Karpov on Kasparov

I hate to go all Greg Koster here, but saying that Kasparov has gone against power ignores the fact that Kasparov has often been quite the suck up to The Powers That Be. Kasparov had a Politburo member (and later Azeri dictator) as his patron for many years. That doesn't exactly scream rebel....

I thought of that, but I think it's different. I didn't say Kasparov didn't use power, and maybe you noticed he was world champion for a long time and had much power of his own. Obviously there was little, if any, way to succeed in the USSR without patrons. At the very least you had to know when to keep your mouth shut. Being a rebel doesn't mean being an anarchist. And sucking up means going against what you know is right to achieve an end. I'm not sure if you are suggesting that Kasparov should have told Aliyev to go to hell because he tried to help him fight the system, which largely supported Karpov.

I wasn't saying that one method was superior to the other, only pointing out that this difference between the K's had transcended Communism and the USSR. I think both made these decisions based on furthering their personal ambitions. On the other hand, it's fair to say that many of Kasparov's opposition actions could have worked out very badly for him and he still spoke his mind.

That said, if Karpov sincerely thinks Putin is going a great job and Kasparov doesn't, it's nothing profound. I just have a hard time imagining Karpov criticizing him, just as it's hard to imagine Garry saying anything positive. He's a natural opposer, which is why so many of his projects as world champion ran into trouble. Building is very different from demolishing.

From 2002-2004, in a failed attempt at a title shot, Kasparov allied himself with the power, FIDE President Kirsan Ilyumzhinov. But generally it has indeed been Karpov allying himself with the power and Kasparov opposing it.

Over the years, FIDE had been progressive in some areas, eliminating Botvinnik's rematch rights, and changing the Candidates event from a tournament to matches. But FIDE also aborted Karpov-Kasparov I, it reinstated a rematch right for Karpov, and it was routinely accused of corruption and gross mismanagement. Karpov's record of collaborating with the morally suspect FIDE power made him look sleazy and self-interested, which, perhaps, he was.

Kasparov's battle against the FIDE power culminated in the 1993 breakaway, which at the time, looked like a glorious and highly moral crusade. A dozen years later, however, the glorious crusade has turned to dust. And now we'd willingly put up with the old corruption and gross mismanagement if we could return to the days when FIDE maintained a clear path to the title; zonal-interzonal-candidates-championship, for every chessplayer.

Infinitely more important than a stable organization for chessplayers is a stable government for the Russian nation. And a certain amount of authoritarianism may be necessary to ensure that stability. In troubled times even a giant of democracy such as Lincoln ruled by authoritarian means, closing newspapers and arbitrarily jailing disruptive elements. South Korea and Taiwan endured decades of authoritarian rule on the way to their current enviable position as highly prosperous industrial democracies.

It is always more appealing to battle against the power. But Putin's nasty medicine might possibly be the best remedy for his country's ills. And woe to Russia and the world if Kasparov's second glorious crusade ends as badly as his first.

Well, it will only turn out badly for anyone else (other than Kasparov and his allies) if they have success at first and then things go badly. If it's just a failure, it will be status quo.

That's another attractive thing about being the rebel, or at least the opposition. There is a freedom from the responsibility that comes with power. Putin's supporters are complicit in his actions. The opposition can always say how much better things would be if they were in charge, but if they're never in charge there's no way to know. Certainly history is full of people and movements who were successful in opposition but disastrous in power.

I am a big fan of Kasparov the chess player. But now that him is out of his domain and trying politics he needs some humility and more study and reflection. The arrogant tone he has been using in chess is being carry to others matters well beyond his expertise.

In this article

http://www.world-mysteries.com/garrykasparov.htm

he takes seriously the nutty ideas of russian mathematician Anatoly Fomenko about the "real" chronology of world history.

If his political and cultural bagagge is in this level he better keeps working in chess.

Karpov is always sucking up to whomever is in power that is the difference. To call Kasparov a rebel maybe a little stretching it. But he is certainly not a you-know what kisser. I say that calling him a rebel is a stretch because when he was coming up and Karpov was in, there were only two real choices: go against Karpov or defect. Perhaps you can throw FIDE in and now Putin but in each case except the later he was mostly forced into his position by situation.

Charles R. --

The "world mysteries" link is astounding. Bobby Fischer will have an easier time proving his nutty theory that Jews rule the world than Kasparov will have of proving that 1000 blank years were slipped into the historical record. Fischer's odd notions and this piece by Kasparov demonstrate that an individual's genius at manipulating spatial relationships within a 64-square board has nothing to do with what we generally consider breadth of knowledge, intelligence, or common sense. An individual with the benefit of a little college, and many people with no formal education at all probably sense that in libaries around the world reside scholarly volumes addressing in rigorous detail the questions which Kasparov naively claims, "historians don't seem to consider." The Roman Empire didn't have a banking system? Maybe you do an internet search of "Roman Empire" and "banking system" before you write something like that.

Is Kasparov suited for his new role? Words such as "ruthless," "unscrupulous," and "paranoia" are generally used to describe authoritiarian political figures such as Stalin or Sadaam, or conceivably Putin. How very odd, then, in this blog, to hear these terms associated with an aspiring democrat. The gravest threat to Kasparov in his new undertaking is not that he will be defeated, but that he will simply be laughed at or ignored altogether.

Yes, Kasparov has been a contributing editor to the Wall Street Journal for 15 years because he writes their chess column. Oh, they don't have one. He certainly knows a lot more about politics (and history, for that matter) than most people I know, and I know a lot of people.

As for the New Chronology, endlessly beaten to death hereabouts despite the total lack of knowledge of most of the posters (Google isn't quite yet a university eduction), comparing it to virulent anti-Semitism (odd notions??) is probably the most asinine thing greg koster has ever written here, and that's saying something. I'll leave it up only to embarrass him, so we can refer to it regularly.

You don't sense knowledge, and if you want to participate in a debate you should acquire some of that education you are touting. The point of the New Chronology is that the conventional wisdom you "sense" is wrong and that you can't prove that it's not. It's questioning assumptions.

As for those three words, show me a successful professional politician they don't describe. The word you are looking for is "murderous."

Greg wrote: "The "world mysteries" link is astounding. Bobby Fischer will have an easier time proving his nutty theory that Jews rule the world than Kasparov will have of proving that 1000 blank years were slipped into the historical record."

Greg: you gonna have even harder time than Kasparov proving that he was not the best player of past two decades :-)

Yes, the "world mysteries" article surprised me as well. From my understadning (I am not a native English speaker), Mr. Kasparov only pointed at one of the mysteries - quite understandable topic for such a website. I did not have the impression that his is going to pursue this "project" of changing historical textbooks.

"Yes, Kasparov has been a contributing editor to the Wall Street Journal for 15 years because he writes their chess column."

I have no comment regarding Kasparov's political knowledge. Yet, I think if Tom DeLay wrote a column about how immoral it is to be a homossexual the WSJ would gladly publish it. Fame and agreement with the newspaper's philosophy (both Kasparov and the WSJ are economic conservatives) are more important that knowledge if one is to be published by a newspaper.

Funny how Kasparov is a right-wing conservative while Mig is (or appears to be) a typical blue-state liberal - and they are best friends!
Hey Mig do you two get into political arguments every once in a while?

It is indeed impossible to contrast the bizarreness of Fischer's views with those of Kasparov without the whole exercise being contaminated by how disgusting Fischer's views are. Perhaps it's clearer this way: It would be easier to prove that Norwegians, Austrialians, or Falkland Islanders secretly rule the world than that 1000 blank years have been inserted into history.

An average college Joe would probably sense the inconceivability of thousands of classics scholars being awarded their doctorates without even one of them examining the ancient Roman banking system (or lack thereof). If, upon completing a preliminary google search, Joe found numerous references to an ancient Roman banking system, he'd know damn well he'd better spend a few weeks in the library before publishing a paper claiming there was no such thing.

I'm challenged to disprove the New Chronology. To do so I need to know at what point the 1000 blank years were added in. An extreme version of setting your watch an hour ahead in the spring, I guess. Let me know. I'm also challenged to name successful politicians who aren't ruthless, unscrupulous and paranoid. From my state Barak Obama, Paul Douglas, and Paul Simon come to mind. The local boys have varying quantities of scruples and some are just bad but I can't think of too many you'd call "paranoid."

I think Kasparov in unsuited in many ways to his new career. Mrs. Radjubov's videotape of the Linares 2003 awards ceremony would certainly ruin his prospects in this country. I hope I'm wrong.

Greg: If you want to challenge, please bother to read up on the subject, if not its just stupid to accuse others of not bothering to read up...

re our ruling the world, you at least should know it could not be the aussies, they havent been around for long, it's Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Lichtenstein, see: http://www.efta.int/

"He's a natural opposer, which is why so many of his projects as world champion ran into trouble. Building is very different from demolishing."

I had to laugh reading this, thinking about Garry's 180-degree turn in active support of Campomanes. Garry is a brilliant chess player but a political w****, and I suspect his foray into politics will be very much like Jordan's attempt at baseball...he'll clear the Mendoza line, but only in a minor-league kind of way.

I hold an M.A. from the University of Toronto in ancient Near Eastern studies, so I thought I'd address the issue of chronology. I'm not really attacking or defending Kasparov, just adding some information. Since I've always been bored by numbers, I won't get into numerical specifics; I'm painting only broad brush strokes here.

1) There are more than two competing chronologies on the market. In my field, there were at least three chronologies ("high," "middle," and "low"). The "low" chronology is quite different from the "high" chronology, and does lose several centuries that the high chronology sees. There are also many variants for specific dates.

2) Chronology is very tricky. There are many dates that are known certainly in antiquity. It's the inbetweens that are a problem.

3) Historians, by and large, do not subscribe to the "high" chronology. Historians in my field are always disagreeing with each other. It was very naive for Kasparov to make the claims he did, as I doubt he's been reading back issues of, for instance, Acta Orientalia for the past several decades. His tone is probably based on the tone of the book he read on the subject. Many "scholarly" books adopt a ridiculously polemical tone, and some, a crazy ideology; the "biblical minimalists," published out of Sheffield Academic Press in England, and E.J. Brill in the Netherlands come to mind. (By the way, both these companies publish very sound scholarship also.) Anyway, I'm not a "maximalist," either; it's just that most of the claims made by the minimalists are based on archaeology, yet few of them have any archaeological credentials. Anyway, that's the sort of stuff that gets published in the Netherlands...

Finally, I'm glad Kasparov has an interest in ancient history. It's certainly not off-base to argue in favor of the low chronology. It is off base to assume a unanimity of opinion of the scholars on this question, however.

I agree with Mig: Get educated before you start typing stuff in, for gosh sakes people.

But aren't we missing something here? How can Kasparov hope to succeed in Russian politics if he can't speak Russian? What is he thinking?? It would be like me going and running for governor of Louisiana without being able to speak Tagalog.

To Nathan:
AFAIK the 3 chronologies you mention are used for the ancient East, but not for ancient Greece and Rome, and certainly not for the early medieval age. Kasparov is suggesting that 1000 nonexistent years might have been added to history somewhen between the Roman Empire and the early modern age.

oh one more thing: Perhaps we can fix up this matter of 1000 years of missing time with Kip Thorne's invention: First set up a wormhole between two nearby points in spacetime. Second, drag one of those points around for awhile at relativistic speeds. Then park it back where it started and you can have a little +-1000 years time machine to use as you like. I have to infer that this is what is missing from the discussion.

Suggested further reading:

http://jcolavito.tripod.com/lostcivilizations/id13.html

AFAIK Kasparov is working on a book about the relationship between excelling chess and in other areas of life.

IMHO the fact that one becomes a world chess champion and probably the greatest chess player of the time thus far proves that the person is extremely brilliant and authentic - at chess, that's it.

Dear fellow pawns in the game of life:

I think that Kasparov will, at least initially, do very well as a politician. He has all the elements necessary to be elected: star appeal, name recognition, general goodwill. The real question will be if he can sustain it. I think a useful comparison might be the Governator in California - he won big based on his personal qualities. Now his poll numbers are dropping like a rock because he hasn't been able to accomplish anything except offer new soundbites. This isn't a meant to be a knock on Arnold - governing is much tougher than offering criticism, as he's learning. My guess is that Kasparov will be in for a similar experience.

I think on the negative side of the ledger you have to consider the following:

(1) Kasparov has a history of building new organizations and then abandoning them when he gets bored or tired with the details. There was the GMA, PCA, WCA, etc. - perhaps even his own association to promote chess. The point is that he doesn't have a history of creating a sustainable enterprises.

(2) Kasparov's ego and temper will need some adjustments. He's been surrounded by sycophants throughout his chess life, and some part of him believes what they say. He has a history of making inflammatory comments about his rivals and critics, and has demonstrated poor judgment and poor sportsmanship on a number of occasions (Deep Blue, FIDE, Kramnik, some former business partners).

On the other hand, he very well may succeed, and if he does it will be because of some combination of the following:

(1) Innate intelligence and charisma. He has proven he can think long and hard about more things than just chess. And he also is a very persuasive speaker. These are critical elements for a successful politician.

(2) He is older and wiser. Many of the previous organizations were started by a young man in his 20s. We do not expect such men to have the maturity and wisdom to understand the long term implications of their actions. Why should we hold Kasparov to a higher standard? A lot of very smart men and women who should have known better enabled some of the chess-related disasters - including guys like Bessel Kok and Andrew Grove. Presumably, Kasparov will do better because he has seen failures first hand and we hope we understands why his failures occurred. That critical bit of self-assessment is crucially important for a chess player, and why shouldn't he transpose that knowledge onto his own life?

Misi, I know that the 3 chronologies in question relate to the ancient Near East--they relate to the beginning of history. I had read the article in a hurry, and thought Kasparov was merely saying "shave off" 1000 years of "history" on the BCE side of things. Actually, I'm not totally sure what he is saying, now. If you're right, than he's out to lunch on that one. Well, I'm off to bed.

Given that Kasparov will be pretty much making a living with books on Karpov for the next year, I think Anatoly is more than entitled to express his opinions on all things Kasparov. And let's face it, whether GK's opinions on Putin are right on the money (I have to confess ignorance), AK is hardly alone in supporting the current regime.

As for abuse of power, look at both of them as World Champions. After 10 years on top, Karpov may or may not have influenced the abandonment of a World Championship match, replayed a year later. In less than a decade Kasparov demolished the century old institution of World Champion altogether!

I cannot but imagine how much we do not know, how much is lost, and how much is manipulated. We are all born a blank page upon this world, which are fore-fathers (mothers) are well aware of!!
As a child learns the language, the history, the cultural norms from the parents and people around it, That becomes the very under-pinning of stragtegems to either use for us or agianst us. The dumbing of America is such an avenue. People have to learn to think, then learn what is relevent, to think on!
Each new generation will have to reach those cross-roads to survival that the earlier generation made. Because the new generation is just that, new, brave, and ignorant. The fudamentals, of food, shelter, and warmth are still the goals of this survival.
So we boldly go where each generation went. That we can sustain the industrial comfort that previous generation never imagined, will be that cross-road. In a world of finite resources, it might get to beg, borrow, or steal!

Karpov's comment was not that Kasparov retired because of his last tournament. He made two statements, one that his age was starting to make continuing at the same level difficult for Garry and that Linares field was difficult for him. The latter is probably not true, unless you consider absence of Shirov to be a difficulty. However I do not see him crediting Linares with Garry's retirement.

As for the democracy for my homeland, I believe that both men are right. Stability and leadership is a good thing, but so is free economy and non-persecution of leaders. Kasparov probably does lack some understanding of Russia due to his recent busy schedule world over. But that doesn't detract from the righteousness and necessity of his battle.

Yes, Kasparov writes for the Wall Street Journal. Give a freshman poli-sci student a stack of Charles Krauthamer (Washington Post) columns and two hours and you'd get about the same product.

But I think I've been wrong in predicting disaster for Kasparov's political career. Running down the long list of problematic Kasparovian chess world conduct, it is striking that none of it has ever really hurt him. His failure to build a replacement organization after the 1993 FIDE breakup allowed him to call the shots himself from 1993-2000 and to proclaim himself chess' leading player from 2000-on without the inconvenience of having to play Candidates matches followed by a title match against the world champion.

But Kasparovian tantrums, bullying, and bombastic self-promotion aren't going to play well in the new arena, so he's confining that sort of behavior to his interactions with the chess world. The hypocritical, sophomoric tone of Kasparov's chess interviews is nowhere to be found in Kasparov's coherent and reasonable Wall Street Journal articles or in his Charlie Rose interview. Departing the chess arena, where an army of sycophants leaped at the opportunity to defend or "explain" his conduct no matter how deplorable, will be good for his character.

"it is striking that none of it has ever really hurt him (...) [His failure in building an organization] allowed him to call the shots himself from 1993-2000 and to proclaim himself chess' leading player from 2000-on without the inconvenience of having to play Candidates matches followed by a title match against the world champion."

That's right, he had only the minor inconvenience of pulling 11 supertournament wins in a row and achieving a rating of 2851. Heck, that is so easy! Why doesn't every other top Grandmaster do the same?

If calling a spade a spade constitues sycophantine behavior, I am definitely a sycophant.

You've made my point, Murali.

Contrast the tournament record you cite with the nail-biter matches with Karpov and the loss in the Kramnik match. Kasparov is not at his best in a long match. And since 2000 he hasn't played one.

Greg Koster has a point. In matches Kasparov's preparation advantage maybe slightly blunted and his slight pyschological nervousness are not great for match play. Still he did win 3 or 4 matches against Karpov which is enough to demonstrate serious superiority. He must be commended by Greg for granting so many rematch opportunities. Presumably he thinks Kramnik should treat him the same.

Let's ignore the matches against Short and Anand while we're at it. Match play accentuates the importance of preparation, it doesn't blunt it. Kasparov's WC matches were against the best, which is why the scores are close. Occam's Razor.

Update from Gregworld:

There weren't any candidates matches after 2000, but it's still Kasparov's fault for not playing in them.

I've never read it, but anybody can write for the Wall Street Journal editorial page. That one of Kasparov's 2004 editorials was selected by MSNBC as one of the 10 most important of the year just shows that anybody can do that, too.

There was no organization after the 1993 Kasparov-Short breakaway. The PCA never existed and the millions it paid out to hundreds of players never existed.

Kasparov proclaimed himself the world's best player. He could get away with this because there is no objective rating list in chess. If there were such a thing as a rating list, you could pad your rating by beating people, which isn't really a fair measure of being the best. It's also irrelevant that Kasparov has the best score against the other elite players and more tournament wins than the rest combined.

Anyone who says Kasparov's the best or in any way agrees with him or disagrees with any criticism of him is a sycophant. Ignore it when these sychophants criticize Kasparov, it's a trick.

If you repeat something incorrect over and over, the people who keep correcting you might give up and then you win. When facts are posted that refute your statements, ignore them and change the topic. Return to post the same refuted stuff later though.

First of all I ignored the Anand and Short matches because they were against at the time clearly inferior opposition. With those kinds of routs it seems impossible to say anything else. In a match I'll also agree that the importance in preparation is high but that the competetive advantage is not so high as tournament play for Kasparov. Rather than being the one to introduce all of the novelties in games with Karpov or Short for example, he now has to trade novelties with them. Of course I'll agree that it may be biased to base conclusions on one match, namely would I really be thinking this if Kasparov had not lost to Kramnik?

1) "Kasparov's WC matches were against the best, that's why the scores are close."
--No. Kasparov's WC matches against Karpov were close because Kasparov and Karpov were close. Short's and Anand's matches against Kasparov were not close because Short and Anand were not close to Kasparov.

2) "There weren't any candidates matches after 2000, but it's still Kasparov's fault for not playing in them.
--Dortmund 2002.

3) MSNBC award to a Kasparov article.
--Sorry, couldn't find this. Would welcome a cite.

4) Yes, there was an organization after 1993.
--When it started looking like Kasparov might not be able to call all the shots he quit.

5) Kasparov's apologists are careful to surround a sentence or two of criticism with multiple paragraphs explaining how Kasparov's inexcusable conduct was well, "understandable." The reason none of Kasparov's friends never flat out criticize him is simple. They'd lose his friendship.

6) Kasparov has the best score against the other elite players.
--But no plus score against, for example, Kramnik.

7) The current rating system is susceptible of distorion in the case of players who, for example, beat up heavily on lower-rated players while avoiding or drawing their peers, or who rack up dominating results and then just don't play much over a period of years. If A has a higher rating than B, is A really a better player than B?
--Maybe a better way to determine whether A is better than B is for A to play a match with B. You don't do so well in matches? Okay then, don't play them. If Kasparov had accepted Kramnik's Dortmund invitation and a title shot fell through, the blame would be Kramnik's. That Kasparov chose, instead, to put his faith Ilyumzhinov is no one's responsibility but his own.

8) If you repeat over and over that A can prove he's better than B by defeating C,D, and E, maybe it'll come true. The world championship cycles illustrate that tournament results cannot be reliably used to prove superiority. After 1964 you had a tournament. Then you had matches. If tournament victory proves you're the best, then the Interzonal tournament victor should go on to win their Candidates matches. Sometimes that happened. But then again:
--Spassky, Tal, Larsen and Smyslov tied for first in the 1964 Interzonal tournament. Does the equal tournament result prove these four players were equal? In his three Candidates matches Spassky crushed the other three 18.5 to 10.5.
--Larsen and Mecking won their respective 1976 Interzonal tournaments. Were they the best players? Both were eliminated in their first round Candidates match.
--The 1982 Interzonal tournaments were won by Kasparov, Ribli, and Portisch/Torre (tie). In the Candidates matches the latter three were wiped out early.
--The 1985 Interzonal tournaments were won by Vaganian, Timman and Yusupov each of whom, in the Candidates matches they were wiped out.
--Petrosian in his prime had no spectacular tournament record, but in a head-to-head match he could and did beat anyone.
--Larsen in his prime was a tournament monster whose inferiority to the top players may never have been demonstrated if he hadn't been obliged to play Candidates matches against them.

Bottom line: If it's fair to ask Kramnik to "validate" his match-won World Championship title by beating up on lower rated players in tournaments, then surely its just as fair to ask Kasparov to "validate" his primarily tournament-won #1 ranking by beating the World Champion (or at least one of the top four) in a match. If he didn't wish to take the opportunity offered him it's no one's fault but his own.

Both the Short and Anand matches were closer than the scores suggest. They clearly weren't in Karpov's league when it came to playing Kasparov.

If you have a candidates event you should know what you're qualifying for. And it wasn't a match, which I think was the discussion. Anand, Ivanchuk, and Ponomariov didn't play either. But you were saying Kasparov didn't play in matches; I pointed out they didn't exist.

MSNBC is a channel, they had a 2004 in review show that included influencial WSJ editorials. They filmed a quick clip of Garry introducing his and talked about it and Russia for a bit. The cite is that I watched it.

Wrong. The PCA collapsed when the sponsorship from Intel disappeared.

Wrong. I criticize Kasparov regularly. Like those of most people, his actions are rational. They are therefore quite literally understandable if you wish to try instead of criticizing for the sake of it.

You mean, "only example: Kramnik". So? Must Kasparov have a +10 score against every living player? What about the minus scores against Lautier and Gulko? Surely those are more important than the double-digit plus scores against Anand, Adams, Shirov, Topalov, etc.

It's inconvenient to have 20-game matches between every player in the top 20. Therefore we have tournaments and a rating list. Kramnik has won exactly one match in his life, is he better than Anand? Who cares? You can redefine "better" in 50 ways. We were talking dominance. Or are Lautier and Gulko better players than Kasparov? Radjabov also has a plus score against him. If you have 10 different sets of objective criteria and Kasparov comes out on top in nine of them, you have dominance. Obviously Kasparov didn't dominate Kramnik in 2000. Other than that, it's rather one-sided against the rest of the world.

All fascinating about the tournament results. But THAT'S WHEN WE HAD A WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP CYCLE. See how it works? WE DON'T HAVE ONE NOW. You are saying Kasparov isn't dominant because he only won real matches and real tournaments and had a real high rating, but in fantasyland he might not win fantasy matches and fantasy tournaments. You can't answer real wins with hypothetical losses.

Kramnik was one of the lower-rated players Kasparov beat, in Astana. But again, real wins versus fantasy candidates matches. There was no road to play Kramnik unless you took the same risk Shirov took in 1998 of playing without a contract. Others took it and Leko waited for two years. Hardly an endorsement, even if it's in hindsight.

The Dortmund 2002 event concluded in semi-final and final Candidates matches: Leko-Shirov, Topalov-Bareev, Leko-Topalov.

"There was no road to play Kramnik unless you took the same risk Shirov took in 1998 of playing without a contract."
--Shirov's particular misfortune was that not only did he not get a title shot, he didn't get paid for the Candidates final match (while the loser, Kramnik, did). Nobody will ever make that mistake again.

Kramnik and Leko took more reasonable risks and were rewarded with title shots. Kasparov's claim that he didn't play Dortmund because it didn't offer guarantees doesn't square with his subsequent guaranteeless agreements to play the Pono and Kasim matches.

If you believe a) the Dortmund sponsors would have tried to accomodate Kasparov's desires re Candidates match format had they known what those desires were, b) the Dortmund sponsors would have paid Kasparov to play in their event, and c) after a Kasparov victory at Dortmund there would be sponsors aplenty to stage and amply fund Kasparov-Kramnik II, then Kasparov's refusal to play Dortmund was less than reasonable and he should not be heard to complain about not having had his shot at proving he's indeed the world's best player.

Migalo's ad hominem attacks towards those in disagreement with him are becoming more vicious, at least in the Koster arena. The fact that Migalo is more connected and informed than any chess pundit alive cannot be downplayed, but neither does it excuse him from printing a slug's trail of tautological nonsense in defense of his oft-indefensible hero Garry Kasparov. Goebbels comes to mind...but first, to DP's strange comment:

"He must be commended by Greg for granting so many rematch opportunities. Presumably he thinks Kramnik should treat him the same."

?? It was not Kasparov doing the munificent deed of granting rematches, it was both the FIDE cycle and Karpov's arrangement with FIDE in the event of a match loss. Try not to credit GK for nonexistent commendable behavior lest Migalo forgets his "refute with facts" policy and lets your commendation stand.

Migalo peppers his Koster attacks with the usual "you get refuted and later re-post the same refuted stuff" stuff, forgetting that perhaps Koster sees that Migalo's facts are routinely and deliberately distorted. So that makes it a disagreement -- but Migalo will not agree to disagree. Example...

"If you have a candidates event you should know what you're qualifying for. And it wasn't a match, which I think was the discussion. Anand, Ivanchuk, and Ponomariov didn't play either. But you were saying Kasparov didn't play in matches; I pointed out they didn't exist."

Dortmund 2002 was designed as an interzonal/candidates model, with mini-matches following the tournament. So no, it wasn't a match -- in truth there were several matches. And Kasparov refused to play, expressing doubts about the validity of Kramnik's organization (hmmm, did he think no one ever doubted the validity of the PCA??). He was not in control of the process, so he claimed the process did not really exist (interesting that this is a device Migalo uses when a poster disagrees with him). But whatever the case, Kasparov clearly believed that any process outside his control was beneath him, plus he was likely gun-shy after his 2000 loss and felt more secure sitting out and running his mouth. This is not unusual either -- take the post-match Alekhine-Capablanca model.

Oh, and another thing: Kasparov DID know what they were qualifying for -- the Dortmund winner ended up playing Kramnik for the championship. Kasparov would probably have won Dortmund easily, but perhaps that was too easy.

Addendum: Migalo brags of his exclusion from an American chess journalists' association, but why would any reputable journalists' organization accept a non-objective press agent for a former World Chess Champion?

Clubfoot,

Let's all agree to tone it down. I'll replace "sychophant" with "apologist". Maybe "slug's trail/Goebbels," could be toned down just a tad. Who knows who'd then follow your example of restrainted, tolerant, informative postings?

OK -- agreed.

Kasparov as propagandist brings to mind (for me) a somewhat less amiable Professor Irwin Corey.

Wow -- the resemblance is uncanny.

http://www.missioncreep.com/slackjaw/images/corey.jpg

Thanks to Clubfoot for demonstrating that Godwin's Law is still pertinent. You guys spend half your posts going on about the hows ("Mig is being mean and like a Nazi") and whys (Mig is an apologist/PR agent/kiss-ass") instead of posting information or dealing with the arguments. If Kasparov says 2+2=4 and I say 2+2=4, you cannot refute this with "Mig is just a Kasparov sycophant". Try to chop all the "why" crap out of your posts and see if you still have anything to say. Do you even realize how much time you guys spend "accusing" me of agreeing with someone? It's really bizarre.

I guess we'll have to do this the slow way.
----
Dortmund 2002 was designed as an interzonal/candidates model, with mini-matches following the tournament.
----
No, it wasn't. It and other tournaments have used the same format before and since with no qualification in mind. In this case it was further compromised by the shortness of the matches and the inclusion of Lutz. It was simply a qualification tournament. As it turned out, one full of great chess.
---
And Kasparov refused to play, expressing doubts about the validity of Kramnik's organization (hmmm, did he think no one ever doubted the validity of the PCA??).
---
Then they were free not to play, and many players boycotted the PCA. But the PCA had a track record and contracts. Einstein had exactly bupkis.
---
But whatever the case, Kasparov clearly believed that any process outside his control was beneath him, plus he was likely gun-shy after his 2000 loss and felt more secure sitting out and running his mouth. This is not unusual either -- take the post-match Alekhine-Capablanca model.
---
No, not unusual at all. Every 75 years like clockwork. I know you are all mind readers, but why don't we just go with what the parties say in public instead of your telling us how Kasparov felt and your telling us why he did what he did. Kasparov probably wouldn't have participated in ANY qualifier because he didn't feel he should have to. I disagree with him on this.

But he also stated several reasons he found Dortmund unsatisfactory, probably only bothering to do so because 1) he knew saying "I won't play in any qualifier" sounded bad and 2) he wanted to invalidate Kramnik's title and future challenger. Aren't those reasons, both derived from Kasparov's statements, enough? Certainly they are deserving of criticism. No, you have to come up with all this Psych 101 BS about process when you haven't a clue. Gun-shy? At the time he turned down Dortmund, he had won 10 supertournaments in a row. Three of them after the London match.
----
Oh, and another thing: Kasparov DID know what they were qualifying for -- the Dortmund winner ended up playing Kramnik for the championship. Kasparov would probably have won Dortmund easily, but perhaps that was too easy.
----
Not everyone has your fortune-telling abilities. Einstein was going bankrupt (and didn't pay out for Dortmund for months until Madame Ojjeh turned the screws). I'd say Kasparov's suspicions were borne out considering the match with Leko didn't happen for TWO YEARS. And that with both players having the same agent and taking a 50% cut in the originally stated prize fund. Here your point about control might be relevant. There was no way Kasparov was going to put his career in the hands of Carsten Hensel and Einstein unless the money was signed and sealed. He later did so with Ilyumzhinov and got screwed.
----
Addendum: Migalo brags of his exclusion from an American chess journalists' association, but why would any reputable journalists' organization accept a non-objective press agent for a former World Chess Champion?
----
Gratuitous attack and lie noted, you're all class. True, a reputable organization could be trouble. As far as I know, the CJA doesn't turn anyone away. Along with the eminent Jeremy Gaige and Lubos Kavalek, without whom the chess world would truly be a much poorer place, its membership includes a few people whose main contribution to chess writing is ranting on message boards in ways that make us sound like models of decorum. I have no beef with the CJA; I just like to make fun of their awards. They have 90 members, at least one of whom is dead, and 40 annual awards. It's like the old NBA playoff system with 22 teams and 16 made the playoffs.

PR agent? 95% of my chess writing has nothing to do with Garry Kasparov. I can't even think of my total output over the last seven years without wanting to go on vacation immediately. Probably the same for some of you!

I only consider myself a journalist in the broadest sense and certainly have never claimed objectivity, which is a misunderstood word and concept when it comes to journalism anyway. Bias can come from advertisers, the publisher, the editors, and the writer, but it comes.

In this less filtered world it comes almost directly from the writer. For example, Kasparov is my friend and so I see his glass as half full and also understand where he is coming from. He will get the benefit of the doubt from me. That doesn't mean everything I say about him is unfounded. And at least here 1) everyone knows that and 2) there is a dialogue. This one. I could simply turn off the comments feature and get more sleep, but I would know less and readers would know less. (But I'm sure your employers would be stunned by the productivity gains.)

But instead of accepting that, people like you try to use this relationship as a way to attack me, replacing debate with vitriol. E.g. Kasparov says he didn't play in Dortmund because there was no contract for the final match. I say I don't think he would have played anyway. You (with abilities beyond our ken) say Kasparov didn't play because he was scared and not in control, and you can't expect Mig to admit this because he's an apologist. Where is the logical argument there? Of course you can have your opinion, but why tell me I can't have mine? If you can't handle my opinions, ignore them. But don't tell me they aren't valid if you won't even address them.

Many of the posts made here over the years have been from principals and from people who really know what they are talking about. They have information, they have reasoning, they have experience, they bring something to the party. This has the potential to make it more than a glorified chess chat room. I've certainly learned a lot, which is why it's still worth the trolls and people who call me a Nazi.

Poor form, Migalo? From Wikpedia:

"...in addition, whoever points out that Godwin's law applies to the thread is also considered to have "lost" the battle, as it is considered poor form to invoke the law explicitly."

Your goat is forever untethered so it's become too easy to provoke you into a dissembling labyrinthe of interstitial indignation, replete with trite aphorisms and self-adoring pap about your website and career. Distortions are everywhere (especially your bizarre "compromise" comment about Dortmund), but this stands out:

"Of course you can have your opinion, but why tell me I can't have mine? If you can't handle my opinions, ignore them. But don't tell me they aren't valid if you won't even address them."

Playing God by granting permission again, but that's par for Augusta. Still you see, your opinions ARE valid and they ARE addressed one way or the other. The difficulty is that you don't reck your own reed: if YOU can't handle others' opinions you go ballistic, most often using your friendship with Kasparov as a truncheon. And despite your rank-pulling lectures, your adversaries are not as pathological as you wish everyone to believe.

(I hope I was polite, Mr Koster, given my promise...but either way it's like crushing a ripe grape).

Glad you actually looked something u. Other than that, still zero content. I'm not granting permission, I'm acknowledging that other people have valid opinions. You deny that and insist my opinions are not only not valid, but not mine.

Telling me I'm wrong doesn't wash, you'll have to prove it by posting some content. No, make that decent content. As the dissection above shows, it's pretty pathetic when you try. Same goes for telling me I'm ballistic and enraged when I answer you. Okay, you're livid and deluded and your chihuahua has slipped its leash. Big deal.

Compromise? What, recognizing that I'm not a mind reader? You position your every conjecture with "clearly.." and "obviously.." when you have no way of knowing whatsoever. Talk about conceit. Stick to what you actually know and we'll have some quiet around here.

I'm fine with others' opinions. What pisses me off are people like you telling me I'm not entitled to mine and then having the gall to call me a Nazi.

As for my career, you attacked it. Don't whine when I defend it. But you're right, I should just delete the trolls. But remember you asked for it. (This is your cue to once again martyr yourself by posting a truly ludicrous attack I'll have to delete.)

Okay, Tiger just won the Masters, Prince Charles married his true love, the Mets finally won a game, and all is right with the world. My apologies to Clubfoot and all for the boring vitriol. I'm ignoring the stupid and cracking down on the vile, starting with myself.

Mig, you have a good heart! Have a good night.

I have to second Ryan's opinion. It must take something akin to the patience of Job to maintain a forum like this with all the loonies out there. Speaking as one of the loonies, some of us do appreciate your patience and forbearance, Mig.

Thanks, but I'm just an ass sometimes like anyone else. It bugs me that these things bug me, but they bug me. When I finally ignore it or blow it off the acid levels in my stomach drop dramatically. Why I can't remember that all the time I'll never know.

I don't know of any internet forums..whether the subject is chess or sports or politics or tiddly winks or music..that don't attract a percentage of folks who come to bicker and push peoples buttons. I'm fairly new visiting here..and I've had to force my self to sit on my hands a few times rather than respond to some other individuals..but the company here is a definite cut above other discussion sites. You do a great job, Mig. Even your constant critics seem to keep coming back for more everyday.

If you're in the corner and have got no cash to get out from that, you would have to receive the loan. Because it would help you emphatically. I get credit loan every time I need and feel great just because of it.

That make non sense even to me. If you need loan and then need more loan and more loan and more loan then what kind of people keep giving money that is not payed back. You must be wrong.

I visited this page first time and found it Very Good Job of acknowledgment and a marvelous source of info.........Thanks Admin! http://www.bestphonelookup.com