Slashdot Mirror
Chess Grandmaster Kasparov Versus President Putin
An anonymous reader writes "The Times of London has an article on how Garry Kasparov, former world chess champion, is using his fame and intellect in an attempt to defeat President Putin at the presidential elections in March 2008. Kasparov believes that Putin is virtually a dictator who is dismantling democracy and returning Russia to an authoritarian regime. Some high-profile Putin critics, such as Alexander Litvinenko, have been the victims of unsolved murders, and Kasparov is aware of the dangers: 'I can calculate the possibilities as a chess player and I have to be honest and say that our chances are not high. But I take this as a moral duty, and when you do something out of moral duty, then who cares?'" From the article: "[Kasparov] will not be a contender for the presidency but [his political umbrella group] The Other Russia aims to create the conditions under which an anti-Putin candidate can win. It appears, however, to be an uneven contest against a man who enjoys 80 per cent approval ratings. Most Russians want Mr. Putin to overturn a constitutional bar on a third term in office. Many will back whomever Mr. Putin endorses to succeed him."
Remember that Putin is ex KGB.
My wife has family in Russia so that is why I am posting anonymously.
They hate Putin. Yeltin was a dream compared to Putin.
Look how Russia in implicated in the poisoning of several prominent people outside of Russia including the President of Ukraine.
Under Putin the Russian State is gradually taking control of key industries.
Look at the past week and how Shell were forced to relinquish control of a major Oil/Gas project in the Far East of the country.
The project will now go down the Tubes and fall apart but to Putin's idealogs this does not matter.
Russia controls most of the Gas Supplies to Western Europe so Government here dare not say anything against him for fear that their Gas supplies get cut off in the forthcoming winter period.
IMHO, any challenge to Putin is worthwhile.
Just my take on the issue. Right On Kasparov!
That sounds almost like Alberta. Well, except Alberta's economy was been booming under Klein's regime, and nobody has accused him of murdering his opponents, but that's still a pretty high approval rating. Why is it so high? The impression the media here gives us is that Putin is a ruthless dictator and enemy of the people. (Media bias, anyone?)
http://outcampaign.org/
Putin might (or might not) be a dictator, but the sort of people who could take his place if he was deposed doesn't bear thinking about. Theres a whole nest of former and current FSB/KGB mixed up with BIG organised crime bosses behind the scenes. Russia is a political mess right now and I'm not sure theres a solution.
Here it is, another intellectual, versus another incumbent authoritarian in a major election. I completely agree with John Dean, in his book Conservatives without Conscience, that there is a very pathological aspect to modern conservative authoritarians, but what can change the nature of the electorate? Intellectuals will continue to be perceived as wishy-washy no matter how bad the existing authoritarian, and the defense of increasingly authoritarian rule will not have a real challenge unless that changes. It seems that the only challenge to modern authoritarian rule is catastrophic failure across the whole society.
Will the honest questions of an intellectual ever not be a liability? Or will politicians always continue to have to be liars wearing masks of false confidence, grabbing all power available in order to hold onto any power at all? Must the functional brains of our society continue to be the most cruel amongst us?
Ryan Fenton
For those who don't know: fool's mate
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
Putin has popular support and appears to have established a sustainable, balanced economy over there, speaking relatively, of course. The man has a great deal of respect, and people are prepared to be guided by his views when they vote.
Basically, these poisonings and their possible consequences on peoples opinion of him are the only thing that could screw it up for him. And, with all the political situaions he's faced, he is the sort of man who knows it.
Therefore, he didn't do it, and neither did anyone with a vested interest in his success.
Clearly, these poisonings aren't co-incidence, and just as clearly, they're not in Putins best interest.
It's obvious that you need to look among those who have an interest in seeing his political agenda fail if you want to know who did these poisonings.
I'm inclined to think this is a frame up put together by the CIA. Historically speaking, anytime you see a popular socalist leader being democratically elected, the CIA are there trying to install a puppet dictator that plays ball with foreign capitalists. Happens every time.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
Most Russians want Mr. Putin to overturn a constitutional bar on a third term in office. Many will back whomever Mr. Putin endorses to succeed him."
Well, as much as Kasparov is complaining about the democratic process, it seems to me the people are getting what they want. Who are we to tell them they're wrong? It's in America's culture to distrust extended rule and anything that smells like a monarchy. It's in Russia's culture to prefer stability of a strong leader to the uncertainty that can be found in the absence thereof. If they truly want Putin to rule them, let him.
I can calculate the possibilities as a chess player and I have to be honest and say that our chances are not high.
Don't get me wrong... chess is one of my hobbies too. I also enjoy digging into politics, and I feel like I have enough experience in computer science to be able to identify and analyze systems. First, I can tell you that the game of chess and politics are two very different systems. So different, in fact, that being good at one will not ever help you with the other.
Chess is in fact a simple, deterministic game that is very limited and loses complexity over time. We've written software that can play chess excellently for a very long time. As far as I know, no computer systems have ever been elected to office.
I can tell you right off the bat that Kasparov's edge in politics is not his chess ability--it's his fame. That will attract more attention than anything else. Also, there is the public notion that anyone who is good at chess is some kind of genius, something he can use to his advantage as well. He keeps bringing up the fact that being so good at chess makes him smart enough to do all these things. People don't have trouble believing something like that, so maybe he is a good politician after all.
My wife has family in Russia so that is why I am posting anonymously.
Right. Because the KGB is reading Slashdot, has a lookup table between slashdot usernames and addresses, and has nothing better to do except target the family of some guy who said a few nasty words about Putin.
Putin may be very evil, but don't use melodrama to puff up your claims, please. Also- Yeltsin's name is spelled with an S.
Please help metamoderate.
In terms I know we'll understand: programming skills != social skills, just as chess skills != political foresight
Only chess was a political institution in the USSR. As Kasparov came up the ranks he became intimately familiar with the government, and had to deal with the people in power frequently. Furthermore, the Soviet chess machine was very much a political organization too. Kasparov was just the face of Soviet chess, he had many players who basically subordinated themselves to advancing his game, in terms of developing strategies, etc.
No Chavez is just a loud mouth. Putin is the real deal. He has real leverage over here in Europe. Europe has this thing with gas, and Putin has almost all of it.
So even if they found evidence that he did personally authorise the murder of Mr Litvinenko, they will probably rebuke him publicly, ( after giving a call telling him that they are going to di it of course, to keep their voters happy), but they know their voters do not like their winters messed with, so they will not do much else.
I mean, he may not have power over the US, but in Europe he is pretty much top dog. You think US has a dependence on middle east oil, nothing like Europe's dependence of Russian gas. He is actually playing the EU presidents against each other because of that.
You got nothing on Russia, and yes, Soviet Russia does check mate you.
Catherine's sorry record aside, your comparison is very useful here to underline the Russians' longing for Tsarism to the underinformed foreigners...
Nope. The only reason for Russia's current wealth and weight is the High Oil Price. When it goes down again (and it will), Russia will be hurting again. It happened twice already: the first time's result was USSR's crumble, the second's — Russia default.
You better be ready for the third time... I have it on good authority, that the price of oil is the sole variable in Russian bankers' financial models — you don't have anything else worthy of consideration as far as Economics is concerned.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
The difference between Berezovsky and Putin is that Berezovsky already robbed the country, while Putin is doing it right now. If it so happens that the enmity between them is great enough that Berezovsky is willing to support any opposition to Putin, then I don't see any good reason why the more pragmatic members of that opposition should reduce the offer.