David Bohm wrote:
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

He says so. There is no party been represented by Kasparov.

Vlad

..
I thought the "discussion" here was directed at the issue of Kasparov getting
published in TWSJ, not just somebody whining about having been told here to "go
away."

If it's just the latter, the proper way to handle it was shown by Robin Hood,
when he tried to cross a stream and met John Little halfway across the log:
"Stand aside, and let the better man pass," commanded John Little. "The better
man?, replied Robin Hood, defiantly. "Then YOU stand aside!"
I will gladly tend to the log, while both men cut their staffs for a proper
duel to settle the matter.



Hey, you snipped that -- are you by any chance an Inveterate Troll ?


No caps: "inveterate troll." Capitalizing such words would lend them some
sort of importance, or stature (which you would already know if you weren't a
"nearly illiterate troll, worthy only of disdain.")







Or do you happen to have handy a list of nice things other
posters have said about you?


I don't keep such lists, as I am neither a tufthunter nor someone who
kisses-up to others (for whatever reason). However, I can say purely offhand
that many posters here have found a few of my multitudinous postings to be
quite funny.




Actually, Kasparov has been quite active in politics for
some time, so he may have some credentials based on experience too.


No. Kasparov's participation in politics does not make him an expert in that
field -- especially with regard to the issue of foreign affairs, Iraq, and so
on. Put it another way: Dubya has proven himself to be rather clueless with
regard to who-has-what in the Middle East, unable (so far) to turn up any
evidence of WMD's, even with the help of an army. Now Dubya has a virtual army
of advisors, who "inform" (or misinform) him about such things, while
Kasparov's tiny army is busy analysing a silly boardgame. This guy has
opinions, just as Fischer does. But world politics is not his forte. Try to
remember that this is the same guy who leaped into bed with Campomanes, after
spending literally YEARS thrashing him, like wheat. The same guy who created
one puppet organization after another, only to lose control thereof to... Jan
Timman, of all people. These are Kasparov's "credentials" in politics. LOL




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


I would like to read Kasparov's opinions on Iraq, just for the heck of it.
It would be impossible for him to do much worse than his commentaries on chess
history, as reported by the book reviewers.

"Rob Hill" wrote in message om...

Why would you say that Kasparov is more informed on politics surrounding
Iraq than the average person? In my previous post, I said I'd be interested
in his opinion if we were talking about Russia, since he is Russian. I have
to disagree with you here. I don't think he has access to more information
on this topic or more life experience that would make his opinion of greater
value (or insight) than some guy in a bar.


Why? Because polls state that the majority of Americans
erroneously believed that we went to war with Iraq because Saddam had
assisted al Qaeda in the 9/11 attacks. This, in an extremely
simplistic way, is a logical assumption, but it exhibits woeful
ignorance. The "average person" on Ameerica is both woefully ignorant,
and utterly apathetic, when it comes to the topic of Iraq. "Some guy
in a bar" if he could be induced to comment about Iraq, wuld probably
be limited to making jokes about Abi Ghraib prison.

Kasparov may or may not have access to more information about
Iraq, than some guy in a bar. However, he is much more like to
actually utilize the information which he can access, since he has
shown a palpable interest in the topic.

In terms of life experience, Kasparov is extremely well
travelled, and has been to the Middle East. He has had the opportunity
to interact with Arabs, and maybe even Iraqis. Moreover, while I
haven't seem the results of any IQ tests that Kasparov has taken, I
imagine that he is a bit smarter than "the average person". While a
high IQ doesn't necessarily entail that you will have worthwhile
opinions or insight (see Fischer for an example of a genius who is a
fool), it is certainly a start.

"Isidor Gunsberg" wrote in message
om...
"Rob Hill" wrote in message
om...
We can be civil and agree to disagree. Why don't we interview the local
homeless guy? Would you be interested in his opinion?

Sure

or a teacher?

Yep

a
policeman?


Why not? None of the above are elites, and any of them could have a
perspective or insight that would be of value.


What makes Kasparov's opinion worth more than the average person's
opinion?

Heck if I know! You'd do better to ask the editor of the Wall
Street Journal.

However, I only maintain that Kasparov's opinion is NOT necessarily
worth **less** than that of some Politician or Political Science
Professor.

He's just another dude. If he were in office or political science
professor,
I'd think otherwise. If the topic were Russia, I'd like to hear his
opinion.
But the truth be told he has nothing to do with Iraq and has no
expertise at
all in this topic any more than the average person.

To give Kasparov his due, he seems to be better informed about the
topics of Iraq and of terrorism than "The Average Person". Indeed,
"The Average Person" is woefully ignorant about both topics. It is
quite possible that thousands of average people might be able to
compose a column that would be at least as good as Kasparov's, or that
of any Political Science Professor, for that matter.

"Isidor Gunsberg" wrote in message
om...
I don't care about your "preferences", and I'm pretty sure that
Kasparov, Martin Sheen, Travolta, or Streisand don't care what you
think, either.

It is the elites with the "expertise" who are responsible for
allowing the rise of Pan-Islamic and Pan-Arab terrorism. As long as
the policy makers continue to make a muddle of things, there is a
need--indeed, a duty--for non-experts to voice their opinions.


"Rob Hill" wrote in message
om...
Just because you agree with someone politically does not mean that
they
should be shooting off at the mouth. I'd prefer to let those who
have a
field of expertise in those affairs influence us-not Kasparov,
Martin
Sheen,
Travolta (who I agree with), Streisand, etc.

Kasparov's chess ability does not qualify him to influence opinions
about
politics.

Isidor Gunsberg wrote:

In terms of life experience, Kasparov is extremely well
travelled, and has been to the Middle East. He has had the opportunity
to interact with Arabs, and maybe even Iraqis. Moreover, while I
haven't seem the results of any IQ tests that Kasparov has taken, I
imagine that he is a bit smarter than "the average person". While a
high IQ doesn't necessarily entail that you will have worthwhile
opinions or insight (see Fischer for an example of a genius who is a
fool), it is certainly a start.

Agree. Just keep in mind that Kasparov has his own business and political
interests, and his stance is not a dispassionate one. Especially when he talks
about Russia and Middle East.

Vlad

Vladyslav Kosulin wrote:
Nick wrote:
In my view, Kasparov seems more qualified to discuss
the politics of Russia than the politics of Iraq.

Why?

One reason could be that Kasparov has lived in Russia, but not in Iraq,
for most of his life.

The world has intensively discusses Iraq for years, and Russia also.

But much of what has been propagated (about both Iraq and Russia) seems
ignorant, misleading, inaccurate, or simply untrue.

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.

I am quite critical of the comparative lack of diversity on many issues in
the 'mainstream' United States media. Mr Kosulin, if you are familiar with
much of what I have written in the chess newsgroups, then you should know
that I tend to cite news sources from outside the United States.

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.

I have to say that when he wrote an article, "Mathematics of the Past", about
a supposedly "missing one thousand years of history" (which was discussed in
the RGCM thread, "Garry Kasparov and the missing One Thousand Years"),
Kasparov revealed his historical ignorance and wrote nonsense.

--Nick

Nick wrote:

Vladyslav Kosulin wrote:

Nick wrote:

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

Why?


One reason could be that Kasparov has lived in Russia, but not in Iraq,
for most of his life.

He has lived in USSR for many years (this is not Russia), and he used to live in
Moscow during last 14 years, but Moscow is even less like Russia than New York
City is like USA in terms of spirit and culture, because living level difference
between Moscow and most of Russia is like difference between Western country and
Columbia.
And I believe that during these 14 years he spent more time abroad than in Russia.
Vlad

Vladyslav Kosulin wrote:
Nick wrote:
Vladyslav Kosulin wrote:
Nick wrote:
In my view, Kasparov seems more qualified to discuss
the politics of Russia than the politics of Iraq.

Why?

One reason could be that Kasparov has lived in Russia, but not in Iraq,
for most of his life.

He has lived in USSR for many years (this is not Russia),

Mr Kosulin, I know that Kasparov was born in 1963 in the USSR, which had
fifteen republics, outside of Russia. To be pedantic, I could have written
that Kasparov has lived in 'Russia or the (former) Soviet Union', but I
thought that my meaning was clear enough.

and he used to live in Moscow during last 14 years, but Moscow is even less
like Russia than New York City is like USA in terms of spirit and culture,

It would seem odd if someone who lives in New York City were to say that he
or she has *not really* been living in the United States because New York City
is unlike the United States 'in terms of spirit and culture'.

because living level difference between Moscow and most of Russia is like
difference between Western country and Columbia. And I believe that during
these 14 years he spent more time abroad than in Russia.

My essential point was that Kasparov has more experiences of life in Russia
(or the Soviet Union) than in Iraq.

--Nick

Wow... Some people are really thick.

I would like to commend NoMoreChess for clarifying, even though it has
served little purpose since some people aren't putting forward the effort to
comprehend his statements.

I ***REALLY*** don't want to hear ***ANYONE*** talking about Iraq in
rec.games.chess and I find the list of Kasparov's "qualifications" to be
lacking.

I'll make up my own mind, just like he has. And when I get a chance to play
him OTB and beat him, we can discuss his political views while he's buying
me a beer.

I still think to put an article by Kasparov out to influence the
chess-playing public is very stupid. It's not his place. Why Kasparov and
not Fischer?

I want Kasparov to write a good book on why he's no longer playing the
King's Indian and I don't want the opinion editor of the Wall Street Journal
to analyze my response to the Benoni since it will be worth about the same
as Kasparov's rant on Iraq.

Thanks

Rob

"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? :-)

Gee,

I don't think we went to war because Iraq assisted Al Qaeda. I think we went
to war because for 10 years Saddam snubbed his nose at the authority of the
U.N. while refusing to meet the conditions of his unconditional surrender in
the Gulf War. He was also killing and torturing his own citizens.

I also don't think that there's any information that Kasparov has access to
that you or I or anyone else with Internet access can get our hands on. Last
time I checked, he was not a member of our government, so he doesn't have
any more access than I do.

I do know that grew up in the Soviet Union and has an extreme distrust for
goverments and is probably under the assumption that anything the government
tells us is a big fat lie.

I did not have the misfortune of growing up in the Soviet Union so I cannot
relate to him. I can, however, understand that he has a different worldview
than I do, since his environment growing up was much different.

I'm sure that many American's are "well traveled" as well. In this age, we
have access to foreign newspapers, chatting (or even playing chess) with
people from all over, reading their political views on web sites, etc. I
don't think I need to go to France to figure out that they don't care to
much for the United States there.

You, like Kasparov, seem to forget (or ignore) that Saddam was a really bad
guy doing really bad things. He surrendered unconditionally, then he refused
to hold his part of the bargain after the troops were gone.

He thought he could do anything, but he couldn't. He'll be handed over to
his own people soon, and I am sure that they will hang him.

Let's not forget his promise to pay the family of any suicide bomber 15K
Iraqi, later raised to 25K Iraqi.
Let's not forget the mass graves.
Let's not forget the rape rooms.
Let's take into consideration the corruption uncovered at the U.N.
Let's take into consideration that France, Germany & Russia all broke their
agreement with the U.N. to not do business with Saddam, which led to further
corruption in the process.
If these guys would have held to their word, they would not have been swayed
to be weak on Saddam. I feel that if the UN would have done it's job, Saddam
would have backed down, and war would have been avoided altogether.

Let's also not forget that I am not telling you anything you have not heard
before. You choose to ignore these statements since you do not agree with
the political party that followed through. If Gore were in charge, and did
the exact same thing, you libs would be yelling his praises (and so would I)

This sort of blind political division will have dramatic long term effects
on this country and the world. You're making a big mistake and you will reap
the consequences of it.


"Isidor Gunsberg" wrote in message
om...
"Rob Hill" wrote in message
om...

Why would you say that Kasparov is more informed on politics surrounding
Iraq than the average person? In my previous post, I said I'd be
interested
in his opinion if we were talking about Russia, since he is Russian. I
have
to disagree with you here. I don't think he has access to more
information
on this topic or more life experience that would make his opinion of
greater
value (or insight) than some guy in a bar.


Why? Because polls state that the majority of Americans
erroneously believed that we went to war with Iraq because Saddam had
assisted al Qaeda in the 9/11 attacks. This, in an extremely
simplistic way, is a logical assumption, but it exhibits woeful
ignorance. The "average person" on Ameerica is both woefully ignorant,
and utterly apathetic, when it comes to the topic of Iraq. "Some guy
in a bar" if he could be induced to comment about Iraq, wuld probably
be limited to making jokes about Abi Ghraib prison.

Kasparov may or may not have access to more information about
Iraq, than some guy in a bar. However, he is much more like to
actually utilize the information which he can access, since he has
shown a palpable interest in the topic.

In terms of life experience, Kasparov is extremely well
travelled, and has been to the Middle East. He has had the opportunity
to interact with Arabs, and maybe even Iraqis. Moreover, while I
haven't seem the results of any IQ tests that Kasparov has taken, I
imagine that he is a bit smarter than "the average person". While a
high IQ doesn't necessarily entail that you will have worthwhile
opinions or insight (see Fischer for an example of a genius who is a
fool), it is certainly a start.

"Isidor Gunsberg" wrote in message
om...
"Rob Hill" wrote in message
om...
We can be civil and agree to disagree. Why don't we interview the
local
homeless guy? Would you be interested in his opinion?

Sure

or a teacher?

Yep

a
policeman?


Why not? None of the above are elites, and any of them could have a
perspective or insight that would be of value.


What makes Kasparov's opinion worth more than the average person's
opinion?

Heck if I know! You'd do better to ask the editor of the Wall
Street Journal.

However, I only maintain that Kasparov's opinion is NOT necessarily
worth **less** than that of some Politician or Political Science
Professor.

He's just another dude. If he were in office or political science
professor,
I'd think otherwise. If the topic were Russia, I'd like to hear his
opinion.
But the truth be told he has nothing to do with Iraq and has no
expertise at
all in this topic any more than the average person.

To give Kasparov his due, he seems to be better informed about the
topics of Iraq and of terrorism than "The Average Person". Indeed,
"The Average Person" is woefully ignorant about both topics. It is
quite possible that thousands of average people might be able to
compose a column that would be at least as good as Kasparov's, or that
of any Political Science Professor, for that matter.

"Isidor Gunsberg" wrote in message
om...
I don't care about your "preferences", and I'm pretty sure that
Kasparov, Martin Sheen, Travolta, or Streisand don't care what you
think, either.

It is the elites with the "expertise" who are responsible for
allowing the rise of Pan-Islamic and Pan-Arab terrorism. As long
as
the policy makers continue to make a muddle of things, there is a
need--indeed, a duty--for non-experts to voice their opinions.


"Rob Hill" wrote in message
om...
Just because you agree with someone politically does not mean
that
they
should be shooting off at the mouth. I'd prefer to let those who
have a
field of expertise in those affairs influence us-not Kasparov,
Martin
Sheen,
Travolta (who I agree with), Streisand, etc.

Kasparov's chess ability does not qualify him to influence
opinions
about
politics.

"Rob Hill" wrote in message om...
Gee,

I don't think we went to war because Iraq assisted Al Qaeda. I think we went
to war because for 10 years Saddam snubbed his nose at the authority of the
U.N. while refusing to meet the conditions of his unconditional surrender in
the Gulf War. He was also killing and torturing his own citizens.

I also don't think that there's any information that Kasparov has access to
that you or I or anyone else with Internet access can get our hands on. Last
time I checked, he was not a member of our government, so he doesn't have
any more access than I do.

Probably you are correct. However, I specifically stipulated that
it wasn't so much the access to information, as the willingness to
utilize that access to actually assimilate that information, and turn
it into knowledge.

I do know that grew up in the Soviet Union and has an extreme distrust for
goverments and is probably under the assumption that anything the government
tells us is a big fat lie.

I did not have the misfortune of growing up in the Soviet Union so I cannot
relate to him. I can, however, understand that he has a different worldview
than I do, since his environment growing up was much different.

Perhaps that "different worldview" was what the Wall Street Journal
considered, when they published his opinion piece

I'm sure that many American's are "well traveled" as well. In this age, we
have access to foreign newspapers, chatting (or even playing chess) with
people from all over, reading their political views on web sites, etc. I
don't think I need to go to France to figure out that they don't care to
much for the United States there.

First you talk about the "average person" (American), and "some
guy sitting in a bar". Now you lower the bar to simply refer to "many
American's [sic]. Yes, probably tens of thousands are as well traveled
as Kasparov.

Chatting on the Internet, or looking at Web sites, does not
provide one with the same life experience as actually travelling
abroad, and going to a particular region such as (in this case) the
Middle East.

You, like Kasparov, seem to forget (or ignore) that Saddam was a really bad
guy doing really bad things. He surrendered unconditionally, then he refused
to hold his part of the bargain after the troops were gone.

I ignore the fact that Saddam is a really bad guy, only because
it is not germaine to our discussion. What I was commenting upon was
your implied assertion that Kasparov had the same level of knowledge
(about Iraq) as the average person. You may not agree with his
conclusions, but that is no justification for claiming something that
isn't correct. Your arguament was that Kasparov ought not have been
given the forum to express his opinion, because he was not an expert,
and (you claimed) he had no more insight into the situation than "some
guy in a bar". I respectfully disagree. In truth, it seems that you
begrudge Kasparov the column space simply because you disagree with
what he wrote....

He thought he could do anything, but he couldn't. He'll be handed over to
his own people soon, and I am sure that they will hang him.

Let's not forget his promise to pay the family of any suicide bomber 15K
Iraqi, later raised to 25K Iraqi.
Let's not forget the mass graves.
Let's not forget the rape rooms.
Let's take into consideration the corruption uncovered at the U.N.
Let's take into consideration that France, Germany & Russia all broke their
agreement with the U.N. to not do business with Saddam, which led to further
corruption in the process.
If these guys would have held to their word, they would not have been swayed
to be weak on Saddam. I feel that if the UN would have done it's job, Saddam
would have backed down, and war would have been avoided altogether.

Even if we take all of this into consideration, the human rights
issues in Iraq then were realtively minor compared to the problems
that were (and are) ongoing in Sudan and the Congo area. Millions of
civilians have been killed, in both those respective countries.
Moreover, the USA could have intervened in both places, and stabalized
the situation, all for a lot lower cost in lives and treasure lost.

Let's also not forget that I am not telling you anything you have not heard
before. You choose to ignore these statements since you do not agree with
the political party that followed through. If Gore were in charge, and did
the exact same thing, you libs would be yelling his praises (and so would I)

This sort of blind political division will have dramatic long term effects
on this country and the world. You're making a big mistake and you will reap
the consequences of it.


"Isidor Gunsberg" wrote in message
om...
"Rob Hill" wrote in message
om...

Why would you say that Kasparov is more informed on politics surrounding
Iraq than the average person? In my previous post, I said I'd be
interested
in his opinion if we were talking about Russia, since he is Russian. I
have
to disagree with you here. I don't think he has access to more
information
on this topic or more life experience that would make his opinion of
greater
value (or insight) than some guy in a bar.


Why? Because polls state that the majority of Americans
erroneously believed that we went to war with Iraq because Saddam had
assisted al Qaeda in the 9/11 attacks. This, in an extremely
simplistic way, is a logical assumption, but it exhibits woeful
ignorance. The "average person" on Ameerica is both woefully ignorant,
and utterly apathetic, when it comes to the topic of Iraq. "Some guy
in a bar" if he could be induced to comment about Iraq, wuld probably
be limited to making jokes about Abi Ghraib prison.

Kasparov may or may not have access to more information about
Iraq, than some guy in a bar. However, he is much more like to
actually utilize the information which he can access, since he has
shown a palpable interest in the topic.

In terms of life experience, Kasparov is extremely well
travelled, and has been to the Middle East. He has had the opportunity
to interact with Arabs, and maybe even Iraqis. Moreover, while I
haven't seem the results of any IQ tests that Kasparov has taken, I
imagine that he is a bit smarter than "the average person". While a
high IQ doesn't necessarily entail that you will have worthwhile
opinions or insight (see Fischer for an example of a genius who is a
fool), it is certainly a start.

"Isidor Gunsberg" wrote in message
om...
"Rob Hill" wrote in message
om...
We can be civil and agree to disagree. Why don't we interview the
local
homeless guy? Would you be interested in his opinion?

Sure

or a teacher?

Yep

a
policeman?


Why not? None of the above are elites, and any of them could have a
perspective or insight that would be of value.


What makes Kasparov's opinion worth more than the average person's
opinion?

Heck if I know! You'd do better to ask the editor of the Wall
Street Journal.

However, I only maintain that Kasparov's opinion is NOT necessarily
worth **less** than that of some Politician or Political Science
Professor.

He's just another dude. If he were in office or political science
professor,
I'd think otherwise. If the topic were Russia, I'd like to hear his
opinion.
But the truth be told he has nothing to do with Iraq and has no
expertise at
all in this topic any more than the average person.

To give Kasparov his due, he seems to be better informed about the
topics of Iraq and of terrorism than "The Average Person". Indeed,
"The Average Person" is woefully ignorant about both topics. It is
quite possible that thousands of average people might be able to
compose a column that would be at least as good as Kasparov's, or that
of any Political Science Professor, for that matter.

"Isidor Gunsberg" wrote in message
om...
I don't care about your "preferences", and I'm pretty sure that
Kasparov, Martin Sheen, Travolta, or Streisand don't care what you
think, either.

It is the elites with the "expertise" who are responsible for
allowing the rise of Pan-Islamic and Pan-Arab terrorism. As long
as
the policy makers continue to make a muddle of things, there is a
need--indeed, a duty--for non-experts to voice their opinions.


"Rob Hill" wrote in message
om...
Just because you agree with someone politically does not mean
that
they
should be shooting off at the mouth. I'd prefer to let those who
have a
field of expertise in those affairs influence us-not Kasparov,
Martin
Sheen,
Travolta (who I agree with), Streisand, etc.

Kasparov's chess ability does not qualify him to influence
opinions
about
politics.