Greengard's ChessNinja.com

Kasparov A's for Q's

| Permalink | 33 comments

It's a pretty slow week as things ramp up for the Kramnik-Leko match that starts on Saturday. Meanwhile Garry Kasparov in here in NY for meetings with publishers, among other things. In a few hours I'll post a long article at ChessBase.com about Kasparov's recent stay in Pamplona, Spain. There are also some interesting comments about the third volume of his My Great Predecessors book series. I'll see him again before he leaves this weekend, and if you have some good questions that haven't been answered many times already, post'em if ya got'em.


Would Gary consider running for President of Russia? What are his future political ambitions?

The question which will return each year: Does it fit in his schedule to play in "Wijk aan Zee"?

A non-chess question:

If Garry is serious about a political career, does he think that his support for the "New Chronology" (the folks who believe that Jesus was born in 1053, and that the history of the previous 1000 years is a hoax) will hurt him?
Does he worry about the being viewed as a Fischer-like crackpot, or does he think the ultra-nationalism will help?

(No disrespect intended, it's a serious question.
Garry's a smart guy, so I'm sure he sees how stuff like http://www.new-tradition.org/view-garry-kasparov.htm might sound different coming from a Presidential candidate, as opposed to a former World Champion Chess player...)

Dear mr. Kasparov

1. When you retire; would you take an interest in starting somekind of chess school like Botvinnik did?
2. For how long will you carry on to go for the World Championship in chess?
3. Will you make more chess lectures on Chessbase (heard you were making som lectures about openings)?
4. What do you think the result of the Kramnik vs Leko mathch will be?
5. I believe that part of your plan for Kasparov Chess was to make chess more popular. Do you intend to
restart Kasparov Chess or in any other way to use your fame to insure the interest for chess?
6. Do you have any plans to visit Denmark again?

Well Ok I have a few questions but probably most will just appear to be the ramblings of a mad man!

What does Garry think of the idea of the ACP tour (the concept, not the specific rights and wrongs of the actual ACP one)

What was the last book he read and what was the last chess book he read (MGP aside) and when? Do super GMs still read chess books when they get to such a level?

Does GK think that modern GMs are overly reliant on computer engines to do their opening preparation and post game analysis.

Does he think that his style of play has changed in the last few years?

Just how many suits does he own and are they tailored in Moscow or NY?

Does he eat breakfast - if so what would be usual?

Has he played over any games (maybe even for the MGP series) and got real enjoyment from them - or at his level is it just information gathering?

Finally, does Garry plan to record more for the video series called 'Garry Kasparov - My Story', which finished after he had triumped over Karpov. I cannot rate these videos highly enough. GK is brilliant when speaking about his chess beliefs and how he came up with ideas and moves in certain positions. (Just one personal preference - don't have Plasket at the interviewer - he was interesting enough but the whole point was to hear what GK thought not Plasket). If you haven't got these go and buy them, see your rating jump, and then demand that he record some more.

Who does Gary favor in the Kramnik vs. Leko world championship match ?

I would like to hear Garry's thoughts on how the recent terrorist attack on the school in Beslan will play out in Russian politics - with Putin seeming to use the massacre to clamp down on some political processes, how does he see the attack affecting Russia's own terror war and political leaders (and there ambitions and policies)?

Dear Garry Kasparov. Is there anything common in between: Bush Jr, Ilyumzhinov and the new chronologist Fomenko ?

Is Garry planning on visiting Vancouver BC (Canada) for any exhibitions or book signings? It would be nice to meet him. Ken

Who does he think have better chances in the duel between Kramnik and Leko?

Whether he recognises Kasparov - Kasimdzhanov to a match for the world championship (he didn't recognise Ponomariov as world champion in his book)?

Whether there is any particular child prodigy he is watching with great interest?

Who will be world champion in 2010?

Does he think Kamsky will be able to win his way back into the world' elite again and grow stronger than he was in 1996?

Please ask if the My Story videos will be coming out on DVD.

I second Richard's question. I would love to get "My Story" on DVD.

Who will be Garry's seconds in his match with

Dear Mr. Kasparov,

what do you think of the "Hydra" project (by Chrilly Donninger, www.hydrachess.com) and and would you be willing to face this software/hardware chess machine if the money is right?

Or is another computer-human match with your participation out of the question?

Andreas Schwartmann

Two questions:

Q1: What will be the next innovation in chess? It has been several decades (over a century?) since there was a major rule change, what do you think will happen in the future?

Q2: Do you believe that with the advent of chess software and programs (like Chessbase and Fritz), that it's any longer possible to retain the title of World Champion for more than two matches?

I guess there are already too many questions. Here are a couple more.

1. Does he still consider himself the No 1 player based on current form and performance? How would he rate the current players on current form rather than using FIDE's lifetime, slow-moving ratings?

2. Does he consider Kasim a fair challenger (considering the boycott by Israelis and other big players, his criticism of the knockout as lottery)? Does he think the winner of KK match should play for the unified title or would he prefer the modified proposal by Seirawan?


Last question to Kasparov from my side:

If Kramnik loses to Leko, should he be allowed a rematch (I ask this because I feel that Leko will win a close game and I remember Kasparov and Mig justifying the same last time).


Let's suppose that:
1) The match between you and Kasimdzhanov actually takes place;
2) The final unification match actually takes place;
3) A proper cycle for the world championship is created

If you lose to Kasimdzhanov, or if you lose the final match, will you play in a future qualifier?

Please don't take this as a disrespectful question. I am sending this question to you because I heard many people murdering about that.

Murdering? It's just chess people!

Sorry for my bad english.
"...because I heard many people TALKING about that".

Garry must be commended for his contribution to New Chronology.

Mig, do you know who 'fraggle' is?

:) ;) ;/

My questions:

1. Does he still have the drive to win at all costs like 2001 or is he too preoccupied with arguably more important things like Choice 2008?

2. Obviously a lot of analysis has gone into MGP and such in-depth analysis would have made him stronger ... however, bringing it out in a book means offering up the analysis to the world which includes his competitors ... so overall how does he think MGP affects his future chess results?

3. About chess reunification, if FIDE can string together a match, obviously he would play. If FIDE cant and the winner of Kramnik - Leko (X)organizes a new cycle with the winner of Anand _ Kasparov to play X, will he play? [I doubt he will answer this sinec he will not want to jeopardize any chances of sponsorship for his match with Kasim, but we can always hope].

4. His odds on the Kramnik - Leko match and what he thinks will be the openings etc.

5. His list of medal favorites for the olympiad ... men and women.

Is belief in New Chronology consisent with skepticism towards (say) the Budapest Defense?

Belief in New Chronology is consistent with unbiased, open-minded thinking, which is important for a chessplayer. I don't know if the Budapest Gambit (not Defense, if you meant 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5) is entirely correct, but I have played it against GM's on many occasions.

I wonder if belief that the Earth is flat is also consistent with unbiased, open-minded thinking. Or if Fischer's worldviews are.

New Chronology doesn't sound like unbiased and open minded idea. If we were to compare the widely accepted "normal" chronology to Tarrasch's dogma that knight on the edge of the board is always bad, then it would seem to me that saying the opposite - that the knight on the edge is always good is hardly open-minded thinking - it is as dogmatic as the Tarrasch's dogma, and yet it is more dangerous, cause it is a lot less likely to be right.

I agree with those who think that New Chronology is so ridiculous an idea, that it is ok to question the judgement of people(like Kasparov) who adhere to it.

I consider most of it hogwash, but it's not a religion. Not everyone involved in it believes in every aspect of it. Kasparov is widely read on conventional history and is not a fanatic. Garry's old article stating that "the numbers don't add up" about various historical assumptions and analyses isn't smacking of lunacy, at least if you actually read it.

When you try to summarize every element of the New Chronology into one or two generalizations ("our version of history has 1000 extra years") it of course sounds silly. But it's problematic to discuss because the specific cases they select do expose flaws and holes in the official record. It's the conclusions that are a little wacky.

Trust me, arguing this stuff with Garry is extremely painful because you keep wanting to say "but that CAN'T be right" and he keeps coming up with examples and data with his ridiculous memory. There is a feeling of someone telling you the moon is made of green cheese and asking you to conclusively prove it's not.

The accepted historical record (particularly prior to 1500) is a patchwork of assumptions, guesswork, and myth. It is held together as much by willpower, tradition, and conventional wisdom as by facts. The sheer number of popular misconceptions about things we actually DO know for sure should serve as a warning about the veracity of those things the experts have only a consensus on at best.

Thumb through (or click through) something like "The Timetables of History" some day. You see short definitive statements like "1290: Margaret of Scotland, who was supposed to marry Edward, son of King Edward I of England, died" -- "Dante writes 'La Vita Nuova'. -- "Lisbon University Founded" -- "Invention of spectacles".

Fascinating, most such items (not these in particular) are based on fragments and sources that were created hundreds of years later. At some point someone decided spectacles were invented in 1290 and everyone repeats it.

The overarching and politically significant conclusions of several of the leaders of the New Chronology folks (Kasparov partially included) are ironic to me because they commit the same sins of which they accuse conventional historians. They turn a little data, or absence thereof, into an entire narrative, filling in the blanks with convenient assumptions.


That's an excellent write-up on the new chronology. Cogent, coherent and great analysis.

In the last paragraphs, you have brought out a good similarity between new chronology and traditional historians - tendency to leap to convenient conclusions. That is the problem with history and historical records - most of it seems to be driven by agenda. For chroniclers of the past, the agenda seems to be to please their political masters or fear of religious persecution. Thus a lot of these chronicles have limited historical value. A lot of history comes from British historians who had their own agenda. As also the church. Then we have those with liberal, leftist, racist or other agendas. Most of it involves convenient and selective use of historical evidence and leaving out all that is inconvenient. Thus you see some historians "proving" that most blacks were happy as slaves.

Another similarity between new chronology and traditional historians is the euro-centric view (rarely goes beyond Europe, Egypt, and Israel/Palestine). The Arabic, Persian, Indian, Chinese and many other civilizations are almost completely ignored or dismissed as uncivilized or barbaric. For more definitive view of history, these cultures and civilizations should also be considered as they interacted, influenced, and intersected with the Europeans.

New Chronology talks so much of arithmetic (including zero), algebra, and astrology/astronomy and yet Indo-Arabic contribution is ignored. That's puzzling. In brief, you cannot fix traditional history by replicating its flaws.


It's pointless to argue with the people who unquestionably subscribe to traditional history because of their religious and/or nationalistic beliefs. They simply won't want to see their view of the world challenged, and they also happen to constitute the absolute majority everywhere including the denizens of this chat room.
It's more interesting to speculate what made Garry Kasparov embrace historical revisionism.
His family background suggest a healthy dose of internationalism, while his self-reliance was developed by the constant need to adjust and prove himself adequate in a new and (initially) hostile society. From Baku to Moscow and then to the West - all that without leaning on "his people" because in reality he had no nationality other than Soviet, and no religion other than atheism.
For a guy like this the traditional history had no redeeeming value simply because of its universal use as a tool of indoctrination.
Without getting into a useless argument which dating system is right, I might also mention that New Chronology offers a vast playground for Garry's inquisitive mind.

To Russian Bear:
Since you're probably not russian I'll tell you how it was in my madrassa.
At history classes it seemed like Russia won all the important battles, made all critical countributions in arts and science and served as a beacon to the rest of the world. All their intentions were noble and even their mistakes were holy.
Now I can tell that other cultures are not different from Soviet Union. Everywhere you go you see state/church sponsored propaganda rammed down the throats of young people. Thinking persons just can't accept it, so they find themselves on the fringes together with Bobby Fischer and Flat Earth Society. If antiwar movement was a focus group then the idiot middle truly can marginalize anybody....

Flat or round are no more than makings of the human mind after all, so one could argue that before Galileo the earth was actually flat and after him it was round. It's just the way of seeing things that changes. Nowadays we think that we can explain everything through science, like in the Middle-Ages one could explain everything through religion or spirituality.

Je cherche un mode d'emploi pour mon jeux galileo de KASPAROV.(en franšais)
En payant bien sur
G. Carail

Twitter Updates

    Follow me on Twitter



    About this Entry

    This page contains a single entry by Mig published on September 22, 2004 11:32 PM.

    Poker in the Back was the previous entry in this blog.

    Watch Swiss is the next entry in this blog.

    Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.