Talk:Garry Kasparov/Archive 1

message: Surely it would be clearer to phrase "last undisputed champion and classical champion"? Also adding mention of losses Septentrionalis 18:38, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phrasing of Intro 

message: Featured articles sometimes should be protected, as prominent targets for vandalism. Are all the vandals being blocked? Should this page be protected?-SV|t|th 21:40, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection? 

message: I remember Kasparov having issues with the way the second match against Deep Blue ended. I think he wanted to play Deep Blue again, and IBM left, saying Deep Blue had won, and that was that.  Anyone want to add details on this?
Venice 15:25, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's important to remember that the entire match, including the winnings, were paid for by IBM.  Kasparov lost, but he walked home with $400,000 of IBM's money, so he didn't do too badly.  Yes, he wanted a rematch.  Who wouldn't?  With the possibility of taking another $400K (or maybe $700K for a win)?  I don't know if anyone else offered to sponsor the match, but IBM declined.  Look, it's not really a chess match.  It's a publicity stunt.  Does anyone doubt that an unbeatable chess machine is possible? Shoaler 14:13, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: My hunch is that Kasparov would have had excellent chances in a re-match, because he could have learned more than Deep Blue in the interim.  But what incentive did IBM have for a re-match?  They were in it for the publicity, and Deep Blue winning again couldn't have possibly given them as much publicity as the first victory, whereas losing would have nullified much of their positive press.  Furthermore, Kasparov was such a poor sport, essentially accusing IBM of cheating after one of his losses, I wouldn't be surprised if that factored into IBM's decision to refuse a rematch. --Fritzlein 15:42, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deep Blue debate? 

message: Hi, I am working to encourage implementation of the goals of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Part of that is to make sure articles cite their sources. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Wikipedia. The Fact and Reference Check Project has more information. Thank you, and please leave me a message when a few references have been added to the article. - Taxman 18:57, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
I added a reference as requested for Kasparov's statement about World Championship chances following the 1978 Sokolsky Memorial.  Search for Sokolsky in the linked interview. Skip Jordan 08:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We actually have an entire article devoted to that game: Kasparov versus The World. But you're right, it should be mentioned in this article too (with a link to that one). I hope someone will do it; I'm feeling rather lazy at the moment... --Camembert 15:26, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for references 

message: Even the qualified "arguably the greatest player ever" or "arguably the strongest player ever" seems POV and highly controversial to me. Saying he is the greatest player ever is just subjective, depending on what you mean by "greatest" or how we decide who the "greatest" player is. It would be better to leave this up to the reader in my opinion. Saying "strongest player ever" is a bit better, but still controversial, given the fact that he was not world champion when he retired, and at least three other chessplayers were very close if not equal to him in terms of skill (Anand, Leko, Topalov, and of course Kramnik). Would it be better to say he is "one of the strongest chessplayers ever"? This would seem more accurate, less controversial, and less in need of qualification. --Malathion 05:28, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Greatest player ever"? 

message: Does anyone else think we need a new image? In that one, he's covering most of his face, and we can't really see what he looks like. Some alternatives I've found:
  
I'll look for more in a bit. --Malathion 02:45, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: Please note, that Kasparov is citizen of Russia, so article Garry Kasparov is in :Category:Chess players by nationality->:Category:Russian chess players --ajvol 09:15, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we should remove the other categories then? Unless he holds dual citizenship? --Malathion 09:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: He holds only Russian citizenship (since 1990) and lives in Moscow, as I know. --ajvol 10:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Russian chess players 

message: I see that a properly documented story about Kasparov being pelted with eggs counts as trivia, whereas an undocumented one about someone hitting him over the head with a chessboard is not.  Why? RachelBrown 14:50, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What counts as trivial information? 

message: Daverocks's comments on his latest edit was: "69.244.34.232, "English" in that context does not imply that the origin of the name is English, but explains what "Vajnshtejn" would be in the English language".  This got me wondering.  Kasparov is a Russian who is descended from Germans originally named Weinstein.  What has this got to do with the English language?  Apparently nothing.  
If he still went by his original name, we'd be spelling it in English as Vajnshtejn, Vajnshtajn, Vainshtain, or Vainshtein or some similar variant.  The spelling can differ depending on the transliteration system used, but they would all start with the letter V.  On the other hand, Germans would spell his name Weinstein (with the letter W) because that is their natural way of transliterating the Russian letters into German; and it would be silly to render it any other way given that it was Weinstein to begin with.  Back to English, how can Weinstein be "what Vajnshtejn would be in the English language", when Vajnshtejn is already a transliteration of his Russian cyrillic-letter name into English?  This is transliterating Russian into English, then translating that word from English into English, which is nonsensical.  
The true explanation is that because German uses the same alphabet as English, there is no transliteration involved and a word in German is left untouched when quoted in an English language context.  (We don't re-spell Wagner as VARGNER, or Weber as VAYBER.)  "Weinstein" is NOT what his Russian name would be in the English language, but what it would be, and is, in the German language.  This is English Wikipedia, not German.  Given that he no longer uses the name but is now Kasparov, it's actually a very minor point, but since his name change is mentioned and since we're committed to accuracy, it is correct that we spell his original name Vajnshtejn.  My quibble is with the explanation currently there.  There needs instead to be a note that it would appear as Weinstein in German and is sometimes written that way when the German version of the transliterated name is quoted in English-language contexts.  There, whew.  Anybody have a shorter way of saying that?  JackofOz 12:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weinstein is German, not English 

message: I've removed this category, because Kasparov is neither Jew by belief nor by ethnicty. According to Jewish religious laws, a child born to a Jewish father and a non-Jewish mother (like in this case) is considered "non-Jewish". See Who is a Jew?:
*"... According to Halakha (Jewish law and traditions), only a child born to a Jewish mother is counted as Jewish. A child with a Jewish father and a non-Jewish mother is considered a non-Jew. Although an infant conversion might be contemplated in some circumstances (such as in the case of adopted children or children whose parents convert), children who convert would typically be asked if they want to remain Jewish after reaching religious adulthood, which is 12 years old for a girl, 13 for a boy. This standard is applied within Conservative and Orthodox Judaism. ..."
Tajik 10:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not run from an Orthodox Jewish pov. See this web site, which classifies him as Jewish, so we can and will. 24.226.10.98 01:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No it doesn't, it calls him half-Jewish, which is true, because his father was Jewish. I agree Wikipedia shouldn't be bound by the Orthodox Jewish POV, but it should follow the majority POV (or majority POVs if there are competing ones). According to the Wikipedia Who is a Jew? article (which I'm relying on because I've no idea otherwise), more liberal Judaism accepts someone as Jewish if they have one Jewish parent... AND consider themselves to be Jewish or have been raised Jewish. I'm happy to categorise Kasparov as Jewish if he himself considers himself Jewish, but as far as I am aware he does not. In summary, http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/ is not enough evidence for me. To classify Kasparov as Jewish I'd like one of 2 things: either evidence a that a substantial portion of Judaism (not necessarily majority) consider one Jewish if one has a Jewish father, OR a statement by Kasparov that he considers himself Jewish. Rocksong 01:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Forget all the "rules", because A. it's original research to apply a definition to a person to decide what they are or are not (especially when there's disagreement on the definition), B. These are all religious rules anyway and have no application to ethnicity, which "Jewish" is, C. if you use the rules (which you can't anyway), you can not list anyone as Jewish on Wikipedia unless you have a family tree that tracks their background to the beginning of time. For all you know, they had a maternal ancestor 500 years back through the direct line who was not Jewish, therefore they aren't. So you can't theoretically list anyone as Jewish unless they have formally converted. (A good example is Adrien Brody, people ran around screaming how he was not Jewish because he had a Jewish father and a non-Jewish mother. Well, recently it turned out his maternal grandmother was Jewish, too (she converted away, but that doesn't matter), so "suddenly" Brody is Jewish! See how random this all is? Also D. remove the Armenian category if you plan to remove the Jewish one. It certainly isn't fair and the sources say he is "half Jewish and half Armenian".  I also don't see the problem with "half" (if a person is a "part time politician", you would include them in the politicians category, would you not?). Especially since the Jewish Virtually Library included him. Not to mention that a Jewish Chess Players Stamp collection included him. In any case, please stop trying to use these rules on Wikipedia. 24.226.10.98 02:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's reading of widely available documents, not original research. The Jewish Library does NOT call him Jewish. It calls him half Jewish. Even the very definition at the http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/whojew1.html says, According to Reform Judaism, a person is a Jew if they were born to either a Jewish mother or a Jewish father. Also, Reform Judaism stresses the importance of being raised Jewish; if a child is born to Jewish parents and was not raised Jewish then the child is not considered Jewish. So, according to both Jewish virtual library and Wikipedia "Who is a Jew?" article, he's not Jewish, not according to ANY of the camps. Lots of people claim him as Jewish, e.g. that guy who wrote the book on chess stamps. But that's just one author's opinion. Analogies with "half Armenien" aren't helpful, because Judaism itself has set up this matrilineal descent thing, something Armenia doesn't do. But since you seem to feel strongly, I can't be bothered continuing this, though I'd be happier if you can show a substantial opinion (doesn't have to be majority) that Jewish father = Jewish, or if Kasparov considers himself Jewish. Rocksong 06:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Out of the many other sources i found, this one calls him a "Jewish Armenian", so I guess that OK's the Armenian category as well 216.221.81.98 07:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category "Jewish chess player" 

message: I retooled the succession boxes to be more accurate and representative of the "disputed" nature of the World Chess Championship. They used to look like this:
Which seems to indicate that Kasparov held two titles simulatenously: the World Chess Champion and the FIDE Champion. The boxes make it look like the chess schism occured earlier than it actually did. This is not the case. The explanation at World Chess Championship#Chaos (1993 - ) is adequate for those unfamiliar with this. That box scheme reeks of revisionism. Fortunately, whoever added this box did not go back to all of the (undisputed) World Champions and added the FIDE box as well. This would be like going back and adding the Confederate States of America president box to all US Presidents before Lincoln. Additionally, Veselin Topalov, the current FIDA champion can in no way be thought to be Kasparov's successor. I replaced those boxes with this:
Which I think adequately represents the fact that Kasparov has two "successors". I listed the FIDE Champion above the PCA Champion for no other reason than the fact that Kasparov remained the PCA Champion which he was not the FIDE Champion. Although I'd be open to an alternative proposal, I do think that whatever succession boxes we ultimately end up with need to emphasize Kasparov as the last "undipusted" champion. Again, read the explanation linked above if you need more information on this. savidan(talk) (e@) 12:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually Kramnik never became PCA champion, that would have been an impossibility because PCA folded before the match began.  I have thus fixed the succession box.  Dionyseus 02:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your method is actually not an improvement. It makes it seem like Kasparov was champion for three separate time periods. If Kramnik gained a title with a different name, which I doubt, that should be noted parenthetically in both instances, but I would like to see a source if you wish to call him the Braingames champion, they were just the corporate sponsor. savidan(talk) (e@) 19:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine, here's one where Kramnik is referred to as Braingames World Champion  .  This article refers to Kramnik as the new Braingames World Champion .  This article refers to Kramnik as the Braingames World Chess Champion .  This article refers to Kramnik as the Braingames World Champion .  This article refers to Kramnik as the Brain Games World Champion . This other article refers to it as the Braingames title . I feel that it is unnecessary to provide more sources and will restore the succession box to the more accurate version.  Dionyseus 19:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dionyseus, your revision of my edits creates the same problem Savidan mentioned: it makes it look like his post-1993 title appeared out of thin air. It also doesn't address the point that (in its supporters' eyes) the legitimacy of the title does not come from the sponsoring organisation, but the fact that Kasparov (and later Kramnik) claimed "lineage" to all the previous undisputed champions. In that sense "Classical" is a good a term as any to describe the title Kasparov held (and Kramnik now holds). I think we can agree that there are two claimed titles: FIDE, and the one Kasparov lost to Kramnik in 2000. Therefore, I submit that there should be only two rows in the box. I called the second row "Classical", applying Kramnik's name retrospectively. I'm open to other suggestions (e.g. "World Champion by defeating the previous world champion" but that's a bit long), but whatever it's called, it deserves to be a title in its own right. And it deserves to be a single title, because that's what its supporters call it. To its supporters (a significant proportion of chess fans, perhaps the majority) there is a world title which Kasparov won in 1985 and lost in 2000, and for NPOV that deserves to be mentioned. In short, I'm a bit annoyed at your edit and I'm tempted to just revert it back, but first I'd like to hear from other contributors. p.s. I'm pretty sure the box is wrong anyway, because PCA folded before 1999 and Braingames weren't around until 2000. Rocksong 00:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually Kasparov's 1993 title did pretty much appear out of thin air.  He simply created the PCA and decided to hold his match outside the auspices of FIDE as if he can make all the rules.  My succession box not only informs the reader that Karpov succeeded Kasparov as the FIDE Champion and that Kasparov became the PCA Champion, it also informs that the PCA later folded and was replaced by Braingames, and that Kramnik succeeded him.  I see nothing wrong with the box as it is at the moment.  Let the reader decide in their mind if they want to regard the PCA/Braingames title as "classical" or whatever they want, the fact is that the title was first called PCA World Champion, and when that organization folded it was replaced by Braingames World Champion. As for the dates, that is a small matter and can easily be modified if it is demonstrated to be incorrect. Dionyseus 00:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The 1993 title didn't appear out of thin air.  Kasparov was the undisputed World Champion at the time, and he forked the title which is not appearing out of thin air.  FIDE and so-called "Classical" World Champion are the only titles recognized by the chess world at large.  "Braingames Champion" is not worthy of a succession box. 165.189.91.148 15:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Inaccurate. The PCA folded in 1996.Rocksong 04:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What you say is true. However, the first match that Kasparov played after the PCA folded was in 2000. There's no reason that his title could change without playing a match. Thus, although Kramnik can't accurately be called the PCA champion, Kasparov was. savidan(talk) (e@) 04:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's nonsense to talk of Kasparov as PCA champion until 2000 when there was no such organisation as the PCA after 1996. If you're going to redo the boxes, you'll have to come up with a better format. Otherwise I vote that they be reverted. Rocksong 04:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rocksong is correct here, and I still believe my version of the box is the most accurate.  In 1998 Kasparov was referred to as the WCC (World Chess Council) Champion.  .  The 1998 Shirov-Kramnik qualifier match was held by the WCC.  Braingames organized the 2000 match, it was called the Braingames World Championship, and Kramnik was referred to as the Braingames World Champion.     Dionyseus 06:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's my box proposal: 
I believe this is the most accurate box version.  It can be made more accurate by including WCC 1998 time period, but the box is big enough as it is.  Dionyseus 06:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: We've been through this before. The problem with Dionyseus' proposal is that it makes the PCA-WCC-Braingames-Classical championship look like two different championships (and to be consistent it should be 4), when in fact they are the same. Dionyseus may disagree, but that's not the point. There are essentially two points of view: one that FIDE holds the title, and one that the champion holds the title. For Wikipedia to present NPOV, it should present these two points of view: the FIDE POV (FIDE champion), and the "must-defeat-the-incumbent-to-become-champion" POV, which is now called "Classical" championship. Rocksong 07:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well if one were to go by the "must-defeat-the-incumbent-to-become-champion" POV, the real champion is Fischer because he was never defeated in a match.  If one were to go by that POV, a champion can take the title and keep it indefinitely by not defending it.  Obviously that is the wrong approach, no one person should have ownership of the title, it should be owned by an organization that regulates and organizes fair qualifiers, and in the case of chess its FIDE. Dionyseus 08:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome to disagree. But the fact is a large proportion of chess followers (possibly a majority, possibly not) regard the Kasparov-Kramnik title as the "real" world chess championship, while almost no one regards Fischer as the real champion. Wikipedia's job is not to settle the question. It is to present the majority viewpoint as the majority viewpoint. Where there are two competing majority viewpoints (as in the case of the world chess championship), I believe Wikipedia's job is to present both fairly. Rocksong 10:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Your new box makes sense to me.  It's small, and it avoids the PCA-WCC-Braingames problem.  Dionyseus 22:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone seems to have changed it without discussion. I'm going to leave it at the above version unless there is consensus otherwise. savidan(talk) (e@) 00:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Succession boxes 

message: The article on the Elo rating system claims Veselin Topalov has an Elo of 2813 as of July 2006, one point higher than Kasparov's 2812.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  08:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Topalov has exceeded Garry's final (2005) rating of 2812, but he is still way short of Garry's peak of 2851, achieved in 1999. Rocksong 01:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, so he has!  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  20:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elo no longer highest ever? 

message: Kasparov cant be a Jew because is not a Jew by belief nor by ethnicty. According to the Jewish religion, only a child born to a Jewish mother is Jew. And since Kasparov his mother was Armenian and did that was a Azerbaijani jew that makes Kasparov a Azerbaijani-Armenian not Jewish-Armenian. This should be corrected out in the article. Baku87 19:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He IS a Jew. Not by Halacha but his father is Jewish, and it's enough for wikipedia and other analysis even Israeli law (law of return). Amoruso 01:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kasparov is not a Jew 

message: There are two alternatives:
and:
In my view the first version is tidier and more accurate. Views, please. BlueValour 01:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the 2nd. In the first row, it shows the split, which is important. Karpov did not succeed him as undisputed champion, he succeeded him as FIDE champion only. And, to its supporters, the "Classical" title was not new, which the second row shows. The first table is somewhat biased to the view that the FIDE title is legitimate while the Classical title was invented. But my objections to the 1st table are fairly mild. Rocksong 05:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Succession boxes 

message: The introduction says, "Ranked first in the world a record 23 times between 1985 and 2006". What on earth does that mean? I thought ratings came out 4 times a year. If so, this figure it way too low.  This statement is so vague (and uncited) that I propose removing it from the intro. Rocksong 02:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've removed the sentence. Rocksong 02:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vague comments on Rating 

message: Why do we have this tag on the article? If something is in dispute we should have a cite tag by the problem comment so it can be fixed. I'm inclined to remove this general tag which is making the article look crappy. BlueValour 01:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the absence of any reason I have removed the tag. BlueValour 16:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  cleanup-verify 

message: Ryan Delaney has reverted back to the old introduction. I think the old intro is poorer for the following reasons:
1. It fails to mention that he was the youngest ever (Classical) world champion, which is definitely one of Kasparov's greatest achievements.
2. It contains vague, uncited, and probably incorrect comments about his rating (see "Vague Comments on Rating" above).
3. It puts more emphasis on his rating than his world championship achievements.
4. It has a clumsy parentheses about his removal from the rating list.
So I've tried to have another go at rewriting the introduction. If you disagree, please edit or discuss it here, rather than doing a wholesale revert. Rocksong 23:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: In the section on the 1984 World Championship it reads "Karpov had lost 10 kg (22 lb) over the course of the match and had been hospitalized several times."  I too have heard the claim of Karpov's hospitalization.  I've also heard claims of Kasparov's hospitalization.  I've heard claims of psychiatrists/psychologists who had to have special sessions with the players to prevent them from losing their minds during the event.  After some research I am starting to come to the conclusion that many of these accounts are apocryphyl.  I would like to hear from anybody who has sources that support the claim of either or both players being hospitalized.  Thanks in advance.  71.57.161.254 22:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fact checking regarding the claim "Karpov had been hospitalized several times" in 1984 

message: function msikma(user:UserPage, talk:TalkPage):Void 23:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kasparov's involvement in today's politics 

message: For the third or fourth time, I've removed the "fact" that Kasparov topped the rating list "a record 23 times". I don't believe it. It sounds too low. Please do not restore this "fact" without either (a) a source, or (b) discussing it here. Rocksong 22:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've added the above ratings detail and moved most of it out of the intro. Perhaps others will disagree, but I don't like too much clutter in the introduction. Rocksong 01:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When I edited I too saw 23 quite low but just incorporated into the edit. Good job if you manage to reword so we get to the actual truth. └ VodkaJazz / talk ┐ 19:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I think you might be right. This site http://chess.eusa.ed.ac.uk/Chess/Trivia/AlltimeList.html also only has January and July lists for that time frame. I can't find it in The Week in Chess (admittedly I can't find all TWIC issues for that time); so all we have is that single magazine article which was reported on USENET. I think we should treat it as unofficial. I'll update the article shortly. Rocksong 10:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rating "facts" (again) 

message: Can't anyone find a colour picture of him to replace that black and white one at the top of the page? Also, the description of his last few moves in the game against Karpov in 1993 is extremely difficult to understand. The caption should say which player is black and which is white as well as a comprehensible list of the moves. What does "22" mean? I can understand where c2 is, but it's unclear how the rook moved to c2 and what Karpov did in his turn.
Owen214 09:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page needs improvement 

message: Should there be a line somewhere to this effect? Kramnik is not the World Champion, a computer is. Kramnik lost convincingly to the latest silicone monster.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 11:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Check any reference, Kramnik is the World Champion. Peter Ballard 12:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well obviously I know he's the human World Champion but he lost to a computer.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 10:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Talk:Vladimir Kramnik Peter Ballard 11:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  It was not a match for the World Championship.  Bubba73 (talk), 01:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last human World Champion ? 

message: This is the final paragraph from the Politics subsection from this version of this entry:
:In October 2007, Kasparov announced his intention of standing for the Russian presidency as the candidate of the "Other Russia" coalition, and vowed to fight for a "democratic and just Russia". Later that month he travelled to the United States, where he appeared on several popular television programs. First was The Colbert Report, hosted by Stephen Colbert . Next, Kasparov appeared on the HBO show Real Time with Bill Maher.  A few days later, Kasparov appeared with Wolf Blitzer on CNN's Late Edition . Then, Kasparov appeared on the ABC show Hardball, which is hosted by Chris Matthews </ref>.
The strikeout text I removed; it's miscellaneous details of Kasparov's various October 2007 media appearances (it doesn't end there -- I'm listening to him on Fresh Air right now).  But that's quite unimportant, unless he did or said something really notable on one or a few of those appearances.  If so, grab this text, condense it, and make the quote.  As it is now, though, it's not really important and quite United States-centric (he hasn't made it to non-US media?). Michael Patrick 02:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kasparov's October 2007 United States TV appearances 

message: Are the books worthy of some subsectioning?--Mokru (talk) 22:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subsectioning books 

message: User Quale deleted this following entry as an irrelevant rant.  Apparently, he is bucking for a promotion at the Ministry of Truth.  BTW, I will reinstate this section as often as necessary - for months on end if required.  Philosopher8 (talk) 15:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Back from the Netherworld 

message: Many names are overlinked in the article.  I removed some of them, but there are too many of Smyslov, Kortchnoi, and others.  Bubba73 (talk), 21:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I removed several more, but some may remain.  Bubba73 (talk), 21:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

text: What is the issue with linking names? ChessCreator (talk) 20:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't remove too many. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links): "However, note that duplicating an important link distant from a previous occurrence in an article may well be appropriate... Good places for link duplication are often the first time the term occurs in each article subsection". Peter Ballard (talk) 01:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought it was overlinked, and removed ones other than the first.  Put some back if you think they are needed. Bubba73 (talk), 02:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a feeling the style guide has changed (or is inconsistent), and that it used to be limited one link per linked-article. So you were doing what used to be the right thing. I think the current guideline, as I quoted, is common sense. Peter Ballard (talk) 02:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are definitely right.  Iread the link given above, and it is different from what it was a year or two ago, when it said to link only the first place. Bubba73 (talk), 02:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  overlinked 

message: I have deleted the reference to an alleged match against the computer B Zhao because the documentation is too poor. It has been reinstated, and my intention is to delete it again. The only reference is a single, anonymous blog. I can find no mention of it on chessgames.com (which contains many human-computer games, even little-known ones), indeed no other web references at all. For it to be reinstated, I believe better evidence is required. Comments? Peter Ballard (talk) 02:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Kasparov was playing many computers at that time so it would not surprise me. That being said the reference supplied is poor and await more links on the B Zhao article. Looked for info myself and because Zhao is a chess players name also, the search results are so many in this case you can't easy find what you want. And not having 30 mins to spare gave up that idea. ChessCreator (talk) 02:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That is true, he played many computers. e.g. I looked at his 1994 games on chessgames.com and he even lost a rapid match (must've been a PCA tournament if it was 1994), which is much more significant. Given that, even if the B Zhao match happened, I doubt it is significant enough to be in this article. Peter Ballard (talk) 03:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, should NOT be in this article. In 1994 Kasparov lost to Fritz. That's not in the article, so a game he didn't lose is of little use. Especially as I believe to played many different computers every year around that time. ChessCreator (talk) 03:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Engineer of future break up long ago 18:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  B Zhao computer match? 

message: Kasparov's popularity in Russia is subject to much debate. While polls do tend to indicate that he is quite unpopular, and Putin is the opposite, it is worth noting that most of these polls come from Russian news or the Russian government. Both of these sources are controlled by Putin and would not be likely to confirm his opposition's true status if it is indeed supported. Such details need to be included in the article. --72.205.63.176 (talk) 05:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Putins popularity has been confirmed by outside polls. You're seriously grasping at straws by implying that his popularity is a state created illusion. Kasparovs unpopularity can be confirmed by the fact that he marches with neo-nazis, fascists and every other type of social outcast. Why not normal people? Because normal people don't like him and won't march with him. It's that simple. I don't see how you can call his popularity a subject of debate, the only people debating that he's popular are those who don't live in Russia and are completely out of touch with reality. Sbw01f (talk) 20:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Marching with Nazi's. My god, what have you been reading? - PietervHuis (talk) 20:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you think the National Bolshevik Party is? I think their flag is telling enough. Sbw01f (talk) 16:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't mean he supports their ideas, they just joined the opposition. Kasparov denounces communism, I listened to an interview and one of his favourite fragments was Churchill's speech about the dangers of communism. I can also clearly recall Putin speaking about the "tragedy" that was the collapse of the soviet union. If you want to call Kasparov a Nazi, same goes for Putin in that context. - PietervHuis (talk) 12:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What?? I didn't call him a Nazi or even imply it. I said the fact that he marches with them is an indicator of how popular he is. He's at the bottom of the barrel for support. Sbw01f (talk) 18:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh I don't dispute that his popularity is low in Russia, but I don't really blame him for that. That's all. The march of discontent had a lot of normal people, and so do his conferences. You're creating a caricature of him. - PietervHuis (talk) 20:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popularity statements