Slashdot Mirror


Chess Master Kasparov To Retire

fembots writes "Former world champion Gary Kasparov has announced that he is to retire from competitive chess. The chess grandmaster, a leading critic of Mr. Putin, heads a group of top Russian liberals who have joined forces to keep Vladimir Putin from staying in the Kremlin after 2008."

66 of 320 comments (clear)

  1. Upgrade by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Funny

    That's okay, because Kasparov 2.0 is coming out and it's gonna whip IBM's hairy blue ass.

    1. Re:Upgrade by DenDave · · Score: 4, Funny

      Nah!! Grandmaster Gary for President!! Imagine strategic armament talks between Bush and Gary!!
      ROFL!
      Gary will have Bush doin' the monkeyboy dance in no time!!

      --
      -if at first you don't succeed, stay the heck away from paragliding.
    2. Re:Upgrade by b0r0din · · Score: 4, Funny

      Bush already does the monkeyboy dance. It's called 'being president.'

    3. Re:Upgrade by oconnorcjo · · Score: 4, Informative
      Nah!! Grandmaster Gary for President!! Imagine strategic armament talks between Bush and Gary!! ROFL! Gary will have Bush doin' the monkeyboy dance in no time!!

      Actually I would be very concerned if Gary became the leader of any organization. He has DESTROYED every organization in which he has had power.

      GMA - ever heard of it? It was an organiztion to help GM's get better purses and conditions for tournaments. Garry helped create it and then completely destroyed it (with no help needed).

      FIDE - Almost destroyed FIDE and to this day FIDE is a much weaker organization. When Garry said I am world champion and the title is mine no matter what FIDE says and does, he cracked the "legitimacy" of FIDE. In This case Gary had help from Nigel Short.

      PCA - An organization Garry created to give a world championship title. Got sponsorship from various companies including Intel. Eventually destroyed the organization because he wanted to play deeper blue. Goodbye PCA.

      Ever since the PCA was destroyed, Garry has stayed away (or been kept away) from powerfull positions in chess orgs. and chess is much better for it!

      I would be very concerned about Russia's Leadership if Garry Kasparov was ever elected president.

      --
      I miss the Karma Whores.
    4. Re:Upgrade by orangesquid · · Score: 3, Funny

      Haha.

      You know, I wonder what retirement is like for someone who's job is what most consider recreation?

      "Hey Garry, you up for a game or two?"
      "No, sorry.. I'm retired. If you'd like, though, we could go put in some ten-hour days working retail."

      --
      --TheOrangeSquid Is it any wonder things seem so awry? We swim in a sea of confusion and don't have to think to survive
  2. Deep Blue by GraemeDonaldson · · Score: 5, Funny

    Damn, I guess now Deep Blue will need to find a new friend to play with?

    --
    I think, therefore I am. I think?
    1. Re:Deep Blue by flyingsquid · · Score: 3, Funny

      In other news, Vladimir Putin has announced that Deep Blue will be joining his cabinet...

    2. Re:Deep Blue by PedanticSpellingTrol · · Score: 2, Informative

      WOPR (since you asked)

    3. Re:Deep Blue by mirko · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why do you say he's crazy ? Because of his opinions ?
      Lemme ask you one think: The guy is intelligent : That's a fact.
      He says controversial things.
      People call him crazy because of such things.
      Don't you think what he says should be analyzed before concluding he's crazy ?
      I for one didn't (I don't even know what the man said, BTW).
      I don't know what he claimed but this might have been quite spectacular otherwise he'd still be around : crazy people don't happen to be hunted like he's been.

      --
      Trolling using another account since 2005.
  3. Please Note by XanC · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Liberal" here refers to the classical liberals opposing monarchies and arbitrary power. Not the socialist version of the word "liberal" we have in the US.

    1. Re:Please Note by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2, Informative

      And here is a link to that committee in which Kasparov participates.

    2. Re:Please Note by DarKry · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No i think liberal means the same thing pretty much everywhere..

      1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.

      2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

      try here.

      And we "socialist" fit #1 fairly well if I do say so myself.

    3. Re:Please Note by mc6809e · · Score: 4, Insightful

      1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.

      2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

      [snip]

      And we "socialist" fit #1 fairly well if I do say so myself.

      Hmmm.

      What happens when the socialist philosophy itself becomes orthodox or dogmatic?

      Maybe you're confusing "liberal" with "leftist". They're not the same thing.

    4. Re:Please Note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      > No i think liberal means the same thing pretty much everywhere..

      No no no, Liberal in the US means "Un-American OBL loving commie bastard". Do you not watch Fox at all????

    5. Re:Please Note by gordgekko · · Score: 2, Informative

      You would be well served by relying on more then a dictionary definition of the word "liberal." I have several historical texts I can loan you that would disabuse you of the notion that socialism and liberalism are compatible.

      --
      You want to know who isn't running Firefox 2.x? They spell it "definately" and "rediculous".
    6. Re:Please Note by Aqua+OS+X · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because "liberals" in the US are socialists? please.

      Liberal typically refers to people in favor of progressive reform, not reverting back to antiquated practices, ideologies, or institutions of the past.

      --
      "Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
    7. Re:Please Note by FuturePastNow · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think the term "liberal" (and conservative) has come to mean whatever the hell people want it to mean. Though in political science we distinguish between capital-L and lower-case liberal.

      --
      Give a man fire, and you warm him for the night. Set a man on fire, and you warm him for the rest of his life.
    8. Re:Please Note by bigsteve@dstc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem is that many people don't distinguish between socialism, communism and "Stalinism" or "Maoism". They are all "manifestations of the Evil Empire".

    9. Re:Please Note by mothlos · · Score: 4, Informative

      Liberal in the international political sense are ideologies limiting government intervention in the activities of the governed. Clinton in the U.S. and Blaire in the U.K. are generally considered moderate liberals. Strong liberals have many different parties, but in the U.S. the largest strong liberal party is the Libertarian party.

      Left refers to ideologies which reflect increased government intervention in economic matters generally with the goal of increased egalitarianism and decreased intervention in the social behaviors of the governed.

      While communism is a leftist ideology, Soviet style communism was largely statist, conservative, or totalitarian in nature meaning ideologies supporting increased control of both economic and social matters.

      The final major compass point in political ideology is Right. Right (the direction, not meaning correct) parties have ideologies favoring decreased government intervention in economic matters and increased intervention in social matters. These parties often focus around their reactionary policies to social change, particularly in the U.S. and Canada. The U.S. Republican party is a party on the Right.

    10. Re:Please Note by iamacat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Socialism is an economic system. Democracy is a political system. Liberalism is a way of individual's thinking. The three have little to do with each other. You can have a liberal king in a socialist country who advocates free market reform because he doesn't want to arrest people who just sell stuff they made.

    11. Re:Please Note by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not nessicarily.

      Some people take liberal to mean the same as progressive or leftists, which is another dictionary definition.

      Libertarians are what some would call "classic liberals."

      --

      ___
      It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
    12. Re:Please Note by Cody+Hatch · · Score: 4, Informative

      No i think liberal means the same thing pretty much everywhere..

      You sadden me. There are two (2) diverging branches of liberalism. In most of Europe and Britain, the term "liberal" is usually assumed to refer to the original branch (usually called "classical liberals"), in most of the US, the term "liberal" is usually assumed to refer to the much more recent "social liberalism" branch).

      All "serious" US parties have at least a tiny amount of "classical liberal" in their genetic makeup, but the Greens have almost none, the Democrats only a small amount, the Republicans a fair bit (particularly on economic matters), and the Libertarians are almost pure classical liberals.

      The order is reversed if we look at "social liberal" principles - the Libertarians have almost none, and the Greens think about little else.

      For most Europeans, the only true, solid "liberal" party in the US is the Libertarians, Britain has no "liberal" party, Germany has the Free Democrats, New Zealand has the ACT, and so on. (Note, incidentally, that all those parties are rabidly free-market, and usually favor a flat income tax - core ideas for classical liberals, heresy to US-style "liberals".)

      For most Americans, the only true, solid "liberal" party in the US is the Greens, Labor in Britain, or any of several parties in Germany or Britain.

      If you're interested in classical liberalism, check out John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty" - a great book which pretty much defines classical liberalism, but has very little to do with the modern Democratic party - because the modern Democratic party simply isn't classically liberal. Also check out this page for a decent discussion and more background.

      (Mind you, I think both threads could probably agree that Putin is bad, but if the original author was European, he was probably thinking of views that in the US are popularly called libertarian.)

    13. Re:Please Note by johansalk · · Score: 2, Insightful



      You guys in the US have been misinformed and made illiterate enough to think that liberal and socialist are bad words. Liberals are socialists, and neither is a bad word at all. Liberal and Socialist are labels to be proud of; fascist and oligarchic are what should be shameful to you. Liberals or Socialists are secular humanists in favor of progressive reform and enlightening society, not reverting back to antiquated practices, ideologies, or institutions of the past; in fact, if anyone wants to revert back it is the originalists and essentialists (The GOP/Republicans) who want to return the US to a Spartan rural oligarchy. I have just written about this on usenet.

      I'll cut and paste it here

      " I don't care who he is; if he compared Bush to Hitler as reported he's right on this, and he's not being inventive and this isn't new; it is widely known by anyone in the know. Anyone who knows enough about History and Political Philosophy knows for sure that Bush is comparable to Hitler as both are on the same side of History, same side of ideology, and same side of conduct, and the GOP ideologues are not shy about this; they have not hidden their admiration of the chilean fascist economics model, they have not hidden their cultish affiliation around Leo Strauss the protege of Carl Schmitt the prime Nazi ideologue, and they have not hidden their originalist and essentialist fixation on the relevant thought of Aristotle and Plato. Yes, it goes that far back in History, to Ancient Greece; Bush and Hitler, and the Nazi party and the GOP, are upholders of Sparta, the violent rural oligarchic dictatorship, they are not upholders of Athens, the peaceful cosmopolitan liberal democracy.

      He's right.

      Both Hitler and Bush were ultra-nationalist simpletons who exploited the Nation-Under-Attack anxieties and the 'patriotic' impulses of the simple, blood-and-soil masses and enlisted the interests of a corrupt, racketeering cadre of industrialists and financiers that foresaw in their domestic, social restructuring projects at home and warmongering, imperialist ambitions abroad ample profit opportunities. Both Hitler and Bush were messianic men with a passionate 'vision' and a sense of 'mission' who were obsessed with their personal safety and paranoid about the risk of assassination and their parties (Nazi, GOP) were suspicious and intolerant of disagreement and dissent to the extent of using the "treason" label (treason, un-Patriotic, un-American, hates America, and so on) against those who don't tow the party line. Both the parties of Hitler and Bush scapegoated minorities as political devices to forewarn of calamitious dangers to the original integrity of a good and glorious nation, most prominent of whom in Hitler's Germany were the Jews, and in Bush's USA were the Gays. Both parties pushed for legislation that suspended civil liberties and human rights in the name of national security, in Hitler's case it was the Enabling Act, and in Bush's it was the Patriot Act, which presence served to intimidate many ordinary citizens for fear of being suspected of "treason" and being persecuted on mere suspicion without due process, and both leaders and parties maintained an atmosphere of terror, applauded military armament and endorsed doctrines of preemptive war, with which they invaded other countries. Furthermore, Bush is supported by the same wealthy elements that tried to erect a fascist government in the US in the 1933 after the election of a populist president, Franklin D Roosevelt; the businessmen and bankers who admired European Fascism at the time and its heavy-handed stance against communists in its countries, and intensely disliked Roosevelt's "communist" reforms that entailed heavier taxes on the wealthy, concessions to labor rights movements, relief for the unemployed, controls over corporations, a social security program, a legal right for the government to regulate the economy, and so on, and conspired with Major General Smedley Butler to erect a Fascist government in the US. Butler exp

    14. Re:Please Note by 10Ghz · · Score: 3, Insightful
      No i think liberal means the same thing pretty much everywhere..


      In Finland (and pretty much rest of Europe) "Liberals" usually refer to people who support individual freedoms and responsibilities, low taxation, free-market economy and the like. I wasn't aware that socialists support those things as well!
      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    15. Re:Please Note by nnnneedles · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Liberal comes from liber which means freedom.

      Liberal here in europe means someone who wants to deregulate markets and strongly embraces freedom of choice and a small state.

      It seems to me that liberal in the US has a different meaning, because the perspective used is from the far-right (i.e. conservatives), while in most of europe the perspective on liberals comes from socialists.

      --
      Will code a sig generator for food
    16. Re:Please Note by Skye16 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Absolutely not. You're thinking of people as a static and 2-dimensional. Liberals think longer-term - especially when it comes to the offspring. Let me elaborate, for you, since you seem to be completely ignorant on what a liberal is.

      John A is a smart, hard working, intelligent man who has amassed himself quite a hefty estate through his own two hands (and brain!). Good for him!

      John B is a plain ol' joe, but also hard working, and hasn't put together an estate, per se, but he has a house and he isn't begging for food. Obviously he would like more money, but, he doesn't need it.

      John C is also a plain ol' joe, he also worked hard, but he didn't get to save up much money, just like the majority of people in America.

      Jack A is a dumbass who also refuses to put in hard work. He spends every cent he has on beer and lives with his family in a trailer. He can't hold down a job, so he lives on welfare.

      Now, according to you, no one should help Jack A, John C, John B, or John A. Let them live for themselves. And, truthfully, I would agree with you. However, once you apply ofspring to the picture, everything changes.

      John A, John B, John C, and Jack A all have children. John A can afford to send his children to a good private school, and then to a good college. They always have new clothes and they always have food in their stomaches. Hooray!

      John B sends his kids to a public school, which aren't terrible (though, perhaps not as good as a private school) and then to a state funded college, heavily banking on federal financial aid. His kids always have clean, newish clothes and they always have food in their stomaches. Still hooray.

      John C dies in a horrible car wreck, leaving behind 3 of his own chillens. Now with only one person working (assuming his wife does), they can barely pay the bills and put food on the table. The kids do without clean, newish clothes and start shopping at Goodwill (let's just hope they're indie hipsters!). If they're lucky, they go to college, but chances are, unless they have a rich aunt or uncle, they aren't going to be able to afford it (unless, of course, it's a community college).

      Jack A's kids end up getting jobs around the age of 15 just to buy their own clothes and their own food. Jack A does nothing and the kids pay for everything. They don't go to college because there is no way they could afford it. A few drop out.

      According to many libertarians, social programs are bad. As such, there goes federal funding for public schools (which may even cease to exist), federal funding for college (which makes it impossible for John B, John C, and Jack A's kids from ever setting foot in college), or even foodstamps/welfare, which may keep Jack A's kids alive, or, less dramatically, from dropping out of highschool or missing college.

      A liberal says "Hey, John A, we're going to take a little more of your millions of dollars and make sure that Jack A and John C's kids get some food and can make it to college". Why? Not just because we feel bad (and, really, making a law just because you feel bad for someone is pretty pathetic, so if that were the only reason, I wouldn't be a liberal either). It's because we know that having 6 kids go to college and become engineers or doctors or lawyers is going to be more beneficial to society, as a whole, than having 6 kids who pack groceries at the local supermarket. More income = more tax revenue, which means better roads, better schools, and, overall, more money throughout the entire country. We also know that by taxing more heavily on top, for the people with 3 BMWs and a Mercedes, instead of taxing the people who don't have enough money to put food on the table, much less pay for roads and schools and college (yes, they use them too, but, frankly, if you can't afford to feed yourself, that's it, game over). We also know that, even though we're going to make sure all these kids have the same opportunities at schooling (grade school and college

    17. Re:Please Note by hey! · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What happens when the socialist philosophy itself becomes orthodox or dogmatic?

      Simple, dogmatic socialism is not liberal.

      A lot of the categorical labels are pretty misleading. They conflate too many things.

      In many ways, "liberalism" and "conservatism" represent personality dispositions, rather than political philosopies or values. The liberal personality believes that things can be improved upon, the conservative thinks that the proven ways are best. That's how political ideas that were liberal in the eighteenth century are now conservative.

      It's also while the necons are so widely reviled. They are essentially right wing liberals. Left wing liberals hate their right wing politics; right wing conservatives hate their liberalism.

      The old Soviet aparachniks were, at least superfially, left wing conservatives. They were in the exact opposite quedrant if you will from the necons.

      Of course the left/right dichotomy is oversimplified too. It should at least be exploded into two dimensions, like the people over at the politicla compass have.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    18. Re:Please Note by solistus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The term Socialism is so abused by the general public and, in particular, the American Right that nobody seems to know what it is anymore. The Soviets practised, in theory, a radical form of Socialism that most Socialists do not approve of. They didn't even live up to those ideals, however, and became good, old-fashioned authoritarians. I think that hey!'s assertion that they were "left wing" is flawed. After the early stages, most people with any real power in the Comintern were very conservative in that they were against change in policies, and right wing in that they wanted a very defined power structure. The leftist philosophy expressed in their propaganda was empty and false. Socialists in the non-Communist sense are usually either Social Democrats or Democratic Socialists. Social Democracy is basically just liberal, left wing politics in the mainstream- the far left of the Democratic Party in the US could be described as such, as can most of the liberal parties in European nations. Blair used to consider himself a Social Democrat, and I believe that Schroeder still does. Social Democrats believe that we need more welfare, less militarism, less corporate control of the state, and other leftist things, but they don't necessarily want any major changes to or replacements for Capitalism. Democratic Socialists are a bit more radical. They want real change- either an abolition of so-called Capitalist institutions like the free market, or major changes to make them more acceptable (high minimum wage and a maximum wage such as that in Japan are a good example of one of these major changes). However, like Social Democrats, Democratic Socialists hate resorting to violence and absolutely oppose revolutions in Western countries. The question of revolution in countries under somewhat more authoritarian nations is a point of contention. Some, like myself, straddle the fence somewhat. I consider myself a Democratic Socialist, but some call me a Social Democrat. I won't get into my beliefs, since I've probably already posted enough that nobody cares to read, anyway.

    19. Re:Please Note by Skye16 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Charity implies doing something out of the good of your heart to benefit other people for the sake of doing it.

      This is benefiting the youth of America so that they go on to make our country better than it already is. There is no "goodness of our heart" in this - it's about the benefit of society as a whole, not on a personal level.

  4. Oh he's good, by IInventedTheInternet · · Score: 5, Funny

    He had first planned his retirement at age 8, the man can plan ahead I tells ya.

  5. Putie by DarKry · · Score: 2, Interesting

    With brains like that against them the russian mob doesn't stand a chance

    We thought we were getting the mob out of power here in Ukraine recently, turned out we were putting a new one in.

  6. Re:Kasparov To Retire.... by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Informative

    IIRC, Deep Blue has already been retired. After their first win, IBM decided they already got enough PR value out of it, and besides Kasparov's team accused IBM of bending some of the rules. Future games may have been tougher for blue if more restrictions were placed on it.

  7. Chess vs. the KGB by tychoS · · Score: 5, Funny

    What an interesting match we are going to witness:

    The "Chess master" vs. "the KGB master"

    1. Re:Chess vs. the KGB by Infinityis · · Score: 5, Funny

      Chess master: I'm sorry, you can't castle when your king is in check...

      KGB Master: Watch me.

      I don't think the match will last very long when you can make up the rules as you go.

    2. Re:Chess vs. the KGB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Swat Team to g5,h4,and f3."

  8. And in other news by Neo-Rio-101 · · Score: 4, Funny

    All those sports injuries from playing chess has forced Kasparov to retire.

    oh wait.....

    --
    READY.
    PRINT ""+-0
  9. Celebrities and Elections by porp · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If his main point is to retire to promote his politics and ensure a head of state does not get re-elected (as the linked, BBC news blurb suggests), shouldn't he realize, just by looking at last year's U.S. elections, that a dissenting, political group spearheaded by a celebrity is a big fucking waste of time.

    I mean, this dude only played chess. He never did stand up comedy or married Susan Sarandon. Come on Gary, at least make a documentary where Putin plays Chess instead of going after terrorists.

    porp

    1. Re:Celebrities and Elections by Scarblac · · Score: 4, Informative

      The Week in Chess report on the press conference.

      He's retiring because he's been the top player for the last 20 years, he is the best ever, last year he won the Russian championship for the first time so he's won everything there is to win, most of it many times, and he can't see any new challenges. The mess in FIDE and the constant mess around the world championships sucked a lot of his energy, he'll just play for fun from now on.

      Politics is one of the things he's going to do in his newly found free time, but it's hardly the main story.

      --
      I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
  10. Re:a sad day for chess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    He's not dead.... he's just resting...

  11. More stuff by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here is a link to a more lengthy article with more information, including a video clip. Seems Kasparov, despite still having the best rating in the world, is retiring out of frustration with the FIDE. He's going to write a few books, including How Life Imitates Chess, in addition to politics.

    --
    Qxe4
    1. Re:More stuff by Scarblac · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wouldn't it make more sense to title it "How Chess Imitates Life"?

      Not to chess players. Chess is a sort of mathematical construct, it's an idea that was discovered. Life has a starting date.

      As I understand, he's trying to explain how you can turn a chess obsessed mind towards other things, something that he claims to have done. Personally the games in my dreams are about as bad as the ones I play, so I'd rather put the programming obsessed part of my brain to work, but he is Kasparov...

      --
      I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
  12. Checkmate by Everleet · · Score: 2, Funny

    He always has been good at killing kings.

    --
    It's tragic. Laugh.
  13. Re:More details and a video clip by barath_s · · Score: 2, Informative
  14. Re: He's not dead.... he's just resting... by WARM3CH · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes, he's just resting but yet he has the top rating in the chess and many consider him as the greatest player in the world. He is in a good shape and although he has lost his last game in the Linares tournament, but has won the tournament.
    Chess like any other game/sport needs sponsors, fans and supporters and Kasparov has been a great name attracting many. His mere presense in a tournament would mean big support and big moneys for Chess. Other active Grandmasters, though not very far from him in theory, could not yet attract so much publicity, support and money to Chess. So I think to the Chess world, his retirement is a very sad news.

  15. Chess grand masters by Mori+Chu · · Score: 5, Funny

    Once you become a grand master at chess, does it help or hurt your chances with women when you tell them?

    1. Re:Chess grand masters by Infinityis · · Score: 5, Funny

      I think it might hurt your chances if you tell them that you've been mating quite a bit lately...

    2. Re:Chess grand masters by Adrilla · · Score: 4, Funny

      Especially since you're probably mating mostly men.

      --

      "Plans are for fools! Oglethorpe, the plutonian (Aqua Teen Hunger Force)
  16. Goodbye by arron_nz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I actually played Kasparov along with about 20 others at the same time as part of a school chess program. Smart man. He beat us all, of course. Best wishes for the future.

    --
    garble
  17. Sad News by techsoldaten · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I have always admired Gary Kasparov and the things he has done for the chess world, I never really enjoyed playing through someone's else games until I saw his.

    There was a time I really wanted to be a great chess player. I would go to bed at night and stay up thinking of moves from games I had played earlier in the day. It would frustrate me to see so clearly what I should have done in certain situations, and aggravate me that things became so obvious after the fact. Sometimes I would go to sleep and dream of games that never even happened, and was really having trouble with the role the game was playing in my life.

    Found a book of translated interviews with grandmasters at a used bookstore and it straightened me out. Rosendo Balinas was a prude and never struck me as a real human being. Bobby Fisher was just indominatable and I had trouble relating to him. Kasparov, on the other hand, was kind of a playboy. He had real interests outside the game and saw the relation between what he was doing on the table and what political organizations did throughout the world. He talked about the 'chessbrain' syndrome and how he learned to turn it on to new things.

    Long story short: I read about Kasparov, studied Kasparov, tried to walk and talk like Kasparov. Doing so helped me become an easier person to be around. Eventually got laid, had a kid, took an interest in things outside chess.

    M

    1. Re:Sad News by identity0 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Oh my gawd... Gary Kasparov's advice helped you get laid?!

      To you, sir, I present the Nerdiest Nerd on Slashdot award. We who are still celibate salute you!

    2. Re:Sad News by ideonode · · Score: 5, Funny

      Oh my gawd... Gary Kasparov's advice helped you get laid?!

      Well, Kasparov's advice was on how to mate...

  18. The difference by leereyno · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The difference is that the celebrities over here were wrong. The country ignored them because they came off as the loony delusional rant monkeys they are.

    I don't know if Kasparov will be able to affect the future of his country, but comparing him to the Micheal Moore crowd over here and telling him to give up is just plain irrational, especially if he is a classical liberal (as opposed to the marxist variety the US is afflicted with).

    Lee

    --
    Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
    1. Re:The difference by Scarblac · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Unfortunately, Kasparov in real life is also into history, and rather close to crackpot science. For instance, he doesn't believe there was 1000 years between the Roman empire and Newton, he thinks history has been artificially expanded by 1000 years.

      See e.g. http://www.world-mysteries.com/garrykasparov.htm.

      I also vaguely remember that he tried to form a political party after the fall of the USSR, and was voted down as chairman on the first day of his own party! Add to that all the political problems that always surrounded him in the chess world (PCA, FIDE, etc), and I think he's not all that much better than them at politics.

      --
      I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
    2. Re:The difference by be-fan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Heh. You don't see marxist liberals in America. The "fringe" is people like Nader, who don't advocate getting rid of corporations, just regulating them. There is an enormous leap from that to "dictatorship of the proletariat". The thing that pisses me off most about American politics is that certain people have managed to replace the rich and varied sphere of political ideologies with a few token carictitures, and have engaged in such a war on names that we are left without any vocabulary with which to intelligently discuss politics.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    3. Re:The difference by hawk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      who don't advocate getting rid of corporations, just regulating them.

      Well, the line between "destroy" and "taxes and regulatory fiat equally 110% of profits" is a bit thin :)

      hawk

  19. I don't buy it... by Statecraftsman · · Score: 2, Interesting
    This man is the greatest living chess player and he says he is retiring from competitive play? The article says he will continue to play because it is fun but will no longer play on a professional level.

    How can he play at any level lower than pro? Won't that be boring when he's still dominates the game? We all like a little rest and relaxation but I only give him 2 years before he's back to pro tournament play.

  20. *Sigh* Here is to the uninformed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Kasparove has long been a very well known and influential figure in Sowjet/Russian politics. In the sowjet area he was one of the best known critics of the system and a champion of democracy, so he already has political standing. (Btw., him being opposed to the system and Karpov very much being part of the system was one of the things that really spiced up all of their duells then.)

    Now on to Putin. It's not only about Putin getting reelected, but about Puting changing the constitution/breaking the law to be able to get reelected. Like in the US the President can only be reelected so many times and Mr. Puting will not be allowed to run again in the next election. However, there are many that fear that Putin will somehow find a way to circumvent this "little inconvenience" and run nevertheless, or at least find an other way to stay in control.

    This would very clearly deal the deathblow to what is left of democracy in Russia nowadays and fighting against this happening certainly is a noble cause and should be commended.

    Finally, not that I'm really a good chess player, but it is sad to see a giant like Kasparove step down. He will be missed by everyone interested in chess I'm sure.

    1. Re:*Sigh* Here is to the uninformed by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2, Informative
      However, there are many that fear that Putin will somehow find a way to circumvent this "little inconvenience" and run nevertheless, or at least find an other way to stay in control.
      A small (but important) addition: presidential party "United Russia" currently has parliamenal majority. This means that they can change the constitution if they so desire, to extend president's term, or allow him to re-elect for the third time.
  21. Re:Kasparov To Retire.... by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 4, Funny

    They gave Deep Blue "take backs", because otherwise he'll have a tantrum and upset the board. Who knew emergent behavior would be such a pain in the ass?

    --
    It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
  22. What's up with these chess masters? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting
    First Bobby Fischer gets so pissed off at the US government that he's going to end up either in prison or in exile (he's hoping for the latter). Now Kasparov is taking on his government, and knowing how things work in Putin's Russia (cf, Grozny) Kasparov could well end up in the same situation.

    But to be a little more serious, from reading the Committee 2008 website, it sounds like Kasparov is a very sane guy with noble goals, and a willingness to put his ass on the line to achieve those goals, whereas Fischer is a few pieces short of a chess set and his goals are repugnant.

  23. What about Advanced Chess? by FleaPlus · · Score: 4, Informative

    I'm curious to see if Kasparov will continue to be involved with Advanced Chess, a new form of chess which he introduced. Basically, in it a human and computer program compete as a team against other human-computer teams. This symbiosis is much stronger than either member alone, as humans and computers are better at different aspects of chess. It's thought that Advanced Chess tournaments may help further human-computer interaction.

  24. New champion by szlevente · · Score: 5, Interesting

    With his retirement, he's delivered the final blow to the unification plan. The only way a new champion would've gotten credibility was by defeating Kasparov. Now that he's out, I'm sure there's going to be another mess around the championship cycle. But it's understandable he got fed up with FIDE, and called it quits.
    Anyway, he ended his career with a bang, winning in Linares. Too bad it's over, I'm sure he could've had a much longer career than Korchnoi.
    I just wonder, who the candidates for WCH are now...Anand, Kramnik, Leko? Topalov sure want his share now, that he's tied with Kasparov at Linares.

  25. Xtreme Chess by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 2, Funny

    I hear he's holding out for a package deal with ESPN and EA sports. He wants to be the Tony Hawk of Chess.

    --
    It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
  26. Putin in 2008? by gmajoe · · Score: 2, Interesting
    The chess grandmaster, a leading critic of Mr Putin, heads a group of top Russian liberals who have joined forces to keep Vladimir Putin from staying in the Kremlin after 2008.

    It's important to note that Russia's Constitution places a limit of two consecutive terms on the presidency, which means Putin cannot be re-elected in 2008 unless the Constitution is changed. Of course, in 2003 he was granted authority to amend the Constitution, so he could now write himself into a third consecutive term. Putin has denied any intention to make such changes, but the possibility is still very real.

  27. Amateur? by troon · · Score: 4, Funny

    "I will continue to play chess because it is a lot of fun, but no longer on a professional level," he said.

    Like he's going to find any "normal" people to play more than once...

    --
    Ydco co ,df C erb-y go. a Ekrpat t.fxrapev
  28. Re:If it's not a stupid question... by guacamole · · Score: 4, Informative

    Anyone born in the Soviet union could become a Russian citizen with relative ease. Besides, I am sure he was already spending much of his time in Russia before the breakup of the soviet union. Also Baku was a fairly cosmopolitan city before the break up of the soviet union with very large Armenian and Jewish communities living in it. After break up of the soviet union, most of the Jews left to Israel and nearly all of 200.000 Baku Armenians had been forced to leave Azerbaijan because of government sponsored pogroms against them. And I don't see why the ethnicity should be a factor that determines whether someone should or should not involve in politics in such a diverse country as Russia. It might not be well known outside but in many parts of Russia there are fairly large numbers of Ukrainians, Jews, Georgian, Armenians, and others living there (in addition to minorities native to Russian therritories such as those from north caucasus.)