NY Kasparov Book Signing Friday Sep.26 at Penn Station BORDERS

Do you know if there is any chance for Kasparov to return to professional chess?

He has suspended his chess career to save Russia

Dude it's BORDERS at Penn Station, not Barnes and Noble:

http://www.bordersstores.com/stores/store_pg.jsp?storeID=582

Oops. Wrote that after running around DC all day on two hours of sleep. Not usually good. I have all the Borders emails and such and still blanked out on that. Sigh.

I saw Garry speak in Bethesda, Maryland, on the original tour for "How Life Imitates Chess." He's magnetic. If you can, go see him! It's great to meet Mig, too! :-)

make him come to chicago!

I'm really surprised that almost nobody takes notice of K's new book about the first two matches against Karpov. Apart from Edward Winter's usual nitpicking I found only some blogs (e.g. D. Monokroussos). No review so far? No need to mention it here? Did I miss something?
I've received my copy and can only say that it's a fascinating read.

Garry has not really parried the book "Behind Deep Blue". It is a good question that goes beyond My Great Predecessors, the real question is the future in chess. Of course Garry would say the real question is the future of Russia. Again where can we find the rebuttal to "Behind Deep Blue" that is an article or book I would rush to get signed. http://press.princeton.edu/titles/7342.html

Garry's simul at the Harlem Children's Zone Chess Festival on Sunday begins at 2pm.

Its a great news to hear

"With all that PR, so much for my hope of having him put on a baggy sweatshirt and a dirty Mets cap to hustle blitz games for lunch money."

LOL! That's what makes Mig "Mig" and so much fun to read. The very thought makes you laugh out loud. What a hoot that would be! Imagine the look on some poor patzer's face if they were to get punked about five games in a row only to find out it was Kasparov.

Any news on when the long-promised board update is going to be done?

Its great to see Garry Kasparov promoting his chess books and chess generally - as opposed to the some of the rubbishy political stuff he is involved in and the anti russian propoganda which Mig assiduously pumps out in the blog from time to time.

Incidentally if any one wants a healthy antidote to this nonsense take a look at the following BBC world interview of Alexei Pushkov which contains some Kasparov references: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00dwlht/

Sorry for some reason the BBC Pushkov interview that I linked to is only available in the UK. a short cnn interview http://www.russiablog.org/2007/08/cnn_talks_to_alexei_pushkov_ab.php gives some of the material but no kasparov references.....

Heh, instead of listening to Pushkov you could cut out the middleman and ask the Kremlin press office directly what they think. Three years ago Kasparov was saying Russia wasn't a democracy and that its economy was a house of cards. Many fairly serious people in the West were skeptical. Now that opposition has been banned and the market is down 60% since May you have to go all the way down to stooges like Pushkov for rebuttal. Hell, since he's actually on the Kremlin payroll he's not even a middleman. Pushkov's peer, Vladimir Posner, frankly admitted on 60 Minutes last year that he would never be allowed to have Kasparov on his show. And calling anti-Kremlin activities anti-Russian is a inane as calling anti-Bush protests in the US anti-American.

No blitz hustling in Harlem for Garry, alas. He did go 19-0 in the simul without much sweat as expected. One game turned in some fair resistance (board 7, Rochelle Ballantyne, age 13 I believe) until there were only four or five players left. At that point they're basically getting blitzed as he zips around, which is always a bit tragic. The kids and parents were cool, and around 500 people came out. The organizers really did an amazing job, great people. I'm hoping to to put up a full story on ChessBase when I have time after Garry leaves Wednesday. I'm building a gallery of my pics of it here:

http://picasaweb.google.com/miggreengard/HarlemChildrenSZoneKasparovSimul290908#

Garry's going to be on Glenn Beck on CNN tomorrow. At least that's when he's taping it. Some book (HLIC in paperback now), some politics. Supposed to be 45 minutes. He got bumped from Maria Bartiromo's CNBC show today by the US bail-out package failure and the market plummet. He was looking forward to having them roll the tape of his appearance last year warning about the fragility of the Russian market, which, as mentioned above, was met with incredulity.

The Russian market is down 60% in line with global emerging markets and the ups and downs of the oil price.

It is just bizarre to see people acting through the US government to criticize Russia.

Talk about economic and political chaos and violent repressive conduct around the world - that's the US, not (just) Russia.

Mig, how can Russia surrender to US power and military influence in Georgia? Surely they have to respond to provocation. Remember what a challenge it was when the Soviets tried to claim a launching point in Cuba.

US nukes are stationed in Georgia? That's a new one on me...

Charles,

US has several hundred nukes in Europe. They want Georgia to be a US ally and in NATO. Then Georgia can be used to provoke Russia without restraint, with assurances of nuclear protection.

Not only the US has rights to project power in the world.

Uh oh there goes Mig spouting the bosses line .... Just a few corrections. "3 years ago Kasparov was saying Russia wasn't a democracy" So what?? I dont know anyone who ever said it was! Certainly not Pushkov who is not "on the Kremlin payroll" Russia was a communist one party state 16 years ago and its a joke to pretend there was democracy under Yeltsin. In his disasterous time a bunch of gangster oligarchs looted and robbed the country on a breathtaking scale. As for the economy being a "house of cards" - pure nonsense. Real improvements in agriculture and banking have been made under Putin. One of the problems with Kasparov's views is that they are completely unhistorical and out of context all black and white, good and evil. He believes for example in the crack pot barking mad ideas of "New Chronology" (Jesus born in the 11th century, dark ages didnt exist, history of much of the roman empire made up etc) http://www.world-mysteries.com/garrykasparov.htm His essay is full of very basic research errors and startlingly simplistic views. Migs paid to agree with Kasparov's political views the rest of us fortunately are not.

I found it quite amusing that the non-chess media mentions Kaspy's computer matches so often when they talk about him. I'm sure he splutters. Twenty years of domination for this!

Off topic - weren't we supposed to know who's in the Kramnik and Anand teams? My recollection was that they had to announce their teams at least two weeks before the start of the match.

...off topic...

MOSCOW. According to the correspondent "SE" Y. Vasiliev, FIDE President Kirsan Ilyumzhinov: the next week will be declared a city where the match Topalov - Kamsky will take place with a prize fund guaranteed by Ilyumzhinov - 750 000 dollars.
Among the possible candidates in addition to Lvov, the head the International Chess Federation called Dubai.

Improvements in banking, Andy? You might want to read some Russian news sometime. After eight years of "recovery," bank debt is at record levels and industrial production is actually down despite the huge GDP increases that have been propelled almost entirely by oil and gas. The Yeltsin-era gangsters and oligarchs were replaced by Putin's gangsters and oligarchs and he was smart enough to quickly eliminate the free media to better keep the lid on. The incredible looting of the Yeltsin years has been far surpassed under Putin. Even with a tenfold increase in energy prices the rest of the place is falling apart.

Sarkozy called to congratulate Medvedev on winning the election in March, so yes, plenty of people insist on calling Russia a democracy. You would have been hard pressed to find any western leaders or media who would say otherwise a few years ago and I know, because I've been looking for them. US and EU officials gave lip service to Putin's democratic credentials for years and many still do. But thanks for agreeing with my central point while attacking me.

A democracy means fair and unpredictable elections and no one is calling Yeltsin a success at that, certainly not in 1996, so build your straw men elsewhere. But things in Russia were certainly more democratic before Putin took over than after (and less so every year after that), and if you deny that you'll even be outdoing Pushkov. As if any television broadcaster would keep his job if he criticized Putin.

Oooh, new chronology, that's relevant. Desperation setting in earlier than usual, how boring. You could have at least gone for some of the usual Kremlin/Kissinger arguments against free and fair elections in Russia before starting up the off-topic inanity. If you can't discuss the message, attack the messenger, whoopee. You have now completed lame internet discussion 101 and are free to begin using things like facts, context, and original thought.

Heh, yes, abc, Russia must be terrified of Georgia. I'm sure at any moment that fierce nation of four and a half million is going to march on Moscow. Saakashvili is hardly a model democrat and is way too full of himself. But there should be no doubt that the Kremlin desperately wants him out and a pro-Russian leadership in to seal off the Georgian natural gas corridor that threatens to be an alternative to the Gazprom lines to Europe. As ever, if you follow the money the Kremlin view is not complicated.

Of course it is quite complicated for the people of South Ossetia and Abkhazia themselves. They're stuck between two superpower agendas (Russia's, America's) way over their heads and are the main ones to suffer. Territorial integrity is a double-edged sword. Abkhazia, Kosovo, Chechnya, the Confederacy...

The NATO-Russia dispute is something of a red herring. A bully doesn't beat up the kids who are a threat to him. He beats up the kids who aren't a threat to him. The history of aggression in the region since the end of WWII is all one-way and it's natural for many of Russia's neighbors, many of whom were violently subjugated by the USSR, to eagerly seek protection now that the Kremlin looks keen to flex its muscles again. It's a little skewed to see offering such protection as provocation -- unless of course you think the level of military confrontation between NATO and Russia today is anywhere remotely similar to that of the US and the USSR in the 50's and 60's. The leaders of former USSR vassal states who went to stand with Saakashvili in Tblisi know a little bit about it, I would say. How again is Latvia a threat to Russia?

Actually, NATO membership probably serves as a check rather than an aggressive move. It would be very difficult for the US to get NATO agreement for any military action (e.g. the Balkans). There is no doubt that the US, NATO, and, to a lesser extent, the EU, have courted former Soviet republics. But they've used honey, not vinegar, and the nations were eager to sign up. It's a better question to wonder why the Kremlin has such a problem with that. It's not military, of course. But gas and oil, yes. And Georgia represents a bad regional example against the Putin model if it continues to thrive as a democracy.

Of course Putin has the right to seek to increase his political influence abroad. He's been making deals with some real class acts lately, in fact. All sides play their cards and play to win. But distinguishing between inducement and coercion (and bombing, obviously) is important. And the "they do it to" argument isn't much of a defense. The Cuban embargo is just as stupid as the Russian embargo of Georgia, for example, if an amusing mirror image. (Dictatorship boycotting democracy in hopes of an economic crisis leading to regime change.) You can hardly blame Georgia for trying to associate with Europe and the West when its giant economic and territorial neighbor has cut it off for several years. No more than you could blame Cuba for seeking ties with the USSR when cut off by the US.

chesshirecat: They mention the comps because that's what he's best known for to the general public, at least in the US. So it provides context. Garry has joked in speeches that at times even he has resorted to "I'm the guy who played the computer" to help out with a dubious immigration official. Nowadays the most over-used question is "aren't you in danger?" Glenn Beck trotted it out for the 1000th time yesterday on CNN.

Mig wrote:

"Oooh, new chronology, that's relevant. Desperation setting in earlier than usual, how boring. You could have at least gone for some of the usual Kremlin/Kissinger arguments against free and fair elections in Russia before starting up the off-topic inanity. If you can't discuss the message, attack the messenger, whoopee. You have now completed lame internet discussion 101 and are free to begin using things like facts, context, and original thought."

C'mon, Mig, let's be honest here. Kasparov's insane views on history are very relevant; they make any sensible person question his judgement and ability to lead.

He is your boss and puts food on your table, but the man - lacking training or education - is not qualified for anything other than playing chess.

I guess you know him a lot better than I do, Irv.

Why is it when people have nothing useful to say about an argument they immediately run to "but he's your boss"? As if that's a meaningful rebuttal. As if Kasparov said 2+2=4 and I did too, my opinion would be invalid and of course, I would only be saying it because Garry did. Moronic. I've had my own informed views on many things my entire life, thanks. And I disagree with Garry all the time.

I've mentioned new chronology and my general belief that much of it is nonsense many times here. But the idea that some radical thoughts in one small area of world knowledge means he's a raving lunatic is bizarre. I know lots of people who believe, get this, in virgin birth. Some people believe in an all-powerful unseen being. And many of them are fairly high functioning. And having said I think it's mostly nonsense, if you aren't prepared to come at it with some knowledge you are the one who sounds insane.

As for your last sentence, you again claim to know Kasparov's mind intimately. And armed with this deep personal knowledge of the man you are still saying you'll put a few thoughts about radical historical revisionism against his public career of achievements, writings, and activities to say he's an idiot savant? Please don't answer.

Hi Mig let me briefly respond to your points. On banking recovery I am talking of the incredible control of banks in the Yeltsin period by organised crime. It really was difficult to name 5 banks that were not controlled by the mafia then. Under Putin banking regulation came in and over 100 banks were shut down unfortunately it was so effective that Kozlev head regulator was gunned down in 2006 but great progress was made.

There was no replacement of one set of oligarchs by another on anything like the same scale. Mig please give some examples of this "looting" that has far surpassed what took place under Yeltsin - that would mean multiple billions of dollars.

Between 1992 - 1995 it has been estimated that USD 650 billion was skimmed on commodities and transfered outside Russia. Smaller exmples abound: That crook Khodorkovski's Bank Menatap was given responsibility for handling the funds for Russia's miltary spending in Chechnya (!)in 1996 but oops 4.4 billion USD went missing. Then there's good old Vladamir Potanin (First Deputy Prime Minister of the Russian Federation in 1998) his Oneksim bank was supposed to transfer 512 million USD of government money but again the money vanished. Then there is the small matter of what happened to most of the 40 billion USD of IMF money... We know 10 billion was nicked with the help of Bank Menatap and the Bank of New York because its the subject of the largest money laundering investigation in US history. I wont even try to quantify the billions lost through the giveaway of Russian industry under the privatisation voucher and rigged auction schemes.

So it goes like this communism to law of the jungle kleptocracy to authoritarian putinism. One thing they have in common there has never been any functioning democracy in Russia.

New Chronolgy is relevant Mig - if he believes in this stuff and, the reasoning of his essay I linked to, its profoundly relevant. These are his intellectual views and reasoning processes and opinions. How can they not be relevant to his political views and overall objectivity? I am not saying he is wrong or prejudiced because of his physical appearance I am saying they exemplify an extremism in him, a wrong approach to evidence and context and stubborness and self reliance that in this case led to profoundly wrong (crack pot) conclusions. This is not a like game of chess a one on one conflict - you dont "win" by deluging the other person with an encyclopaedic retention of facts to suit preconceived notions. Have you looked at that essay? I went through it checking the "facts" and arguments made point by point - not a single one held put! Eg stuff about how an abacaus could not be used for certain calculations - simply wrong. Its exactly like the statement you made about there being greater looting under Putin - if you dont respond to anything else in this post just give me some examples of multi billion dollar looting - that is stealing of money and transferring abroad by individuals from the Russian state under Putin. I strongly suspect this to be more of Kasparov's "new chronolgy" of recent russian history!

I disagree with much of what Mig wrote:

"Heh, yes, abc, Russia must be terrified of Georgia. I'm sure at any moment that fierce nation of four and a half million is going to march on Moscow. "

Didn't the fierce nation of Iraq present a clear and present danger to the US, a world superpower half a world away? At least the view Georgia might be a threat to Russia has the advantage of Georgia actually being next to Russia.

"The NATO-Russia dispute is something of a red herring. A bully doesn't beat up the kids who are a threat to him. He beats up the kids who aren't a threat to him. The history of aggression in the region since the end of WWII is all one-way and it's natural for many of Russia's neighbors, many of whom were violently subjugated by the USSR, to eagerly seek protection now that the Kremlin looks keen to flex its muscles again."

Violently subjegated by USSR? IF you view liberation from Nazis as violetn subjugation, Western Europe was just as violetly subjugated by the US and the UK as the Estern Europe was by USSR, and if you consider things like the firebombing of Dresden, perhaps even more so.

As for the bully beating up the kids in Europe post WWII, it sounds a lot like NATO's war against Yugoslavia.

"It's a little skewed to see offering such protection as provocation -- unless of course you think the level of military confrontation between NATO and Russia today is anywhere remotely similar to that of the US and the USSR in the 50's and 60's. "

Yes, I happen to think the threat of military confrontation between NATO and Russia today is probably even greater than it was during most of the Cold War - simply because USSR and US/UK had agreed to spheres of influence back then so there was a set of rules they all played by. Given a lack of such rules today, with the biggest players all disregarding the international law (US and UK in Iraq, US/UK/EU in the recognition of independence of Kosovo, Russia in Georgia), the threat of Russia and NATO getting into direct confrontation are much higher. Russia is trying to carve out a sphere of influence for itself, and US pretty much considers the whole world its sphere of incluence, so, given the disregard both have shown to the international law and the UN, it is not irrational to think that this sort of misunderstanding and lack of rules could lead to a situation where Russia and the US will find themselves drawn into a direct conflict against each other.

"The leaders of former USSR vassal states who went to stand with Saakashvili in Tblisi know a little bit about it, I would say. How again is Latvia a threat to Russia?"

How was Cuba a threat to the US during the Cuban missile crisis? Just because a country is small and weak doesn't mean it can't be used as a staging area for something ominous.

Maybe I should remind you that Russia's attitude towards NATO, or even the United Europe is not just that of mistrust that is not founded on anything. A lot of people who remember an invasion by United Europe (united by Hitler, of course) are still alive in Russia. USSR lost almost 30 million lives in that invasion. So is it any wonder that Russians don't want a military alliance like NATO on their borders? After 9/11, US was allowed to go medieval on countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, but 9/11 was a carnival compared to what USSR has gone through in WWII.

"The leaders of former USSR vassal states" just happen to be "the leaders of US vassal states" now and they realize their regimes will crumble - perhaps even faster if US withdraws their support than the "former USSR vassal states" did. That is why they go to ridiculous things to give up their sovereignty and/or follow what is in the best interst of the US rather than in their own. how is it in Poland's best interest to annoy Russia by having missile defense missiles on its territory? How much sense does it make for Eastern European countries to have their troops in Iraq? You know you are a puppet regime when you have no choice but to send your troops to die for another country's oil interests.

"And Georgia represents a bad regional example against the Putin model if it continues to thrive as a democracy."

Georgia thriving as a democracy? Don't make me laugh. After the breakup of USSR Georgia has quickly collapsed to the point where it was probably one of (if not the most) the absolute poorest among the 15 former Soviet republics - and that was a difficult thing to achive, given the absolute collapse of the economies in most of the other former Soviet republics. Even if Georgia has achieved some progress under Saakashvili, it was probably because the economy their was so horrible it had no way to go but up. And it will probably be a long time and it will take much more than 1 billion in US aid to get Georgia out of the economic hole it is in. Google "GDP per capita" and go to the Wikipedia list that should be one of the first few options. Look up Georgia. It is dirt poor. It even trails Turkmenistan, which has apparently modeled itself on North Korea. Georgia trails Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan, its neighbors Armenia and Azerbeijan, and of course, Russia, and I am not even talking about the Baltic republics. Sorry, but Georgia isn't thriving. But that's not the worst part! Now google "military budgets": and again go to the first link and look up the table of countries based on the percentage of military budget to the overall budget: Georgia only trailed North Korea in 2007! Not only is it dirt poor, it directs an unproportional amount of its money into its military. If you look up things like freedom of press and freedom of speech or political freedoms, you will notice that Georgia regime hardly has anything to brag about when compared to the Putin regime. It only get's good reviews from the West (most, the US) because it is a staunch ally of the US. Now that Georgia has gotten itself into trouble with the whole S. Ossetia thing, it not only wasted those resources it spent on military, but it also lost the two provinces Saakashvili voewed to reclaim, so the Georgian regime can hardly claim any forign policy successes, even though - with that military spending- it was apparently what was going to be the regime's redeeming quality to Georgians. 2-3 years ago, a Georgian I know talked about how Saakashvili was crazy and how he was going to drag them into a war with Russia, but I dismissed that as preposterously pessimistic and bordeline crazy and I didn't think Russians and Georgians would ever fight each other. But he was right and I was wrong - as apparently Saakashvili made it clear the war was going to happen back then. Some people (like Saakashvili himself) say how Georgia can be seen not just as a good anti-Putin model, but as an example of thriving democracy. But how it can serve as anything other than a model of a spectacular failure that it is - I don't know. Georgia is not a thriving democracy because it is neither thriving nor a democracy.

I do Russian politics for a living and you can do your own homework unless you want to employ me as well. You really think guys like Deripaska and Abramovich are the white hats who helped Putin clean up the town? At first their means and methods were about the same as those of Berezovsky and Khodorkovsky. Indeed they even worked together for a while. But when Putin gave his famous warning to the oligarchs to stay out of politics, some didn't listen. Others weren't siloviki and were deemed untrustworthy. Now times have changed and it's mostly doing things like selling assets at far below market value to buddies and scams like the Sochi Olympics that will move tens of billions of state money into private hands. The usual method of having the state pay vastly inflated prices for assets to the oligarchs is pretty much the same.

The history of Gazprom alone contains ample evidence of the continued corruption and looting. Billions in shares have simply disappeared off the books. (Read Nemtsov and Milov's white paper, 2008.) And the comically corrupt bidding when Yukos was chopped up and handed around. Baikal finance?! Or the nine billion Yukos paid for a chunk of Rosneftegas that wasn't returned by Abramovich when the deal was canceled. How about all the "oil for food" money rigged by another St. Petersburger and documented in the book "Comrade J". The recent book "Petrostate" by Goldman (an venerable old Russia scholar and actually something of a Putin apologist in the political arena) documents (with plenty of charts and footnotes) the "streamlining" and sweetheart mafia-style deals that have moved countless billions in cash and resources into the hands of Putin's closest pals for pennies on the dollar.

The current banking collapse in Russia is another opportunity. No need for oversight there, as Putin has simply cut state checks for many tens of billions to support the banks you said were doing so well. Sberbank, GazpromBank and VTB now all have state capital to use to snap up the unassisted competition, which is what they are doing. Russia's banking sector will soon be down to a handful of giants closely allied with the Kremlin and several directly state-supported.

This sort of thing is admittedly more sophisticated than the relatively obvious corruption of the 'loans for shares' auction deals that created most of the first wave of oligarchs under Yeltsin. But it would be more than enough to cause terrible scandal if a free media existed to cover it -- without getting shot in the head, of course.

And this is the central point. Is it corruption if it's state organized? The same crooks are running the government, the businesses and the courts, so who's to find out and who's to complain? That so much corruption is exposed as it is only shows their great sense of impunity.

I've had more discussions and arguments about aspects of new chronology than I care to remember. There's a fair amount of interesting skepticism that challenges assumptions in a useful way. (I.e. how much of the traditional chronology is based on circular proof and very few primary sources.) But I certainly don't belief its tenets. But the idea that if you're wrong about one thing you're wrong about everything is bizarre. Newton practiced alchemy, for god's sake. Darwin himself believed in an all-powerful invisible god-being. As for Garry, as I've said here before, my theory is that he got into the revisionist history stuff (which is really what he's into, and was before he met up with Fomenko) is that he likes a fight. He enjoys being a contrarian and this allows him to disagree and fight with just about everybody. He doesn't mention it much anymore though, which I'm grateful for on several levels.

Yes, having the regional economic superpower boycott you tends to have a detrimental effect on your economy. Cuba, meet Georgia. But even despite that the Georgian economy has been growing at a very good clip in recent years and they don't have the semi-false growth from rising energy prices that many of their neighbors have.

The Russian embargo actually forced Georgia to modernize its business practices. It was named the world's "Top Reformer" by the World Bank a year or two ago. It's certainly still a fairly poor country, but those GDP per capita numbers of Turkmenistan and others similar are wildly inflated by the record gas and oil prices, money that rarely trickles down to the broader population.

Just one more thing on the subject of Latvia, and USSR/Russia subjugating countries post WWII. The history is not that simple. A lot of the "subjugation" had been done under Stalin who, along with the secret police chief, were Georgians. So it is not clear to me how something Stalin did should reflect on Russia.

" The history of aggression in the region since the end of WWII is all one-way and it's natural for many of Russia's neighbors, many of whom were violently subjugated by the USSR"

I already mentioned Yugoslavia, so it is not all one-way. And I think it has been established it was Georgia that started the S. Ossietia conflict. Again it went the other way. Also, I don't know how fair it is to make an arbitrary starting point out of the end of WWII. The agression definitely went the other way in WWII. Like I said, USSR lost 26 million people in that war, so I don't know how fair to is to say "Well, let's just forget WWII and the 26 million, let's just count since then and since then it all went one way". History doesn't work like that. A lot of things don't make sense if they are taken out of the historical context for the porpose of making dubious claims like "history of aggression is all one-way". USSR wouldn't be as assertive in Europe post WWII if it wasn't subjected to the most horrible attack in the history of mankind and was left with a ruined country and tens of millions of casualties.

As for the history of Latvia and Russia, it is not as simple, either. A case can be made that without Latvia, the Bolsheviks wouldn't succeed in Russia in the first place. The Latvian Riflemen were notorius for their good fighting skills and they turned around many an Anti-Communist advance during the Russian Civil War. In fact, Bolshevik leaders like Lenin and Trotsky had Latvian bodyguards, and it was mostly Latvians who manned the famous Trotsky's train. In recognition of the Latvian riflemen contribution to the Soviet cause, Latvian Red Riflemen officer Jukums Vacietis became the first commander-in-chief of the Red Army. Latvian Yakov Peters cofounded (along with the pole Feliks Dzerzhinsky) the Soviet secret police.
So, before the Russians played their role in sovietizing Latvia, Latvians have played their role in sovietizing Russia.

"Georgia was named the world's "Top Reformer" by the World Bank a year or two ago."

Hey, after it started a war in South Ossetia, maybe it will get a Nobel Peace prize, too :) Gotta reward the puppet somehow. Anyways, until Georgia stops being as poor as it is, maybe we shouldn't refer to it as a thriving democracy. The idea that Russians are envious of Georgia's prosperity -which is implied whenever there is talk about Russians' bad will towards Georgian government- is ridiculous. Whether it is because of the Russian embargo or not - Georgia is very poor and it is the poorest country in Europe, and will likely remain so in the near future. It is hardly an embodyment of capitalist economic miracle their neighbors look up to. And they are hardly any more democratic than Russia is.

Mig wrote:

"And armed with this deep personal knowledge of the man you are still saying you'll put a few thoughts about radical historical revisionism against his public career of achievements, writings, and activities to say he's an idiot savant? Please don't answer."

No, Kasparov is not an idiot savant. Those are your words, desperate as you are to supress the evidence.

Kasparov has long list of achievements as a chess player and nothing else. The guy doesn't have a diplomatic, academic or professional career in any field other than chess.

"Why is it when people have nothing useful to say about an argument they immediately run to "but he's your boss"? As if that's a meaningful rebuttal."

Because it is pretty obvious that your posts are so biased in Kasparov's favor because his lunatic political ambitions put food on your table. That's an evident truth.

Calling people "morons" because they point out your bias only confirms your inability to deal with these issues in an honest manner.

In a sense, I don't blame you. Kasparov has always been a pawn outside chess. You - and others - keep pushing him for profit. That's life.

Irv:

There are over 10 years of WSJ editorials written by Kasparov that demonstrate, clearly thought out, articulate, often profound positions. He know more world history that almost all Westerners and more about US history than 98% of Americans.

Your argument is lacking in substance.

@ Curmudgeon

These are Kasparov's "thought out, articulate, often profound positions" - he "knows more world history that almost all Westerners and more about US history than 98% of Americans":

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

As you can see, his views are perhaps "too deep" to make sense to people who actually deal with reality? Let's face it: the greatest player in history is just a silly pawn outside the 64 squares.

If Kaspy couldn't deal with FIDE politics, what makes anyone think that he can deal with real-world politics?

:-)

Mig

Both youself and Kasparov's veiws seem to centre around the premise that the Russian people want a true democracy. From my limited experience with russian citizens, most feel happy to have a "strong" leader like Putin, they like the idea of a mixed economy, but are not overly concerned with having a truly democratic approach to governance. There is nothing wrong with this most business enterprises are not run in a democratic fashion and there is no reason that a country need be especially when it is not priority for its people.

Perhaps Kasparov can't see past his own ego and realise what he thinks is right path for Russia is not congruent with the majority opinion. He has no hope domestically of winning popular support, so he tries to encite foriegn pressure on the Russian government by critising it undemocratic approach, something that is not priority for russia's own people.

The idea that people are genuinely interested in being involved in the actual governance of a country is overstated, just think of how people in the USA dont even bother to vote.

Hey Mig, the idea of an all-powerful unseen being cannot be proven or disproven. But the new chronology can be disproven. They are not comparable.

The idea of an all powerful unseen LEPRECHAUN cannot be disproven. But I've given up searching for his pot of gold.

chesshire cat,

I suppose you gave your leprechaun example to show an analogy that's comparable but ridiculous.

However, if it is all powerful and unseen, it is not a leprechaun anymore. All you do is just use the word "leprechaun" but by definition, your "leprechaun" will be equivalent to the being in my example, and not a "leprechaun" in the usual sense of the word. In which case, I would agree the idea cannot be disproven. But it is not ridiculous either. You are talking about an all powerful being, not just a leprechaun.

Frequently even simple issues are not very easy and we should take on it. Essay papers writing can be complicated, nevertheless, it is possible to buy a Custom essay term paper.