..
Mike Murray seems to have completely missed the point: he was not discussing
the value of Kasparov's thoughts being posted in the chess newsgroups. He was
discussing the value of Kasparov's (non-chess) opinions about Iraq, and in
particular, their worthiness to be published (in the Wall street Journal, as I
seem to recall).
Noting that it is "appropriate" to mention Kasparov's article here because he
is a chessplayer, is reasonable. But the original complaint was *not* that his
article was off-topic here.



In a similar vein, Michael Sayers appears to be a jibbering idiot (at least
in this thread), ranting about everything *but* Kasparov's qualifications to
discuss the situation in Iraq.
Not content to merely "miss the point," he goes several steps further, making a
complete ass out of himself, IMO.


The real discussion should be centered around whether or not it is reasonable
for TWSJ to publish political rants by experts in the "wrong" field. Kasparov
is undeniably an expert in chess, which earns him the right to rant about...a
boardgame.

On 17 Jun 2004 05:01:34 GMT, illspam
(NoMoreChess) wrote:

Mike Murray seems to have completely missed the point: he was not discussing
the value of Kasparov's thoughts being posted in the chess newsgroups. He was
discussing the value of Kasparov's (non-chess) opinions about Iraq, and in
particular, their worthiness to be published (in the Wall street Journal, as I
seem to recall).

Noting that it is "appropriate" to mention Kasparov's article here because he
is a chessplayer, is reasonable. But the original complaint was *not* that his
article was off-topic here.

Rob Hill's original comment was:

I am very interested in Kasparov's opinions on chess, not his opinions on the war.

Please go away.

which implied to me that he didn't want to see the article posted
here, in this newsgroup.

As to whether the opinions of non-credentialed amateurs should be
publiished -- politics, economics, health and medicine, religion,
history, even the hard sciences, have all occasionally been enriched
by giving the floor to someone other than the "experts", but overdo
this and the publication becomes crackpot.

..
I am very interested in Kasparov's opinions on chess, not his opinions on
the war.


which implied to me that he didn't want to see the article posted
here, in this newsgroup.


Actually, I think that comment was meant to convey that Kasparov's *expert*
opinions on chess (analysis, etc.) were very welcome, but that his opinions on
other matters (such as Iraq, for example) were no more worthy of note than,
say, the opinion of David Letterman on the theoretical correctness Albin
Countergambit.
His point was very, very simple, yet somehow being ignored, as if
deliberately.


As to whether the opinions of non-credentialed amateurs should be
publiished -- politics, economics, health and medicine, religion,
history, even the hard sciences, have all occasionally been enriched
by giving the floor to someone other than the "experts", but overdo
this and the publication becomes crackpot.


Oddly enough, The Wall Street Journal is a *business-oriented* newspaper, and
I find it surprising that they have room for political rants by famous
chessplayers like Kasparov.

BTW, I have not yet seen this article, and my comments of course, have
nothing to do with whatever he wrote in particular. And as for TWSJ, my only
beef with them is that they won't let my stocks go up consistently, but
continue to report that there has been a see-saw action in the marketss --
confound them! :-)

"NoMoreChess" wrote in message
...
.
Mike Murray seems to have completely missed the point: he was not
discussing
the value of Kasparov's thoughts being posted in the chess newsgroups. He
was
discussing the value of Kasparov's (non-chess) opinions about Iraq, and in
particular, their worthiness to be published (in the Wall street Journal,
as I
seem to recall).
Noting that it is "appropriate" to mention Kasparov's article here
because he
is a chessplayer, is reasonable. But the original complaint was *not* that
his
article was off-topic here.


But is it so much different than the worthiness of an Actor or a
professional wrestler to run for a political office and having their
rantings published? They have even won contests for political office in the
United States without apparent qualifications. Just because Kasparov is a
world class chess player does not mean he does not have qualifications to
discuss politics.



In a similar vein, Michael Sayers appears to be a jibbering idiot (at
least
in this thread), ranting about everything *but* Kasparov's qualifications
to
discuss the situation in Iraq.
Not content to merely "miss the point," he goes several steps further,
making a
complete ass out of himself, IMO.


I think as world champion Kasparov has some idea of politics. Maybe not
world politics but we all know the politics in FIDE have been a problem so
much that Kasparov and others even started their own chess organization. He
has also been affected by Soviet politics when he was supposed to have a
match with Korchnoi but Soviet politics prevented the match with a "Soviet
defector".

In addition, I believe in the late 90's Kasparov was a very public supporter
in Russia for General Alexander Lebed and is now part of a group that is
trying to get someone other than Putin elected in the 2008 elections. I
believe this may give him some qualifications to have his views on a world
political issue published.

Although I agree that if it were not for him being famous for something his
article might not have been published, but isn't it that way with most
everything in politics these days? It seems the content of an article is
not as important as who you are and what connections you have when trying to
get published, but that does not mean he does not have some qualifications
to have an opinion on the subject published.


The real discussion should be centered around whether or not it is
reasonable
for TWSJ to publish political rants by experts in the "wrong" field.
Kasparov
is undeniably an expert in chess, which earns him the right to rant
about...a
boardgame.

..
But is it so much different than the worthiness of an Actor or a
professional wrestler to run for a political office


President Ronald Reagan, Arnold "Governator" Schwartzenneger, etc. -- these
guys used a thing called "name recognition" to launch themselves into high
public office. But any sort of argument "justifying" things because others
have done something won't wash.

Just because Kasparov is a
world class chess player does not mean he does not have qualifications to
discuss politics.


The original complaint was (once again) *not* that Kasparov had no right to
discuss politics.
The original complaint was that his fame as a chess champion in no way served
to qualify him as an "expert" on Iraq. The Wall Street Journal published his
article on a subject unrelated to chess, which is his field of expertise.
Nobody has argued here that they had no right to do so, or that Garry has no
right to express opinions on Iraq.


BTW, Henry Kissenger, writing in The Daily Globe, said that your favorite
line in the Sicilian is "unsound." Jay Leno, on national TV, suggested you
try Owens Defense instead. Get the picture now? :-)

But you snipped out the part where I discussed some of his qualifications to
discuss topics in politics.

David Bohm

"NoMoreChess" wrote in message
...
.
But is it so much different than the worthiness of an Actor or a
professional wrestler to run for a political office


President Ronald Reagan, Arnold "Governator" Schwartzenneger, etc. --
these
guys used a thing called "name recognition" to launch themselves into high
public office. But any sort of argument "justifying" things because
others
have done something won't wash.

Just because Kasparov is a
world class chess player does not mean he does not have qualifications to
discuss politics.


The original complaint was (once again) *not* that Kasparov had no right
to
discuss politics.
The original complaint was that his fame as a chess champion in no way
served
to qualify him as an "expert" on Iraq. The Wall Street Journal published
his
article on a subject unrelated to chess, which is his field of expertise.
Nobody has argued here that they had no right to do so, or that Garry has
no
right to express opinions on Iraq.


BTW, Henry Kissenger, writing in The Daily Globe, said that your
favorite
line in the Sicilian is "unsound." Jay Leno, on national TV, suggested
you
try Owens Defense instead. Get the picture now? :-)

On 17 Jun 2004 06:14:42 GMT, illspam
(NoMoreChess) wrote:

I am very interested in Kasparov's opinions on chess, not his opinions on
the war.

which implied to me that he didn't want to see the article posted
here, in this newsgroup.

Actually, I think that comment was meant to convey that Kasparov's *expert*
opinions on chess (analysis, etc.) were very welcome, but that his opinions on
other matters (such as Iraq, for example) were no more worthy of note than,
say, the opinion of David Letterman on the theoretical correctness Albin
Countergambit.
His point was very, very simple, yet somehow being ignored, as if
deliberately.

But he also added "please go away" which could not have been directed
at Kasparov, but rather at the person who posted K's comments. [Hey,
you snipped that -- are you by any chance an Inveterate Troll ? Or do
you happen to have handy a list of nice things other posters have said
about you?] Actually, Kasparov has been quite active in politics for
some time, so he may have some credentials based on experience too.

"David Bohm" wrote in message
news:l6jAc.9251$ey.1994@fed1read06...(to Greg Kennedy ("NoMoreChess"):
But you snipped out the part where I discussed some of
his qualifications to discuss topics in politics.

Mr Bohm, Greg Kennedy ("NoMoreChess") has routinely practised such
(and worse, in the interest of dishonest distortion) snipping.

In my view, Kasparov seems more qualified to discuss the politics of Russia
than the politics of Iraq.

--Nick

I agree, but I would like to add one more comment. My previous comment
might not have been clear enough for some people.

GM Kasparov is a spokesman for the opposition party in Russia. He has been
involved in Russian politics for at least 6-8 years that I am aware of. I
believe a spokesperson for a major political party in a major country is
more than qualified to have their political views on any subject printed in
other countries. I do not care if that person is a chess player, an actor,
a comedian, a professional wrestler, a stripper, a prostitute etc.... How a
person makes their money does not change the fact that they speak for a
major political party in a major country.

Also, if Henry Kissinger or Jay Leno had an opinion on chess I would check
into what they know about chess. For all I know they could be master level
or higher but I would not know unless I investigated. Just because they are
not professional chess players does not mean they can not teach me something
about chess.

David Bohm
(OK, maybe it was more than one)

"Nick" wrote in message
om...
"David Bohm" wrote in message
news:l6jAc.9251$ey.1994@fed1read06...(to Greg Kennedy ("NoMoreChess"):
But you snipped out the part where I discussed some of
his qualifications to discuss topics in politics.

Mr Bohm, Greg Kennedy ("NoMoreChess") has routinely practised such
(and worse, in the interest of dishonest distortion) snipping.

In my view, Kasparov seems more qualified to discuss the politics of
Russia
than the politics of Iraq.

--Nick

Nick wrote:

In my view, Kasparov seems more qualified to discuss the politics of Russia
than the politics of Iraq.

Why? The world has intensively discusses Iraq for years, and Russia also. And
there is much more wide opinion specter in Russia than in USA, believe me. I
closely watch Russian and Ukrainian media (especially Internet) for many years.

By the way, in Russia Kasparov does not publish his political essays, because
his opinion is irrelevant here. Here his voice is still strong sometimes, but
this will not last long.

Vlad