Chess Master Kasparov To Retire 320
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."
Upgrade (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Upgrade (Score:5, Funny)
ROFL!
Gary will have Bush doin' the monkeyboy dance in no time!!
Re:Upgrade (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Upgrade (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Upgrade (Score:4, Funny)
You know, I wonder what retirement is like for someone who's job is what most consider recreation?
"Hey Garry, you up for a game or two?"
"No, sorry.. I'm retired. If you'd like, though, we could go put in some ten-hour days working retail."
Deep Blue (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Deep Blue (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Deep Blue (Score:2)
Re:Deep Blue (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Deep Blue (Score:2)
Re:Deep Blue (Score:2, Insightful)
Lemme ask you one think: The guy is intelligent : That's a fact.
He says controversial things.
People call him crazy because of such things.
Don't you think what he says should be analyzed before concluding he's crazy ?
I for one didn't (I don't even know what the man said, BTW).
I don't know what he claimed but this might have been quite spectacular otherwise he'd still be around : crazy people don't happen to be hunted like he's been.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Deep Blue (Score:2)
His support for the September 11 attacks is controversial (and certainly won't make him any friends)
Please Note (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Please Note (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Please Note (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
try here [reference.com].
And we "socialist" fit #1 fairly well if I do say so myself.
Re:Please Note (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Please Note (Score:2)
*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:2)
Funny that you assume that I'm left of center. I'm a fiscal conservative and registered Republican, and I feel betrayed by the criminals that have taken over the Republican party.
Re:Please Note (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Please Note (Score:4, Funny)
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)
Re:Please Note (Score:2)
Re:Please Note (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Please Note (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:Please Note (Score:2)
<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?
Re:Please Note (Score:5, Insightful)
John A is a smart, hard working, intelligent man who has amassed himself quite a hefty estate through his own two hands (and brain!). Good for him!
John B is a plain ol' joe, but also hard working, and hasn't put together an estate, per se, but he has a house and he isn't begging for food. Obviously he would like more money, but, he doesn't need it.
John C is also a plain ol' joe, he also worked hard, but he didn't get to save up much money, just like the majority of people in America.
Jack A is a dumbass who also refuses to put in hard work. He spends every cent he has on beer and lives with his family in a trailer. He can't hold down a job, so he lives on welfare.
Now, according to you, no one should help Jack A, John C, John B, or John A. Let them live for themselves. And, truthfully, I would agree with you. However, once you apply ofspring to the picture, everything changes.
John A, John B, John C, and Jack A all have children. John A can afford to send his children to a good private school, and then to a good college. They always have new clothes and they always have food in their stomaches. Hooray!
John B sends his kids to a public school, which aren't terrible (though, perhaps not as good as a private school) and then to a state funded college, heavily banking on federal financial aid. His kids always have clean, newish clothes and they always have food in their stomaches. Still hooray.
John C dies in a horrible car wreck, leaving behind 3 of his own chillens. Now with only one person working (assuming his wife does), they can barely pay the bills and put food on the table. The kids do without clean, newish clothes and start shopping at Goodwill (let's just hope they're indie hipsters!). If they're lucky, they go to college, but chances are, unless they have a rich aunt or uncle, they aren't going to be able to afford it (unless, of course, it's a community college).
Jack A's kids end up getting jobs around the age of 15 just to buy their own clothes and their own food. Jack A does nothing and the kids pay for everything. They don't go to college because there is no way they could afford it. A few drop out.
According to many libertarians, social programs are bad. As such, there goes federal funding for public schools (which may even cease to exist), federal funding for college (which makes it impossible for John B, John C, and Jack A's kids from ever setting foot in college), or even foodstamps/welfare, which may keep Jack A's kids alive, or, less dramatically, from dropping out of highschool or missing college.
A liberal says "Hey, John A, we're going to take a little more of your millions of dollars and make sure that Jack A and John C's kids get some food and can make it to college". Why? Not just because we feel bad (and, really, making a law just because you feel bad for someone is pretty pathetic, so if that were the only reason, I wouldn't be a liberal either). It's because we know that having 6 kids go to college and become engineers or doctors or lawyers is going to be more beneficial to society, as a whole, than having 6 kids who pack groceries at the local supermarket. More income = more tax revenue, which means better roads, better schools, and, overall, more money throughout the entire country. We also know that by taxing more heavily on top, for the people with 3 BMWs and a Mercedes, instead of taxing the people who don't have enough money to put food on the table, much less pay for roads and schools and college (yes, they use them too, but, frankly, if you can't afford to feed yourself, that's it, game over). We also know that, even though we're going to make sure all these kids have the same opportunities at schooling (grade school and college
Re:Please Note (Score:3, Insightful)
This is benefiting the youth of America so that they go on to make our country better than it already is. There is no "goodness of our heart" in this - it's about the benefit of society as a whole, not on a personal level.
Re:Please Note (Score:2)
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)
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)
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)
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!
Re:Please Note (Score:2)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Re:Please Note (Score:2)
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.
Re:Please Note (Score:2)
Re:Please Note (Score:2)
``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
Re:Please Note (Score:2)
I am curious to see what your definition of socialist is, mainly because I suspect your definition of socialist includes george bush.
Re:Please Note (Score:2)
Re:Please Note (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Please Note (Score:2)
Oh he's good, (Score:5, Funny)
Putie (Score:2, Interesting)
We thought we were getting the mob out of power here in Ukraine recently, turned out we were putting a new one in.
Re:Putie (Score:2)
Chess vs. the KGB (Score:5, Funny)
What an interesting match we are going to witness:
The "Chess master" vs. "the KGB master"
Re:Chess vs. the KGB (Score:2)
Putin puts him on trial, and then not at all.
Anyone out there know if Kaspirov already has
his retirement dacha built in Siberia?
Re:Chess vs. the KGB (Score:5, Funny)
KGB Master: Watch me.
I don't think the match will last very long when you can make up the rules as you go.
Re:Chess vs. the KGB (Score:2, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Celebrities and Elections (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Celebrities and Elections (Score:2, Troll)
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
Re:Celebrities and Elections (Score:2)
This is what Putin's supporters do not get. Wars of aggression do not have anything to do with this kind of government.
M
Re:Celebrities and Elections (Score:5, Informative)
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)
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)
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)
Re:The difference (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, the line between "destroy" and "taxes and regulatory fiat equally 110% of profits" is a bit thin
hawk
*Sigh* Here is to the uninformed (Score:4, Informative)
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)
Re:More stuff (Score:4, Insightful)
Wouldn't it make more sense to title it "How Chess Imitates Life"?
Not to chess players. Chess is a sort of mathematical construct, it's an idea that was discovered. Life has a starting date.
As I understand, he's trying to explain how you can turn a chess obsessed mind towards other things, something that he claims to have done. Personally the games in my dreams are about as bad as the ones I play, so I'd rather put the programming obsessed part of my brain to work, but he is Kasparov...
Re:More stuff (Score:2)
Get it?
Obvious comment to Putin (Score:2, Funny)
rus
Chess grand masters (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Chess grand masters (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Chess grand masters (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Chess grand masters (Score:2)
Once you become a grand master at chess, does it help or hurt your chances with women when you tell them?
I guess it helps with chess playing women. There are some who have been known to "Elo-hop", i.e. there is a Dutch woman who's had four or five chess playing boyfriends, each time she dumped the one she had for one with a higher rating...
Goodbye (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Goodbye (Score:2)
Re:Goodbye (Score:2)
Finally, he sort of sheepishly said we should give others a chance, so I went my merrie way.
Sad News (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
To you, sir, I present the Nerdiest Nerd on Slashdot award. We who are still celibate salute you!
Re:Sad News (Score:5, Funny)
Well, Kasparov's advice was on how to mate...
Re:Sad News (Score:2)
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? =)
Re:Sad News (Score:2)
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
Re:Sad News (Score:2)
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)
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.
Xtreme Chess (Score:3, Funny)
What's up with these chess masters? (Score:2, Interesting)
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
What about Advanced Chess? (Score:5, Informative)
New champion (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
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
He'll be back (Score:2)
Amateur? (Score:5, Funny)
"I will continue to play chess because it is a lot of fun, but no longer on a professional level," he said.
Like he's going to find any "normal" people to play more than once...
wow (Score:2)
Re:Kasparov To Retire.... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Kasparov To Retire.... (Score:2)
Future games would have been easier, too, since the bugs started to get worked out, and because the amount of computer power available to Deep Blue would keep going up.
Yea, and that was kinda poor sportsmanship... (Score:2)
I don't know, K
Re:Kasparov To Retire.... (Score:2)
Re:Kasparov To Retire.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Kasparov To Retire.... (Score:2)
Re:Kasparov To Retire.... (Score:2)
Re:a sad day for chess (Score:2, Informative)
Re: He's not dead.... he's just resting... (Score:5, Insightful)
Chess like any other game/sport needs sponsors, fans and supporters and Kasparov has been a great name attracting many. His mere presense in a tournament would mean big support and big moneys for Chess. Other active Grandmasters, though not very far from him in theory, could not yet attract so much publicity, support and money to Chess. So I think to the Chess world, his retirement is a very sad news.
Checkmate (Score:2, Funny)
Re:More details and a video clip (Score:2, Informative)
Re:RevisedHistory.org -- Kasparov's best website (Score:2)
I was going to, but then I realized you must be lying as well.
Re:If it's not a stupid question... (Score:5, Informative)