Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Chess Grandmaster Kasparov Versus President Putin

Posted by kdawson on from the winning-combination dept.

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."

70 of 416 comments (clear)

  1. Dear Kasparov by neuro.slug · · Score: 5, Funny

    In Soviet Russia, Putin checkmates you!

  2. Hmmmm by cp.tar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ever since I read Bill Gates was a rather good Go player, it explained a lot to me about his business strategy.

    A brilliant chess player like Mr Kasparov should not only be able to calculate the odds, but also devise some ways to alter them.

    If he's really getting ready to battle Putin, he really should apply his best tactics to politics.
    Which he might do, too.

    Let's see what happens...

    --
    Ignore this signature. By order.
    1. Re:Hmmmm by kassemi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Strategic games like Go and Chess are great exercises for the mind, but outside the benefits in reason and patience you receive from practice, I don't see them helping calculate the odds of a political statement reaching an audience. In terms I know we'll understand: programming skills != social skills, just as chess skills != political foresight.

      --
      What the hell's a "gewie?"
    2. Re:Hmmmm by cp.tar · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Strategic games like Go and Chess are great exercises for the mind, but outside the benefits in reason and patience you receive from practice, I don't see them helping calculate the odds of a political statement reaching an audience. In terms I know we'll understand: programming skills != social skills, just as chess skills != political foresight.

      Of course not.

      However, I do believe he knows his strategy... in this kind of games, without strategy, you're nothing.
      I should know; I play rarely, have no strategy whatsoever and suck colossally.

      So no, he won't be able to calculate the odds of a single political statement or whatever, but he should be able to plan an interesting strategy... although what should be the real life equivalent of sacrificing chess pieces, I really don't want to know.

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    3. Re:Hmmmm by nomadic · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    4. Re:Hmmmm by thesandtiger · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's hardly "insightful" - you're assuming that the strategic thinking that works in chess (a game where there are a finite number of pieces, fixed rules for how those pieces can move, and in which play-order is determined) is somehow going to transfer over into "real world" strategic thinking (a "game" where there are an unknown number of pieces, unknown rules for how those pieces can move, and not only is there no play order, but an unknown number of players, and they can switch sides at any time).

      In fact, I suspect that Kasparov's incredible skill at chess would actually hamper his abilities in politics - his mental reflexes were trained for much of his life to focus on ways to think in terms of a fixed set of rules, while politicians tend to make up new rules as it suits them and they are VERY good at that. So Kasparov might fail at having to deal with such an incredibly unpredictable environment, while politicians often fail at grasping the concept that maybe some rules ought to apply to them.

      I'd say the comparison that was made of technical skill != social skill is a very very good one. Many of the attributes necessary for real mastery technical material seem to be in opposition to attributes necessary for real mastery of social environments.

      --
      Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
  3. Actually... by TrisexualPuppy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You may not be so far off.

    There is a great controversy over this man whom Putin may have personally had murdered. Or it could be someone framing Putin. Or it could be Putin making it look as though he was framed. Russia is a grim place. I don't expect Kasparov to live much longer...whether those "approval ratings" are truly 80% or more like (1/80)%, either Putin has the power to make it look as though he has the people's support, or he does have the people's support, obviously making him powerful.

    1. Re:Actually... by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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
    2. Re:Actually... by statusbar · · Score: 4, Informative
      Of course the most recent news:
      ...Litvinovich said the officers made copies of all documents they found of interest and she was told the search was connected to suspicions that Kasparov's group was involved in extremist activity...

      --jeffk++

      --
      ipv6 is my vpn
    3. Re:Actually... by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, he plays ball, but so does Chávez. They're similar political figures, and they both have right-wing capitalists gunning for them.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    4. Re:Actually... by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Are you some kind of nut case or what? Putin's enemies being murdered not in his best interest? Damn, Bush and the CIA are at it again. Here they go helping out Putin by killing his enemies to make him look bad. It's not like his enemies might be more effective ALIVE! This has been standard Soviet practice in the past, why not now?

      Because he doesn't need to kill his enemies. They pose him no threat, politically. Nothing they can say or do is going to remove popular support or his power.

      His enemies were not effective alive. However, the means of their death throws suspicion on Putin. They are more effective dead.

      Now do you get it?

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    5. Re:Actually... by Shihar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Putin's approval ratings are mostly real. Russia's transition to democracy (well, it isn't one any more) was rough. The people went from full bellies and empty souls to being hungry and confused. Russia was pillaged in its transition to a market democracy due to some awesomely bad economic policy (which the west does indeed share some blame for). By the time Putin came to power the people just wanted stability and anything other then a rapid economic plummet. Putin has given that to them, and they love him for it.

      The problem is that in stabilizing Russia Putin also gobbled up all the power he could find and has set Russia on course to look more like Russia of old then Europe of the US. Hell, Putin calls the Russian style of government "managed democracy". Putin has pooled all of the power of the state into his own hands. Russia suspended elections for governors and now simply appoints them with an old skool nod to the USSR. Russian TV is now almost entirely state and blatantly used for propaganda, making campaigning against Putin and his allies all but impossible. The government, while not throwing people in Siberian slave labor camps Stalin style, happily detain activists by the thousands before any attempt to hold a protest.

      Russia hasn't caught up with their old Soviet ways yet but they are headed that way. Russia still maintains a relatively free printed press, and Putin has so far refrained from writing himself as dictator into the constitution. That said, the direction Russia is headed isn't pretty, and I really doubt that Putin is going to appoint a successor who is going to be a champion of liberalization and democracy.

    6. Re:Actually... by orzetto · · Score: 4, Insightful
      whether those "approval ratings" are truly 80% or more like (1/80)%[...]

      I would strongly suggest you to reconsider this statement. Just because you are an autocrat and govern for the benefit of a restricted circle of oligarchs, it does not mean the people will not like you. The bulk of the people can be made incredibly stupid when you control enough of the media.

      The classical instrument to make the people love you even when you are actually screwing them is finding a scapegoat: Hitler had Jews, but he certainly did not invent the tactic, nor anti-semitism itself (he was instead special in that he actually believed that crap). It runs all the way back to the Romans (who blamed, say, Christians) and beyond. It has to be a small minority without an actual capability to politically fight back, yet recognizable enough. Putin has Chechen rebels, Ahmadinejad has Americans and Israel, Bush has terrorists, Berlusconi has Communists, Le Pen has immigrants.

      --
      Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
    7. Re:Actually... by vakuona · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    8. Re:Actually... by Daniel+Phillips · · Score: 3, Informative

      he doesn't need to kill his enemies. They pose him no threat, politically. Nothing they can say or do is going to remove popular support or his power

      What utter rubbish. Viktor Yushchenko for one was in the process of displacing a pro-Russia regime in Ukraine at the time he was poisoned by dioxin. In what way did losing control of Ukraine pose no threat to Putin's power?

      --
      Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
    9. Re:Actually... by paeanblack · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Putin does play ball with foreign capitalists.

      He plays ball. He plays hardball. He plays dirty. He's the reason post-Soviet Russia is no longer getting raped by foreign capitalists.

      At this rate, history will probably remember him as the most effective Russian leader since Catherine the Great. From the perspective of a Russian citizen, the Soviets sucked, the Soviet collapse was worse, but now we're getting the best of both worlds and it's still improving. Putin can do whatever he wants if he keeps this track going.

    10. Re:Actually... by smittyoneeach · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm thinking that if someone set up a PayPal account, we could chip in $2 apiece, and send ShieldW0lf to Russia for a couple of years, to see whether a reality check alters the expressed opinion.
      My wife has been to St. Petersburg on business, and the first-hand experience didn't sound like one she'd care to repeat. One colleague carrying an El Salvadorean passport, for example, had to be fished out of customs with bribes.
      Russia is a mafia state. Get over it. Socialism models the human spirit poorly, hence its historically mixed results.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    11. Re:Actually... by Cyberax · · Score: 4, Informative

      Have you ever tried to get a business visa to the USA? It's the ultimate evidence that USA is run by some fascist-maniacs.

      I live in Russia. Yes, it's sometimes bad here. And yes, it's MUCH BETTER now than in 90-s. Hell, we had mafia in our town walking with AK-74 in broad daylight!

    12. Re:Actually... by golgotha007 · · Score: 4, Informative

      They pose him no threat, politically. Nothing they can say or do is going to remove popular support or his power

      What the hell is everyone smoking?

      Putin, now being in his second term (2 term max limit), loses power at the next election. He cannot run for president in the next election.

      Yes, I live in Russia.

    13. Re:Actually... by Shihar · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Oh please, Putin is not a shining star of socialist values. Hell, a sizable block of his opposition are communist. The only thing that unites the opposition to Putin is the fact that he is tearing apart the nations democratic institutions piece by piece. You can ignore the fact all you want, but it won't change that governors who were once elected are now appointed, nor that the state owned TV stations (which is pretty much all the TV stations) are blatantly is used as a mechanism one sided political promotion mechanism.

      If Putin were to somehow succeed in realizing his ideals, Russia would be a much better place to live than North America. Great. And if Dick Chaney was to realize his dreams the Middle East would be one big happy democracy with bustling markets and a love for the US that rivals Japan's post World War II infatuation. If Kim Jong Il had his dream realized, the Koreas would be happily united, full of happy Kim Jong loving people, and the US would be begging them to be their friends. If Hitler's dream was realized we would live in a happy utopia where there is peace, harmony, no nasty Jews, no moral corruption, and we would be on year 60 of a glorious 1000 reich. So? Who cares? These people were all delusional, and their delusions all resulted in the suffering of millions, tens of millions, or hundreds of millions. Putin will never see his ideals reached because he is a brutal autocrat, just like every other high minded asshole in history who made up one excuse or another to deprive his people of basic liberties.

      As far as your ranting about socialism... when in the hell did I even mention socialism? What exactly are you arguing against? I spoke only of democracy. If Russia wanted to implement European styled socialism, good for them. Plenty of European nations have managed to be both socialistic and democratic to greater and lesser degrees without becoming a (in Putin's own doublespeak words) "managed democracy". Contrary to the popular beliefs of some socialist heroes, you can have both socialism AND democracy. It is okay to let the people vote and conduct politics in the open without developing a totalitarian dictatorship built around a cult of personality.

      Stop defending these assholes because they speak pretty words that fall in line with your politics. A dictator is a dictator, regardless if he hides behind divine right, military power, fascist ideals, capitalist ideals, or even socialist ideals.
    14. Re:Actually... by anaesthetica · · Score: 4, Informative

      There are two highly disputable points in your post: one, that Russia's economy is sustainable and balanced; and two, that Putin is a socialist. Both are quite obviously incorrect.

      Russia's economic boom over the past 5-7 years has been principally attributable to the rise in oil and gas prices worldwide. Putin has been consolidating Russia's oil and gas companies into a much tighter oligarchy (cf. the reason why Khodorkovsky is in jail in Siberia). Meanwhile, he has been pressuring neighboring countries to sell their oil and gas pipelines to Russian companies. There has been a lot both in Western and Russian press about Putin's "energy empire." The rest of Russia's economy hasn't done much at all. In fact, fewer and fewer of the young generation even want to go into private business--most want to work for the state bureaucracy. Moreover, most of Russia's growth has been funnelled into Moscow and St. Petersburg (and dachas on the Volga), with the rest of the country experiencing few if any of the benefits from the oil & gas money. Lots of Russian towns in the countryside still look like they did in the 1800s. When oil and gas prices level off or fall (even temporarily so), so too will Russia's economic house of cards.

      And in no way can Putin be called a socialist. Not even close. There are two groups within his administration: the siloviki and the St. Petersburg group. Neither are socialist in orientation. The siloviki are the so-called "power" people: they control the defense, internal security, FSB (i.e. KGB successor), military, etc. These are relatively agnostic when it comes to the economy, preferring the centralization of power and stabilization of society. Moves to centralize oil and gas fit well within their worldview. The St. Petersburg group are generally liberal (in the economics sense, not the U.S. sense) reformers who favor free market solutions and getting rid of the welfare state. They have been slowly trying to divest the state of its welfare obligations (with only marginal success, since the Russian people protest when you try to reform their pension benefits). Putin himself is a chekist--a KGB man--not a socialist in ideology or practice.

      --
      The Rise and Fall of Online Community
    15. Re:Actually... by smittyoneeach · · Score: 3, Informative

      Wife says that a Romanian had three interviews to get a 10-day business visa to come to the US.
      We certainly filled out a truckload of paper to bring her here from Germany. As well as ~$1,500 in fees. My reaction was more sadness at the slowness of the bureaucracy than anything else. (The US has contributed massively to the advance of human technology, and THIS is what we have to show for it?!?!?!?!?)
      Back to Russia, she says that visiting the Russian Embassy to obtain the visa was extremely unpleasant, for whatever that is worth.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    16. Re:Actually... by mmdog · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ...There are a great many Americans who expect Bush to pull some kind of trick to remain in office past 2008 Care to back up this wild ass statement with any sort of poll or something? While I'll gladly concede that there are people who believe this, I'll also concede that there are people who say the holocaust didn't happen, that Elvis is still alive and that there really is a tooth fairy.

      Seriously, you think the same American people who just handed power to the democrats would stand for anything of the sort? I think you should consider expanding your list of reading/viewing choices, it might bring you a few steps toward reality.

      I will say this much though: If Bush & Co. do manage some sort of martial law take over, it's all the friggin gun control nuts to thank for making it impossible for us to fight back. That IS exactly the situation the founding fathers had in mind when they put in the second ammendment.
      --
      Politicians are like diapers - they should be changed frequently and for the same reasons.
    17. Re:Actually... by yeOldeSkeptic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Consider this scenario:

      Litko is a foreman of Ajax Chemical's main factory. When ABC Chem got embroiled in a legal scandal, Litko used the ensuing confusion and lack of supervision to sell off parts of ABC Chem's factories. He also used ABC Chem's property as collateral for loans with banking institutions, made sales deals with clients for ABC Chem products and then kept the profits. Litko also invested ABC Chems money and kept them for himself.

      After four years, ABC Chem was finally was able to shake off the legal scandal and moved towards controlling its factories again. They soon found out that Litko is now a multi-billionaire and that he already owns most of the erstwhile property of ABC Chem.

      ABC Chem decided to retrieve the wealth that they believe ABC Chem is legally and morally entitled to. Unfortunately, because Litko is now an oligarch, Litko is able to hire the best lawyers and is able to fend off the legal barrage for as long as possible while he makes his escape to London. In London, he settles comfortably and uses his new-found wealth to buy a football club.

      In all definitions of the term, Litko is a criminal.

      From the article:

      The chess master, however, sees cracks in the Kremlin wall and believes that Mr Putin will give him an opening for a counter-attack. Mr Kasparov argues that, despite the oil riches, the vast majority of Russians are increasingly enduring economic hardship that will burst to the surface politically next year.

      Mr. Kasparov, the grandmaster, should ask himself exactly where did Mr. Berezovsky and Mr. Russian Owner of the Chelsea Football Club get their money to become stupendously wealthy in such a short time.

      Unlike Mr. Kasparov, the majority of Russians (those 80% that support Putin) are aware that Berezovsky and his ilk are the Litkos who raped Russia of its natural wealth during the confusion of the collapse of the Soviet Union.

      Mr. Kasparov does not have to look very far in search of where Russia's wealth went. He need only stare in the direction of his financial backers.

    18. Re:Actually... by mmdog · · Score: 2

      How so? Here we have someone suggesting that somehow GWB & Co. are going to blatantly violate the U.S. Constitution in order to keep him in office. The fact is that the 2nd ammendment to the U.S. Constitution is there specifically to prevent this sort of thing from occurring.

      As for being a nut job, who knows, maybe your are right but I'm not posting as an AC...

      --
      Politicians are like diapers - they should be changed frequently and for the same reasons.
    19. Re:Actually... by Venik · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's what they've been saying about Yeltsin: that he's gonna change the constitution and remain in power. Well, he didn't. And he didn't want to. Moreover, he resigned early and appointed Putin as acting President, thus assuring his own worry-free retirement. Yeltsin's approval ratings at the time were extremely low. Nevertheless, during the early presidential elections a few months later a vast majority of Russians voted for Yeltsin's appointee - Putin, even though most Russians knew nothing about the man.

      Now Putin, with his near-80% approval rating (stop and think about this number for a moment), can probably chose his Labrador named Koni as the next presidential candidate, and Russians will vote for the dog. Why? Russians want stability. They are tired of revolutions, wars, and Perestroikas. Now they want a decent paycheck, a car, and a house. Don't misunderstand me, Russians have nothing against democracy, freedom of speech, and human rights. However, history taught them to be a bit more cynical and pragmatic than some of their Western neighbors.

      "Give me liberty or give me death," said Patrick Henry. It just so happened that every time Russians adopted this approach, they got the shitty end of the stick. I can't blame them for playing it safe now. Today's Russia is a huge improvement over the bloody chaos of Gorbachev's and Yeltsin's era. Things in Russia will improve over time. And, since we are talking about Russia, it may take awhile. For everyone's benefit, Washington and London should keep their dirty snouts out of Russia's business and be happy with the gas and oil they are getting.

    20. Re:Actually... by anaesthetica · · Score: 5, Informative

      During the same period you mention--the late 80's arms race--you ought to note that the high oil prices from the 70's had finally fallen. The oil embargo from '73 and the second attempt in '79 had kept prices fairly high throughout the whole decade. So not only did the Soviets have to spend more on an arms race, but they had to do so in the context of falling profits from oil.

      Today, the Russian economy is quite small, even when compared to the gaunt economy of the late Soviet period. In 2005 dollars, Mexico has a slightly higher GDP. It shrank a great deal in the early 1990s during "shock therapy" and the Asian Financial Crisis which forced a massive ruble devaluation and IMF bailout (notably, Russia's quick recovery from devaluation coincided with a world rise in oil prices). Military expenditures are less than 1/25th of the United States' (but about 3x as much as Mexico--so still a bit high relative to its GDP rank).

      The problem is not really the external commitments of Russia or arms acquisitions, but simply that a huge chunk of its economy is solely based on energy. As we all know, energy is a fungible commodity and is subject to wide, hard to predict variations in world price. A sudden oil price shock could do proportionally higher damage to Russia than one might expect, especially because of the consolidation of the energy sector in Russia, and the centrality of companies like Gazprom to Kremlin strategy.

      It's pretty widely accepted that a lot of Russian money that ought to be invested is sitting somewhere in Switzerland or the Caymans.

      --
      The Rise and Fall of Online Community
    21. Re:Actually... by mi · · Score: 2, Interesting
      most effective Russian leader since Catherine the Great

      Catherine's sorry record aside, your comparison is very useful here to underline the Russians' longing for Tsarism to the underinformed foreigners...

      He's the reason post-Soviet Russia is no longer getting raped by foreign capitalists.

      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.
    22. Re:Actually... by Aris+Katsaris · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What "managed democracy" means, is that when Russia's people were against a war in Chechnya, Putin caused some Moscow apartment buildings to explode, so that they were now in favor of it. That's what "managed democracy" means. That by mass murder of your own citizens, Putin will get you to want exactly what *he* would like you to want. And it also means that when some Russian reporter threatens to expose facts about the regime that Putin doesn't want you to hear, that reporter gets killed, and the books they wrote get confiscated. If the Russian people desire that, this blissful ignorance, and this sacrifice of their citizens to modify and/or preserve public opinion, then they indeed deserve Putin. However the rest of the region still doesn't. Georgia doesn't deserve Putin as a neighbor, and Moldova doesn't deserve him, and neither does Ukraine.

    23. Re:Actually... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Today's Russia is a huge improvement over the bloody chaos of Gorbachev's and Yeltsin's era.
      For many people it is not. But yes, things got better for quite a few of us - including you and me, obviously, since we both post here on Slashdot... but seriously, how long do you think that oil and gas we're living on now will last? And we don't really have anything to replace it with, nor are there any serious projects to rectify that.
    24. Re:Actually... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Unlike Mr. Kasparov, the majority of Russians (those 80% that support Putin) are aware that Berezovsky and his ilk are the Litkos who raped Russia of its natural wealth during the confusion of the collapse of the Soviet Union.
      So you're saying that Putin's clique didn't do the same when they got in the position of opportunity (like, say, the last 6 years). Or need I remind you of "BaikalInvestGroup"?

      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.

    25. Re:Actually... by vertinox · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I will say this much though: If Bush & Co. do manage some sort of martial law take over, it's all the friggin gun control nuts to thank for making it impossible for us to fight back.

      Really? Even with AK47's, MG-3s, SAWs, full auto M16 in the hands of the people, can you really take on a military with tanks, helicopters, and B52 bombers at their disposal.

      For the citizenry to defeat its own military it would need RPGs, Surface to Air missiles, military explosives and various other weaponry to defeat a well armed military.

      Keep in mind that even the Iraq insurgents have access to military grade weapons left around after the war and certain militia groups get weapons from Iran. Most of the IED's aren't something you could make in the states with off the shelf materials and often are old military ordinances like 150mm artillery shells.

      Unless you are advocating military armament of private individuals with comparable weapons, the 2nd amendment is a moot point.

      However, I would agree that states should be allowed to own militia armies that are not in control of the federal government.

      Either way the only hope for the US to avoid a dictatorship if one is created is the military would refuse to fight its own people or fight against the dictatorship itself.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
  4. Putin Has History and Current Form by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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!

  5. 80% approval rating? by Schraegstrichpunkt · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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/
    1. Re:80% approval rating? by Sciros · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hmmm well the best answer to that is, think about what Stalin's "approval rating" would have been during his rule? I would venture 100%. And not out of popular fear, but popular love and admiration. The 80% does not surprise me in the least, and doesn't make me think "oh, he must be a swell guy after all" for a second.

      --
      I like basketball!!1!
    2. Re:80% approval rating? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well most of you probably don't know what this approval rating comes almost exclusively from polling Moscow residents. Moscow, while being the capital, has very little in common with the rest of the country. It's so different in attitude that one can almost imagine being on a different planet when comparing Moscow and the rest of the country. I bet Bush's approval rating is pretty high in Texas too.

    3. Re:80% approval rating? by TheLink · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, living in some small country in Asia, I'm not that worried about who leads Russia.

      Realistically speaking - the potential/existing impact of the USA on other countries is far greater than that of Russia. And as time goes by it the potential for negative impact seems to be increasing to uncomfortable levels.

      So the potential for US elections to be diebolded concerns me. The bulk of the citizens not being bothered about that concerns me even more.

      The Putin 80% popularity poll might be even more credible than the US elections.

      --
  6. Slippery slope by bigdavex · · Score: 5, Funny

    If he wins, Deep Blue will run in the next election.

    --
    -Dave
    1. Re:Slippery slope by jaakkeli · · Score: 4, Funny

      The world will be in big trouble if Russian nukes are controlled by the greatest chess genius ever while American nukes are controlled by George Bush.

      There's only one solution: the Americans should get the most advanced artificial intelligence system ever built and let it take complete control over their nuclear arsenal.

    2. Re:Slippery slope by dodobh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Shall we play a game?

      --
      I can throw myself at the ground, and miss.
  7. Litvinenko: Blackmailer, Smuggler, Gangster Extrao by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Antiwar has an interesting article about the case:

    Berezovsky, who employed Litvinenko while he was alive and is using him in death as the symbol of Putin's malignity, is the key figure in all this: the man slain Forbes journalist Paul Klebnikov called Russia's "godfather." The real Mafia could learn a thing or two from Berezovsky, who, Klebnikov averred, assassinated his business rivals - one with an obscure nerve toxin - while the authorities stood by and let it happen on account of the oligarch's connections with top Kremlin officials. When Putin rose to power, however, and turned against Berezovsky - his former supporter and patron - the rule of the oligarchs was over. Berezovsky, Nevzlin, and the others fled Russia, and haven't stopped plotting to discredit and ultimately overthrow their nemesis ever since.
  8. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  9. There's only one way to counter this threat.. by TastyCakes · · Score: 2, Funny

    Deep Blue for 2008!

  10. Will Kasparov see this coming? by staticdaze · · Score: 5, Funny

    Kasparov vs Putin

    1. f3 e5
    2. g4

    Putin to move

    1. Re:Will Kasparov see this coming? by MyLongNickName · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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
  11. Putin is preventing even worse getting into power by Viol8 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  12. Re:Good luck! by TastyCakes · · Score: 5, Funny

    I love the wandering line of thought of some slashdot responses. Chess player runs for president of Russia ... Fucking Chinese!

  13. Re:"news relevant to United States politics" by nevergleam · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This country the article speaks of was the United States' bitter rival for over 50 years, and between the two, the shape of politics throughout the entire world was molded. Russia was supposedly won over by our plan for government, was supposedly no longer a threat to us, but when we look over there now, we see a country that is falling into the same millenia-old habits and a country that probably deep down still holds a lot of resentment of the United States of America.

    How does this not effect our foreign policy and our politics?

  14. Kasparov on NPR by Pancake+Bandit · · Score: 5, Informative

    Kasparov was on NPR's All Things Considered a while ago, and spoke about his move into politics. Here is a link to the interview.

  15. Start a trend by Joebert · · Score: 3, Funny

    If this goes well, you can count on seeing George Bush in a Rap Battle with Eminem in the near future.

    --
    Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
  16. Russian democracy by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Russian democracy by agent+dero · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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 Germany's culture to prefer stability of a strong leader to the uncertainty that can be found in the absence thereof. If they truly want Hitler to rule them, let him.

      --
      Error 407 - No creative sig found
  17. Too bad Solzhenitsyn is so old by Nova+Express · · Score: 2, Insightful
    If I were to pick a single Russian of perfect integrity to challenge Putin for the presidency, it would be Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. The man who wrore The Gulag Archipelago, one of the most important books of the 20th centur, and the one which exposed the vast Soviet network of slave labor concentration camps, as well as either the first or second worst (depening on which set of numbers you use) genocides of the 20th century.

    The man who put his life on the line to tell the truth about the evil's of communism is one of the great intellectual heroes of our day, as well someone of absolute integrity and moral authority. Alas, he is also 88 years old, and it's hard to conceive of him undertaking the rigors of a political campaign, or even the office of President, at that age. but one can dream...

    --
    Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)

    http://www.lawrenceperson.com/

    1. Re:Too bad Solzhenitsyn is so old by blank+axolotl · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't know.. sure, he was a voice against the atrocities carried out under stalin, but he has some pretty controversial view himself, I understand, such as his nationalism and religious views. EG from the wikipedia article:

      "According to his critics, the book [Two Hundred Years Together] confirmed Solzhenitsyn's strongly anti-semitic views as well as his ideas of Russian supremacy to other nations."

      Now, I don't keep up with him myself, but I've talked to others (liberal americans) who had strong negative opinions of him.

    2. Re:Too bad Solzhenitsyn is so old by niktemadur · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Back in the early nineties, there was a right-wing-ideals convention in my college in Guadalajara, Mexico, endorsed by the dean, with a New Youth type of theme attached to it. Huge colorfull silkscreen banners hung all over the place a month in advance, there were full-page newspaper ads in colour, etc. One out of every three banners sported a picture of Solzhenitsyn, while quoted text warmly "applauded the convention, hoping this type of convention would spread all over Latin America, signed, Alexander Solzhenitsyn".

      The conferences turned out to be a laughable affair, real dyed-in-the-wool fundamentalist rubbish, focusing on the unpardonable sins of women's rights, gay rights, and so on. They even went so far as to have a couple of talks focusing on the evidence that rock 'n' roll is satanic. These were the only talks that were jam-packed, although not enough to compensate for the weak turnout during the remainder of the convention. Deemed a financial bust, the convention was not even attempted the following year.

      My point is that I'll always have those humongous banners of Solzhenitsyn tatooed in my mind, backing up the agenda of right-wing nutjobs. Maybe Solzhenitsyn was duped into throwing his weight behind this fiasco, without fully knowing what it was. Also, the fact that this college was rabidly anti-communist could have made him turn a blind eye to other shenanigans, as in the enemy of my enemy is my friend. But my image of the man remains tarnished until proven otherwise.

      BTW, Solzhenitsyn wasn't even there, except in silkscreens looming like a smiling Big Brother.

      --
      Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
  18. Re:Kerry vs. Bush by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Putin is an intellectual who is attempting to bring all those industries that were basically given as gifts to the former oligarchial rulers back to a position where they're responsible to society, not their foreign shareholders.

    He's a democratically elected socialist trying to repair a quagmire of a country. After being elected twice and doing such a good job that everyone is imploring him to change the laws and run again so they can keep following his leadership, he's not sure if he should. Real totalitarian, he is...

    Kasparov, on the other hand, is a chess player whose political allies include hard-right fascist groups. Which makes his opinion slightly less significant than that of the mayor of a small village, who at least has some experience with what he's talking about, as opposed to Kasparov, who quite frankly reveals his foolishness by his refusal to acknowledge his sharply defined limitations and by the political affiliations he attempts to justify.

    If harm comes to Kasparov, it will most likely come from an outraged Russian citizen.

    --
    -1 Uncomfortable Truth
  19. Chess player? by vga_init · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  20. melodrama by SuperBanana · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:melodrama by really? · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Err... just because you are paranoid, it doesn't mean they are not out to get you.

      I am not Russian, nor do I have any connection to Russia. I do however still have friends and family in another Eastern European country. I thought I had half a clue as to how things were there ... I went back a couple years ago and was VERY VERY surprised. Forget what you read in the news, even the reliable news sources don't get deep enough. And those that do ... don't surface.

      I have no doubt that Russia is just as bad, if not worse. Shrug.

      --

      "Consistency is contrary to nature, contrary to life. The only completely consistent people are the dead." A. Huxley
    2. Re:melodrama by TheSuperlative · · Score: 5, Funny

      Actually, it's spelled with an entirely different alphabet.

      --
      "In God we trust, all others we monitor." -- Unofficial NSA motto
    3. Re:melodrama by Sloppy · · Score: 2, Insightful
      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.
      I see your point, and you're probably right. One question, though: Wanna bet your life on something that is "probably" true?
      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    4. Re:melodrama by langelgjm · · Score: 3, Funny

      Right. Because the KGB is reading Slashdot

      Whether he's justified in his paranoia or not, I'm pretty sure the KGB isn't reading Slashdot, since it ceased to exist in 1991.

      --
      "Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
    5. Re:melodrama by nacturation · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm pretty sure the KGB isn't reading Slashdot, since it ceased to exist in 1991. So then what the hell site are we posting these comments on?
      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
  21. Re:Putin does not respect the rules of the game. by timeOday · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Unfortunately for Garry Kasparov, dealing with Vladimir Putin differs sharply from simply playing a chess game. In chess, there is a set of rules respected by both players. The rules dictate the means of determining a winner.
    Kasparov will not be using his chess skills, but rather trading on the notoriety as a chess grandmaster. In a democracy, perhaps the best cure for the KGB authoritarian-style ruler is Russia's version of Arnold Schwarzenegger - a dilettante cashing in on fame and fortune.
  22. Re:Kerry vs. Bush by RyanFenton · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well, regardless of what you think of his intellectual capacity, Kerry was pushed as the intellectual choice during the election by both sides. His 'flip-flopper' label was intended to take his willingness to change his position and push it as if it were a weakness. Indeed, both candidates graduated from Yale, but Bush was certainly not playing the card. My 'intellectual vs. authoritarian' argument is about the publics perception, not the dubious distinction of which is actually the most clever or curious.

    Ryan Fenton

  23. That's a Putin Lie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Most Russians want Mr. Putin to overturn a constitutional bar on a third term in office."

    It comes from the "Yuri Levada Analytical Centre",. Yuri Levada died November 16th this year (heart attack), but his organization has had repeated attempts at take over by the Kremlin, including trying to replace the board in 2003, that didn't like his polls showing Russians critical of Putin. Without Yuri, information put out in his name is likely tainted by the Kremlin. The poll was done just before Yuri's death, and the results released just after his death. So it's tainted.

    http://www.russiavotes.org/levada-times-obituary.h tm

    "With the Kremlin's strategy of buying off the opposition, crushing dissenters and marginalising anyone who continued to speak up in a flattened political landscape, Levada's polls provided an awkward reminder of realities that Putin could not stomach, such as widespread popular opposition to the wars in Chechnya. The Kremlin preferred spin and polls that it manipulated. In a cunning move typical of current Kremlin tactics, the government ministry that had suddenly discovered it still owned VTsIOM turned it into a joint-stock company in September 2003 and appointed a new board of directors, who happened to be Kremlin loyalists. The Government claimed it wanted to make the agency's finances more transparent, but Levada and his colleagues knew the truth."

    If Putin was really popular he wouldn't have to take control of the media, polling services and all major TV stations. It means that he isn't popular and is doing the KGB kill, lie and deny approach.

    If you read the Moscow press, he's trying to create a false sense that everyone wants him to run a third term.

  24. Re:"news relevant to United States politics" by RealGrouchy · · Score: 2, Funny
    How the hell does Kasparove vs. Putin chess match relate to US politics?

    Because Kasparov is showing Bush how to *really* spread democracy.

    - RG>
    --
    Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
  25. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  26. Ayn Rand's "Open Letter" by Garrett+Fox · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's interesting to see a chessmaster involved in this situation. Long ago, Ayn Rand wrote an essay titled "An Open Letter To Boris Spassky," who was then a chess champion. She denounced him for being a pawn of the Soviet state, turning his intellectual abilities to a pointless logic game because he wasn't willing to change the rules of his country's "game."

    --
    Revive the Constitution.
  27. After-Game News..... by IHC+Navistar · · Score: 2, Funny

    "In other news tonight, famous chess Grandmaster Garry Kasparov was dragged into Red Square and shot earlier this evening after he beat Russian President Vladimir "The Impaler" Putin. Phone calls to the Kasparov residence went eerily unanswered. President Putin denies allegations that he had any part in Kasparov's death, and states that the truth will clear his name when his new book, If I Killed Garry Kasparov, This Is How I Would Do It, is released later this week."

    Next Up: PETA activists set fire to Donals Trump's hairpiece. PETA issued a statement saying that thousands of animals are murdured every year to be made into hairpieces. Trump states that the hairpiece was ".....humanely scraped off his limousine's fender after his driver hit a deer while traveling on the New Jersey Turnpike". "It didn't feel a thing", says the driver.

    --
    Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....