# Talk:Garry Kasparov

Kasparov noted in a verifiable interview that Hitler admired Stalin. This has been queried but whether or not Kasparov is right does not matter: he said it, so I removed the insertion of "alleged" Billsmith60 (talk) 11:07, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

C'mon, Bill, that's bullshit and you're better than that.  When you write "Kasparov noted ..." it absolutely matters whether or not Kasparov is right.  That phrasing implies Kasparov is right by saying, "noted".  In fact Kasparov alleged that Hitler admired Stalin, he didn't note it. Criminy. Terrible writing.  Quale (talk) 05:30, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
Let me remind you to keep your comments civil. If others contribute to this debate then a consensus may emerge and something like "alleged" for "noted" might be fine. However, Kasparov's own words cannot be twisted or qualified Billsmith60 (talk) 11:35, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
I thought you were a native English speaker, but maybe not.  Would it be OK for the article to say, "Kasparov noted that the Apollo moon landings were faked", or "Kasparov noted that DJT was the best/worst US president in history"?  Of course not. The first is false and the second is opinion.  Please read WP:SAID.  The part that is directly applicable here is "For example, to write that a person noted, observed, clarified, explained, exposed, found, pointed out, showed, confirmed, or revealed something can imply objectivity or truthfulness, instead of simply conveying the fact that it was said."  I am surprised that you don't grasp this. Quale (talk) 13:17, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
Perhaps "Kasparov noted that Hitler allegedly admired Stalin" might resolve the matter in this instance. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 13:58, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
Nope. "Noted" can't be used here.  See WP:SAID. Quale (talk) 23:27, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
Bill, I retract my statement that you are better than this. I thought you were, but I was wrong. I think you should read MOS:SAID more carefully to see if you can understand it.  Your actions suggest that you do not. Quale (talk) 22:11, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

My edit to remove this was reverted [1]. That is despite the only source backing it up (i.e. this Chessbase article [2]), published a dissenting opinion. I can't find any other sources to back it up, and you've got to admit it would be pretty bizzare to send 50-year-old Tigran Petrosian to a junior tournament. It's an extraordinary claim so needs a good source - not a source which doubts itself. Adpete (talk) 12:58, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi, my point in reverting is the imperative to have the issue discussed here instead of simply editing a Good Article without discussion. Having reread the Chessbase article and comments, and been unable either to find supporting evidence for the claim about the Soviet Chess Federation "oversight", I agree that the bit about it being thought of originally by them as a junior event is dubious: Tigran Petrosian did indeed play (https://www.365chess.com/tournaments/Banja_Luka_1979/24709). Although the Chessbase article states clearly near the top that the Soviets made a mistake about the character of the tournament, I'd be interested in what others may have to say. If there is consensus on Chessbase being incorrect, a possible rewording is: "In 1979, while still unrated, he participated in his first major international tournament. It was held in Banja Luka, Yugoslavia, where he replaced Soviet defector Viktor Korchnoi who had been invited originally but withdrew due to the threat of a boycott from the Soviets". Billsmith60 (talk) 15:43, 16 August 2025 (UTC) Update: that CB story also has an unclear section "Remember this tournament, Garry? It began on your sixteenth ..." which doesn't make clear if it is quote from an interview with Kasparov or part of the complaint about the "junior" bit being inaccurate Billsmith60 (talk) 15:47, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
meta-comment: (a) I've previously come across Good Articles with nonsense in them - the people reviewing them simply do not have time to check everything; and (b) anyway, is there a policy against editing good articles without discussion? - I can't find one. Adpete (talk) 01:54, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
Soltis doesn't mention any mixup: "... and five months later made a spectacular international debut at Banja Luka 1979. He was invited to the tournament with Botvinnik's help and jusified the Patriach's faith by finishing two points ahead of a grandmaster field." Soviet Chess 1917-1991 (Andy Soltis, 2016), p.362 [3] Adpete (talk) 04:04, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
The May 1979 issue of Chess Life has a discussion on pages 246-7 of Korchnoi being unable to play at Banja Luka due to the Soviet boycott. Later that year there is at least one article about the results of the tournament. Two things are evident from the May discussion: (1) The Soviets did not think that it was a tournament for juniors; Petrosian played. (2) Kasparov was not a replacement for the missing Korchnoi. The organizers initially sent Korchnoi a roster that included both him and Kasparov (as well as Petrosian), before they notified him that they were going to rescind his invitation. Someone else must have been the replacement, but I haven't gone through the names to figure out who.  I think that both the story about the Soviets thinking it was a junior tournament, and the story about Kasparov being a replacement for Korchnoi, are just urban legends.
Here is a link to a pdf of that whole year's issues of Chess Life: https://uscf1-nyc1.aodhosting.com/CL-AND-CR-ALL/CL-ALL/1979/1979_All.pdf.  Takes a long time to load. If you want just the May issue, substitute "1979_05" for "1979_All" in the above URL. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:51, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
Billsmith60 has a serious WP:OWN issue with this article and he needs to stop that immediately.  Adpete reasonably asks, "is there a policy against editing good articles without discussion?"  The answer is no.  This is all Billsmith60's crap. Bill, cut it out, now. Quale (talk) 05:59, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
Thanks Bruce. You weren't wrong about the slow download - because it's 1.1 GB in size! I strongly advise anyone checking this to only get the May issue.
Anyway, it includes a letter to Korchnoi (from the tournament organizers) dated 13-Feb-1979 (2 months before the tournament start on 11-April) listing Kasparov, Petrosian and Korchnoi playing, as well other very well known GMs like Hort, Browne and Sax. The story makes no sense on a number of levels: if the Soviets were protesting because Korchnoi was playing, they obviously didn't think it was a junior tournament! I guess it is possible that someone in Baku thought they were sending young Garry to a junior tournament, but it's clear that those in charge knew who was playing.
And I did some digging and it gets more interesting... the "thought it was a junior tournament" bit has been there since the very first available version of the Garry Kasparov Wikipedia page, dated 27 August 2001 [4]. (And it sat there unreferenced until 2023, when the Chessbase reference was added). But the Chessbase reference is from 2007, so I wouldn't be surprised if Chessbase got the story from Wikipedia! Adpete (talk) 06:20, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
And you need to cut out *your crap and practise civility. No one owns any page. I did the extensive GA review that brought this very large article up to a reasonable standard and merely keep an eye on it to ensure any major changes are discussed here as a matter of good practice. Adepte going ahead without first discussing it was the problem Billsmith60 (talk) 08:23, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
Adpete's edit was fine, your revert was trash and reintroduced a falsehood. Your wonderful work in the GA process left a false and ridiculous claim in the article that has only been corrected because of Adpete's diligence.  Instead of scorn, if you really care about your article you owe Adpete gratitude for fixing one of your oversights. Quale (talk) 05:04, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
Featured Articles are indeed supposed to get some respect, see WP:FAOWN.  But Good Articles don't get no respect. I say this despite having looked over your shoulder during the GA process for this article and being fully aware of how much work you put into it.  Now that I have spectated at a couple of FA processes, while being proposer at one GA process and reviewer at another, I have an idea of the qualitative difference between the levels of seriousness of these processes, and indeed they can hardly be compared, at least for biographical articles of major historical figures.
Your other point, which was that this edit needed to be discussed on the talk page, was correct.  I would probably not have come out of the woodwork for an exchange of edit summaries.  Thanks much for getting the ball rolling. Bruce leverett (talk) 12:40, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
Thank you - and you are correct that any significant change needs to be discussed in Talk first. If it is justified, then the change will clearly go through. People will, and do, carp incessantly but the point is to have the article kept at a GA level. It is harder to do than you imagine with individuals sniping and failing to engage in good faith Billsmith60 (talk) 10:39, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
@Bruce leverett: Someone else must have been the replacement, but I haven't gone through the names to figure out who. I think Guillermo García González was the replacement for Korchnoi, András Adorján was the replacement for Gyula Sax, and Milenko Sibarevic was the "1 player from Banja Luka". Khiikiat (talk) 08:24, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

The infobox says he has been active in rapid since 2016, and he came of retirement in 2016. I disagree - he has been playing rapid / blitz / exhibition chess on and off every since his retirement in 2005. I think a bit of a rearrangement is needed. Also his coaching probably needs its own section, as do his business ventures (the original kasparovchess from about 1998-2001 seems to be completely absent), and the FIDE presidency candidacy section belongs somewhere else. Adpete (talk) 10:40, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

These are constructive suggestions.  My only word of caution is that while he is still alive and active, whatever organization you (we) come up with is likely to need further tweaking down the road.  There was a recent discussion of this problem at Talk:Magnus Carlsen#Article size. Bruce leverett (talk) 12:44, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

I think we should remove the reference to Chess Oscars from the lead. I don't think they are particularly relevant any more (and I'm not sure they ever were, especially).
The reference to coaching Carlsen should be removed. It seems to be a small part of his post-retirement activity, and he coached (or at least advised) other players too. Or at least remove the part that Carlsen reached no. 1 in that time. While it's true, it gives the impression Kasparov was instrumental in this, which I don't think people think he was.
I'm also not real happy with the "record" 15 consecutive professional tournament victories. When I go googling this, a good reference is hard to find. The reference in the article is odd - "Culture and Customs of the Caucasus", by Peter Roudik. I can't access it, but it's not a chess book, so I doubt that Peter Roudik is an authority on this. Something about his incredible tournament record would be good, but that record seems very arbitrary.
So what should be there? Things like equal record number of world title wins, third-longest reign as world champion, second highest rated player of all time. Adpete (talk) 02:52, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
I agree about chess oscars -- he didn't become notable for his chess oscars; his chess oscars were just recognition of his notability.
It was widely reported in the chess press that he coached Carlsen, so by our standard of notability, it's worth mentioning, but it is worth about one sentence, not one lengthy paragraph.
Your approach to his "record" of professional tournament victories is very Wikipedia-esque.  If you can't find coverage of this, yes, you can drop it.  We aren't the Guinness book of records.
This leads us to reconsider other "records" in the lead.  The equal record number of world title wins, third-longest reign as world champion, second highest rated ever:  you never see these in the non-chess press, and very seldom in the chess press.  Kasparov didn't become notable by setting these records; he became notable by winning games and tournaments, and when he was notable, idle spectators took to tabulating what records he might be setting.  It's OK to mention these things in the body of the article, but one has to have a very good excuse to promote any of them to the lead.
I have said before, by the way, that his rating, and its rise and fall, and comparisons with other people's ratings, are of questionable notability.  Chess magazines cover ratings, but non-chess publications do not, because the general public knows precious little about ratings, and non-chess writers/editors do not like to try to explain ratings to their readership. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:48, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
Regarding coaching Carlsen: I don't mind the lengthy paragraph in the body of the article. My problem is its mention in the lead. Adpete (talk) 03:48, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
Oh, I see, I missed that sentence in the lead.
I think it is optional there.  Being hired by Carlsen for some training/coaching is a notable thing to do, and the lead of Simen Agdestein mentions it.  But Garry Kasparov already has a long lead full of even more notable things, and all the notable things he has done are competing with each other for the reader's attention in that space.  So I think if the sentence about coaching Carlsen gets crowded out of the lead, I would not mind. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:10, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
I'm almost in full agreement, with the only differing opinion being about the importance of ratings.  My impression across several articles is that Bruce would favor strongly deemphasizing ratings across the board.  I agree that chess articles tend to go overboard on ratings ("highest rated for xx consecutive months" or similar isn't great in the lead), but Kasparov's rating record is highly significant and I think it belongs in the lead.  By contrast, coaching Carlsen seems to me to be of vastly less importance and I'm ambivalent about whether it belongs in the lead given that Kasparov has important non-chess stuff that belongs in the lead as well.  Actually even more than ratings I think world rank is easy for non-chess players to understand.  I'd have to check to see what WP does in tennis bios, but a comparable would be tennis rankings which to my casual observation are considered of interest to tennis lay people and I don't think anyone has any difficulty understanding what "ranked number one in the world from 1984 through 2005" means.  The article does have this now, and I think that's good. Quale (talk) 06:19, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
If we push the tennis analogy a little further, the World Championship is like the Wimbledon of chess (though obviously there are many differences). Kasparov holds or near-holds some "Wimbledon" records - equal most World Championship wins, and one of the longest reigns as champion - which is partly why I think the lead should say something along those lines. The non-Wimbledon wins (15 tournaments in a row) would be nice to keep in the lead, but as I said above, I'd really like to see a better reference than we have now.
BTW it occurred to me that his complete match and tournament record is short enough to write down, and I've begun it at User:Adpete/Playing record of Garry Kasparov. I'm not sure if it will fit in the article, or will need its own. Any feedback welcome. Adpete (talk) 07:04, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
It's still a published work and there is no requirement for all sources to be expert in that particular subject – a biography, for instance Billsmith60 (talk) 10:09, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
I've found, and removed from Wikipedia, incorrect claims based on published books before. Not every book is perfect. If no chess expert backs up the claim, and the only support is from an expert in Central Asian politics, doesn't that raise alarm bells? Adpete (talk) 12:29, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
I did a detailed hunt to see if, by chance, the text of that book might be available anywhere. It's not available in more than snippets on google books (which wasn't even the case at the time of the GA review). But, would you believe it, I did find a copy here: https://www.joaomordomo.com/files/books/ebooks/Social%20Sciences%20and%20Culture/Culture%20and%20Customs%20of%20the%20Caucasus.pdf On p. 186 of that work there is no reference to 15 consecutive victories: it merely says he holds "records for consecutive tournament victories". Hence the book cited is not necessarly wrong but does not support the claim made of 15 in a row. That figure might well be correct but it is not verified by this source. Please amend as appropriate, and this information should be useful for the ongoing discussion about whether that 'record' and the Chess Oscars should stay in the Lead Billsmith60 (talk) 12:43, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
Ah you were too quick to reply... I came back to correct myself! I don't doubt the claim is true, I just doubt its significance, if we can't find a "chess expert" source. Anyway thanks for your reply. Let's (collectively) keep looking and see what we can find. Adpete (talk) 12:50, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

I removed a reference to the PCA in 2001, and the edit was reverted with the comment "answer is yes it [the PCA] did, and FIDE refused to rate Kasparov for a while". But the PCA folded around 1997-98.(The PCA article is unclear, but the 1998 Kramnik-Shirov match was organised by a different organisation), and Kasparov was only struck off the FIDE ratings in 1994, and was restored in 1995. It is true that even after the PCA folded, there was something called the "Professional World Chess Rankings" (see e.g. TWIC of 1-1-2001 [5]), but I see no reason why we should specify those instead of the official FIDE ratings. So I intend to revert the revert. Adpete (talk) 07:08, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

@Billsmith60: MOS:LQ says, Include terminal punctuation within the quotation marks only if it was present in the original material, and otherwise place it after the closing quotation mark. It looks to me like you moved a lot of periods outside of quotation marks, even though they might well have been present in the sources. Did you check the sources before doing this? Bruce leverett (talk) 15:26, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not quite sure what you mean. All I was doing was consistently to replace ." with ". at the end of a sentence ending in a quote – there being c. 30 occurrences of the former and over 300 of the latter. The ". form is more common in British English but that's not the main issue. If you are asking if I removed one or two closing ellipsis (...), yes I did, for they are not critical to the point being referenced Billsmith60 (talk) 11:29, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
MOS:LQ, in the sentence before the one I first quoted, says, Use the logical quotation style in all articles, regardless of the variety of English in which they are written. So, we are to ignore British vs. U.S. usage in this matter, and adhere to Wikipedia usage. I will revert these. No, I was not asking about the ellipsis. Bruce leverett (talk) 13:43, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Go ahead and change the other 300 odd too – from ". to ." – if you can do so globally Billsmith60 (talk) 20:32, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

It has been a while since this article has been reviewed, so I took a look and noticed the following:

The article uses blacklisted sources (lenta.ru) and unreliable sources (twichy, various social media posts)
At over 11,000 words, this article is WP:TOOBIG and too detailed. Information should be summarised more effectively or spun out
There are lots of small, one sentence paragraphs throughout the article which should be merged.
Should this article go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 03:02, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

lenta.ru is said to have gone bad in 2014, but the article in it that we cite was from 2006. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:33, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
After a Herculean effort, this article passed GA review in March '23. But now you want it to go to GAR? Let me make a suggestion: be bold and fix these errors yourself? Regards 12:09, 4 November 2025 (UTC) Billsmith60 (talk) 12:09, 4 November 2025 (UTC) Update: I was pissed off earlier on seeing this comment about GAR when new GAs are being created hand over first by AI. However, if you are unable to assit with editing yourself then I will consolidate those "bitty" sentences into paragraphs Billsmith60 (talk) 13:36, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
@Billsmith60: I also dislike AI-written GAs that don't adhere to the GA criteria: if you find any such articles, please bring them to GAR. Unfortunately, I have neither the time nor the interest in fixing up this article, and encourage those who do to make the edits. I don't bring articles to GAR that are being actively worked on. Z1720 (talk) 18:09, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Ok, that's fair enough. Your points will be addressed, thanks Billsmith60 (talk) 11:49, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
We are citing Twitchy.com in order to quote some of Kasparov's tweets. Twitchy is an "aggregator" -- every article consists of a bunch of tweets, with some light commentary by its editor(s). Twitchy is not mentioned in WP:RSPS, but it doesn't look like a good source, partly due to its obvious bias, and partly because a social media site such as (what was then called) Twitter is itself not a good source.
So I googled for any other place on the Web that quoted some of Kasparov's humor, but I didn't find any. Although Kasparov said some quotable things, I don't think that we need to quote, or otherwise mention, this series of tweets. I will remove it. Bruce leverett (talk) 23:11, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Leukaemia is the British English spelling and Leukemia is the American English Spelling.
In referring to Kasparov's father dying from it.
The original source cited uses "Leukemia". The wikipedia page as it stands uses "Leukaemia" should we standardize our spellings one way or the other? Bismuth43 (talk) 06:50, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

The page is intended to be written in British English, so the British spelling should be used.  (The article is tagged with {{Use British English}} although you have to look closely to verify that.)  This subject doesn't have strong ties (MOS:TIES) to a national variety of English, so MOS:RETAIN applies. Apparently early editors of this page used BrE. Quale (talk) 09:15, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
@Quale Thank you so much! Bismuth43 (talk) 09:28, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
You're welcome. It is a good question.  Wikipedia has so much policy and rules that it's hard to get started here. Some of the policy follows common sense, some of it doesn't.  (Sometimes you need a rule, and if there are two or three reasonable alternatives you must pick one even if it isn't obviously superior to all other options.)  The MOS:RETAIN rule is pragmatic to avoid edit wars, and the MOS:TIES rule avoids unnatural outcomes such as an article on Abraham Lincoln using BrE or an article on Winston Churchill or Big Ben using AmE.  Quale (talk) 21:22, 16 November 2025 (UTC)