Kasparov Misses the Historical Chance on a Silver Platter

By Lev Khariton

Honestly, I had been expecting Kasparov to respond to Fischer’s
arrest in Tokyo. As much as I was almost sure that Garry would not
keep mum on the Israeli players shunned away from the Tripoli World
Championship. In the latter case I was disappointed. Garry did not
utter a word in condemnation of the Lybians. True, that was
self-explanatory. I do not think that today there is love lost between
Kasparov and once so much beloved the country of his father’s
ancestors. Garry had not been too fastidious about the Promised
Land’s money which he allegedly appropriated when setting up his
megasite three years ago.He should feel himself quite lucky regarding
the Israeli banks had dropped their lawsuit and charges against him.
Fischer’s detention was, however, a horse of another color and
this time Garry to show to the world that nothing human is alien to
him, or rather that benevolence and compassion were born long before
him. It was a unique chance for him to show that he really remembers
his predecesssors to whom he is dedicating his recent books.However,
the readers of his article on Fischer in “The Wall Street
Journal” should not be lured into believing that Kasparov is
mourning Fischer’s tragic destiny.
To begin with, Kasparov is too selfish and self-centered to give even
the smallest bit of his heart.All his life he has known only the world
of chess in which he was an indisputable king and being pestered by
his mother, his numeropus trainers, sponsors and backscratchers he
would hardly have noticed Fischer had he met him, say, at Times
Square, Budapest or Champs Elysees.It should be added that by giving
Fischer his due now that Fischer is behind bars, Kasparov raises
himself in the eyes of the new generation of chess players.However, I
would like to remind the readers what Kasparov said about Bobby after
the second match between Spassky and Fischer in Yugoslavia in 1992:
“Here sits this poor fellow with whom one cannot talk normally,
and what’s more he plays bad chess”. Quite arrogant and
unpleasant, isn’t it?
In short, what is the essence of Kasparov’s article
“Fischer’s price”? Actually, he painstakingly
narrates Bobby’s biography and the highlights of his chess
career. But we don’t need Kasparov to tell us all that. I, for
one, have been following Bobby’s career since the first mention
of his name in 1957 when his famous “immortal” game
against Donald Byrne was published in the magazine “Chess in the
USSR”. Later we all witnessed Bobby’s ups and downs in the
memorable Candidates’ tournaments in 1959 and 1962, his
magnificient victory at the intezonal tournament in Sweden in 1962
when left behind himself, with an undefeated score the galaxy of
Soviet grandmasters – Petrosian, Geller and Korchnoi. Still
memorable as if it happened yesterday was the interzonal tournament in
Sousse when Bobby leading the field of the world’s top
grandmasters quit the show when his victory and qualification for the
candidates’ were absolutely a forgone conclusion. These and
other facts of Bobby’s biography are well known to me and those
of my generation. Doubtless, all those who love chess and were born
afterwards know Bobby’s chess biography as well. Frankly, it is
amazing that today when Fischer’s freedom as a human being is at
stake, Kasparov should not have gone into the details of Bobby’s
chess career. That could be good for his book, but not for the
predicament Bobby finds himself in today.
Kasparov has missed (delibeartely or not, that is the question!) a
unique chance that chess history has brought him on a silver paltter.
He could have extended at this crucial moment in Fischer’s life
his hand to him. That would be a great boost for his future book on
Fischer. One champ is coming to the other’s rescue! Successor
saves predecessor! Kasparov is enjoying such an authority in the chess
world, he has such connections in high places, that evey chess player
and every chess fan would have only welcomed Kasparov’s effort
to save his colleague from jail and deportation. Besides, Kasparov as
is well known is a pampered boy of the US administration.I do not know
any other chess player in the world (and sure, I will never know) who
contributes political articles in the most prestigious and influential
newspaper “The Wall Street Journal”. Kasparov could have
appealed to the US Department of Justice and US administration to, so
to speak, forgive Fischer for having violated the UN sanctions against
Iraq.He could have appealed on the behalf of the whole chess world!
Years ago I wrote an article in which I compared Karpov and Kasparov
alleging that both of them have much in common as former Soviet
citizens, that they had come from the same political system, that they
are both communists. I noted that that both of them only represented
the two opposite sides of the same medal. In particular, I pointed out
that Karpov while playing against Korchnoi in Merano in 1981, could
have easily ddone something to save Korchnoi’s son from Siberian
prison and exile. Krpov did not budge an inch to help his rival. He
was winning game after game against a grandmaster whose only son had
been framed up as a criminal for,so to speak, army dodging. Karpov was
doing that in front of the whole world, he was doing it without, so to
say, any sense of shame. Today Kasparov, instead of trying to help
Fischer, is worried that “today's flourishing scholastic chess
movement could be harmed as Fischer’s woes and beliefs make
headlines around the world. People may believe that this is what
happens when a genius plays chess -- instead of what happens when a
fragile mind leaves his life's work behind” What a fantastic
piece of demagogy! Only blind and heartless people would swallow this
crappy lip service! Kasparov should have better thought about what
damage his reputation is giving to chess: supporting the war in Iraq
with all its lies and cruelty, total indifference when FIDE rules are
violated (after all, who destroyed FIDE in the first place…?),
his undeserved priviledge to play a title FIDE match, etc. Kasparov
writes about Fischer’s anti-Semitism. Why then didn’t
Kasparov express his protest against the refusal of Libya to grant
visas to the Israeli chess players? Should we accuse him of
anti-Semitism as well?
And last but not least. How should we understand Kasparov’s
phrase “Fischer singlehandedly revitalized a game that had been
stagnating under the control of the Communists of the Soviet sports
hierarchy”? Whom does Kasparov want to please? Those people who
do not love communism?But very few are loyal to communism today? Or
those people who will pay him for this phrase. The fact of the matter,
however, is (and Kasparov knows it better than many people) that
Soviet chess with players like Tal, Spassky, Stein, Polugayevsky,
Bronstein, Smyslov, Geller was never stagnating. Kasparov himself had
learnt a lot from them. Spassky once cracked a joke that Fischer was a
typical representative of the Soviet Chess School! And Fischer
defeated the Russians because he had studied their games as no one
else…

Where is the link for this article ??

"Aryeh Davidoff" wrote in message
om...
Kasparov Misses the Historical Chance on a Silver Platter

By Lev Khariton

Honestly, I had been expecting Kasparov to respond to Fischer’s
arrest in Tokyo. As much as I was almost sure that Garry would not
keep mum on the Israeli players shunned away from the Tripoli World
Championship. In the latter case I was disappointed. Garry did not
utter a word in condemnation of the Lybians. True, that was
self-explanatory. I do not think that today there is love lost between
Kasparov and once so much beloved the country of his father’s
ancestors. Garry had not been too fastidious about the Promised
Land’s money which he allegedly appropriated when setting up his
megasite three years ago.He should feel himself quite lucky regarding
the Israeli banks had dropped their lawsuit and charges against him.
Fischer’s detention was, however, a horse of another color and
this time Garry to show to the world that nothing human is alien to
him, or rather that benevolence and compassion were born long before
him. It was a unique chance for him to show that he really remembers
his predecesssors to whom he is dedicating his recent books.However,
the readers of his article on Fischer in “The Wall Street
Journal” should not be lured into believing that Kasparov is
mourning Fischer’s tragic destiny.
To begin with, Kasparov is too selfish and self-centered to give even
the smallest bit of his heart.All his life he has known only the world
of chess in which he was an indisputable king and being pestered by
his mother, his numeropus trainers, sponsors and backscratchers he
would hardly have noticed Fischer had he met him, say, at Times
Square, Budapest or Champs Elysees.It should be added that by giving
Fischer his due now that Fischer is behind bars, Kasparov raises
himself in the eyes of the new generation of chess players.However, I
would like to remind the readers what Kasparov said about Bobby after
the second match between Spassky and Fischer in Yugoslavia in 1992:
“Here sits this poor fellow with whom one cannot talk normally,
and what’s more he plays bad chess”. Quite arrogant and
unpleasant, isn’t it?
In short, what is the essence of Kasparov’s article
“Fischer’s price”? Actually, he painstakingly
narrates Bobby’s biography and the highlights of his chess
career. But we don’t need Kasparov to tell us all that. I, for
one, have been following Bobby’s career since the first mention
of his name in 1957 when his famous “immortal” game
against Donald Byrne was published in the magazine “Chess in the
USSR”. Later we all witnessed Bobby’s ups and downs in the
memorable Candidates’ tournaments in 1959 and 1962, his
magnificient victory at the intezonal tournament in Sweden in 1962
when left behind himself, with an undefeated score the galaxy of
Soviet grandmasters – Petrosian, Geller and Korchnoi. Still
memorable as if it happened yesterday was the interzonal tournament in
Sousse when Bobby leading the field of the world’s top
grandmasters quit the show when his victory and qualification for the
candidates’ were absolutely a forgone conclusion. These and
other facts of Bobby’s biography are well known to me and those
of my generation. Doubtless, all those who love chess and were born
afterwards know Bobby’s chess biography as well. Frankly, it is
amazing that today when Fischer’s freedom as a human being is at
stake, Kasparov should not have gone into the details of Bobby’s
chess career. That could be good for his book, but not for the
predicament Bobby finds himself in today.
Kasparov has missed (delibeartely or not, that is the question!) a
unique chance that chess history has brought him on a silver paltter.
He could have extended at this crucial moment in Fischer’s life
his hand to him. That would be a great boost for his future book on
Fischer. One champ is coming to the other’s rescue! Successor
saves predecessor! Kasparov is enjoying such an authority in the chess
world, he has such connections in high places, that evey chess player
and every chess fan would have only welcomed Kasparov’s effort
to save his colleague from jail and deportation. Besides, Kasparov as
is well known is a pampered boy of the US administration.I do not know
any other chess player in the world (and sure, I will never know) who
contributes political articles in the most prestigious and influential
newspaper “The Wall Street Journal”. Kasparov could have
appealed to the US Department of Justice and US administration to, so
to speak, forgive Fischer for having violated the UN sanctions against
Iraq.He could have appealed on the behalf of the whole chess world!
Years ago I wrote an article in which I compared Karpov and Kasparov
alleging that both of them have much in common as former Soviet
citizens, that they had come from the same political system, that they
are both communists. I noted that that both of them only represented
the two opposite sides of the same medal. In particular, I pointed out
that Karpov while playing against Korchnoi in Merano in 1981, could
have easily ddone something to save Korchnoi’s son from Siberian
prison and exile. Krpov did not budge an inch to help his rival. He
was winning game after game against a grandmaster whose only son had
been framed up as a criminal for,so to speak, army dodging. Karpov was
doing that in front of the whole world, he was doing it without, so to
say, any sense of shame. Today Kasparov, instead of trying to help
Fischer, is worried that “today's flourishing scholastic chess
movement could be harmed as Fischer’s woes and beliefs make
headlines around the world. People may believe that this is what
happens when a genius plays chess -- instead of what happens when a
fragile mind leaves his life's work behind” What a fantastic
piece of demagogy! Only blind and heartless people would swallow this
crappy lip service! Kasparov should have better thought about what
damage his reputation is giving to chess: supporting the war in Iraq
with all its lies and cruelty, total indifference when FIDE rules are
violated (after all, who destroyed FIDE in the first place…?),
his undeserved priviledge to play a title FIDE match, etc. Kasparov
writes about Fischer’s anti-Semitism. Why then didn’t
Kasparov express his protest against the refusal of Libya to grant
visas to the Israeli chess players? Should we accuse him of
anti-Semitism as well?
And last but not least. How should we understand Kasparov’s
phrase “Fischer singlehandedly revitalized a game that had been
stagnating under the control of the Communists of the Soviet sports
hierarchy”? Whom does Kasparov want to please? Those people who
do not love communism?But very few are loyal to communism today? Or
those people who will pay him for this phrase. The fact of the matter,
however, is (and Kasparov knows it better than many people) that
Soviet chess with players like Tal, Spassky, Stein, Polugayevsky,
Bronstein, Smyslov, Geller was never stagnating. Kasparov himself had
learnt a lot from them. Spassky once cracked a joke that Fischer was a
typical representative of the Soviet Chess School! And Fischer
defeated the Russians because he had studied their games as no one
else…

Aryeh Davidoff wrote:
Kasparov Misses the Historical Chance on a Silver Platter

By Lev Khariton

Honestly, I had been expecting Kasparov to respond to Fischer’s
arrest in Tokyo. As much as I was almost sure that Garry would not
keep mum on the Israeli players shunned away from the Tripoli World
Championship. In the latter case I was disappointed. Garry did not
utter a word in condemnation of the Lybians. True, that was
self-explanatory. I do not think that today there is love lost between
Kasparov and once so much beloved the country of his father’s
ancestors. Garry had not been too fastidious about the Promised
Land’s money which he allegedly appropriated when setting up his
megasite three years ago.He should feel himself quite lucky regarding
the Israeli banks had dropped their lawsuit and charges against him.
Fischer’s detention was, however, a horse of another color and
this time Garry to show to the world that nothing human is alien to
him, or rather that benevolence and compassion were born long before
him. It was a unique chance for him to show that he really remembers
his predecesssors to whom he is dedicating his recent books.However,
the readers of his article on Fischer in “The Wall Street
Journal” should not be lured into believing that Kasparov is
mourning Fischer’s tragic destiny.
To begin with, Kasparov is too selfish and self-centered to give even
the smallest bit of his heart.All his life he has known only the world
of chess in which he was an indisputable king and being pestered by
his mother, his numeropus trainers, sponsors and backscratchers he
would hardly have noticed Fischer had he met him, say, at Times
Square, Budapest or Champs Elysees.It should be added that by giving
Fischer his due now that Fischer is behind bars, Kasparov raises
himself in the eyes of the new generation of chess players.However, I
would like to remind the readers what Kasparov said about Bobby after
the second match between Spassky and Fischer in Yugoslavia in 1992:
“Here sits this poor fellow with whom one cannot talk normally,
and what’s more he plays bad chess”. Quite arrogant and
unpleasant, isn’t it?
In short, what is the essence of Kasparov’s article
“Fischer’s price”? Actually, he painstakingly
narrates Bobby’s biography and the highlights of his chess
career. But we don’t need Kasparov to tell us all that. I, for
one, have been following Bobby’s career since the first mention
of his name in 1957 when his famous “immortal” game
against Donald Byrne was published in the magazine “Chess in the
USSR”. Later we all witnessed Bobby’s ups and downs in the
memorable Candidates’ tournaments in 1959 and 1962, his
magnificient victory at the intezonal tournament in Sweden in 1962
when left behind himself, with an undefeated score the galaxy of
Soviet grandmasters – Petrosian, Geller and Korchnoi. Still
memorable as if it happened yesterday was the interzonal tournament in
Sousse when Bobby leading the field of the world’s top
grandmasters quit the show when his victory and qualification for the
candidates’ were absolutely a forgone conclusion. These and
other facts of Bobby’s biography are well known to me and those
of my generation. Doubtless, all those who love chess and were born
afterwards know Bobby’s chess biography as well. Frankly, it is
amazing that today when Fischer’s freedom as a human being is at
stake, Kasparov should not have gone into the details of Bobby’s
chess career. That could be good for his book, but not for the
predicament Bobby finds himself in today.
Kasparov has missed (delibeartely or not, that is the question!) a
unique chance that chess history has brought him on a silver paltter.
He could have extended at this crucial moment in Fischer’s life
his hand to him. That would be a great boost for his future book on
Fischer. One champ is coming to the other’s rescue! Successor
saves predecessor! Kasparov is enjoying such an authority in the chess
world, he has such connections in high places, that evey chess player
and every chess fan would have only welcomed Kasparov’s effort
to save his colleague from jail and deportation. Besides, Kasparov as
is well known is a pampered boy of the US administration.I do not know
any other chess player in the world (and sure, I will never know) who
contributes political articles in the most prestigious and influential
newspaper “The Wall Street Journal”. Kasparov could have
appealed to the US Department of Justice and US administration to, so
to speak, forgive Fischer for having violated the UN sanctions against
Iraq.He could have appealed on the behalf of the whole chess world!
Years ago I wrote an article in which I compared Karpov and Kasparov
alleging that both of them have much in common as former Soviet
citizens, that they had come from the same political system, that they
are both communists. I noted that that both of them only represented
the two opposite sides of the same medal. In particular, I pointed out
that Karpov while playing against Korchnoi in Merano in 1981, could
have easily ddone something to save Korchnoi’s son from Siberian
prison and exile. Krpov did not budge an inch to help his rival. He
was winning game after game against a grandmaster whose only son had
been framed up as a criminal for,so to speak, army dodging. Karpov was
doing that in front of the whole world, he was doing it without, so to
say, any sense of shame. Today Kasparov, instead of trying to help
Fischer, is worried that “today's flourishing scholastic chess
movement could be harmed as Fischer’s woes and beliefs make
headlines around the world. People may believe that this is what
happens when a genius plays chess -- instead of what happens when a
fragile mind leaves his life's work behind” What a fantastic
piece of demagogy! Only blind and heartless people would swallow this
crappy lip service! Kasparov should have better thought about what
damage his reputation is giving to chess: supporting the war in Iraq
with all its lies and cruelty, total indifference when FIDE rules are
violated (after all, who destroyed FIDE in the first place…?),
his undeserved priviledge to play a title FIDE match, etc. Kasparov
writes about Fischer’s anti-Semitism. Why then didn’t
Kasparov express his protest against the refusal of Libya to grant
visas to the Israeli chess players? Should we accuse him of
anti-Semitism as well?
And last but not least. How should we understand Kasparov’s
phrase “Fischer singlehandedly revitalized a game that had been
stagnating under the control of the Communists of the Soviet sports
hierarchy”? Whom does Kasparov want to please? Those people who
do not love communism?But very few are loyal to communism today? Or
those people who will pay him for this phrase. The fact of the matter,
however, is (and Kasparov knows it better than many people) that
Soviet chess with players like Tal, Spassky, Stein, Polugayevsky,
Bronstein, Smyslov, Geller was never stagnating. Kasparov himself had
learnt a lot from them. Spassky once cracked a joke that Fischer was a
typical representative of the Soviet Chess School! And Fischer
defeated the Russians because he had studied their games as no one
else…
How amusing. Kasparov is considerably more gracious toward Fischer than
Fischer ever has been toward Kasparov. Can anyone find a single kind
word Fischer has ever uttered with regard to Kasparov? What is
Kasparov's debt to Fischer?

Bah!

GB

[...]

Kasparov has missed (delibeartely or not, that is the question!) a
unique chance that chess history has brought him on a silver paltter.
He could have extended at this crucial moment in Fischer’s life
his hand to him. That would be a great boost for his future book on
Fischer. One champ is coming to the other’s rescue! Successor
saves predecessor! Kasparov is enjoying such an authority in the chess
world, he has such connections in high places, that evey chess player
and every chess fan would have only welcomed Kasparov’s effort
to save his colleague from jail and deportation. Besides, Kasparov as
is well known is a pampered boy of the US administration.I do not know
any other chess player in the world (and sure, I will never know) who
contributes political articles in the most prestigious and influential
newspaper “The Wall Street Journal”. Kasparov could have
appealed to the US Department of Justice and US administration to, so
to speak, forgive Fischer for having violated the UN sanctions against
Iraq.He could have appealed on the behalf of the whole chess world!

Where did you get the idea that celebrities ought to try to influence
judges and juries?

Fischer has been indicted by a grand jury. There is nothing that the
'Justice Department and the US administration' should do about this,
and little they can do.

If you don't like the law under which he was indicted, then that's
what you should be attacking. Bad laws don't become better by being
applied unsystematically.

Jürgen

This really gets annoying. No matter what Kasparov does or doesn't do every
week you get one of those ridicolous articles with nothing but bad things
about Kasparov, and nothing but good things about Fischer although we
haven't heard of him in the last 12 years.
In this article he complains that Kasparov doesn't use his influence to make
sure that Fischer gets free, like Kasparov has any influence at all in this
matter and I'm sure if he did try to do that the day after we would get an
article by Lev Khariton about how Kasparov tries to take abuse of Fischers
imprisonment to make himself more popular.
On one hand Khariton complains very hard that Kasparov with his influence
states his opinion about the war on Iraq, but on the other he wants Kasparov
to misuse all his powers to influence the judge.
Then Khariton goes on with complaining that Kasparov is for some reason not
allowed to discuss Fischers chess biography, but in the next few lines
Khariton does exactly this himself.
Next thing is that it is not Fischer with all his rants about how Jews are
cause of all evil that has anti-semitism but that it is actually Kasparov
cause he didn't protest worldchampionship in Lybia, who exactly of the top
10 did protest this? And all those people who played there are even watched
it on the internet are they all against the jews?
Next thing Khariton complains about is the very 'evil' sentence :
"Fischer singlehandedly revitalized a game that had been
stagnating under the control of the Communists of the Soviet sports
hierarchy? "
and starts saying that Kasparov says this for the people that are paying
him.
Now if Kasparov can't even say such a innocent sentence that actually says
something good about Fischer then he'd do better to shut up completely.
But no, then somebody would start complaining again that he doesn't protest
something, and if he does protest they will start complaining that he
shouldn't interfere bla bla bla .

I'm not in particular a fan of both Fischers nor Kasparovs personality but
of their fantastic chess, but what does get on my nerves is the demonization
of them. All in all both are just human beings who never did any serious
crime against anyone.



"Aryeh Davidoff" schreef in bericht
om...
Kasparov Misses the Historical Chance on a Silver Platter

By Lev Khariton

Honestly, I had been expecting Kasparov to respond to Fischer’s
arrest in Tokyo. As much as I was almost sure that Garry would not
keep mum on the Israeli players shunned away from the Tripoli World
Championship. In the latter case I was disappointed. Garry did not
utter a word in condemnation of the Lybians. True, that was
self-explanatory. I do not think that today there is love lost between
Kasparov and once so much beloved the country of his father’s
ancestors. Garry had not been too fastidious about the Promised
Land’s money which he allegedly appropriated when setting up his
megasite three years ago.He should feel himself quite lucky regarding
the Israeli banks had dropped their lawsuit and charges against him.
Fischer’s detention was, however, a horse of another color and
this time Garry to show to the world that nothing human is alien to
him, or rather that benevolence and compassion were born long before
him. It was a unique chance for him to show that he really remembers
his predecesssors to whom he is dedicating his recent books.However,
the readers of his article on Fischer in “The Wall Street
Journal” should not be lured into believing that Kasparov is
mourning Fischer’s tragic destiny.
To begin with, Kasparov is too selfish and self-centered to give even
the smallest bit of his heart.All his life he has known only the world
of chess in which he was an indisputable king and being pestered by
his mother, his numeropus trainers, sponsors and backscratchers he
would hardly have noticed Fischer had he met him, say, at Times
Square, Budapest or Champs Elysees.It should be added that by giving
Fischer his due now that Fischer is behind bars, Kasparov raises
himself in the eyes of the new generation of chess players.However, I
would like to remind the readers what Kasparov said about Bobby after
the second match between Spassky and Fischer in Yugoslavia in 1992:
“Here sits this poor fellow with whom one cannot talk normally,
and what’s more he plays bad chess”. Quite arrogant and
unpleasant, isn’t it?
In short, what is the essence of Kasparov’s article
“Fischer’s price”? Actually, he painstakingly
narrates Bobby’s biography and the highlights of his chess
career. But we don’t need Kasparov to tell us all that. I, for
one, have been following Bobby’s career since the first mention
of his name in 1957 when his famous “immortal” game
against Donald Byrne was published in the magazine “Chess in the
USSR”. Later we all witnessed Bobby’s ups and downs in the
memorable Candidates’ tournaments in 1959 and 1962, his
magnificient victory at the intezonal tournament in Sweden in 1962
when left behind himself, with an undefeated score the galaxy of
Soviet grandmasters – Petrosian, Geller and Korchnoi. Still
memorable as if it happened yesterday was the interzonal tournament in
Sousse when Bobby leading the field of the world’s top
grandmasters quit the show when his victory and qualification for the
candidates’ were absolutely a forgone conclusion. These and
other facts of Bobby’s biography are well known to me and those
of my generation. Doubtless, all those who love chess and were born
afterwards know Bobby’s chess biography as well. Frankly, it is
amazing that today when Fischer’s freedom as a human being is at
stake, Kasparov should not have gone into the details of Bobby’s
chess career. That could be good for his book, but not for the
predicament Bobby finds himself in today.
Kasparov has missed (delibeartely or not, that is the question!) a
unique chance that chess history has brought him on a silver paltter.
He could have extended at this crucial moment in Fischer’s life
his hand to him. That would be a great boost for his future book on
Fischer. One champ is coming to the other’s rescue! Successor
saves predecessor! Kasparov is enjoying such an authority in the chess
world, he has such connections in high places, that evey chess player
and every chess fan would have only welcomed Kasparov’s effort
to save his colleague from jail and deportation. Besides, Kasparov as
is well known is a pampered boy of the US administration.I do not know
any other chess player in the world (and sure, I will never know) who
contributes political articles in the most prestigious and influential
newspaper “The Wall Street Journal”. Kasparov could have
appealed to the US Department of Justice and US administration to, so
to speak, forgive Fischer for having violated the UN sanctions against
Iraq.He could have appealed on the behalf of the whole chess world!
Years ago I wrote an article in which I compared Karpov and Kasparov
alleging that both of them have much in common as former Soviet
citizens, that they had come from the same political system, that they
are both communists. I noted that that both of them only represented
the two opposite sides of the same medal. In particular, I pointed out
that Karpov while playing against Korchnoi in Merano in 1981, could
have easily ddone something to save Korchnoi’s son from Siberian
prison and exile. Krpov did not budge an inch to help his rival. He
was winning game after game against a grandmaster whose only son had
been framed up as a criminal for,so to speak, army dodging. Karpov was
doing that in front of the whole world, he was doing it without, so to
say, any sense of shame. Today Kasparov, instead of trying to help
Fischer, is worried that “today's flourishing scholastic chess
movement could be harmed as Fischer’s woes and beliefs make
headlines around the world. People may believe that this is what
happens when a genius plays chess -- instead of what happens when a
fragile mind leaves his life's work behind” What a fantastic
piece of demagogy! Only blind and heartless people would swallow this
crappy lip service! Kasparov should have better thought about what
damage his reputation is giving to chess: supporting the war in Iraq
with all its lies and cruelty, total indifference when FIDE rules are
violated (after all, who destroyed FIDE in the first place…?),
his undeserved priviledge to play a title FIDE match, etc. Kasparov
writes about Fischer’s anti-Semitism. Why then didn’t
Kasparov express his protest against the refusal of Libya to grant
visas to the Israeli chess players? Should we accuse him of
anti-Semitism as well?
And last but not least. How should we understand Kasparov’s
phrase “Fischer singlehandedly revitalized a game that had been
stagnating under the control of the Communists of the Soviet sports
hierarchy”? Whom does Kasparov want to please? Those people who
do not love communism?But very few are loyal to communism today? Or
those people who will pay him for this phrase. The fact of the matter,
however, is (and Kasparov knows it better than many people) that
Soviet chess with players like Tal, Spassky, Stein, Polugayevsky,
Bronstein, Smyslov, Geller was never stagnating. Kasparov himself had
learnt a lot from them. Spassky once cracked a joke that Fischer was a
typical representative of the Soviet Chess School! And Fischer
defeated the Russians because he had studied their games as no one
else…


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.722 / Virus Database: 478 - Release Date: 18/07/2004

Responding to the original article: What a load of rubbish! Why should
Kasparov bother with pronouncements on Fischer to "save" him - on the man
who has brought so much disrepute to the world of chess, by not playing in
1975, by regularly launching invective against a world he's ill at ease
with. What does Kasparov owe to Fischer? GK regularly gives credit to
Fischer as a great player, but why should he do more? Fischer creates his
own problems, and GK owes him nothing.

As to the assertion that Karpov did not give Korchnoi any help, check out
the latest issue of the British magazine CHESS monthly. In it, Korchnoi
actually praises Karpov for helping him get visas to play in International
tournaments around the time he defected! To be fair, he also blames the
Soviet "machine" (though NOT Karpiv personally) for plotting his downfall
especially in Baguio City, but to a lesser extent Merano (where Karpov was
so much stronger that he didn't need so much "help").

Its interesting, that many of our pre-conceived ideas will need
re-examining. We've grown up in a culture of "Evil Soviets" (epitimised by
the "heartless" Karpov) and "Freedom-loving West" (epitimised by the
"individualistic" Fischer). But are these actually fair? Are they actually
true? Were ordinary Soviet citizens somehow more "evil" than ordinary
Western citizens? I don't think so. Its simply that the winners write the
history books. Take the example of the war in Iraq - lying British and
American leaders bombed and invaded a country, but living as we are in these
countries, we will more than likely either just shrug our shoulders, or
ignore the contradiction, and thank the heavens we weren't born a poor
have-not but a rich have.

We should be a little more careful about this blind hero worship of Fischer
and our beloved "Western" values. History books from 1000 years from now
might not be so kind to our to self-proclaimed greatness.

Regards,
Alain


"Bugsy" wrote in message
...
Where is the link for this article ??

"Aryeh Davidoff" wrote in message
om...
Kasparov Misses the Historical Chance on a Silver Platter

By Lev Khariton

Honestly, I had been expecting Kasparov to respond to Fischer’s
arrest in Tokyo. As much as I was almost sure that Garry would not
keep mum on the Israeli players shunned away from the Tripoli World
Championship. In the latter case I was disappointed. Garry did not
utter a word in condemnation of the Lybians. True, that was
self-explanatory. I do not think that today there is love lost between
Kasparov and once so much beloved the country of his father’s
ancestors. Garry had not been too fastidious about the Promised
Land’s money which he allegedly appropriated when setting up his
megasite three years ago.He should feel himself quite lucky regarding
the Israeli banks had dropped their lawsuit and charges against him.
Fischer’s detention was, however, a horse of another color and
this time Garry to show to the world that nothing human is alien to
him, or rather that benevolence and compassion were born long before
him. It was a unique chance for him to show that he really remembers
his predecesssors to whom he is dedicating his recent books.However,
the readers of his article on Fischer in “The Wall Street
Journal” should not be lured into believing that Kasparov is
mourning Fischer’s tragic destiny.
To begin with, Kasparov is too selfish and self-centered to give even
the smallest bit of his heart.All his life he has known only the world
of chess in which he was an indisputable king and being pestered by
his mother, his numeropus trainers, sponsors and backscratchers he
would hardly have noticed Fischer had he met him, say, at Times
Square, Budapest or Champs Elysees.It should be added that by giving
Fischer his due now that Fischer is behind bars, Kasparov raises
himself in the eyes of the new generation of chess players.However, I
would like to remind the readers what Kasparov said about Bobby after
the second match between Spassky and Fischer in Yugoslavia in 1992:
“Here sits this poor fellow with whom one cannot talk normally,
and what’s more he plays bad chess”. Quite arrogant and
unpleasant, isn’t it?
In short, what is the essence of Kasparov’s article
“Fischer’s price”? Actually, he painstakingly
narrates Bobby’s biography and the highlights of his chess
career. But we don’t need Kasparov to tell us all that. I, for
one, have been following Bobby’s career since the first mention
of his name in 1957 when his famous “immortal” game
against Donald Byrne was published in the magazine “Chess in the
USSR”. Later we all witnessed Bobby’s ups and downs in the
memorable Candidates’ tournaments in 1959 and 1962, his
magnificient victory at the intezonal tournament in Sweden in 1962
when left behind himself, with an undefeated score the galaxy of
Soviet grandmasters – Petrosian, Geller and Korchnoi. Still
memorable as if it happened yesterday was the interzonal tournament in
Sousse when Bobby leading the field of the world’s top
grandmasters quit the show when his victory and qualification for the
candidates’ were absolutely a forgone conclusion. These and
other facts of Bobby’s biography are well known to me and those
of my generation. Doubtless, all those who love chess and were born
afterwards know Bobby’s chess biography as well. Frankly, it is
amazing that today when Fischer’s freedom as a human being is at
stake, Kasparov should not have gone into the details of Bobby’s
chess career. That could be good for his book, but not for the
predicament Bobby finds himself in today.
Kasparov has missed (delibeartely or not, that is the question!) a
unique chance that chess history has brought him on a silver paltter.
He could have extended at this crucial moment in Fischer’s life
his hand to him. That would be a great boost for his future book on
Fischer. One champ is coming to the other’s rescue! Successor
saves predecessor! Kasparov is enjoying such an authority in the chess
world, he has such connections in high places, that evey chess player
and every chess fan would have only welcomed Kasparov’s effort
to save his colleague from jail and deportation. Besides, Kasparov as
is well known is a pampered boy of the US administration.I do not know
any other chess player in the world (and sure, I will never know) who
contributes political articles in the most prestigious and influential
newspaper “The Wall Street Journal”. Kasparov could have
appealed to the US Department of Justice and US administration to, so
to speak, forgive Fischer for having violated the UN sanctions against
Iraq.He could have appealed on the behalf of the whole chess world!
Years ago I wrote an article in which I compared Karpov and Kasparov
alleging that both of them have much in common as former Soviet
citizens, that they had come from the same political system, that they
are both communists. I noted that that both of them only represented
the two opposite sides of the same medal. In particular, I pointed out
that Karpov while playing against Korchnoi in Merano in 1981, could
have easily ddone something to save Korchnoi’s son from Siberian
prison and exile. Krpov did not budge an inch to help his rival. He
was winning game after game against a grandmaster whose only son had
been framed up as a criminal for,so to speak, army dodging. Karpov was
doing that in front of the whole world, he was doing it without, so to
say, any sense of shame. Today Kasparov, instead of trying to help
Fischer, is worried that “today's flourishing scholastic chess
movement could be harmed as Fischer’s woes and beliefs make
headlines around the world. People may believe that this is what
happens when a genius plays chess -- instead of what happens when a
fragile mind leaves his life's work behind” What a fantastic
piece of demagogy! Only blind and heartless people would swallow this
crappy lip service! Kasparov should have better thought about what
damage his reputation is giving to chess: supporting the war in Iraq
with all its lies and cruelty, total indifference when FIDE rules are
violated (after all, who destroyed FIDE in the first place…?),
his undeserved priviledge to play a title FIDE match, etc. Kasparov
writes about Fischer’s anti-Semitism. Why then didn’t
Kasparov express his protest against the refusal of Libya to grant
visas to the Israeli chess players? Should we accuse him of
anti-Semitism as well?
And last but not least. How should we understand Kasparov’s
phrase “Fischer singlehandedly revitalized a game that had been
stagnating under the control of the Communists of the Soviet sports
hierarchy”? Whom does Kasparov want to please? Those people who
do not love communism?But very few are loyal to communism today? Or
those people who will pay him for this phrase. The fact of the matter,
however, is (and Kasparov knows it better than many people) that
Soviet chess with players like Tal, Spassky, Stein, Polugayevsky,
Bronstein, Smyslov, Geller was never stagnating. Kasparov himself had
learnt a lot from them. Spassky once cracked a joke that Fischer was a
typical representative of the Soviet Chess School! And Fischer
defeated the Russians because he had studied their games as no one
else…

How amusing. Kasparov is considerably more gracious toward Fischer than
Fischer ever has been toward Kasparov. Can anyone find a single kind
word Fischer has ever uttered with regard to Kasparov? What is
Kasparov's debt to Fischer?

Bah!

GB

Indeed - Fischer's radio interviews are full of venom for Kasparov,
calling him a thief, and accusing him of pre-arranging every move of
every championship game between him and Karpov and Kramnik. And somehow
one expects Kasparov to extend his hand to Fischer to save him? Fischer
would probably just spit on it...

John

Standing by the Truth
By Lev Khariton
I have received a considerable amoun of mail at google.com as regards
my article “Kasparov Misses the Historical Chance on a Silver
Platter”. Below some of the criticisms and my comments.

Subject: Lev Khariton: Kasparov Misses the Historical Chance on a
Silver Platter
From: Alain Dekker )
Alain Dekker:
Responding to the original article: What a load of rubbish! Why should
Kasparov bother with pronouncements on Fischer to "save" him - on the
man
who has brought so much disrepute to the world of chess, by not
playing in
1975, by regularly launching invective against a world he's ill at
ease
with. What does Kasparov owe to Fischer? GK regularly gives credit to
Fischer as a great player, but why should he do more? Fischer creates
his
own problems, and GK owes him nothing.

Lev Khariton:
Unfortunately, although living in the West, in the free West, some
people still have habits of conducting polemics in the traditional
communist way! Calling the opponent’s stand
‘rubbish’ is just a very good illustration of totalitarian
mentality. The guy says: “I am right! And all what you or other
people say or may say is rubbish!’ No comment!
As to Fischer’s refusal not to play with Karpov in 1975, I can
only advise chessically uneducated people to read some documents
pertaining to the negotiations between Fischer,on the one hand, and
the Soviets plus FIDE.Read, for example, the book “Fischer vs
Russians”, and I hope that even if you are not desperately and
hoplessly biased, you will understand that Fischer was forced out of
the match by the tricks of the Soviets and FIDE.

Alain Dekker
As to the assertion that Karpov did not give Korchnoi any help, check
out
the latest issue of the British magazine CHESS monthly. In it,
Korchnoi
actually praises Karpov for helping him get visas to play in
International
tournaments around the time he defected! To be fair, he also blames
the
Soviet "machine" (though NOT Karpiv personally) for plotting his
downfall
especially in Baguio City, but to a lesser extent Merano (where Karpov
was
so much stronger that he didn't need so much "help").

Lev Khariton:
In recent years Korchnoi has given quite a few interviews in which he
is trying to justify Karpov. I have writen on that account and I am
not going to repeat the same things over and over again.If what
Korchnoi writes today is really true, then in the past he was a
terrible liar, worse that Roshal and Karpov together! If, however, he
is lying today, I do not understand why he is doing that. May be,
these are the first symptoms of the Alzheimer disease. Then I am
washing off my hands.

Alain Dekker:
Its interesting, that many of our pre-conceived ideas will need
re-examining. We've grown up in a culture of "Evil Soviets"
(epitimised by
the "heartless" Karpov) and "Freedom-loving West" (epitimised by the
"individualistic" Fischer). But are these actually fair? Are they
actually
true? Were ordinary Soviet citizens somehow more "evil" than ordinary
Western citizens? I don't think so. Its simply that the winners write
the
history books. Take the example of the war in Iraq - lying British and
American leaders bombed and invaded a country, but living as we are in
these
countries, we will more than likely either just shrug our shoulders,
or
ignore the contradiction, and thank the heavens we weren't born a poor
have-not but a rich have.

Lev Khariton:
The author of this letter is a totally confused man. If he had
followed my numerous publications, he would have noticed that I am, to
say the least, too far from glorifying the invasion in Iraq. However,
I absolutely agree with the author that the world is living in
pre-conceived ideas, and I have never cursed the “evil
Soviets” or glorified “freedom-loving West”.
Nevertheless, it does not mean that I am glorifying Bobby Fischer. I
repeat, however, the words I wrote once: “Looking at Bobby
Fischer as a mirror, we see how we have grown up or how we have
degraded” It is always the case with Bobby Fischer and us. And
today gives us a chance to re-examine ourselves again and ask
ourselves: Do we have any conscience left?”. What is the crime
of Bobby? He played in the war-torn Yugoslavia violating the UN
sanctions.? But the whole world today condemns UN as an obsolete and
corrupt organization. Why, in the case of Fischer, do you defend UN?
Besides, Bobby is the citizen of free country, praising itself on its
commitment to the ideals of freedom? Why does not he have the right to
live where he wants and to travel where he wants? Another point: Bobby
is charged with avoiding the tax-payment on the 3 million dollars he
won in Yugoslavia in 1992. Well, do you remember how Kasparov, back in
the 80s, was fighting against the Sports Committee of the USSR not to
pay a cent of his prize winnings? He won that battle, and the whole
world was applauding him.The prize money belongs to the chanmpion, but
not to his country or government. Why these double standards again?
Why what is good for Kasparov is bad for Fischer?

From: bruno de baenst
Bruno de Baenst:
This really gets annoying. No matter what Kasparov does or doesn't do
every
week you get one of those ridicolous articles with nothing but bad
things
about Kasparov, and nothing but good things about Fischer although we
haven't heard of him in the last 12 years.

Lev Khariton:
The fact that we have not heard of Fischer in the last 12 years does
not necessarily mean that we must write bad things about him.
Likewise, Kasparov being in the limelight does not by any means
signify that he is a guardian-angel.
Bruno de Baenst:

In this article he complains that Kasparov doesn't use his influence
to make
sure that Fischer gets free, like Kasparov has any influence at all in
this
matter and I'm sure if he did try to do that the day after we would
get an
article by Lev Khariton about how Kasparov tries to take abuse of
Fischers
imprisonment to make himself more popular.

Lev Khariton:
Do not forget that Kasparov writes articles to the most influential
paper in the USA- The Wall Street Journal, which is the mouthpiece of
US politics today.This newspaper is permanently under the scrutiny of
the powers that be, notably US Department of Justice. Kasparov’s
firm stand on the mercy towards Fischer could be a groung-breaking
stone for Fischer’s rehabilitation in his country (although he
does not need any rehabilitation).Yes, Kasparov, has connections in
the highest places of US government. I, personally, have a photograph
in which he is pictured with Vice President Dick Cheney.Any questions?

From: The Green ******* from Parts Unknown
John:
How amusing. Kasparov is considerably more gracious toward Fischer
than
Fischer ever has been toward Kasparov. Can anyone find a single kind
word Fischer has ever uttered with regard to Kasparov? What is
Kasparov's debt to Fischer?
Lev Khariton:
Kasparov and Fischer are not playing a game ‘who owes
whom’. But by simple reasoning one can easily assume that it is
Kasparov who owes to Fischer, but not the other way round. Kasparov
himself admits that as a 9-year-old kid he was watching the games of
the Spassky-Fischer match in Iceland. Simply, he owes to Fischer as
his predecessor, to use Kasparov’s word. Understandably, he
learnt a lot from his predecessors, notably Bobby Fischer.

John:
Indeed - Fischer's radio interviews are full of venom for Kasparov,
calling him a thief, and accusing him of pre-arranging every move of
every championship game between him and Karpov and Kramnik. And
somehow
one expects Kasparov to extend his hand to Fischer to save him?
Fischer
would probably just spit on it...


Lev Khariton:
Do you think that I have written this article to test on Fischer and
Kasparov the Christian concept of Leo Tolstoy, the great Russian
writer? I do not expect that Kasparov extends his hand to Fischer (or
according to the Christian logic, gives him one cheek for beating),
Fischer will not spit on it. On the contrary, knowing Fischer’s
integrity, he will spit (or hit Kasparov’s other cheek)!
However, you missed the whole point of my article. Fischer’s
custody in Japan has given Kasparov a unique chance (Tolstoy’s
ideas be hanged!) to show that he, Kasparov, still has some vestige of
conscience and nobleness left. However, and quite predictably,
Kasparov has missed that chance. Most probably, he did not even
consider it as a chance, and all those who surround and applaud him
did not even have any inkling of prompting Kasparov how to act. Hence,
this insipid reaction of Kasparov to Bobby’s imprisonment.

Lev Khariton is an interesting fellow!

As was implied in the response to my letter, I'm just a confused,
authoritation idiot (like a good traditional Communist!). On reflection, I
won't disagree. I shall therefore ask some questions:

Who's writing the articles (Aryeh Davidoff or Lev Khariton)? Are you two
Americans, possibly ex-Soviets with those names, or maybe just different
names for the same person? What has Kasparov done (personally?) to Lev
Khariton to make in him an enemy that he actively seeks opportunities to
attack his character? It would seem to me that Lev Khariton is blind to
Fischer's faults simply because Fischer is anti-Kasparov.

BTW, while I'm ignorant of a great deal, I know the history of the 1975 F-K
non-match relatively well (clearly not as well as Khariton, I admit). I
suppose it depends on your interpretation of events, but I'd certainly say
that there was blame on both sides, but with most of the blame belonging to
Fischer. If you were wildly anti-Soviet or pro-Fischer, I can see how you
could ignore Fischer's demands and rants and blame it all on the Communists'
"tricks", but I don't see how thats' fair.

The standard interpretation after many years, having been poured over by
greater minds then mine, sounds correct: Fischer simply lost his nerve and
created, and then used, the pretext of a collapsed match to cover up the
fact that, simply put, he did not want to play (or if you have an
anti-Fischer bent, that he was afraid to play, but I don't say that). After
all these years of legitimate matches for the world title (leaving 1975 to
one side for the moment), Fischer still calls himself World Chess Champion!
Surely that says something?

Regards,
Alain Dekker

"Aryeh Davidoff" wrote in message
om...
Standing by the Truth
By Lev Khariton
I have received a considerable amoun of mail at google.com as regards
my article “Kasparov Misses the Historical Chance on a Silver
Platter”. Below some of the criticisms and my comments.

Subject: Lev Khariton: Kasparov Misses the Historical Chance on a
Silver Platter
From: Alain Dekker )
Alain Dekker:
Responding to the original article: What a load of rubbish! Why should
Kasparov bother with pronouncements on Fischer to "save" him - on the
man
who has brought so much disrepute to the world of chess, by not
playing in
1975, by regularly launching invective against a world he's ill at
ease
with. What does Kasparov owe to Fischer? GK regularly gives credit to
Fischer as a great player, but why should he do more? Fischer creates
his
own problems, and GK owes him nothing.

Lev Khariton:
Unfortunately, although living in the West, in the free West, some
people still have habits of conducting polemics in the traditional
communist way! Calling the opponent’s stand
‘rubbish’ is just a very good illustration of totalitarian
mentality. The guy says: “I am right! And all what you or other
people say or may say is rubbish!’ No comment!
As to Fischer’s refusal not to play with Karpov in 1975, I can
only advise chessically uneducated people to read some documents
pertaining to the negotiations between Fischer,on the one hand, and
the Soviets plus FIDE.Read, for example, the book “Fischer vs
Russians”, and I hope that even if you are not desperately and
hoplessly biased, you will understand that Fischer was forced out of
the match by the tricks of the Soviets and FIDE.

Alain Dekker
As to the assertion that Karpov did not give Korchnoi any help, check
out
the latest issue of the British magazine CHESS monthly. In it,
Korchnoi
actually praises Karpov for helping him get visas to play in
International
tournaments around the time he defected! To be fair, he also blames
the
Soviet "machine" (though NOT Karpiv personally) for plotting his
downfall
especially in Baguio City, but to a lesser extent Merano (where Karpov
was
so much stronger that he didn't need so much "help").

Lev Khariton:
In recent years Korchnoi has given quite a few interviews in which he
is trying to justify Karpov. I have writen on that account and I am
not going to repeat the same things over and over again.If what
Korchnoi writes today is really true, then in the past he was a
terrible liar, worse that Roshal and Karpov together! If, however, he
is lying today, I do not understand why he is doing that. May be,
these are the first symptoms of the Alzheimer disease. Then I am
washing off my hands.

Alain Dekker:
Its interesting, that many of our pre-conceived ideas will need
re-examining. We've grown up in a culture of "Evil Soviets"
(epitimised by
the "heartless" Karpov) and "Freedom-loving West" (epitimised by the
"individualistic" Fischer). But are these actually fair? Are they
actually
true? Were ordinary Soviet citizens somehow more "evil" than ordinary
Western citizens? I don't think so. Its simply that the winners write
the
history books. Take the example of the war in Iraq - lying British and
American leaders bombed and invaded a country, but living as we are in
these
countries, we will more than likely either just shrug our shoulders,
or
ignore the contradiction, and thank the heavens we weren't born a poor
have-not but a rich have.

Lev Khariton:
The author of this letter is a totally confused man. If he had
followed my numerous publications, he would have noticed that I am, to
say the least, too far from glorifying the invasion in Iraq. However,
I absolutely agree with the author that the world is living in
pre-conceived ideas, and I have never cursed the “evil
Soviets” or glorified “freedom-loving West”.
Nevertheless, it does not mean that I am glorifying Bobby Fischer. I
repeat, however, the words I wrote once: “Looking at Bobby
Fischer as a mirror, we see how we have grown up or how we have
degraded” It is always the case with Bobby Fischer and us. And
today gives us a chance to re-examine ourselves again and ask
ourselves: Do we have any conscience left?”. What is the crime
of Bobby? He played in the war-torn Yugoslavia violating the UN
sanctions.? But the whole world today condemns UN as an obsolete and
corrupt organization. Why, in the case of Fischer, do you defend UN?
Besides, Bobby is the citizen of free country, praising itself on its
commitment to the ideals of freedom? Why does not he have the right to
live where he wants and to travel where he wants? Another point: Bobby
is charged with avoiding the tax-payment on the 3 million dollars he
won in Yugoslavia in 1992. Well, do you remember how Kasparov, back in
the 80s, was fighting against the Sports Committee of the USSR not to
pay a cent of his prize winnings? He won that battle, and the whole
world was applauding him.The prize money belongs to the chanmpion, but
not to his country or government. Why these double standards again?
Why what is good for Kasparov is bad for Fischer?

From: bruno de baenst
Bruno de Baenst:
This really gets annoying. No matter what Kasparov does or doesn't do
every
week you get one of those ridicolous articles with nothing but bad
things
about Kasparov, and nothing but good things about Fischer although we
haven't heard of him in the last 12 years.

Lev Khariton:
The fact that we have not heard of Fischer in the last 12 years does
not necessarily mean that we must write bad things about him.
Likewise, Kasparov being in the limelight does not by any means
signify that he is a guardian-angel.
Bruno de Baenst:

In this article he complains that Kasparov doesn't use his influence
to make
sure that Fischer gets free, like Kasparov has any influence at all in
this
matter and I'm sure if he did try to do that the day after we would
get an
article by Lev Khariton about how Kasparov tries to take abuse of
Fischers
imprisonment to make himself more popular.

Lev Khariton:
Do not forget that Kasparov writes articles to the most influential
paper in the USA- The Wall Street Journal, which is the mouthpiece of
US politics today.This newspaper is permanently under the scrutiny of
the powers that be, notably US Department of Justice. Kasparov’s
firm stand on the mercy towards Fischer could be a groung-breaking
stone for Fischer’s rehabilitation in his country (although he
does not need any rehabilitation).Yes, Kasparov, has connections in
the highest places of US government. I, personally, have a photograph
in which he is pictured with Vice President Dick Cheney.Any questions?

From: The Green ******* from Parts Unknown
John:
How amusing. Kasparov is considerably more gracious toward Fischer
than
Fischer ever has been toward Kasparov. Can anyone find a single kind
word Fischer has ever uttered with regard to Kasparov? What is
Kasparov's debt to Fischer?
Lev Khariton:
Kasparov and Fischer are not playing a game ‘who owes
whom’. But by simple reasoning one can easily assume that it is
Kasparov who owes to Fischer, but not the other way round. Kasparov
himself admits that as a 9-year-old kid he was watching the games of
the Spassky-Fischer match in Iceland. Simply, he owes to Fischer as
his predecessor, to use Kasparov’s word. Understandably, he
learnt a lot from his predecessors, notably Bobby Fischer.

John:
Indeed - Fischer's radio interviews are full of venom for Kasparov,
calling him a thief, and accusing him of pre-arranging every move of
every championship game between him and Karpov and Kramnik. And
somehow
one expects Kasparov to extend his hand to Fischer to save him?
Fischer
would probably just spit on it...


Lev Khariton:
Do you think that I have written this article to test on Fischer and
Kasparov the Christian concept of Leo Tolstoy, the great Russian
writer? I do not expect that Kasparov extends his hand to Fischer (or
according to the Christian logic, gives him one cheek for beating),
Fischer will not spit on it. On the contrary, knowing Fischer’s
integrity, he will spit (or hit Kasparov’s other cheek)!
However, you missed the whole point of my article. Fischer’s
custody in Japan has given Kasparov a unique chance (Tolstoy’s
ideas be hanged!) to show that he, Kasparov, still has some vestige of
conscience and nobleness left. However, and quite predictably,
Kasparov has missed that chance. Most probably, he did not even
consider it as a chance, and all those who surround and applaud him
did not even have any inkling of prompting Kasparov how to act. Hence,
this insipid reaction of Kasparov to Bobby’s imprisonment.

Well said.