What to do with politics?
12 November 2007 8:20 PM | Last modified: 20:26
Often there’s certain, political or otherwise sensitive chess news, and we’re not sure what to do with it here at ChessVibes. Garry Kasparov criticizing Vladimir Putin, Vladimir Kramnik putting Vishy Anand’s world title in doubt, or, like today, Teimour Radjabov expressing hatred against Armenia. We could have ignored the APA interview with Radjabov, because it all came down to just one (admittedly, astonishing) little sentence. We could have grabbed the trumpets and published the interview with a screaming header like “Teimur Radjabov: We all hate Armenians”. Instead, we decided to express our uncertainty. What to do with politics?
In an interview for the Azeri Press Agency, when asked about the match against Armenia at the recent European Team Championship last month in Crete, Radjabov is quoted as responding:
“One must admit to being worried. No matter where you meet, the enemy remains the enemy. We all hated them. But at such times you try to suppress these feelings so they don’t interfere. In chess it is necessary to play with a clear head, otherwise you won’t achieve your results.”
We know Radjabov can be quite outspoken, especially when angry, but isn’t it highly unlikely that Teimour literally said “We all hated them” to the APA journalist? And if he did, should it be treated by chess journalists as news?
Is any news related to chess players, “chess news”? Depends on the player, we hear you answer. And indeed, recently we decided to keep on presenting Kasparov interviews from American television shows, not because it was about chess, but because it was Kasparov.
The “problem with this problem” is similar to Searle’s declarative illocutionary speech act. By asking the question “should we write about it”, we’re already writing about it. We have now mentioned Radjabov’s astonishing statement about the Armenians, and so we’ve touched upon politics already before we actually knew whether we wanted to.
And now, we could (try to) give you more insight in the tragical history between Armenia and Azerbaijan, from the Armenian-Azerbaijani war (1918-1920) till the Nagorno-Karabakh War, but this is not the place to teach historical lessons and we’re far from qualified to say more about this subject than we’ve done already.
Instead, we’re just expressing doubt. Feel free to express your thoughts on the question: what to do with politics?
Loading ...
Peter where did you find the Kramnik comment on Anand? Seems very unlikely for the great Vladimir
Well of course I’m refering to Kramnik’s “Я одолжил Ð?нанду чемпионÑ?кую корону на времÑ?” in the recent Izvestia interview. Perhaps “putting in doubt” was a bit exaggerated, but you get the point.
Ron, i think all this(including kramnik loan) come from chessbase.com . Commercial, political and, sometimes, chess Website.
I see…I will ask my Russian hairdresser to help out…
By any chance, does somebody know what happened to the TWIC site? It doesnt work anymore.
I hear they’re changing servers. It’s up here.
Tnanks Peter. TWIC magazine is still down (also by following the link on the other server) so I will have to rely on Chessvibes only!
NB did you see the Kramnik-Leko today, awesome. My Fritz10 did not suspect anything until a8D !!! appeared on its horizon.
Ik denk dat deze uitspraak van Radjabov wél relevant nieuws is voor het schaken, net als wat Kramnik zei over Anand (dat nog veel meer, want het gaat over de wereldtitel). Maar zulke zaken beïnvloeden het spel: Kasparov-Karpov kon je toch ook niet bekijken zonder de politiek erachter te kennen. Ook al had dat op zich weinig met het technische aspect te maken, het beïnvloedt het spel echt wel, het hoort bij de psychologische oorlogsvoering en is erg belangrijk. Ik kijk al uit naar de volgende Aronian-Radjabov
Voorts denk ik wel dat Radjabov mss wel fout geciteerd is, maar het feit dat het maar 1 zinnetje is, doet niets terzake vind ik: zo werkt het nou eenmaal. Toch is het wat tricky. Mss zei ie het wel een beetje ironisch ofzo. Dat weet je niet echt duidelijk uit het interview.
Kasparov is al anders, dat is gewoon leuk om te volgen, maar is niet meer schaakrelevant eigenlijk.
radjabov heeft al gereageerd:
“True, we do not have simple relations with Armenia, we are virtually in a state of war, and 20% of our lands are under occupation. Naturally, all this leaves its effect when contests are held between our countries, and the stir created by media and fans from both sides are understandable.
However, I would like to state that the Azerbaijani people, including me as its representative, are tolerant and will never stoop to pathological nationalism. We all sincerely believe that common sense will prevail at the end and the conflict between our countries will be resolved peacefully and within international law.
Yours truly
GM Teimour Radjabov”
Hij ontkent het niet, maar waarschijnljik wat geschrokken van hoe zijn woorden overkwamen.
Over politiek en schaken: ik vnid het alvast goed dat chessvibes de bedenking maakt en er niet als een kip zonder kop opvliegt. Maar inhoudelijk volg ik Bart: als het relevantie heeft op het schaken is het geen sensatiezucht, maar ook echt nuttig nieuws om te weten. Kasparov is nu puur politiek en eigenlijk niet meer schaakrelevant, maartoch, hij komt maandag naar belgie en ik zal toch proberen een interview vast te krijgen. Niet over politiek natuurlijk
Radjabov’s official statement doesn’t sound very sincere. On the other hand, the strong emotions involved are understandable enough. Perhaps people whose country is in such problems simply shouldn’t be questioned about such complicated political issues, to avoid shallow and insulting remarks altogether. After all, emotions are only natural, but words are hard to change.
TWIC is active at this link http://www.chess.co.uk/twic/twic.html
Tanks Srini
Kramnik’s denial is political? I thought it was a gamesmanship comment or related to psychological ploy. Comparing it to Kasparov vs Putin and Radjabov vs Armenia rant is rather immature and stupid. Shameful!
I read the article both in Russian and in translation. It is simply not true that Kramnik is putting Anand’s title in doubt. He is just saying: “Anand won the title on his preferred turf (”clay”) - the tournament. Now Anand has to be fight me on my turf (”grass”) - the match. If he wins, he is really the best.”
Personally I believe that a tournament like Mexico (preferably with Topalov and Ivanchuk) is as good to determine the rightful champion as a match. But Kramnik is entitled to his own opinion.
Radjabov should think before he talks. He know how to do it well when he plays chess, but what he said is disgusting. I thought he was a good player, and despite the conflict between our nations, I followed his games with good intentions; now I can’t stand him.
Don’t forget the scandalous news that there is overwhelming evidence that Paul Truong authored more than 2000 obscene Usenet posts, forging Sam Sloan and Ray Gordon..