Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Puzzle Games (Games) Announcements

Chess Master Kasparov To Retire 320

Posted by CowboyNeal
from the big-blue-relieved dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Chess Master Kasparov To Retire

Comments Filter:
  • Upgrade (Score:5, Funny)

    by Tablizer (95088) on Friday March 11, 2005 @03:25AM (#11907914) Homepage Journal
    That's okay, because Kasparov 2.0 is coming out and it's gonna whip IBM's hairy blue ass.
    • Re:Upgrade (Score:5, Funny)

      by DenDave (700621) on Friday March 11, 2005 @04:33AM (#11908160)
      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!!
      • Re:Upgrade (Score:5, Funny)

        by b0r0din (304712) on Friday March 11, 2005 @07:17AM (#11908675)
        Bush already does the monkeyboy dance. It's called 'being president.'
      • Re:Upgrade (Score:5, Informative)

        by oconnorcjo (242077) * on Friday March 11, 2005 @10:01AM (#11909486) Journal
        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.

  • Deep Blue (Score:5, Funny)

    by GraemeDonaldson (826049) <graeme@noSpAm.donaldson.za.net> on Friday March 11, 2005 @03:26AM (#11907916) Homepage
    Damn, I guess now Deep Blue [ibm.com] will need to find a new friend to play with?
    • In other news, Vladimir Putin has announced that Deep Blue will be joining his cabinet...
    • Nah, they had a falling out a few years back - see this incredibly bad conspiracy-theory movie [imdb.com] for details.
  • Please Note (Score:3, Insightful)

    by XanC (644172) on Friday March 11, 2005 @03:26AM (#11907921)
    "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.
    • Re:Please Note (Score:2, Informative)

      And here [komitet2008.ru] is a link to that committee in which Kasparov participates.
    • Re:Please Note (Score:3, Insightful)

      by DarKry (847943)
      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 [reference.com].

      And we "socialist" fit #1 fairly well if I do say so myself.
      • Re:Please Note (Score:5, Insightful)

        by mc6809e (214243) on Friday March 11, 2005 @03:47AM (#11908012)
        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.

        • It's not so much confusion as it is a deliberate tactic by those "on the right"* to discredit their opponents. You could be a centrist, and they'll call you a lefty, because your position is left of theirs.

          *Our right wing leaders in the US have left behind their conservative values and are into authoritarianism now. They might profess to be conservatives, but they are not. It's become politics in it's purest form, i.e., not based on any professed principles and ideals, but merely grabbing and holding power
        • Re:Please Note (Score:3, Insightful)

          by hey! (33014)
          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
      • by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 11, 2005 @03:48AM (#11908021)
        > 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????
      • Re:Please Note (Score:3, Informative)

        by gordgekko (574109)
        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.
      • Re:Please Note (Score:4, Insightful)

        by bigsteve@dstc (140392) on Friday March 11, 2005 @03:56AM (#11908046)
        The problem is that many people don't distinguish between socialism, communism and "Stalinism" or "Maoism". They are all "manifestations of the Evil Empire".
      • Re:Please Note (Score:4, Informative)

        by mothlos (832302) on Friday March 11, 2005 @04:00AM (#11908060)
        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.
        • Clinton in the U.S. and Blaire in the U.K. are generally considered moderate liberals.

          <Cough!><Choke!><Splutter!>

          Blair liberal? The man who is as we write attempting to eliminate habeas corpus from the UK legal system?

          On what planet is that considered liberal?

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

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


        In the US maybe. In the UK, socialism is the prevailing dogma and the traditional, orthodox attitude.

        Does that mean that the set of beliefs that is liberal in the US is not liberal in the UK?

        Or does it rather suggest that defining your beliefs in terms of what kinds of people you oppose ("established, traditional, o
      • Re:Please Note (Score:3, Informative)

        by PsiPsiStar (95676)
        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."
      • Re:Please Note (Score:5, Informative)

        by Cody Hatch (136430) <[cody] [at] [chaos.net.nz]> on Friday March 11, 2005 @06:09AM (#11908446) Homepage
        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 [wikipedia.org] 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.)
      • Re:Please Note (Score:4, Insightful)

        by 10Ghz (453478) on Friday March 11, 2005 @07:52AM (#11908797)
        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!
      • And we "socialist" fit #1 fairly well if I do say so myself.

        Well, given that socialist ideas go back centuries, they are as established, traditional and orthodox as you might wish.

        But it is always a bad idea to rely on a dictionary in debate, ridiculous when you propose to use it to prove that a word has the same meaning everywere and pointless when you are looking at technical vocabulary, as in this case for the description of political philosophies.

    • Re:Please Note (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Aqua OS X (458522) on Friday March 11, 2005 @03:53AM (#11908036)
      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.

      • Re:Please Note (Score:2, Insightful)

        by johansalk (818687)


        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 bac
      • Re:Please Note (Score:4, Insightful)

        by nnnneedles (216864) on Friday March 11, 2005 @09:14AM (#11909145)
        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.
    • Re:Please Note (Score:3, Interesting)

      by FuturePastNow (836765)
      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.
    • I'd say that the designation of American citizens and non-citizens as so-called enemy combatants, and the subsequent detention of these persons under the scepter of a nebulous "war on terror" and without the recognition of their basic human rights, very well falls under the category of arbitrary power.

      I am an American Liberal. I oppose this.

    • Liberal pretty much means the same thing here in the US too. It's an english word after all.
      • Liberal pretty much means the same thing here in the US too. It's an english word after all.

        ``Two nations divided by a common language''.

        By observation from outside, `liberal' as a political label in the US has been completely subverted by a bizzare cooperative move from left (who wanted to co-opt the label) and right (for whom the ideas traditionally associated with the label, free markets, personal responsibility etc, were dangerous).

        As an indication of the change, consider the fact that The Economi

    • What do you mean socialist? Do you mean socialist as in creating the largest govt department socialist or socialist as in giving people free perscription drugs socialist. Perhaps you mean socialist as in giving increased benefits to veterans socialist or maybe even enacting steel and softwood tarrifs socialist.

      I am curious to see what your definition of socialist is, mainly because I suspect your definition of socialist includes george bush.
    • I'm a socialliberal ("social" for the social benefits and securities, "liberal" for freedom, democracy and civil rights) who also supports the monarchy we have in Sweden. I'm quite a mix.
    • Re:Please Note (Score:5, Insightful)

      by iamacat (583406) on Friday March 11, 2005 @05:45AM (#11908376)
      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.
    • "Liberal" in the US means someone that most other countries would in this day and age consider a moderate. Your right about the historical definition of liberal, but US liberals are quite a ways away from being even remotely socialist. Nader (someone too extreme for most American liberals), could be rightly called a "moderate socialist".
  • by IInventedTheInternet (818590) on Friday March 11, 2005 @03:28AM (#11907929)
    He had first planned his retirement at age 8, the man can plan ahead I tells ya.
  • Putie (Score:2, Interesting)

    by DarKry (847943)
    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.
  • by tychoS (200282) on Friday March 11, 2005 @03:34AM (#11907954)

    What an interesting match we are going to witness:

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

  • by Neo-Rio-101 (700494) on Friday March 11, 2005 @03:36AM (#11907969)
    All those sports injuries from playing chess has forced Kasparov to retire.

    oh wait.....
  • by porp (24384) on Friday March 11, 2005 @03:46AM (#11908009)
    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

    • Putin plays Chess instead of going after terrorists

      I'm sorry, but in the Chechnya war, it's Putin who is the main terrorist. It just happens that his opponents belong to a religion with a known strong affinity to terrorism themselves.

      While Putin is pretty much a new führer, it was not him who started this strategy. Chechnya was warring against the Russian occupation during the tzars time, and under Stalin's rule, nearly all the population was deported away from their homes! After a thaw roughly h
      • Word up. There is no such thing as Western style democracy, there is just democracy. Freedom of the press, freedom of religion, etc. are part of the package.

        This is what Putin's supporters do not get. Wars of aggression do not have anything to do with this kind of government.

        M
    • by Scarblac (122480) <slashdot@gerlich.nl> on Friday March 11, 2005 @04:35AM (#11908165) Homepage

      The Week in Chess report on the press conference [chesscenter.com].

      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.

    • The difference (Score:2, Insightful)

      by leereyno (32197)
      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
      • Re:The difference (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Scarblac (122480) <slashdot@gerlich.nl> on Friday March 11, 2005 @05:03AM (#11908253) Homepage

        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 [world-mysteries.com].

        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.

      • Re:The difference (Score:4, Insightful)

        by be-fan (61476) on Friday March 11, 2005 @06:07AM (#11908436)
        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.
        • Re:The difference (Score:3, Insightful)

          by hawk (1151)
          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
    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 11, 2005 @04:50AM (#11908219)
      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.
  • More stuff (Score:5, Informative)

    by phantomfive (622387) on Friday March 11, 2005 @03:54AM (#11908037) Journal
    Here is a link [chessbase.com] 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.
  • Check Mate..

    rus
  • by Mori Chu (737710) on Friday March 11, 2005 @04:11AM (#11908096)
    Once you become a grand master at chess, does it help or hurt your chances with women when you tell them?
  • Goodbye (Score:4, Interesting)

    by arron_nz (846050) on Friday March 11, 2005 @04:15AM (#11908107) Homepage
    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.
    • Was this one of those deals where 20 boards are set up, student versus Kasparov, and he goes to each board in turn to make his move? I always found that really impressive, mainly because it takes about all of my concentration to look ahead to my next move when playing against one mediocre opponent.

      • I've been a "chess master" three times in such games. Granted it was at Ren (and Stimpy) Faire, so I don't know what his ranking really was. I've never been ranked for that matter. But it was pretty cool, if I do say so myself, having all of the nineteen he'd already beaten plus other spectators watching the games.

        Finally, he sort of sheepishly said we should give others a chance, so I went my merrie way.
  • Sad News (Score:5, Interesting)

    by techsoldaten (309296) * on Friday March 11, 2005 @04:29AM (#11908154) Journal
    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
    • Re:Sad News (Score:5, Funny)

      by identity0 (77976) on Friday March 11, 2005 @05:12AM (#11908276) Journal
      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!
    • Eventually got laid, had a kid, took an interest in things outside chess.

      Good to see you got your priorities straight, and in order. Oh, wait. How did you get laid before you got interested in things outside of chess? =)
      • How did you get laid before you got interested in things outside of chess? =)

        Ahum... I present to thee The 1st World Chess Beauty Contest [1wcbc.com]. Unfortunately you need to register before you can vote on photos. Chessbase [chessbase.com] has some examples. The first picture isn't really the best, but well, at least it shows that several people in the chess world have their priorities straight, while still interested in "things" inside of chess :-)

        (In general, over the last year it has become a huge trend in chess magazines e

        • Hey, thanks! That was pretty cool. All that beauty and brains, too. I never thought of using chess as a keyword when searching the Russian Mail Order Bride websites! =) Hmmmmm.

          I noticed that with some of the professional female Go players in Japan, there's a kind of "idoru" or "pin-up" aspect. Not that I'm much of a Go player. I just like hot brainy babes.
  • I don't buy it... (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.

  • by Anonymous Coward
    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 [komitet2008.ru] 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 Fi

  • by FleaPlus (6935) on Friday March 11, 2005 @05:09AM (#11908266) Journal
    I'm curious to see if Kasparov will continue to be involved with Advanced Chess [wikipedia.org], 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 [betterhumans.com].
  • New champion (Score:5, Interesting)

    by szlevente (705483) on Friday March 11, 2005 @05:19AM (#11908297)
    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.
  • Putin in 2008? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by gmajoe (718442)
    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 [russianembassy.org] 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 ha

  • Arbitrary speculation: He was just pissed that he lost against Topalov in the last round (and in a most embarassing manner too, he hardly put up a fight, but headed straight for a lost pawn ending).
  • Amateur? (Score:5, Funny)

    by troon (724114) on Friday March 11, 2005 @06:58AM (#11908596)

    "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...

  • by j0nb0y (107699)
    I had no idea he was so politically active. Good luck to him.

APL is a write-only language. I can write programs in APL, but I can't read any of them. -- Roy Keir

Working...