tomic wrote:

[snip]

The real truth is that the Soviet Chess Federation was doing everything to
break off the match between Fischer and Karpov, and finally the Soviets
succeeded.

This is far from the whole truth.

In 1975 Kasparov was only 12 years old and may be he was too
young to understand what was happening. However, today it has been
universally acknowledged that Fischer was stonewalled by the Soviet and
world chess community with the criminal non-interference of the US Chess
Federation.

This is *not* universally acknowledged.

Suffice it to read, among other documents, the book “Russians
vs. Fischer” published in English in Moscow a few years ago. To say that
Fischer avoided the match with Karpov is not only an error, it is a lie
vis-a-vis chess history!

Or perhaps that book itself, is full of inaccuracies and distortions,
if not outright lies.

If Kasparov is unable (or he does not want ) to properly evaluate the events
of chess history that happened in his lifetime, how can we trust his
assessment of history in general years and centuries before he was born?

We don't. We compare Kasparov's theories with everything else that
has been published on these subjects, and evaluate accordingly.
From what I have seen of Kasparov's ideas on history, he has little
grasp of the facts, let alone of the interaction of historical forces.

Are his opinions competent and objective? And how can we trust his
pronouncements today, when, for example, he supported the “theory” that Iraq
possessed weapons of mass destruction” and therefore had to be attacked by
the United States?

Are Lev Khariton's opinions any more competent or objective than
Kasparov's? Whatever the case, each individual "pronouncement"
must be judged for *what* it is, not for *whose* opinion it is,
regardless of the chess skill exhibited by the speaker. Outside
the insular world of chess, Kasparov's opinions on world affairs
have little impact, except perhaps as brief, humorous intrusions
into our daily lives.