New column Kasparov in WSJ

15 Responses to “New column Kasparov in WSJ”

1. Damian Nash on 5 March 2008 19:49 PM
   

   Wow. The world’s foremost chess mind has certainly mastered the art of critical analysis in politics too! What an explosive use of irony. It seems that Kasparov’s contempt for Russian government was exceeded only by Fischer’s contempt for U.S. government. But, by comparison, Kasparov’s diatribe shows coherence — enough to merit publication in the Wall Street Journal.
2. Mark on 5 March 2008 20:45 PM
   

   Well, it makes sense to see what the totalitarian regimes of the world think of our presidential candidates. the fact that they are rooting for Hillary makes her unelectable, and the additional fact that McCain strikes a certain amount of fear and consternation makes him the choice.
3. Eiae on 6 March 2008 13:08 PM
   

   The guy has around 10 followers and now he speaks not only for all of Russia but for the whole non-US World?

   What will be next, I wonder. Will he speak for the Marsians too?
4. Jarvis Johnson on 6 March 2008 13:19 PM
   

   Eiae: I understand from your reasoning that you are a weak mind and not a free thinker like Kasparov.
5. Arie Kanarie on 6 March 2008 14:55 PM
   

   weet iemand of slaan verplicht is bij schaken?
6. Eiae on 6 March 2008 15:01 PM
   

   Free thinker, Jarvis? Hmm, I fail to see the point of your comment no matter how freely I think, so maybe you’re right.
   Anyway, my allegedly weak mind got nothing to with it. Kasparov’s silly comments speak for themselves. I really hope he gives up this nonsense and get back to what he is good at, playing chess.
7. arne on 6 March 2008 15:40 PM
   

   Eiae, where does Kasparov say he speaks for the whole non-US world? He has the right to his opinion, doesn’t he?
   It’s also pretty easy (and lazy) to dismiss his points by simply declaring that they ’speak for themselves’ (meaning in your case that they’re nonsensical): but in what way are they nonsensical?
   If you make such strong statements, you should be willing to back them with strong arguments.
8. Jarvis Johnson on 6 March 2008 20:08 PM
   

   Eiae: You fail to see my point because you aren’t intellectually free and humble enough to reconsider you subjective judgments. Why would number of followers matter? It’s like when Sartre was questioned for criticizing the US warfare in Vietnam: “Who are you to pass judgments on world politics?” Sarte’s respons was: “I’ll tell you. I’m anyone.” That is how a free and strong mind works. So it doesn’t matter how many head of cattle you have following you Eiae, the free and brave thinker will always react to injustice and speak his mind. For my part, I salute Kasparov for this, regardless of him being a ‘trained’ politician or not.
9. Wolf Gray on 6 March 2008 21:06 PM
   

   The “Chessplayer” project was extremely successful (thanks to the Soviet Botvinnik chess school, which was very efficient of young talents selection and training), but the “Politician” project failed. Even co-founders of the UCF (United Civil Front) expelled Garry, telling that they cannot work with a one, who always pulls a blanket on himself. Garry was clever enough not to participate in Russian president elections, fairly estimating how many Russians are going to vote for him, - it could have demolished all other projects even before they start. Do we have now a “Writer” project? Garry, it’s not to late to return to the job you can do. As for your analysis of the US president elections… I have a dime to bet, the result of the “American democratic elections” will be McCain. Why? Stalemate otherwise.
10. alegs1 on 7 March 2008 1:13 AM
    

    Tell Kasparov, to get back to chess ,thats where he belongs instead of trying to play politics without any grass root support !!
11. Eiae on 7 March 2008 15:47 PM
    

    Jarvis, I suggest you study the use of irony in texts before you start lecturing people on free thinking. Then maybe you will even understand Sartre. I also suggest you think twice before branding people, it just makes you look silly.

    Arne, Kasparov creates the image that he and the world is watching before he makes his points about the US elections etc. It’s a clever way to try to make people identify with his comments.
    Why should I not type easy and lazy comments here, btw? I would be perfectly willing to write a report on why I feel Kasparov speaks nonsense, but this is hardly the forum…

    If you disagree with me, then by all means say so. But don’t expect me to enter into a long and, in this forum, quite futile debate.
12. arne on 7 March 2008 17:41 PM
    

    Eiae, it’s perfectly okay to post lazy and easy comments, just don’t look surprised when people start pointing this fact out to you…
13. Jarvis Johnson on 7 March 2008 19:19 PM
    

    Eiae: Fair enough, I know I can react far too strongly sometimes about stuff concerning pitty details as basic human rights, totalitarianism and and the concequences of dirty world politics for your everyday fellow human being. I’m sure Sartre didn’t care as much as I, hence his irony of course. I am sure he was immensely more concerned that everyone stays put where they belong, and do and say only what is generally considered appropriate from the surroundings.

    The irony in your first comment resides in the exaggeration, but that doesn’t mean you don’t express a standpoint. Keep in mind that this was the comment I reacted on.

    The thing is also I don’t mind looking silly in the eyes of you or anybody else, and somehow I have a hunch neither does Kasparov.
14. Jarvis Johnson on 7 March 2008 19:23 PM
    

    Eiae: Uh oh, I just saw this:

    “Arne, Kasparov creates the image that he and the world is watching before he makes his points about the US elections etc. It’s a clever way to try to make people identify with his comments.”

    I see now that I do need to study interpretation of texts. I think I misunderstood you. My apologies!

    How’s work?
15. viktor kvandal on 8 March 2008 0:51 AM
    

    If world was a place where decisions were made based on knowledge and logic and reason, there would be a need for leaders like >Kasparov also.
    But as stupidity and greed rules, we learn nothing from history. Like 5000 ys ago, still stupid wars, of primitive reasons.
    And Goeorge Bush was soon followed by George W. Bush. A good thing that Fidel Castro was not followed by his idiot son Fidel W. Castro.

Feel free to leave a comment...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!