Talk:Garry Kasparov
|
|
| Missing image Cscr-featured.png Featured article star | Garry Kasparov is a featured article, which means it has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you see a way this page can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, feel free to contribute. |
A couple of questions: Where does he live nowadays? In what language is he writing his books? Where can I find more articles by him?
He first started learning to play chess after studying a chess problem set up by his parents, and proposed a solution to it.
I don't understand. How can you start learning to play chess after solving a chess problem? The rules of chess are not intuitive.
No idea, but he studied this chess board for quite some time and then offered a possible solution to his parents, who seemed a little surprised too. They then decided to teach him to play chess. Does sound strange, but its been mentioned in quite a number of books and magazines I've read over the years.
Also there's quite a distinction between learning the moves of chess, and learning how to play chess well. The first can take a month, the latter a lifetime and not succeed. I'm referring to Garry learning to play chess in regards to making a living with it, not learning the basic moves - apologies.
- I made a revision to the line in question. Hopefully, it should be clearer. fvincent 19:28, Dec 3, 2003 (UTC)
His first name is Gari or Gary ???
Neither. Since he's Russian so it would be in Cyrillic (Don't even ask me about the spelling combinations of Korchnoi, Ivanchuk and Nimzowitsch I've seen - its all because the names are non-English, and created in "other" letters :-) ). A rough translation would be Garri, but commonly in English print he's referred to as Garry (two R's in both cases).
- He changed it from the original Gari to Garry because 13 is his lucky number; born on the 13th, 13th champ, "Garry Kasparov"=13 letters.
What would Gary Kasparov do when his in midgame with his wife during a picnic and the rain starts tumbling down? She's about to defend a check mate move - does he stay and get wet for the kill or does he call it a draw (effecting the win/loss ration). It's tough, I'll give you that.
I'd like to see some discussion of politics. I remember his playing under the Russian flag in perestroika time in spite of being born in Azerbaijan. It seems interesting. -- Error 02:43 May 7, 2003 (UTC)
- Well, during the time of perestroika he played for the USSR, of course (and Azerbaijan was part of the USSR), but since then he's played for Russia, yes. I don't think it's particularly significant politically - it's just that he's lived in Russia for most of his life, hasn't he? There's something that could be said about politics here, though - Kasparov's been heavily involved in the politics of chess, and I think he had some involvement in Russian politics following the collapse of the USSR. --Camembert
- Probably I remembered something like http://www.mark-weeks.com/chess/90kk$$.htm :
Both players should have displayed the flag of the Soviet Union, but Kasparov chose to use the new tricolor Russian flag to show support for Boris Yeltsin. Karpov protested on the grounds that FIDE rules dictated that "miniature flags of the nations to which the players belong are to be placed on the table". Appeals jury Lim Kok An and Bessel Kok decided that there would be no flags.
And was he ethnically Russian, Armenian or Jew?
- Probably I remembered something like http://www.mark-weeks.com/chess/90kk$$.htm :
-- Error 03:34 May 7, 2003 (UTC)
- Answering myself http://pkchess.bizland.com/chesspress/chesspress6/cpress6_4.html :
- Can we forget that he was the first who fought successfully even in the Soviet times to ban the monopoly of the Soviet government on the earnings of Soviet sportsmen and chess players? Or that he was the first to play under the Russian flag against Karpov in New York in 1990 when the communists were still in power in the Soviet Union? Can we forget his help to the Chernobyl victims or the Armenian refugees during the pogroms in Baku in January 1991?
- Answering myself http://pkchess.bizland.com/chesspress/chesspress6/cpress6_4.html :
- And http://www.twoplustwo.com/digests/excharch_dec00_msg.html
- Quiz #1: Kasparov's parents are Jewish and Armenian, he was born in Azerbaijan, and he chooses(in the past, at least) to play under the Russian flag. 'What' is he?
- -- Error
- And http://www.twoplustwo.com/digests/excharch_dec00_msg.html
- Ah yes, I see what you mean - I forgot about the 1990 business. He's certainly been very politically involved - you're right, it'd be interesting to see something about that side of him here (I'm not the person to write it though, I fear). --Camembert
Garri Kasparov is a rat. I clearly remember in the old communist days of the Soviet Union how he was a 'proud' member of the communist party and how he pretended to be dedicated to the party. When things started to change, he adjusted accordingly, and when the game was over (no pun intended) he started to bad mouth the old system. His chess politics have been even more hypocritical and dirty. It should be noted also that he is the only grandmaster known so far, to have cheated in an official chess game and caught on camera. In Linares 1994 tournament, he was playing black again J. Polgar ... he moved his knight to a square that would have been a losing move for him, he let go of the piece, then he grabbed the knight again and put it on another square. After the game it was shown that his cheating was cpatured on a camera. This is Garri Kasparov in a nutshell. Also, his main strength in chess is his home preparation and database-like memorized openings, as clearly evident from most of his games.
- Yeah, well, most Communists stopped actually believing in the Party after about 1970-1980, but simply said they believe in it: a. to stay alive and b. to avoid censure by the government. Tom Clancy novels describe that well. ugen64 02:06, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)
- 'J'adoube.'
- You're entitled to your opinion of course, but I don't see how anybody can seriously believe that in light of Kasparov-Topalov, Wijk aan Zee 1999. --Camembert
Where does this estimated X3D Fritz rating (2807) come from? --Camembert
- Answering my own question: it's quoted as 2807 on X3D's site (http://www.x3dchess.com/about.htm). I'd like to know how they came up with the number, but I'll guess we never will. --Camembert
- I am not sure where the rating of that particular chess program/machine comes from, but I can tell you something about this subject. I used to be an active tournamet chess player. Many official tournaments allow computer chess programs to participate just like a regular human player. Usually the programmers who write chess programs like to take their programs to tournaments for obvious reasons. Therefore, in the case of such programs, their rating is based on their performance in chess tournaments just like any regular player.
- Yes, I know that, but this particular version of Fritz was, as I understand it, tweaked compared to other versions specifically for Kasparov, and had not played (publically) against any rated player before this match. I suppose they based the rating on the performance of other versions of Fritz. My curiousity was aroused, really, by the unusually precise nature of the estimate - normally, when people guess at the rating of programs, they'll say "oh, it's about 2750" or "around 2600" - some nice round number like that. 2807 seemed spookily precise to just be guessing at it. Still, we've got the source for the estimate now, so I'm happy. --Camembert
This page was listed on Wikipedia:Brilliant prose candidates. At User:Eloquence's suggestion I added some headings. However I don't mind if the content writers of this article don't like it and want to revert to the plainer version. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 13:25, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- I like it. I was going to do something similar myself, but was too lazy :) --Camembert
human's days are numbered.
Xah P0lyglut 04:56, 2003 Dec 13 (UTC)
Here: ...as well as defending his title three times against his arch-opponent Karpov.
Anatoly Karpov: ...fighting Kasparov in over five arduous World Championship matches...
Seems inconsistent to me. -- Jao 17:21, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- It may seem so, but it is not. The first match was played in 1984 - Karpov was champion and Kasparov was challenger - the match was abandoned without result. The second match, still with Karpov as champion, was the following year - Kasparov won. The two subsequently played three more matches (in 1986, 1987 and 1990) in which Kasparov was defending his title. Therefore, five matches played, three of them with Kasparov defending his title. (Unless you mean the fault is with the tautological "in over", which gives the midleading impression there were more than five matches) --Camembert
- The context at Anatoly Karpov with "remained" seemed to exclude the 1984 and 1985 matches, though. (And yes, "over" has to mean "more than", but that's not what I thought of.) But the new wording is very clear, thanks for that. -- Jao 21:04, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I feel it should be mentioned how he puts his watch on the table and when he is confident he will win, he puts it back on his arm. This is just something I heard today. Maybe someone who knows more of these little things that are to him in his way of acting during matches or general personality - like in Bobby Fischer - could add to this and write it somewhere in there? --Lenton 15:55, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's an interesting little habit, that, probably worth mentioning at some point (not sure how we'd work it into the article though). I remember as a kid when I saw his watch-related antics, I began to imitate him in my own games (to my disappointment, it didn't make me a better player). I don't know if it's really that he puts his watch back on when he's confident of winning, however, so much as when he thinks the game is basically over, win, lose or draw. Maybe I'm wrong about that. --Camembert
No discussion of his rivalry with Karpov? I had inserted it into the Karpov page, perhaps we should do so here?--Etaonish 14:48, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
| Contents |
Historical revisionism and Kasparov
On the Historical revisionism page, it states, Finally the term "historical revisionism", or simply "revisionism" is used sometimes to refer to specific revisionist theories associated with the famous chess player Garry Kasparov, which believe that the events of what are known as the last 3,000 years occurred in either a much shorter or a much longer time frame, and attempts to explain how. Does anybody know what they are talking about? If Kasparov is involved, why is nothing said about this on this page? ChessPlayer 12:46, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
- I've never heard of it before. It sounds like the sort of belief that somebody might hold, but I've never heard of Kasparov holding it. I'm going to remove that paragraph to talk:historical revisionism. --Camembert
I have once heard some wacko theory that the middle ages was something like 400 years shorter than we think it was, however, I do not remember where I read it. Danny 17:01, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
- Turns out I was wrong. In case anybody is interested, see Talk:Historical revisionism for the end of this (slightly bizarre) story - Danny found an article by Kasparov showing he does indeed believe this stuff.
- We could put a mention of this in this article, I suppose. We probably also ought to mention his involvement with Russian politics (wasn't he on the team of that Presidential candidate who got kidnapped in the elections this year (or was it last year? I forget)). I'll probably do it myself eventually if nobody else does, but I'd need to look some stuff up. --Camembert
- FWIW: "About five years ago, I came across several books written by two mathematicians from Moscow State University: academician A.T. Fomenko and G.V. Nosovskij. The books described the work of a group of professional mathematicians, led by Fomenko, who had considered the issues of ancient and medieval chronology for more than 20 years with fascinating results. Using modern mathematical and statistical methods, as well as precise astronomical computations, they discovered that ancient history was artificially extended by more than 1 000 years. For reasons beyond my understanding, historians are still ignoring their work." [1] (http://www.world-mysteries.com/garrykasparov.htm)
See New Chronology (Fomenko) — the theory Kasparov supports. — Monedula 07:23, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Link merit?
The link at the bottom of the page to Kasparov's editorial on terrorism seems to have little to do with his chess career or life. Is this really necessary? I'd be interested in hearing the view of others.
-SocratesJedi (not logged in -__-)
- Sure, why not? Though it doesn't have to do with chess, if one reads it, they may gain a better understanding of the man. — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:34, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
King pawn opening
The article Kasparov versus The World mentions Kasparov's "normal king pawn opening." This article doesn't mention it at all. Can someone add it and explain it? — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:34, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
It doesn't mean anything, I think you may have misunderstood it. Kasparov likes playing e4, or the king pawn opening. That's really all it is. --Etaonish 15:51, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
2004 update of stale sentence
As of 2004, Kasparov will play this match with the current FIDE World Champion, Rustam Kasimdzhanov, although whether these plans will come to fruition remains to be seen. In the meantime, Kasparov continues to play in tournaments, with good results on the whole. This sentence was from the article. It imply a continuous state, but since 2004 is over, i tacked it here. I can't tell whether the game was played, so i couldn't update the sentence.
- "But their match in Dubai, a prelude to a match with world champion Vladimir Kramnik, was cancelled by the governing body of chess, Fide, after financial guarantees by the promoters failed to be offered. Kasparov is not pleased". [2] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4163439.stm) It seems they never played the game in question. --Wk muriithi
Well, the situation is still somewhat in flux: Dubai is definitely off, but there has been talk of the match being held in Turkey instead (frankly, I think the chances of it taking place are tiny, but that's another story). I'll update the article a bit. --Camembert
Photo
Does anyone else think the photo of him at the top of the page is hugely unflattering? While it does embody his focus, it seems to me that we could find a better photo. --Ronincyberpunk
I may be wrong, but I seem to remember that the reason that particular photo was included was because we felt pretty sure it was OK from a legal perspective; if I remember rightly, it is a frame from a web broadcast of Wijk aan Zee 2001, and people felt that just as the use of a single frame of a movie would count as fair use in the right context, so this would also count as fair use. That's not to say that we couldn't get away with using other photos as fair use (I really don't know if we could or not), but I think that's the reason we're using this particular one at the moment: it's considered pretty safe. --Camembert
2 links to his games
Tell me why it's necessary to have both chesshere.com and chessgames.com that both have details about the games he's played. chesshere.com appears to be less sophisticated in the presentation. Based on that, I see no reason to keep chesshere.com (it's not even a direct link to his games), so borderlines on advertisement. Cburnett 23:31, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- From my talk page:
- because the site has a lot of Kasparov's games in it's database, i think that is related to the article
- Which is an insufficient reason to keep a weaker link when chessgames.com has the database in a superior form (much better presentation). Wikipedia isn't a links directory and I see no reason to have a duplicate link of inferior presented data. Cburnett 23:55, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I quite agree: there's no need to link to every single web source of Kaspy's games. If the information is the same (and in this case it is), there's only need to give one source (and I think it's pretty clear that chessgames.com is a better source than chesshere.com in this case). --Camembert
Phrasing of Intro
Surely it would be clearer to phrase "last undisputed champion and classical champion"? Also adding mention of losses Septentrionalis 18:38, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Kasparov is described as "possibly the strongest human chess player in the world" - Surely a computer cannot be described as a player anymore than Wikipedia can be described as an intellectual. Remove the word "human". Atolmazel 04:56, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Protection?
Featured articles sometimes should be protected, as prominent targets for vandalism. Are all the vandals being blocked? Should this page be protected?-SV|t|th (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stevertigo&action=history) 21:40, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Deep Blue debate?
I remember Kasparov having issues with the way the second match against Deep Blue ended. I think he wanted to play Deep Blue again, and IBM left, saying Deep Blue had won, and that was that. Anyone want to add details on this? Venice 15:25, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I think it's important to remember that the entire match, including the winnings, were paid for by IBM. Kasparov lost, but he walked home with $400,000 of IBM's money, so he didn't do too badly. Yes, he wanted a rematch. Who wouldn't? With the possibility of taking another $400K (or maybe $700K for a win)? I don't know if anyone else offered to sponsor the match, but IBM declined. Look, it's not really a chess match. It's a publicity stunt. Does anyone doubt that an unbeatable chess machine is possible? Shoaler 14:13, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- My hunch is that Kasparov would have had excellent chances in a re-match, because he could have learned more than Deep Blue in the interim. But what incentive did IBM have for a re-match? They were in it for the publicity, and Deep Blue winning again couldn't have possibly given them as much publicity as the first victory, whereas losing would have nullified much of their positive press. Furthermore, Kasparov was such a poor sport, essentially accusing IBM of cheating after one of his losses, I wouldn't be surprised if that factored into IBM's decision to refuse a rematch. --Fritzlein 15:42, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
povness
Please people, using expressions like "demolishing the field" is opinionated and completely unencyclopedic. State only the facts, and don't interpret their importance or value. Leave that to the reader.
Request for references
Hi, I am working to encourage implementation of the goals of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Part of that is to make sure articles cite their sources. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Wikipedia. The Fact and Reference Check Project has more information. Thank you, and please leave me a message (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Taxman&action=edit§ion=new) when a few references have been added to the article. - Taxman 18:57, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
Why dosen't it mention about his match against the internet? http://classic.zone.msn.com/kasparov/PressRel.asp
- We actually have an entire article devoted to that game: Kasparov versus The World. But you're right, it should be mentioned in this article too (with a link to that one). I hope someone will do it; I'm feeling rather lazy at the moment... --Camembert 15:26, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
"Greatest player ever"?
Even the qualified "arguably the greatest player ever" or "arguably the strongest player ever" seems POV and highly controversial to me. Saying he is the greatest player ever is just subjective, depending on what you mean by "greatest" or how we decide who the "greatest" player is. It would be better to leave this up to the reader in my opinion. Saying "strongest player ever" is a bit better, but still controversial, given the fact that he was not world champion when he retired, and at least three other chessplayers were very close if not equal to him in terms of skill (Anand, Leko, Topalov, and of course Kramnik). Would it be better to say he is "one of the strongest chessplayers ever"? This would seem more accurate, less controversial, and less in need of qualification. --Malathion 05:28, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Vandalism
How can we get this article protected? I'm not familiar with the procedure here. --Malathion 19:47, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- You could put a request on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection (a request on this talk page may also get a response). I don't think it needs protecting any more though - the vandalism seems to have stoppped - so I'll leave it be for now. --Camembert 20:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)