Put away those Muppets memories, this is serious stuff. I try to stick to chess but since people often ask what Garry Kasparov is up to, here's an item on exactly what he's doing tomorrow. You can even come listen to his speech on the "Future of Democracy in Russia" and attend the reception that follows. The page has an online registration link. If you come, give me a shout. I'll be the tall one with the shaved head being mistaken for a bodyguard. Why, you might even meet the new Mrs. Mig.
Will you make some photos?
Are you trying to steal my look, Mig? I've got the bald headed thing going on and I also have a Mrs!
Perhaps I have simply started a trend.
When is Kasparov going to release his book, The Attacker's Advantage? Amazon.com lists the release date as Dec 1, 2025.
Mrs Mig. What a remarkable name.
More like Mig being Mr. "Mrs. Mig"...
:)
Mr. Terious :)
If Kasparov's lecture was about chess, or at least anti-cheating measures, I would probably go. But otherwise I am not very interested. I don't think Kasparov is rated 2800 at politics.
"Future of Democracy in Russia" -- has he discussed that subject a lot with the National Bolsheviks?
This is an interesting topic Russianbear. I am not american and when I read news reports about politics in my country of origin published in north american media I usually laugh because the comments are usually so preconceived and off the mark to be practically useless. So I would like to hear from the Russians who blog here what they think Kasparov's rating is in Russian politics. Is he 2800 also in Russian politics or just another patzer?! Perhaps IM level? Russians out there please speak up!
Forget "russian politics" only. Like chess it has to be an international rating to mean anything substantial. Let me put it this way, Obama's rating is higher than Kasparov's and, experience wise, I sure in the hell don't want him playing top board for the U.S.
I admire Gary tremendously. He has taken on the hardest task imaginable. So, I wish him luck. I think he will need it in large amounts.
D.
Um, but Kasparov is obviously a CIA/neocon puppet. He doesn't know anything about running a nation... they merely want him for his marketability.
In Russian politics, there is currently one 2800, looking to retire and hand off the championship to an appointment of his choice. There are several IMs none of whom at the moment have the capacity to challenge the 2800. Some rise slightly above other IMs because of their fame (Kasparov). Some rise slightly above other IMs for other reasons. All look like they would get squashed in a match against the champion.
I would be nice to see some video coverage of that Manhattan -event.
'loopus'??? is your handle in reference to your oozing some kind of second rate vitriol under a convenient guise? I have never commented on this board but your insidious infantile irrelevant and ludicrous attack on someone who is so clearly a consummate professional got me going this morning i need a double espresso you on the other hand need to rethink your perspectives...
I'd imagined it was his misspelling of lupus, as in Wolves from the East, and all that. But maybe you're right and it's some obscure pun based on loopy.
Mig reckons it's Silvio himself.
And rdh ? How do you know what Mig reckons ?
Mig replied to some of loopus' posts with 'Silvio, I presume.' Loopus was wondering why Mig hadn't published this stuff earlier on when he received it. Mig said way back that he'd had this stuff from Danailov.
Well, the pictures have been out since November anyway. I first saw them November 18 in Trud after our Bulgarian friends pointed it out. That might be the first time they were made public. They were posted on this blog too.
See http://www.trud.bg/Default.asp?statid=39851&rubr=0&izd=2&fsize=&swidth=800&tr=1&im=11&id=18&iy=2006
But Mig has also said Danailov sent them out to people from false e-mail accounts, pretending to be Russians who were attending the match. Perhaps examining the IP addresses of certain people posting here might reveal something.
Oh really? I must have missed that.
I take it some dislike Kasparov's opinions because he is an Armenian-Jew, and he supports Israel.
That's just a wild guess though.
Someone mentioned Obama here. I haven't been following Obama that much, but there seem to be some parallels between him and Kasparov as far as political support goes. Obama and Kasparov may be reason for excitement for some people (similar kinds of groups actually, I would think), but it seems there is too much racism in the US and too much antisemitism in Russia for either of them to seriously challenge for presidency. Political systems of the two countries are very different of course, but the way Obama will get filtered out in the primaries may be similar to how Kasparov will be overlooked when the united Russian Right chooses its presidential candidate for 2008.
apart from the buzzword "democracy" anyone knows what is Kasparov's political philosophy
(socialism, classical liberalism, right wing conservative, etc.) ?
is there a net link to his political program ?
Kasparov's goal so far has been unification of what may be translated into Western political slang as the "right-wing" forces. The idea has been to create a solid movement out of fragmented forces that could put forth a single political candidate/party in elections (the candidate would not be Kasparov, more likely Kasianov). As for what that means as far as his political philosophy, I wasn't aware politicians had any.
Rather looks to me, from my admittedly very limited perspective, as he is effectively engaged in splintering the opposition, aligning himself with all kinds of political provocateurs (the Nazbols?!?), meanwhile didn't he accuse Yabloko of taking orders from the Kremlin?
Nazbol thing was part of the idea of bringing all groups together, not just right wing, for a show of strength and to create a solid opposition movement. You honestly couldn't splinter the opposition any further even if you tried...haven't heard about the Yabloko thing, but I haven't said he made all the right moves...
"In Russian politics, there is currently one 2800, looking to retire and hand off the championship to an appointment of his choice. There are several IMs none of whom at the moment have the capacity to challenge the 2800. Some rise slightly above other IMs because of their fame (Kasparov). Some rise slightly above other IMs for other reasons. All look like they would get squashed in a match against the champion."
But it's not that simple because as we can see Kasparov and the opposition is firmly backed by US neocons. This means they receive the following and much more:
organizational support
financial grants
positive media outside of Russia
intelligence intercepts (think NSA)
Look at what Kasparov's doing running between New York City and Washington DC to these conferences clearly organized by US intelligence agencies.
SH,
Let's see if I understand Russian politics according to your last post. Kasparov is the Topolov of r.p. while the U.S. is the Danailov and the 2800 player a.k.a Mr P., must be Kramnik.
I hate to say it, but from my point of view there is an innumerable amount of paranoia that tries to be passed as fact from that part of the world and it spills into just about every arena. I assume (could lead to trouble) that it was imbedded during the old soviet reign, but still, it has to be considered counter-productive in making any real type of political change in your future. I'm not an advocate of much of what is considered current policy in the U.S., probably why I registered as an independant; but please, let's not start blaming the U.S. for your internal woes, the problems lie within.
Chesstraveler wrote: "Kasparov is the Topolov of r.p. while the U.S. is the Danailov and the 2800 player a.k.a Mr P., must be Kramnik.....please, let's not start blaming the U.S. for your (Russia's) internal woes, the problems lie within."
A truly brilliant analogy!
What really hits home is the way SH's anti-US paranoia forms a picture-perfect mirror image of the anti-Russian paranoia we keep hearing from the lunatic fringe among Topalov fans (those clowns who keep insisting that the "KGB" was behind everything that went down in Elista).
SH,
To answer your comment (I think)...there is no evidence Topalov is receiving signal from Danailov and if he is, it has not caused the quality of his play to improve to the point where he would be able to challenge Kramnik. There are other natural factors to attribute Kasparov's support to, such as the money he has made playing chess and emigres, oligarchs and other private sources interested in encouraging the spread of democracy in Russia. To sum up, just because Kasparov was seen making hand gestures in front of the Kremlin Wall a few months back (http://rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/12/0B1A406D-8AA5-4EE9-B0F9-7E15D98F7198.html)
does not mean that he is a dirty communist/neocon (circle one) spy.
What makes Kasparov's run so interesting is that he is so well backed. Otherwise, like Yuri Kleyner's comment (February 12, 2007 22:44) noted, he would be nothing. Look at MIG's latest post -- it supports exactly my previous comment:
1. Centerpiece at National Endowment for Democracy event (a branch of the CIA)
3. CNBC (positive media outside of Russia)
4. WSJ Show (positive media outside of Russia)
5. Vanity Fair (positive media outside of Russia)
From my experience, I think most Russians are too quick to believe conspiracy theories and most Americans are too slow to believe them.
The US government most certainly takes an active hand in influencing politics in other countries. I lived in Belarus for a while and you could read the official Belarussian newspapers, which were full of government propaganda, or US funded opposition newspapers, which were full of anti-government propaganda. It was very easy to tell both sides were propaganda. This made it very difficult to gauge the truth, and very easy to indulge in conspiracy theories since it was clear neither side was telling the complete truth. The best way to try and get a better feel for reality was from the Polish or Russian media (which were still biased, but not as one-sided).
I'd advise Westerners not to judge the Eastern Europeans too harshly for being quick to buy into conspiracy theories. For a long time they've had pretty good reasons to.
-Zhorik
[I didnt edit my comment properly. Here it is again.]
I'm not a Russian or from Eastern Europe. I'm a New Yorker (though out of town at the moment.
The NED was the point organization in all the CIA-organized Color Revolutions of the past 8 years -- Cedar, Bulldozer, Orange, Denim(attempted), Tulip, etc -- it's so many I can't recall them all.
It's a matter of being informed.
Don't forget Crackpot.
I love the conspiratorial language. Kasparov isn't "well backed," he's famous. It opens doors. If he were well backed I'd have an office. He spends a lot more out of his own pocket than he's ever taken in from western sources, that's for sure. He's a household name in places where chess is popular. He's also been a contributing editor to the WSJ for 15 years. He gives dozens of lectures to business audiences on strategy. He has been right a lot on Soviet/Russian politics (not always, of course) and people tend to want to know what he has to say.
The NED does all sorts of things and is hardly taking direct orders from Langley anymore. And it's not exactly a colossus capable of toppling governments near and far. They certainly help, their grant program isn't even Soros money.
Everybody knows Kasparov in Finland, even those who can't play Chess. The last ever top-level news items considering chess were: Karpov-Kasparov (old vs. young) and Kasparov - Deep Blue... perhaps a little Kasparov vs. World.
Lately we have seen news here about "Toiletgate" and about Kasparov in politics (but not so much he would deserve).
I really hope Garry can get something together, but I'm not completely sure if his winning instincts in chess really work in politics. On the other hand, he is older and wiser now, and he knows his own limits perhaps better than people understand.
He also seems to be quite paranoid (often for a good reason) and he must know Russian politics well, because if you read his earlier books it's clear you couln't be a chess star in Russia back in 1985 without political fight and acceptance.
And this is actually not the first time Kasparov is considered to be "an enemy of state". The situation was the same when he played Karpov - only this time it was the old Soviet Union who considered Karpov as their golden boy.
But it's not the old world anymore and we have to see how it goes. I'm sure many people in Finland would give their quiet support to Garry, if they knew what he was doing, what is his background and so on (we don't really fancy those celebrity-politics either, you must have some credibility). In Finnish politics realtionship with Russia is a very careful subject. Everything that Putin says will be inspected with magnifying glass here...
"What makes Kasparov's run so interesting is that he is so well backed. Otherwise, like Yuri Kleyner's comment (February 12, 2007 22:44) noted, he would be nothing."
Uh... no. I wrote he is slightly above some of the other opposition leaders and that none of them have the ability to really challenge Putin. Where you get from that that I think he would be nothing without good backing, I have no idea. Is this the same source as you have for NED being a branch of CIA?
"1. Centerpiece at National Endowment for Democracy event (a branch of the CIA)
3. CNBC (positive media outside of Russia)
4. WSJ Show (positive media outside of Russia)
5. Vanity Fair (positive media outside of Russia)"
Go figure, the Western media would support pro-democracy activism, especially by semi-celebrity in Russia. Ueah, that's solid proof of strong financing by a secret American conspiracy. BTW, what happened to 2? Did the CIA remove it?
YK,
Ueah, the CIA deleted #2 to make me look bad. They can certainly access MIG's webserver.
Anyway, I'll skip the politics cuz it's way OT, but quite a bit of what you know just aint so, and much more you simply don't know.
SH,
Thankfully you know everything to the point that you don't feel a need to even make up an argument for it.