match, it was called the Braingames World Championship, and Kramnik was referred to as the Braingames World Champion. [13] [14] [15] [16] Dionyseus 06:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's my box proposal:

I believe this is the most accurate box version. It can be made more accurate by including WCC 1998 time period, but the box is big enough as it is. Dionyseus 06:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

We've been through this before. The problem with Dionyseus' proposal is that it makes the PCA-WCC-Braingames-Classical championship look like two different championships (and to be consistent it should be 4), when in fact they are the same. Dionyseus may disagree, but that's not the point. There are essentially two points of view: one that FIDE holds the title, and one that the champion holds the title. For Wikipedia to present NPOV, it should present these two points of view: the FIDE POV (FIDE champion), and the "must-defeat-the-incumbent-to-become-champion" POV, which is now called "Classical" championship. Rocksong 07:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Well if one were to go by the "must-defeat-the-incumbent-to-become-champion" POV, the real champion is Fischer because he was never defeated in a match. If one were to go by that POV, a champion can take the title and keep it indefinitely by not defending it. Obviously that is the wrong approach, no one person should have ownership of the title, it should be owned by an organization that regulates and organizes fair qualifiers, and in the case of chess its FIDE. Dionyseus 08:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome to disagree. But the fact is a large proportion of chess followers (possibly a majority, possibly not) regard the Kasparov-Kramnik title as the "real" world chess championship, while almost no one regards Fischer as the real champion. Wikipedia's job is not to settle the question. It is to present the majority viewpoint as the majority viewpoint. Where there are two competing majority viewpoints (as in the case of the world chess championship), I believe Wikipedia's job is to present both fairly. Rocksong 10:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Once again, you insist on reverting to a FIDE succession box for the undisputed World Chess Champion which has been rejected over and over on this talk page. If the only problem with my most recent version is that the PCA folded in 1996 then, simply call him the classical world chess champion consistently, and the link to the world chess champion article explains the various organizations which oversaw this title. Theres no need to mention the sponsors in the succession box. FIDE could be sponsored by McDonalds for all I care. Here is what I recommend: savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 15:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Your new box makes sense to me. It's small, and it avoids the PCA-WCC-Braingames problem. Dionyseus 22:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone seems to have changed it without discussion. I'm going to leave it at the above version unless there is consensus otherwise. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 00:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Garry Kasparov is Russian because he was raised in the russian evironment as well as have lived all his life in Russia.He calls himself 'russian' and even ballots as a candidate for presiential election in Russia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.148.18.129 (talk) 00:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

IQ of 190?

I propose removing the claim that Kasparov "reportedly" has an IQ of 190. While there is no doubt that Kasparov is extremely intelligent, I've never seen the claim of IQ of 190 anywhere except here on Wikipedia. In the absence of some sort of evidence, I am more inclined to believe it is nothing but a rumour, so it should be removed. Rocksong 04:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I've seen it elsewhere, but it's almost always on disreputable pages that admit the IQs were "extrapolated" or "estimated" based on achievement. Same phenomenon on the Fischer page. I concur with the proposal to remove it unless we can find a reputable official source. See my previous criticisms on the Fischer talk page under the heading "Fischer's IQ." You will find that Kasparov is also listed. -- Solberg 09:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Solberg

We all know (don't we?) that chess performance after gaining a lot of experience is a much better indicator of intelligence anyway. justaname 20:54, 06 August 2006 (UTC)

What exactly is the basis of controversy here? Are you supposing that a world-class chess champion would not have a high genius IQ? I personally know at least 2 people with an IQ in excess of 170, and I find it much more likely than not that Kasparov is close to the 190 level. Philosopher8 (talk) 17:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

While the fact may well be true (although "his IQ is 190" is a little vague and ambiguous anyway), the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Hence, the basis of controversy is the lack of a reliable source for the fact – not the actual truth of the fact. -- Jao (talk) 21:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

What exactly constitues Verifiability? Is it the presence of quotable sources alone? I can find some quotations to support a myriad of contradictory opinions about the exact same subject. How does the presence of mere quotations 'prove' anything? Are we to completely ignore logic as a basis for thought, and rely only upon parroting the words of other people? Such a condition would never lead to an unbiased encyclopedia, and would encourage the inclusion of propaganda.

My point is simple: What is the LOGICAL basis for objecting to the assertion that Kasparov's IQ is about 190? What information does the objector have to come to such a conclusion? In my personal experience, having actual verifiable understanding of the subject of intelligence as a similarly high IQ person; I see no basis for such objections about Kasparov. What superior data does the objector have about this issue? As long as the article indicates this is an estimate, I see no problems with verifiability at all. Ask anybody with an IQ above 180 and we will tell you (and you can quote us) that Kasparov is likely at the 190 level - or higher. Philosopher8 (talk) 08:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia core policies of verifiability and neutral point of view are well-established. Any concerns you might have about their principles or proposed revisions would be best discussed on the policy talk pages. ⟳ausa کui ^× 08:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The Article states that Kasparov was born on 13 April 1963. This fact is less verified than his IQ. The IQ can be readily proven by evaluating his actual behavior. The birthdate is ultimately unknown unless the authors personally contacted either his mother or whatever medical personnel who were present at his birth. Even if such contacts were made, it is possible that his mother might not still remember the actual date, or might not have been aware of the date during her life back then. It is unlikely that the medical personnel would exactly remember his exact birth, as he had done nothing of significance at this time.

Your idea of verifiability is actually hearsay. My idea of verifiability is logical conclusions based upon observable data. While the inclusion of quoted sources, of course, must be continued in wiki, we cannot stick to quotations alone as the sole basis for verifiability. If we write an article about the sun, and say that sunshine is warm; can we not include this fact unless we can find some expert quotation saying the same thing? This is a preposterous idea. And yet it is exactly what you are saying. Philosopher8 (talk) 09:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, if you have proposed revisions to the verifiability policy, I suggest you raise them on Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability or on the Wikipedia:Village Pump. Thanks. ⟳ausa کui ^× 20:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Elo no longer highest ever?

The article on the Elo rating system claims Veselin Topalov has an Elo of 2813 as of July 2006, one point higher than Kasparov's 2812.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  08:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Topalov has exceeded Garry's final (2005) rating of 2812, but he is still way short of Garry's peak of 2851, achieved in 1999. Rocksong 01:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, so he has!  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  20:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Kasparov is not a Jew

Kasparov cant be a Jew because is not a Jew by belief nor by ethnicty. According to the Jewish religion, only a child born to a Jewish mother is Jew. And since Kasparov his mother was Armenian and did that was a Azerbaijani jew that makes Kasparov a Azerbaijani-Armenian not Jewish-Armenian. This should be corrected out in the article. Baku87 19:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

He IS a Jew. Not by Halacha but his father is Jewish, and it's enough for wikipedia and other analysis even Israeli law (law of return). Amoruso 01:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Succession boxes

There are two alternatives:

and:

In my view the first version is tidier and more accurate. Views, please. BlueValour 01:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I like the 2nd. In the first row, it shows the split, which is important. Karpov did not succeed him as undisputed champion, he succeeded him as FIDE champion only. And, to its supporters, the "Classical" title was not new, which the second row shows. The first table is somewhat biased to the view that the FIDE title is legitimate while the Classical title was invented. But my objections to the 1st table are fairly mild. Rocksong 05:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Vague comments on Rating

The introduction says, "Ranked first in the world a record 23 times between 1985 and 2006". What on earth does that mean? I thought ratings came out 4 times a year. If so, this figure it way too low. This statement is so vague (and uncited) that I propose removing it from the intro. Rocksong 02:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've removed the sentence. Rocksong 02:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

cleanup-verify

Why do we have this tag on the article? If something is in dispute we should have a cite tag by the problem comment so it can be fixed. I'm inclined to remove this general tag which is making the article look crappy. BlueValour 01:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

In the absence of any reason I have removed the tag. BlueValour 16:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

Ryan Delaney has reverted back to the old introduction. I think the old intro is poorer for the following reasons: 1. It fails to mention that he was the youngest ever (Classical) world champion, which is definitely one of Kasparov's greatest achievements. 2. It contains vague, uncited, and probably incorrect comments about his rating (see "Vague Comments on Rating" above). 3. It puts more emphasis on his rating than his world championship achievements. 4. It has a clumsy parentheses about his removal from the rating list. So I've tried to have another go at rewriting the introduction. If you disagree, please edit or discuss it here, rather than doing a wholesale revert. Rocksong 23:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Fact checking regarding the claim "Karpov had been hospitalized several times" in 1984

In the section on the 1984 World Championship it reads "Karpov had lost 10 kg (22 lb) over the course of the match and had been hospitalized several times." I too have heard the claim of Karpov's hospitalization. I've also heard claims of Kasparov's hospitalization. I've heard claims of psychiatrists/psychologists who had to have special sessions with the players to prevent them from losing their minds during the event. After some research I am starting to come to the conclusion that many of these accounts are apocryphyl. I would like to hear from anybody who has sources that support the claim of either or both players being hospitalized. Thanks in advance. 71.57.161.254 22:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Kasparov's involvement in today's politics

[17] function msikma(user:UserPage, talk:TalkPage):Void 23:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[18] Ojw 20:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Rating "facts" (again)

For the third or fourth time, I've removed the "fact" that Kasparov topped the rating list "a record 23 times". I don't believe it. It sounds too low. Please do not restore this "fact" without either (a) a source, or (b) discussing it here. Rocksong 22:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, a much more impressive way of wording it would be something like, "Apart from a brief time in 1994-95, Kasparov was the world's #1 rated player from 1985 until his retirement in 2005". I'm not sure of the exact dates, but I'm pretty sure it's broadly true. Apart from the fact that FIDE kicked him (and Short) off their list in 1993, I think there were only two times: Kramnik equalled him on one list in about 1995 or 1996, and Karpov passed him briefly in about 1994 (though I'm not sure how because they would have been on different lists at the time). Anyway, if we can nail down these details, I think this would be a much better way to summarise his ratings achievements. Rocksong 22:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, trawling through old usenet posts:

• FIDE list Nov 1995 Karpov 3 points ahead of Kasparov
• FIDE list Jan 1996 Kramnik and Kasparov equal top
• July 1996 Kasparov back on top

As far as I know, these are the only times Kasparov was headed or equalled on the rating list, from when he took the #1 spot (probably 1985), until his retirement. Rocksong 01:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Another thought: according to Chessmetrics, he was rated continuously #1 continuously from February 1985 (when he overtook Karpov) to October 2004 (when Anand overtook him). [19]

I'm beginning to think that there should be a subsection on his ratings performance, rather than trying to squeeze it all into the introduction. Rocksong 02:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've added the above ratings detail and moved most of it out of the intro. Perhaps others will disagree, but I don't like too much clutter in the introduction. Rocksong 01:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

When I edited I too saw 23 quite low but just incorporated into the edit. Good job if you manage to reword so we get to the actual truth. _└ ^VodkaJazz / _talk ^┐ 19:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Was this November 1995 list official? It does not appear on the Eloquery site ([[20]]) and I believe that FIDE only released lists in January and July at that time.

Reading the post, it seems as though this November list is an official extrapolation (though it is from FIDE), so perhaps Garry didn't lose his #1 rating after all.

I think you might be right. This site http://chess.eusa.ed.ac.uk/Chess/Trivia/AlltimeList.html also only has January and July lists for that time frame. I can't find it in The Week in Chess (admittedly I can't find all TWIC issues for that time); so all we have is that single magazine article which was reported on USENET. I think we should treat it as unofficial. I'll update the article shortly. Rocksong 10:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Revisiting this old topic: I've just stumbled on the source of Kasparov topping the ratings list a record 23 times: http://www.fide.com/ratings/toplist.phtml?list=men . However this page only counts ratings lists from July 2000 onwards. So the number 23 is way too low, as I guessed, and I'm happy we changed it. Rocksong 00:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

This page needs improvement

Can't anyone find a colour picture of him to replace that black and white one at the top of the page? Also, the description of his last few moves in the game against Karpov in 1993 is extremely difficult to understand. The caption should say which player is black and which is white as well as a comprehensible list of the moves. What does "22" mean? I can understand where c2 is, but it's unclear how the rook moved to c2 and what Karpov did in his turn. Owen214 09:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

centerforsecuritypolicy.org

User Diophantus (→Retirement and career in politics - Disinformation; cited webpage makes no mention of Kasparov) updated this site, yes now at centerforsecuritypolicy.org there's no info about Kasparov. But at web archive you may find his name at the members of centerforsecuritypolicy: http://web.archive.org/web/20060426210216/www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/index.jsp?section=static&page=nsac

So, I don't know, should this info be mentioned in the site or not? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alexandre Koriakine (talk • contribs) 10:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

Well, current version includes the following text:

"It become known to public, that Garry Kasparov is a member of supervisory board and advisor for the National Security Advisory Council at least since 2003[15], which is a US "non-profit, non-partisan national security organization that specializes in identifying policies, actions, and resource needs that are vital to American security"[16]. After the scandal gained notability in Mass Media, National Security Advisory Council has removed Kasparov from list of its supervisory board members and advisors on their website. Google Cache and Wayback Machine still have cached copies of the site listing Garry Kasparov in the Advisory Council Member list."

Please note word "scandal" here; and this is biography of living person (hence WP:BLP rules). Also note that SourceWatch (wiki; former "disinfopedia") is not an appropriate source. There is only appropriate source here - web site of this Council. I looked there: Kasparov is NOT in the list of National Security Advisory Council bord. Perhaps he was a member of this Council previously, but this is not supported by references that satisfy WP:SOURCE. Should be deleted, is not it?Biophys 04:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's any doubt Kasparov was on the NSAC board; there was link to a web archive, and it is documented in the mainstream press (The Guardian) here: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,781387,00.html However there is no evidence presented that he left due to any type of "scandal" (note that the deleted section used the weasel words "in the Mass Media"). So if the article is to say anything, it should simply say that he was on the NSAC board, with a link to the Guardian article, and leave it at that. Rocksong 04:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm the user who wrote that piece (I can't make wikipedia send me forgotten password, so I'm writing anonymous). I agree that paragraph should be reworded. Leaving the link to guardian is ok, but what with the fact that he was on the board since 2002 (Guardian link and Wayback machine both confirm this) and he was removed from the website around 14th of April 2007, and the information about this appeared in the media in the beginning of April 2007? The issue is, since 2005 he was a politic figure and only when information about his NSAC membership became known, it was removed from the website within weeks. How should we put it better? Also, I think the description of the CSP as "non-profit, non-partisan ... vital to American security" deserves its place in the section too, since the section is about politics. What do you all think? And isn't wayback machine link to the CSP site is considered an unreliable source? Oxygen 217.118.95.46 11:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Some additional info. He was on the NSAC board since at least 2000 till 2006 according to their annual reports. He was also awarded "Keeper of the flame" award by CSP, which is inaugurated to bestow recognition on individuals who devote their public careers to the propagation of democracy and the respect for individual rights throughout the world. It is interesting to note, that from 1990 to 2006 "Keeper of the flame" was awarded to US President, Generals, Secretaries of Defense, Senators and Congressmen -- the people connected with US government and military (with the exception of Steve Forbes, who is, well, a publisher). It's not surprising that CSP's motto is "Promoting World Peace through American Strength" and even respected papers call them a "militarist organization". To sum it up, this information shows another side of Kasparov as a political leader and I believe it should be represented in the main article. After all, all sources in this paragraph are valid and reliable. Oxygen 89.113.48.3 15:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this Guardian source seems to satisfy reliability criteria. So, if you think this is notable (I am not sure), you can write without any "scandal" that he was (for how long?) a member of this organization "devoted to propagation of democracy and the respect for individual rights throughout the world". But the previous version was created to imply that he is a kind of CIA agent.Biophys 16:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I wonder why you do selective reading on what I've written. It was never stated that CSP is "devoted to propagation of democracy". They are pro-American militarist organization, that's what they write about themselves -- CSP "isn't just a 'think tank' - it's an agile, durable and highly effective 'main battle tank' in the war of ideas on national security." (Guardian source links to their annual report). Does this means that they are for democracy and human rights? It's not CIA, but not HumanRightsWatch either.

Here is the blog (and here) that is kind of evidence that Kasparov disappeared from the lists after news broke in Russian blogs. Oxygen 217.118.95.47 07:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Another description for the Keepers of the flame award from their annual report 2001: "Since 1990, the Center fot Security Policy has recognized individuals for devoting their public careers to the defence of the United States and American values around the world. Those extraordinary individuals are the keepers of the Flame." Oxygen 91.186.18.61 12:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I have added information about Keeper of Flame award of 1991, just to make sure that Kasparov actually lied that he forgot about memebership in such organization. He was awarded for his contribution to American security!!! Vlad fedorov 04:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Vlad, I think you might want to undo your changes. I have already included comments on Keepers of the Flame award, look at the second paragraph in the Politics section. We must follow WP:BLP rules, and while I think all this stuff highly discredits Kasparov, don't mix the award and NSAC membership. He received award for helping to break Soviet Union, but you won't get quote like that, hence you should quote official sources, which are quite politically correct. His words that he was included in the board probably because of copy & pasting nominees of the award is laughable, since there are many other nominees (more than half) who are not on the board. And the second: in the cache before the case, it is written, that "Advisory Council members have dedicated their careers to American security". Now it is written, after Kasparov was removed, that "Advisory Council members have dedicated their careers to peace and security". Feel the difference? But WP:BLP has no place for Wikipedia:No_original_research, so we'll leave all the analysis here. Oxygen 217.118.95.48 09:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

One more for the curious. In this rebuttal (in Russian) he suggests that he was included in the advisory board by an accident, simple copy & paste of the Keepers of the Flame nominees list. It is easy to check, that there are many "keepers" that were never on the advisory board (around half of them, AFAIR). Very notable "accident". Selective copy&paste I would say. Oxygen 217.118.95.35 20:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Everything is so simple in America! One morning you wake up and find yourself in White House officials list and having a thankyou letter from a president. Of course, accidentaly. I love the US. Vlad fedorov 05:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Give GK the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps the the list of members of the boad incorrectly listed him, the Guardian reported it and when people noticed they took it off. Sounds perfectly reasonalbe to me. --Dudeman5685 (talk) 19:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Last human World Champion ?

Should there be a line somewhere to this effect? Kramnik is not the World Champion, a computer is. Kramnik lost convincingly to the latest silicone monster.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 11:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

No. Check any reference, Kramnik is the World Champion. Peter Ballard 12:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Well obviously I know he's the human World Champion but he lost to a computer.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 10:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Vladimir Kramnik Peter Ballard 11:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It was not a match for the World Championship. Bubba73 (talk), 01:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The Other Russia

Okay, as I said in my edit summary, I think that this is not the place to go into detail about the policies of the member organizations of The Other Russia, unless they can be shown to be Kasparov's personal policies as well. However, my very small change got reverted saying that it's a "disputable question" whether The Other Russia contains "nationalist and hard-left groups and organisations". This is not disputed at all, if you look at the articles The Other Russia, National Bolshevik Party, National Bolshevism and Vanguard of Red Youth. If you think it's POV to describe these groups as "nationalist" and "hard-left" respectively, I suggest you take that to the talk pages of those articles. As for your comment about it being the leaders of the parties that have boycotted The Other Russia, why don't you change the text to say that? I have no problem with that. -- Jao 09:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it is important to give details of Kasparov's allies here for several reasons. One, it explains why Kasparov was questioned by police for "extremist" activities. Surely we need to know the background, that he leads a group made up in most part of neo-fascist, Communist and hard-left elements, in order to understand why he is being questioned. Secondly, Kasparov portrays himself in the Western media as the leader of a "liberal democratic" coalition. It is important to balance this out and show the true make up of the Other Russia. I have provided several links to show that Kasparov supports the presidential candidacy of Viktor Gerahshchenko. We need to understand the Other Russia and Kasparov's activities in context, that he does not wish to "restore democracy" but that he wants to see someone belonging to a hardline ultranationalist and anti-semitic party become president (again, I have provided references for these facts).

I just wish other users would not delete these referenced facts just because they do not wish people to know that Kasparov isn't a democrat and is pursuing another agenda from the one he claims to be pursuing. Shotlandiya 11:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You just write here sourceless biassed fictions, nothing more. I make the reverts just because all of your edits are very incorrect:

"Due to his assocation with hardline nationalists and neo-fascists like Eduard Limonov and Viktor Gerashchenko, Kasparov was summoned by FSB" - nothing common with reality, it's an absurd.

"Eduard Limonov's National Bolshevik Party, which wishes to ethnically cleanse the former Soviet Union of all Jews and non-Russians" - nothing common with current NBP's program, declarations and actions.

"Viktor Anpilov's Stalinist Workers' Party" - Anpilov isn't member of Other Russia as well as his party.

"despite the fact that they are both strongly opposed to the policies of Vladimir Putin's elected government" - absolutely biassed statement, nothing common with reality in my opinion.

"Kasparov is a supporter of the presidential aspirations of former Soviet Central Bank chief Viktor Gerashchenko" - Kasparov isn't a supporter of any candidate, he's positioning himself as a neutral coordinator of Other Russia's activity. He supports Gerashchenko as well as other candidates, Bukovsky for example. GoWest8 12:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Finally, you're trying to represent Gerashchenko as "hardline nationalist". It's just an absurd because he never did any nationalistic statements. Even in his party just a few members signed famous anti-Jew letter. You're trying represent Limonov and his party as "neo-fascists" also. But, as I said, there's nothing common with NBP's actions and declarations for all last years. It's just a heavily revolutionary anti-Putin party. GoWest8 12:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry buddy, you're wrong. Kasparov's association with Limonov, Gerahschenko and Anpilov obviously explains why he was questioned over breaking anti-extremism laws. It's very relevant. Do you deny that Yabloko and the Union of Right Forces oppose Putin? If so then you just don't have a clue. I have provided the references showing that Kasparov supports Gerashchenko, especially since Kasyanov broke away from the Other Russia.

I have reinserted my factual, accurate, referenced information. Please do not remove it again. Shotlandiya 12:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You didn't answer to any of my remarks and you're still inserting obvious biassed sourceless lie in the article. Please stop your vandalism. GoWest8 12:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

If anyone is vandalising the page it's you, not me. Please do not remove my accurate, factual referenced material as I will simply undo all your edits. Shotlandiya 13:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, you refused to discuss your destructive editing, so that's time to call an administator... GoWest8 13:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It is you who is being disruptive, not me. And you have reverted other people's edits on here again. I agree we need to get this resolved through outside mediation. Shotlandiya 13:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It's sadly that you didn't read WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:LIVING and don't understand how important to provide correct sources, not just "Kasparov" and "Geraschenko" words in the same sentence...

Look for the second box note on this page, at least... GoWest8 13:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

There's no need to be rude. I don't comment on your very poor standard of English grammar, for example.

I'm not going to edit back but I think someone else needs to take this up. The main issues for me are:

• We should not mention the fact that Kasparov has been questioned over alleged extremist activities without also mentioning his connections, via The Other Russia, to people like Limonov. Otherwise it does not make sense.

• • Kasparov was questioned by FSB twice, due to 1) his performance at Echo Moskvy on 8th April, and 2) issue of United Civil Front's newspaper [21]. Where you can see Limonov??? GoWest8 14:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Kasparov does support Gerashchenko's candidacy and I have provided the links to prove this. I can't understand why you keep deleting this fact.

• • Please show me where you can see this "fact" in your links? I can't see it and I know that Kasparov isn't a supporter of any candidat. GoWest8 14:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• It is nonsense to claim that Yabloko and the SPS are "controlled by the Kremlin". Anyone who knows anything about Russian politics knows this is not so, even if, in the past, they have found it useful to co-operate with Putin over several issues.

• • Probably you just too badly understand our "politics". I won't explain you things which are already obvious for most people. Leaders of these parties are just decorative puppets.

For example, as we can see, regional branches of these parties willingly co-operate with Other Russia, but later meet resistance from the leaders. Moscow regional branch of SPS cooperated with Other Russia and later it was dismissed.

And anyway, "controlled by the Kremlin" is Kasparov's statement, not mine. GoWest8 14:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Why remove the word "elected" from in front of Putin's government. Do you deny that Putin was elected?
  • Well, it wasn't me who deleted this word at first, but we know how Putin and his parliament were "elected". I don't see any reasons to sharpen attention on this word here. GoWest8 14:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I am willing to try and accept some of your viewpoints. I am willing to accept that we should not put in the NBP's policy towards Jews and non-Russians. That belongs in an article about the NPB itself, not Kasparov. And I am happy to include information that the Other Russia includes democratic politicans as well as extremists.

• I already said - NBP isn't "neo-fascist" party. Look at its program, look at its declarations, look at its actions - it's even more liberal (more exactly - against Putin's system) party than nationalistic. I even don't understand where you found info about "Jews and non-Russians" - you just provided a couple of senseless links: probably from XX century, about Belarus, and no one word about Jews or non-Russians. ROFL! GoWest8 14:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to explain the situation: NBP is actually an anarchist party. This explains why they are liberal and extremist at the same time. They are not libertarian, but strictly anarchist. It is true that NBP was involved into some acts of terror. However, most of them were childish attempts by Che Guevara wannabes rather then well thought-out actions. NBP can hardly be considered a serious political party. Initially, it started as a vehicle for Limonov's artistic expression. Limonov is a writer famous for his shocking extravaganza and eccentricity. Creating a "party" which combined Nazi and Bolshevik stylistics during Perestroyka years was just a way shock people. I don't think he ever meant all this...

So why don't you suggest a compromise, which includes my points, rather than just deleting everything, and we'll see if we can agree on something? Shotlandiya 13:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

"Probably you just too badly understand our politics".

Don't be arrogant with me. I understand Russia's politics a lot better than you understand English - I suggest if you want to work on Wikipedia you stick to the Russian language version.

1. As I can see, your knowledge of our politics is too primitive.

As I see you are extremely rude and need to spent more time on your English lessons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shotlandiya (talk • contribs) 16:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

2. Read WP:CIVIL and WP:SKILL pls. GoWest8 15:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I have put in the main article a suggested compromise - please don't delete it outright but discuss on here before making any changes. Shotlandiya 15:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I have made a couple of changes. Kasparov's statement should be here - because this article is about Kasparov! And word "elected" isn't good, because the government isn't electable in Russia. GoWest8 15:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure about "elected"? If Putin wasn't elected in 2003 who was? Kharitonov? Glazev? Malyshkin? 194.60.38.10 16:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The president can be elected and the parliament can be elected. But what is an "elected government"? Russia isn't country with parliamentary system of government unlike many of Western countries. We should delete either "elected" or "government". GoWest8 02:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Kasparov's October 2007 United States TV appearances

This is the final paragraph from the Politics subsection from this version of this entry:

In October 2007, Kasparov announced his intention of standing for the Russian presidency as the candidate of the "Other Russia" coalition, and vowed to fight for a "democratic and just Russia". Later that month he travelled to the United States, where he appeared on several popular television programs. First was The Colbert Report, hosted by Stephen Colbert . Next, Kasparov appeared on the HBO show Real Time with Bill Maher. A few days later, Kasparov appeared with Wolf Blitzer on CNN's Late Edition . Then, Kasparov appeared on the ABC show Hardball, which is hosted by Chris Matthews "Kasparov on Chris Matthews' Hardball".</ref>.

The strikeout text I removed; it's miscellaneous details of Kasparov's various October 2007 media appearances (it doesn't end there -- I'm listening to him on Fresh Air right now). But that's quite unimportant, unless he did or said something really notable on one or a few of those appearances. If so, grab this text, condense it, and make the quote. As it is now, though, it's not really important and quite United States-centric (he hasn't made it to non-US media?). Michael Patrick 02:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Subsectioning books

Are the books worthy of some subsectioning?--Mokru (talk) 22:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Back from the Netherworld

User Quale deleted this following entry as an irrelevant rant. Apparently, he is bucking for a promotion at the Ministry of Truth. BTW, I will reinstate this section as often as necessary - for months on end if required. Philosopher8 (talk) 15:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia works because it has a set of rules. (See Wikipedia:Five pillars). The rules are not perfect, but they are pretty good, and have created an extraordinarily good encyclopedia. So I see 3 options for you:

• 1. You accept the rules, and edit according to them.
• 2. You don't accept the rules and wish to change them: in that case, debate them on the policy pages such as WP:V, not here. Off-topic discussion on this page will be deleted.
• 3. You don't accept the rules, and don't wish to change them, in which case you leave. After all, no one is forcing you to edit Wikipedia, and there are lots of other projects you can contribute to (or start your own).

Peter Ballard (talk) 02:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Jewish and Armenian descent.

Don't you think that this variant would be better? ...a Russian chess grandmaster of Jewish and Armenian descent,..--Alecxo (talk) 00:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Judaism is a religion, not an ethnicity.

Well, i didn't say he was of "Judaist descents" :S--Alecxo (talk) 01:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Judaism is an ethnicity, not a religion. There are Jews of different religions, and they are still Jews.

He was a Jewish Azerbaijani with Armenian descent, thats the best description.

overlinked

Many names are overlinked in the article. I removed some of them, but there are too many of Smyslov, Kortchnoi, and others. Bubba73 (talk), 21:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I removed several more, but some may remain. Bubba73 (talk), 21:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

What is the issue with linking names? ChessCreator (talk) 20:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't remove too many. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links): "However, note that duplicating an important link distant from a previous occurrence in an article may well be appropriate... Good places for link duplication are often the first time the term occurs in each article subsection". Peter Ballard (talk) 01:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was overlinked, and removed ones other than the first. Put some back if you think they are needed. Bubba73 (talk), 02:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I have a feeling the style guide has changed (or is inconsistent), and that it used to be limited one link per linked-article. So you were doing what used to be the right thing. I think the current guideline, as I quoted, is common sense. Peter Ballard (talk) 02:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You are definitely right. Iread the link given above, and it is different from what it was a year or two ago, when it said to link only the first place. Bubba73 (talk), 02:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

B Zhao computer match?

I have deleted the reference to an alleged match against the computer B Zhao because the documentation is too poor. It has been reinstated, and my intention is to delete it again. The only reference is a single, anonymous blog. I can find no mention of it on chessgames.com (which contains many human-computer games, even little-known ones), indeed no other web references at all. For it to be reinstated, I believe better evidence is required. Comments? Peter Ballard (talk) 02:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Kasparov was playing many computers at that time so it would not surprise me. That being said the reference supplied is poor and await more links on the B Zhao article. Looked for info myself and because Zhao is a chess players name also, the search results are so many in this case you can't easy find what you want. And not having 30 mins to spare gave up that idea. ChessCreator (talk) 02:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

That is true, he played many computers. e.g. I looked at his 1994 games on chessgames.com and he even lost a rapid match (must've been a PCA tournament if it was 1994), which is much more significant. Given that, even if the B Zhao match happened, I doubt it is significant enough to be in this article. Peter Ballard (talk) 03:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, should NOT be in this article. In 1994 Kasparov lost to Fritz. That's not in the article, so a game he didn't lose is of little use. Especially as I believe to played many different computers every year around that time. ChessCreator (talk) 03:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This was added again today, and I removed it for the same reason - no references to show notability. If decent references can be found, this assessment might change. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

For reference, the original deletion discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/B_Zhao, and the blog which claims it exists is at http://engineersfuture.wordpress.com/about/ Peter Ballard (talk) 01:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Engineer of future break up long ago 18:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Banana254 (talk • contribs)

Popularity statements

Kasparov's popularity in Russia is subject to much debate. While polls do tend to indicate that he is quite unpopular, and Putin is the opposite, it is worth noting that most of these polls come from Russian news or the Russian government. Both of these sources are controlled by Putin and would not be likely to confirm his opposition's true status if it is indeed supported. Such details need to be included in the article. --72.205.63.176 (talk) 05:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Putins popularity has been confirmed by outside polls. You're seriously grasping at straws by implying that his popularity is a state created illusion. Kasparovs unpopularity can be confirmed by the fact that he marches with neo-nazis, fascists and every other type of social outcast. Why not normal people? Because normal people don't like him and won't march with him. It's that simple. I don't see how you can call his popularity a subject of debate, the only people debating that he's popular are those who don't live in Russia and are completely out of touch with reality. Sbw01f (talk) 20:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Marching with Nazi's. My god, what have you been reading? - PietervHuis (talk) 20:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you think the National Bolshevik Party is? I think their flag is telling enough. Sbw01f (talk) 16:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't mean he supports their ideas, they just joined the opposition. Kasparov denounces communism, I listened to an interview and one of his favourite fragments was Churchill's speech about the dangers of communism. I can also clearly recall Putin speaking about the "tragedy" that was the collapse of the soviet union. If you want to call Kasparov a Nazi, same goes for Putin in that context. - PietervHuis (talk) 12:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

What?? I didn't call him a Nazi or even imply it. I said the fact that he marches with them is an indicator of how popular he is. He's at the bottom of the barrel for support. Sbw01f (talk) 18:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh I don't dispute that his popularity is low in Russia, but I don't really blame him for that. That's all. The march of discontent had a lot of normal people, and so do his conferences. You're creating a caricature of him. - PietervHuis (talk) 20:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)