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."
That's okay, because Kasparov 2.0 is coming out and it's gonna whip IBM's hairy blue ass.
Table-ized A.I.
Damn, I guess now Deep Blue will need to find a new friend to play with?
I think, therefore I am. I think?
He had first planned his retirement at age 8, the man can plan ahead I tells ya.
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.
Table-ized A.I.
What an interesting match we are going to witness:
The "Chess master" vs. "the KGB master"
All those sports injuries from playing chess has forced Kasparov to retire.
oh wait.....
READY.
PRINT ""+-0
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.
> 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????
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
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.
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.
Once you become a grand master at chess, does it help or hurt your chances with women when you tell them?
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
"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
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.)
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