Talk:Garry Kasparov/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Garry Kasparov. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Did someone delete this section? Why?  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 21:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

This article has come on leaps and bounds since it was demoted from a Featured article. I see some more citations are required. What other concerns remain about this article? SunCreator (talk) 15:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

While reading White King and Red Queen by Daniel Johnson, I see Garry Kasparov's birth name referred to as Garrik and not Garri. Other various net sources use Garrik and probably more Garri. Which is more correct and why? Garrethe (talk) 16:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Garrik is diminutive and rather informal form of this name. So I think we should stick with Garri. M0RD00R (talk) 18:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed the Armenian spelling of his name from the introduction. He is a Russian citizen, born outside of Armenia, and is only half Armenian. The spelling was also wrong to begin with, it read Garry Kasparovi. Hakob (talk) 20:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Kasparov was recently attacked by some remote-control flying dildoes. Video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbnySBqioB0

Anyone who can understand the Russian media care to write something on this? 67.185.62.184 (talk) 00:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

This incident deserves a mention. Although this article is obviously haunted by chess enthusiasts, internet culture is significant, and that video is a sensation. Youdontsmellbad (talk) 00:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

this page is not supposed to contain "funny moments with kasparov". Create a page about the "putin youth" or whatever it's called and place it there.- PietervHuis (talk) 01:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's non-notable. I assume he was speaking at a political event, and do we really want every politician's page to include every prabk ever played on them? Peter Ballard (talk) 03:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

This SHOULD be mentioned in this article, I even find a more reliable link: [2] --Dark paladin x (talk) 23:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it should stay as well. There are tons of examples of "pranks" such as this being included in peoples biographies, such as eggs being thrown at Steve Balmer during a speech. Sbw01f (talk) 23:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

For me this is obvious WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS case, unless of course refs of non-trivial academic study on this subject are provided. M0RD00R (talk) 23:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Something like that really doesn't have place here as funny as it is. The United Russia youth or whatever they are called pulls out pranks all the time. Per WP:NOTNEWS it has no place here, maybe on a seperate page about the youth movement where people can place all their pranks and stuff. - PietervHuis (talk) 00:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

---

On the other hand, you have no business removing the Presidents opinion on the protests per WP:NPOV. It's not "some guys" opinion, it's the former president of the country, who the protests were directed against and who Kasparov is a rabid critic of. Sbw01f (talk) 00:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a different discussion, but the quote is completely cherry picked. There were many opinions on the arrests, many of them critical of the arrest. What do I find here? Only Putin's critical comment on Kasparov. I find the way you revert people unfair, you often don't adress the arguments and just revert it. But we're both breaching 3rr now. If you want it in, it should be eleborated upon, like how the camera crew to which Kasparov spoke in English was from CBC news[3], and as such it's not very weird that he speaks to them in English especially since he's fluent. - PietervHuis (talk) 00:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't delete paragraphs because other peoples opinions aren't included. Include those opinions instead. That's how NPOV works. That source you provided doesn't prove much. All it says is that there was one English crew there, which just means every other crew was Russian and yet he was still reaching out to the English viewers instead of the Russians. Putin's point is completely valid. He's trying to win other countries support, not his own. Sbw01f (talk) 00:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely with Pieter and corrected this. Please do not place defamatory personal opinions in BLPs.Biophys (talk) 00:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

No he spoke to that specific camera which was the only one to capture that specific moment. The rest of the time he spoke in Russian. - PietervHuis (talk) 00:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to draw attention to the fact that Biohys continued this edit war by removing reliably sourced information. He says (on his talk page) Time Magazine is a "poor source", in other words, more WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Moreover, there's no policy that justifies removing a well sourced, high profile opinion of someone on their biography. If that were the case we'd have to delete half the George W. Bush and Vladamir Putin pages. What a joke. Sbw01f (talk) 00:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

What you cite is a defamatory opinion of a person (Putin) who was publicly criticized by Kasparov. Such opinions do not belong to BLP articles per WP:BLP.Biophys (talk) 00:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP says POORLY SOURCED defamatory comments about PRIVATE PEOPLE should be avoided. This is both well sourced, and about a politician aka a public figure. WP:BLP states On the other hand Wikipedia's standing and neutrality must not be compromised by allowing the editing of articles to show an excessive bias in their subject's favor, the inclusion of articles about non-notable publicity-seekers, or the removal of appropriate and well-sourced information simply because the subject objects to it.

But on the other hand, I really don't care that much. Other editors can deal with this tag-team edit warring intended to ruin the neutrality of the article if they want, but I don't have time for childish games. Sbw01f (talk) 01:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Sbw01f I don't want to engage in edit warring either. I don't really mind the comment but feel that it's a bit misplaced on the biography page of a person, and that it omits important details. Imagine you're reading the page of Vladimir Putin and you suddenly see a random opinion on Putin from Kasparov, or McCain, you probably wouldn't like that either. Something like that goes in the criticism section or the section dedicated to the specific subject. In this case that's the Dissenters March which also includes the arrest of Kasparov and others. I'll add it there later (if someone else hasn't). - PietervHuis (talk) 01:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, what i have cited DOES NOT have a POV, so I should bring it back then? Unless if you can find a better source.--Dark paladin x (talk) 01:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the phallus attack fragment. Firstly, it referenced to blog that is a vilolation of WP:BLP. Secondly, the idiotic prank is completely not-notable. It can be seen even from the fact that no reputable reliable source of info decided to put the info there. We are encyclopedia not a tabloid Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Guys, I could protect the article for a while, so you would find a solution on talk rather than edit war? On the other hand the article seems to be developing in other places: bad sources are removed, good sources are added.

Regarding the Putin quote I would keep it but balanced by some pro-March quote. There should be some. Still it up to you guys. No policy is violated by keeping it, no policy prohibits us from removing Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Not yet if you ask me but keep an eye on it. I think the quotes can best be used on the appropriate page, since there's an article dedicated to the march itself already. Surely others can agree on that. But right now an unknown user reverted everything again. - PietervHuis (talk) 02:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I've already said I'm done, I'm not going to continue an edit war over something so insignificant when it's already clear that Biophys is in the wrong in claiming the quote is against policy. If I recall a few months back editing in the presidential elections article, Biophys is extremely biased against Putin (and presumably in favour of anyone who's against Putin), and he/she seems to edit war for sport, so I really have no interest in editing along-side editors like that. Pieter seems to be bringing up some valid points now, but it's unfortunate that it wasn't before the reverts so we could have discussed it and come to a consensus more easily. My opinion on the quote is if the event and arrest is going to be mentioned in this article, so should the quote, and perhaps other notable quotes as well.

Pieter, regarding your earlier comment on the Putin article, I believe Kasparov is quoted on that page comparing the youth movement Nashi to the Hitler youth. There is plenty of negative opinion on that page, but I've lately been making it a point not to pay too much attention to political wiki pages (for this very reason, they're just not fun to edit). Sbw01f (talk) 02:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the following passage:

Kasparov's political involvement started in the 1980s under the patronage of then KGB general, Politburo member and future Azerbaijani ruler Heydar Aliyev.^[1]

The only relevant sentence in the source is:

Heydar Aliyev, Azerbaijan's President, on several occasions back in the 1980s, used his position in the Soviet Politburo, to assist Garry in getting a fair chance to play international competitions when Muscovites tried to block his participation.

So the source stated that Aliyev helped him in getting a fair chance to play chess not directed him into politics. As formulated now the phrase is an unsourced libel and a blatant WP:BLP violation Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree. I have made several edits to comply with WP:BLP rules. Please do not revert all of them without discussion.Biophys (talk) 03:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I have recently obtained a GFDL release for images from Kasparov's media website. These images are now on the Wikimedia commons and are available here. Enjoy. --causa sui ^talk 21:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

This article appears under Category:Armenian Jews, Category:Azerbaijani Jews and Category:Russian Jews. His non-Jewish mother was Armenian, which would account for Category:Russian Armenians, and his Jewish father may perhaps account for Category:Russian Jews. That is, if he is Jewish in the first place. Not everybody born to a Jewish father is necessarily a Jew. Can somebody provide a reference that indicates that Kasparov is Jewish and/or Armenian and/or Azerbaijani?--128.139.104.49 (talk) 10:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Should we add a note about this? http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Lab/7378/iq.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.156.61.153 (talk) 19:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Only if properly cited. "Rumored" (or even poorly cited) IQs do not belong on Wikipedia. Peter Ballard (talk) 00:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I changed the birthname from Gary Kasparov (It was not Gary Kasparov , as some think). His birth name was Gary Weinstein and I have reliable sources to prove it.

• http://premierespeakers.com/garry_kasparov


• http://www.biogs.com/famous/kasparov.html


• http://www.learn-chess.com/historical_figures_in_chess-27006.php

If any wishes to challenge this , let me know.

Aprill809

18:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we know that that is his birth name. If only you could've provided those sources in the actual article itself :-) Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 19:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry , I forgot to cite these sources. But if you want to , go ahead and improve on my little addition

Aprill809

18:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think having a Jewish sur name makes him any less Armenian. Also, the last name he actually was given by his mother, who is the foremost authority on this subject, after his father died is Kasparyan. Later, the name was changed in order to comply with the Soviet unwritten political policies of making anyone famous seem Russian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.12.123 (talk) 01:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I noticed the article never mentions Magnus Carlson, whom played with Kasparov which ended in a draw. I don't know how noteworthy it is, but ah well. http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1279168 85.166.68.206 (talk) 18:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

gary kasparov see:Methods for comparing top chess players throughout history so it is safe to say,that he is,one of the best plyer of all time. --217.132.176.43 (talk) 12:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC) --217.132.176.43 (talk) 13:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It is clear that he is one of the greatest players of all time. But, I recommend to change to the simplier: "the greatest player of all time". In the group noted above, he shares his place with apx. 10 other great chess players. But, the noticing in the books, and on Internet enough confirms that Kasparov is "widely regared as the greatest chess player of all time". In most of the rankings Kasparov is first. His domination made him a phenomenon in the history of the game. There is also a reference in the leadsection. Considering him as one of the greatest chess players of all time is undertaken fact. There is a distinction between Kasparov and others. This is not my opinion. It's widely, of the best chess writers and critics, and other chess players also. Maybe, he didn't reach the record number of wins, and the record numbers of won tournaments (both records to Karpov), but he made somethig greater that his predecessors. This page is opened to discuss.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I personally would be inclined to agree, but many (including World Champions Tal and Anand) believe that Fischer is the greatest player ever: see Bobby_Fischer#Legacy. I assume that there are others who would say Karpov (who won more major tournaments than any other player in history), or Capablanca, or Lasker (ranked by Chessmetrics as world #1 at various times over a period of 35 years) was the greatest. It is POV to make the blanket claim that Kasparov is generally considered the greatest player ever. I have accordingly modified the article to state instead that Kasparov is considered by many to be the greatest player of all time. Krakatoa (talk) 11:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I strongly agree. The modification is good. For me, Kasparov is for sure the greatest. But the conditions, and the developement of the game in last 50 years, and the years before are completely different. Botvinnik is considered as the central chess person, because of his strength as a player, teacher and theoretician. The numbers of chessmetrics are reliable, and they consider Fischer as best in a term of a year. In all other, Kasparov is much ahead. On all web-sites with numbers, such like this, the list of greatest chess players is like the sourced one. That's why I proposed for this modification. But yours is more appropriate.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Some interesting musings on life and chess, apparently by Kasparov -- http://chessplays.ru -- worthy to be mentioned? 72.245.213.210 (talk) 19:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

This section is clearly an opinion and is not encyclopedic:

Kasparov ... as always provides witty and interesting insights into some of the more notable games played. A welcome and invaluable addition to the work is a section at the end of the book in which top opening theoreticians provide their own "take" on the progress made in opening theory in the 1970s. 74.196.205.92 (talk) 19:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I have toned it down. Krakatoa (talk) 01:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I removed these lines from the discusssion of the book: "In looking at the best player of all time, many would look to the Fischer of 1972, who won the Interzonal by 3 1/2 points, two candidates matches 6-0, and 20 games in a row before defeating Spassky. Many consider the Fischer of 1972 the best player of all time, and the book was largely an attempt by Kasparov to establish his superiority."

This is not related to Kasparov's book; it the contributor's defense of Bobby Fischer. Grumpy otter (talk) 09:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The article mentions Kasparovs' wives, but only by their first names. It is traditional in biographical articles to include a wife's original family name ("maiden name") where possible. The beginning and ending years of his marriages should also be included. --71.174.165.111 (talk) 14:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

and why is it in the 'Retirement from chess section' ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.53.242 (talk) 11:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

In his new book Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov, he uses the name Weinstein up to 1975. Is that when he changed it to Kasparov, and should that be in the article? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:20, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

The article mentions Kasparovs' wives, but only by their first names. It is traditional in biographical articles to include a wife's original family name ("maiden name") where possible. The beginning and ending years of his marriages should also be included. --71.174.165.111 (talk) 14:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

and why is it in the 'Retirement from chess section' ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.53.242 (talk) 11:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

In his new book Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov, he uses the name Weinstein up to 1975. Is that when he changed it to Kasparov, and should that be in the article? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:20, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

According to his new book, his birth name was Garik, not Garry. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 12:56, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I edited the article, adding a reference to the new book. If you know the page number, please add it in; I was only able to see a pageless preview on Amazon. Lesgles (talk) 00:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

It is in there several places, but I'll get a specific page number. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

"Widely regarded in the West as a symbol of opposition to Putin, Kasparov's support in Russia is low.[4]" This is poor English (change of object midsentence). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.163.95.11 (talk) 11:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Lesgles (talk) 00:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I have come across claims that Kasparov holds both US and Russian nationality. He is one source:

• Hans-Werner Klausen (2007). "Washington's "Fifth Column" in Russia". Current Concerns (9).

Are there other sources that can confirm this claim? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

This may be a confusion with Anna Politkovskaya, I think. How would he have acquired US citizenship? He never lived there long enough. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 19:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Why the name is Weinstein in the infobox? Some en-wiki practise? --J. Sketter (talk) 18:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

That is his birth name. (Actually Garik.) Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 18:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

So? He has legally changed his name. The box says "name" not "birth name". I'm fixing it. Adpete (talk) 07:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

OK I see. The source code says "birth_name" but it displays as "Full Name". This is a bug in the Infobox code. Until the Infobox is fixed I'm commenting it, because it's better to show nothing (his name is at the top of the box anyway) than to have it incorrect. Adpete (talk) 07:47, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with chess tournament scoring. How does 6-3 equate to four wins and one loss? Were there also four draws at 1/2 point each?--Wikimedes (talk) 19:17, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes Adpete (talk) 11:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

In 2012, Kasparov participated in the annual meeting of the Bilderberg group in Virginia: The list of 2012 participants included several members of the Chinese communist government... --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 19:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's probably ok to put in the section on his political activities. It would not be appropriate to add editorial comments about Chinese government officials attending. (The official list has two from China, one from government and one academic). Note Bilderberg Group has its own WP article. Adpete (talk) 08:25, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree; just requires a light, neutral mention, wiki-linked to the main article. Could perhaps namecheck fellow chess grandmaster attendee Kenneth Rogoff, nowadays a financial expert. Brittle heaven (talk) 09:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Describing nationality is fine in the lead, but describing ethnicity is not. Kasparov's ethnicity should be described instead in the body of the article. See MOS:BIO:

Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability.

Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The above named article in Wikipedia itself mentions Kasparov's support of this theory. It should at least be given a reference in this article.Abenr (talk) 22:22, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

( for corrections and addition please - after undo in article because I am no qualify for english )

Maybe someone can insert an amended paragraph before Chess vs Computers. Thank you!

Gary Kasparov interests for chess computing started in 1985 after a first meeting with Frederic Friedel in Hamburg.

In 1986 they met with Matthias Wüllenweber who already wrote a prototype chess database.

In 1987 after two days of a successful match preparation, Gary Kasparov became the first player to register the commercial ChessBase a popular commercial database program produced for storing and searching records of games of chess. The first version was build under Atari ST with his collaboration in January 1987.^[2] In his autobiography Child of Change, he regards this facility as the most important development in chess research since printing.

Source: Chessdatabase and Gary Kasparov http://en.chessbase.com/home/TabId/211/PostId/4007229 and http://en.chessbase.com/Home/TabId/211/PostId/4006251

You will have to find an alternative source for this - chessbase.com cannot be cited for such material, as it is clearly not an independent source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

You can find a description in the early autobiography of Garry Kasparov with Donald Trelford : Child of Change, Hutchinson 1987 (pp. 220,221...) and in some chess computing publications sources like On the Impact of Information Technologies on Society: an Historical Perspective through the Game of Chess by Frederic Prost ( http://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.3434.pdf )

It was reported in Atari's magazines like STart Magazine N°13, Chessbase: A Centuries-old Pastime Comes of Age by Christopher Chabris: ChessBase, created by Frederic Friedcl and Matthias Wullenweber of West Germany and distributed in the United States by Sci-Sys of Torrance, California, is a revolutionary tool...World chess champion Garry Kasparov of the Soviet Union was an early and enthusiastic supporter of ChessBase, and he used it to defeat a team of international masters... by collecting the games of his potential opponents and entering them into ChessBase, he was able to familiarize himself with their playing styles and opening repertoires after only a few hours, instead of taking days poring over chess books. Kasparov has even commercially endorsed the program (an unusual action for a Soviet sportsman), saying in a recent advertisement that ChessBase is "the greatest development in chess study since the invention of the printing press!" Other users include American star Michael Rohde and Grand Masters Korchnoi and Miles, former Soviet and British champions. http://archive.org/stream/STart-Magazine-Issue-13/#page/n35/mode/2up

It is even pointed in his biography for the first match vs Deep Blue too: In February 1987, he requested a revenge match, studied his opponents' games on the new Chessbase computer programme and proceeded to demolish them by seven points to one... http://park.org/Cdrom/Pavilions/IBM/DeepBlue/biolinks.html

• Other sources for Chess with computer ( and versus computers ) :

The Chess Master and the Computer February 11, 2010 Garry Kasparov http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/feb/11/the-chess-master-and-the-computer/

Kasparov: ...In what Rasskin-Gutman explains as Moravec’s Paradox, in chess, as in so many things, what computers are good at is where humans are weak, and vice versa. This gave me an idea for an experiment. What if instead of human versus machine we played as partners? My brainchild saw the light of day in a match in 1998 in León, Spain, and we called it “Advanced Chess.” Each player had a PC at hand running the chess software of his choice during the game. The idea was to create the highest level of chess ever played, a synthesis of the best of man and machine...

Digital Historiography: Kasparov vs. Deep Blue By David J. Staley http://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jahc/3310410.0003.220?rgn=main;view=fulltext

Kasparov comments on chess computers in an interview with Thierry Paunin on pages 4-5 of issue 55 of Jeux & Stratégie ( France 1989): Question: ... Two top grandmasters have gone down to chess computers: Portisch against “Leonardo” and Larsen against “Deep Thought”. It is well known that you have strong views on this subject. Will a computer be world champion, one day ...? Kasparov: Ridiculous! A machine will always remain a machine, that is to say a tool to help the player work and prepare. Never shall I be beaten by a machine! Never will a program be invented which surpasses human intelligence. And when I say intelligence, I also mean intuition and imagination. Can you see a machine writing a novel or poetry? Better still, can you imagine a machine conducting this interview instead of you? With me replying to its questions?’ ( http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/kasparovinterviews.html )

See Also; http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/factfinder.html http://www.mid-day.com/sports/2010/may/200510-vishwanathan-anand-world-chess-champion-garry-kasparov-vladimir-kramnik.htm (The man responsible for bringing Vishy, Vlady and Garry together was Frederic Friedel of ChessBase...btw)

... story might be worth mentioning. 62.178.201.108 (talk) 06:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

A brief mention might be appropriate in this article. A detailed discussion of the incident can be found at Judit Polgár#Kasparov touch-move controversy, as it's more significant in that context than it is here. This article is a bit short considering the importance of Kasparov in chess history, but it's easy for me to say that when I have never contributed to improving the article myself. Quale (talk) 23:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

IMO, much more interesting then touch-move controversy is Judit Polgár#Making history / first paragraph - "women chess players should stick to having children" 62.178.201.108 (talk) 19:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Kasparov recently commented on what is being called, "the most anticipated chess match in decades" on Business Insider. The match is between Viswanathan Anand and Magnus Carlsen, two of the highest ranking chess players in the world. Here is what Kasparov had to say about the match:

Anand is a fantastic chessplayer who brings honor to the sport and to his nation with his skill and his boundless good nature. If he wins this match his high place on chess Olympus is assured. I am predicting a Carlsen victory because of his talent, his results, and the tides of chess history. I am rooting for a Carlsen victory because a new generation deserves a new champion. Most of all, I am hoping for big games, a hard fight, and a great boost for chess around the world as a legend and a legend in the making do battle in Chennai.

Source: Weisenthal, Joe 10 Nov. 2013. "The Most Anticipated Chess Match In Decades Is Off To A Disastrous Start." Business Insider. Web. http://www.businessinsider.com/anand-carlson-world-chess-championship-off-to-a-disastrous-start-2013-11.

Would it be ok to add this to Kasparov's bio? He is cited in the article as "probably the most famous chess player of all time."Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 22:52, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I have just reverted this edit. In my opinion, it doesn't belong in this article, because

1. Kasparov is giving interviews all the time, and this paragraph was fairly detailed;
2. the material would fit better into the article most clearly related to it—World Chess Championship 2013;
3. this interview took place before the match began; in my opinion, whatever Kasparov says about it after it's over will be of greater encyclopedic value. Toccata quarta (talk) 06:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Just curious: [...] he predicted a Carlsen victory because of [...] "the tides of chess history". (Does anyone know what that means!?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:49, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Probably something like "history is repeating itself". Toccata quarta (talk) 10:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback on the revert. I understand why you reverted it and by no means do I disagree with you. I have tried to contact you multiple times in regards to this paragraph, but haven't heard anything back from you. I hope I haven't upset you for some reason. Like I said on your personal wall, I will keep an eye out for any commentary he has from after the match.Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 04:27, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it belongs in this article either. In the world of chess, everyone wants Kasparov's opinion on everything. Maybe it would belong in World Chess Championship 2013? That article could use a "Press Coverage" section. --causa sui (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Granted, a strong argument can be made by any available metric that Kasparov is the greatest ever, and whenever the question is asked he's the first to be mentioned. So to be completely clear, I don't think there is any neutrality problem with the lede as it is:

Garry Kimovich Kasparov (Russian: Га́рри Ки́мович Каспа́ров, Russian pronunciation: [ˈɡarʲɪ ˈkʲiməvʲɪt͡ɕ kɐˈsparəf]; born Garik Kimovich Weinstein,[1] 13 April 1963) is a Russian (formerly Soviet) chess grandmaster, a former World Chess Champion, writer and political activist, considered by many to be the greatest chess player of all time.[2]

But I do think that it rings hollow; Kasparov's career as a professional chess player speaks for itself, and so we can paint a picture and inform the reader at the same time by simply describing his many achievements. For example, compare the above with the lead paragraph to Kobe Bryant:

Kobe Bean Bryant (born August 23, 1978), nicknamed the "Black Mamba", is an American professional basketball player for the Los Angeles Lakers of the National Basketball Association (NBA). He entered the NBA directly from high school, and has played for the Lakers his entire career, winning five NBA championships. Bryant is a 15-time All-Star, 15-time member of the All-NBA Team, and 12-time member of the All-Defensive team. As of March 2013, he ranks third and fourth[3] on the league's all-time postseason scoring and all-time regular season scoring lists, respectively.

Nowhere in the lede do we find a mention of the inherently subjective and contentious "greatest of all time" question. Instead, we find an encyclopedic, informative, and uncontroversially factual overview of his achievements in the NBA. It may be that certain knowledgeable people consider him the "greatest of all time" basketball player, but the reader is very well served by our focused attention to the grounded, factual, down-to-earth details we present about his career.

With that in mind I've done some refactoring of the lede. Per WP:BRD, let me know what you think! --causa sui (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

"we can paint a picture and inform the reader at the same time by simply describing his many achievements"—that would not be a substitute for "considered by many to be the greatest chess player of all time", since it would need a comparison of Kasparov's achievements with those of just about every other recorded chess player.

"For example, compare the above with the lead paragraph to Kobe Bryant"—that's just WP:OSE, and even if your argument were valid, there are also pages that have leads similar to the one in this article, such as Roger Federer and Lionel Messi. Toccata quarta (talk) 10:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I think WP:OSE would apply if I were saying something more like "It was done this way in Kobe Bryant, therefore we have to do it that way in Garry Kasparov also." But that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm using Kobe Bryant as an example of what I have in mind, and to illustrate that why and how it works so well.

Also, to make clear, my intention isn't to provide a substitute for the "greatest ever" claim -- my intention is to replace it with something better. :-)

Re: your edit summary, you mentioned that the new revision doesn't mention that he has the grandmaster title. That's fair point, and removing it was a mistake. If I resubmit my edit with modifications to restore it, would you find that acceptable? --causa sui (talk) 18:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I haven't been involved in this discussion, but I think it would be nice if we mentioned in the lead that he is considered one of the greatest, if not the greatest chess player of all time. And also, let's not overlink it as done in Pele. One or two, three at most, reliable sources are enough to support that claim. --Երևանցի ^talk 18:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd argue that these two sources are enough.

• Schiller, Eric (2005). "Garry Kasparov: The Greatest Player of All Time". Learn From Gary Kasparov's Greatest Games. Cardoza Publishing. ISBN 9781580425476. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapter= (help)
• "Garry Kasparov". Everyman Chess. Retrieved 27 December 2013.

--Երևանցի ^talk 18:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

How does having Croatian citizenship make him a Croatian chess player? Did he renounce his Russian citizenship? Even if he did, he never represented Croatia and is still best known as a Russian and Soviet chess player, not Croatian. This is clearly misleading. --Երևանցի ^talk 00:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

You are correct. His FIDE registration shows his federation as Russia. Unless he changes his federation to Croatia or plays representing Croatia, he is not a Croatian chess player. Quale (talk) 02:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I deleted the following sentence from the above mentioned section because it doesn't stand to scrutiny: "There was a time in the early 1990s when Kasparov had a rating of over 2800, and the next-highest rated player, Anatoly Karpov, was the only person in the 2700s.". At the time Kasparov broke the 2800 barrier (1991), there were quite a few players within 100 elo points, not just Karpov: Ivanchuk (2735), Gelfand (2700). Also, when he reached his peak rating in 2000, he was 80 elo points ahead of no 2 at the time (Anand), compared to Bobby Fischer's lead of 115 points ahead of Kortschnoj (who for a short while was rated slightly higher than Spassky & Larsen). We can all agree Kasparov is one of the greatest players who ever lived, and precisely because of that there should be no need to exaggerate his merits. 95.45.38.140 (talk) 23:27, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

"The title is a reference to the HBO television series Game of Thrones." ... looks like someone isn't aware that there was a book series before the TV series. 2.25.149.66 (talk) 19:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

There are several sections and numerous other paragraphs in this article that are missing citations. Specifically, the following sections:

• "Early career"
• "Toward the top"
• "1984 World Championship"
• "World Champion"
• "Break with and ejection from FIDE"
• "Losing the title and aftermath"
• "My Great Predecessors series"
• "Other post-retirement writing"

Per request by User:Beyond My Ken, the statements that I felt needed citations have been marked with {{cn}} tags. —howcheng {chat} 03:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Howchecng's CN tagging went well beyond any reasonable point into total WP:Tag bombing. Although ideally every fact on Wikipedia would be supported by a citation, WP:V doesn't actually require that, it requires that facts be verifiable and not that necessarily they be verified. Policy only requires disputed or controversial information to be cited. It's clear that Howcheng doesn't dispute the many, many bits of information he tagged, he simply CN tagged each and every statement which didn't have a reference. This is not reasonable, and actually defaces the article, making it more difficult for the user to read. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:39, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

You asked me to tag specific concerns, and I did. You cannot have it both ways. —howcheng {chat} 03:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I can, since your "concerns" were in no respect "specific". Tagging every single unreferenced fact is not having "specific concerns". Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:44, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

My specific concern is these facts need citations as per Wikipedia:Why most sentences should be cited and Wikipedia:Citation underkill. Furthermore, you misinterpret Wikipedia:Tag bombing. The nutshell of that essay says, "Adding multiple tags without explaining the reason is disruptive." I originally added a single tag, with explanation, which you removed, so I added multiple tags and explained my reasoning on this talk page. That's so not tag bombing. —howcheng {chat} 04:00, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:V is central policy. Please read it, as you do not understand it properly. Both the other pages you cite are essays, and not policy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:04, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussion continues at WT:V. —howcheng {chat} 04:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

As I've explained to BMK the last time he pulled this, WP:V very clearly states any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. The material was challenged in good faith, and now inline citations must be provided. BMK's removal of {{cn}} tags and {{refimprove}} tags is disruptive and characteristic of his WP:OWN behavior. At the very least, unreferenced or poorly referenced sections should be marked with {{refimprove}}. Bright☀ 13:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

These are the first four claims that were requested to be verified. I compare them against Kasparov's autobiograpgy:

• He was being trained by Alexander Shakarov during this time [1976] - can be cited to the autobiography, page 42
• He first qualified for the Soviet Chess Championship at age 15 in 1978, the youngest ever player at that level - "This first tournament win over a grand­master also brought me my first triumph in adult chess. By confidently taking first place in a strong field and surpassing the master norm by 3V2 points, I also reached a new level in public perception. As Botvinnik commented, this was the greatest success ever achieved by such a young player in the Soviet Union!" (page 118) At the very least the sentence needs to be rephrased because the phrasing is misleading. Winning points against a grandmaster elevated him to the youngest-ever at that level, not merely playing at the tournament.
• He won the 64-player Swiss system tournament at Daugavpils on tiebreak over Igor V. Ivanov to capture the sole qualifying place. - "And so I reached the finish together with Ivanov, sharing 1st-2nd places. Fortune favoured me: I had the better Buchholz score. Nikitin: 'Garik jumped for joy. Where had the tiredness gone? Despite such an insipid finish he unexpectedly won the only qualifying place to the Premier League - a stunning success!'" (page 141) [addendum 20:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC)] He didn't win a tiebreaker; they tied, and luckily Kasparov had the better score.
• The next year, 1980, he won the World Junior Chess Championship in Dortmund, West Germany. Later that year, he made his debut as second reserve for the Soviet Union at the Chess Olympiad at Valletta, Malta, and became a Grandmaster. - "By winning the international tournament in Baku, the 17-year-old Kas­parov became the youngest grandmaster in the world." (page 217) Again at the very least it needs to be rephrased because the phrasing is misleading. He did not become a grandmaster at Valletta.

WP:The deadline is now. These four claims already made their way verbatim into books published in recent years and other online encyclopedias. While at the moment it's clear that they plagiarized or copied Wikipedia verbatim, in the future they might be used for circular sourcing, and the misinformation will be perpetuated. I'm reminded of another preposterous instance where BMK asked that an unsourced statement might stay a few more years to give editors proper time to cite it...

If, instead of bickering over how the article should be tagged or whether the statements should be sourced at all, you would have simply picked up a reliable source (like Kasparov's autobiograpgy) and attempted to verify the claims, you would have improved the article and corrected misleading statements, instead of standing in the way of improving it.

The fact that the article's phrasing is at the very least misleading is enough to show that such claims do need to be cited. Bright☀ 15:00, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Unless "winning on tiebreak" in chess specifically means there was an additional game played, the statement is accurate: The tiebreaker is who has the better Buchholz score, and as Kasparov's was higher, he "won" that tiebreaker. —howcheng {chat} 23:32, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

You are right, but regardless, the other two {{cn}} statements are definitely misleading, and the removal of the {{cn}} tags was unmerited. Bright☀ 09:34, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me that Howcheng's tagging was a generous compromise; per WP:BURDEN, it would be fair to remove the statements entirely until someone can produce the appropriate references. At minimum, the tagging must be put back. Rebbing 18:48, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• I agree with Howcheng's tags, WP:V is a policy, as is WP:BLP. The Rambling Man (talk)

I don't see what we are waiting for. The policy is: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately". So I would suggest removing all challenged content, which cannot be immediately made in compliance. Retimuko (talk) 18:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

A bit of an update three months after the skirmish: the uncited information remains uncited and untagged, even the four claims that I've provided a source for, two of which are still phrased in the same misleading way. So congratulations User:Beyond My Ken, your WP:OWN behavior and anti-policy editing has led this article to remain in its uncorrected state. Bright☀ 13:17, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Just the kind of quasi-NPA remark I've come to expect from you. OWN the article? I've got a grand total of 13 edits to it, between June and November 2017. Obviously, you really have no conception of what WP:OWN says. (Hint: What it does not say is "The editor disagrees with my edits.") Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I haven't made a single edit to this article so your point is false. Your WP:OWN behavior on this and many other articles manifests in the following ways:

• Removing message boxes under the pretense of requesting individual tags
• Removing individual tags under the pretense of tag-bombing
• Reverting MOS edits under the pretense that they're "not mandatory" (hint: your edits aren't mandatory either)
• Generally reverting policy and guideline-backed edits in favor of your version of the article.

Here we can see how your behavior actively harmed an article and prevented policy-backed edits from being implemented, prevented citation requests and addition of citations, and generally made the article stagnate. Bright☀ 23:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Since Kasparov took Croatian citizenship, should he be referred to as Russian-Croatian?

BashBrannigan (talk) 18:44, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

See Talk:Bobby Fischer#Nationality for a related discussion. Kasparov's Croatian citizenship should be referenced in the article, but WP:OPENPARA suggests that it might not belong in the lead. Also, I don't think Kasparov should ever be described as a "Russian-Croatian GM". Others disagree, pointing out that the GM title is for life, but Kasparov retired from chess competition before taking Croatian citizenship. To describe him as a Croatian GM is to distort reality. Quale (talk) 04:45, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

129.97.69.245 (talk) 02:38, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Soliciting suggestions for the appropriate characterization of Kasparov's chess legacy. Recently concern was expressed about the old lead text

whom many consider to be the greatest chess player of all time. ["Most experts place Bobby Fischer the second or third best ever, behind Kasparov but probably ahead of Karpov." – Obituary of Bobby Fischer, Leonard Barden, The Guardian, 19 January 2008.]

Looking at this text there are issues, so concern is warranted. The lead is supposed to summarize the article, but since this claim is not in the article it would be justified to remove it from the lead for that reason alone. Also a Fischer obit isn't really a great source for Kasparov's place in chess history either. In fact this article doesn't really discuss Kasparov's chess legacy very much at all, contrast Bobby Fischer#Contributions to chess and more expansively Bobby Fischer#Contributions to chess.

Unfortunately I don't think the proposed compromise replacement text really works:

whom many consider to be one of the greatest chess players of all time, if not the greatest. ["Most experts place Bobby Fischer the second or third best ever, behind Kasparov but probably ahead of Karpov." – Obituary of Bobby Fischer, Leonard Barden, The Guardian, 19 January 2008][Holodny, Elena. "One of the greatest chess players of all time, Garry Kasparov, talks about artificial intelligence and the interplay between machine learning and humans". Business Insider. Retrieved 2019-10-28.]

Here a Business Insider article on what Gary Kasparov has to say about AI is an even worse source than a Fischer obit. A more serious problem is "whom many consider to be one of the greatest" isn't a very smart statement. It is not true that many consider Kasparov to be one of the greatest, everyone considers Kasparov to be one of the greatest. That Kasparov is one of the greatest is not in question, the only question is whether to rank Kasparov first or second. So "many consider to be one of the greatest" doesn't work and it doesn't belong in the article.

Claims that someone is or was the greatest are always going to be problematic in Wikipedia. I'm sure that articles on other individual sports such as golf, tennis and boxing have also run into this problem. Some possibilities:

1. Remove all "greatest" claims and let the accomplishments speak for themselves
2. Qualify all claims by stating specifically whose opinion is being reported, "GM xxxx wrote that Kasparov was the greatest"
3. Restore the claim "considered by many to be the greatest" with better sources

What does everyone think? Quale (talk) 05:51, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree that claims that someone is or was the greatest are problematic. As you are aware, this has come up multiple times in Bobby Fischer. To see the approach currently taken at that article, look at the last (second) sentence of the first paragraph, and the two mega-footnotes on it. This has not kept us from getting criticized by readers, but one might say it has enabled CYA.

In an earlier comment in Talk:Bobby Fischer (which is now in an archive), I wrote:

Regarding 'Many consider him to be the greatest chess player of all time', the editors of this article are trying to follow WP:SUBJECTIVE:

[W]e might not all agree about who the world's greatest soprano is. However, it is appropriate to note how an artist or a work has been received by prominent experts and the general public. For instance, the article on Shakespeare should note that he is widely considered to be one of the greatest authors in the English language.

While this has some intuitive appeal, what works well for Shakespeare doesn't necessarily work well for famous sports figures, such as Kasparov or Fischer.

Still earlier, I had taken the position that, yes, we should rip out all these "greatest" claims from articles about our chess world champions. But another editor pointed out to me that this is done a lot in other sports articles as well. When I realized how pervasive the problem was, I essentially gave up.

Of course, articles about our sports champions are supposed to say something about how they were received. So, for example, the article about Fischer mentions the "Fischer boom". Once you venture into this practice, it's not easy to avoid talking about people's claims and arguments about "who was the greatest of all time". All but a few of the world champions of chess have had, in their day, commentators claiming that they were the GOAT; and our articles reflect that. The status quo is not good; but how can we get to something better? Bruce leverett (talk) 21:50, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

(Added later) Regarding the present text, for what it's worth, it is just about tautological to claim that a former World Champion is "one of the greatest of all time". (Let alone that "many consider him" such.) So this is even less satisfactory than the formulations used in other Wiki articles about chess world champions. Bruce leverett (talk) 18:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the above and taking out claims of GOAT on this article and letting the accomplishments speak for themselves. If every page about a world chess champion has a line about many people thinking they are GOAT, doesn't it make that claim meaningless? I think that just because we have this issue rampant in sports and other articles, doesn't mean we can't make Wikipedia better one article at a time. Betanote4 (talk) 14:27, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

The edits from 13 and 14 October (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Garry_Kasparov&type=revision&diff=921092677&oldid=919720729 &https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Garry_Kasparov&diff=next&oldid=921092677) were absolutely atrocious and clearly made by a grammar checker type program. Unfortunately this wasn't picked up and people (and bots) made substantive edits afterwards. Feel free to restore any appropriate edits. (I have my doubts about yet another silly "greatest of all time" argument, it was better before.) MaxBrowne2 (talk) 22:39, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

This should be added to the Politics section. I can't do it properly from my phone. --Haruo (talk) 17:53, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Kasparian/Kasparyan/Gasparian/Gasparyan however you want to spell it... it's a common Armenian surname, and was his mother's birth name. I'm not sure if Garry ever used it as his surname, but it's odd that the name is not even mentioned in the article. Even the "Shagenovna" bit is a Russification and not part of her birth name; it would be as if Bridget Fonda adopted the name "Bridget Peterson Fonda" after her father Peter Fonda. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 09:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

That picture makes him almost not recognizable. Surely we can find a different, slightly more flattering one.

--84.212.23.40 (talk) 23:13, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I guess he got old. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC) Is this one better? https://imgur.com/F1NhUpE MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• 
  Image A, Kasparov in 2017 (Current image)
• 
  Image B, Kasparov in 2007 (infobox image used up until 20 March 2021 [1])
• 
  Image C, Kasparov in 2017 (Slight alternative to A, with different angle)
• 
  Image D, Kasparov in 2018
• 
  Image E, Kasparov in 2018
• 
  Image F, Kasparov in 2018 (Narrow crop of E)
• 
  Image G, Kasparov in 2015
• 
  Image H, Kasparov in 2007

In the discussion above talked about if the current infobox image is suitable. In addition, this was something highlighted at the recent GA review by Wasted Time R (The current top image is unfortunate, however, as it's from a bad angle and doesn't look like him. Even though it's not as recent, I think File:Kasparov-34.jpg would be better at the top, as it's easily recognizable as both the chess Kasparov and the political Kasparov.) So above is a number of different images, to possibly replace the current one what are your thoughts? Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 15:04, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Any of the 2015 or 2018 images would be preferable to the cu Bruce leverett (talk) 16:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

… to the current one and the 2007 ones. Bruce leverett (talk) 16:54, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

First choice 2007 B, second choice 2015 G. To me the later ones just don't look like him, but given that, any of the 2018's would be better than what's there now. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:55, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Okay given the what you two editors suggested above, both expressed interested in changing and the 2015 one seems to be a middleground option between the two. Feel free to revert if this is too fast of an infobox image change.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 14:41, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@PierogiBoy: Please, see Talk:Garry_Kasparov/GA1. The problem is not only about the citations. --Renat 17:14, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

A Short description should be less than 40 words and according to Layout rules it is one of the first things in an article

@PierogiBoy: you are confusing different lead section elements. The short description is recommended to be 40 characters, not words. And now the short description is 48 characters. It is relatively okay. --Renat 00:35, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Short description does not refer to the lead paragraphs or to any part of them. The short description for Garry Kasparov is the first line of the source file, and it looks like this:

{{Short description|Russian chess grandmaster and political activist}}

The section from which you removed three paragraphs is called the "lead section" (see MOS:BIO#Lead section). Bruce leverett (talk) 00:39, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

@RenatUK: thanks for making that clear I'am only trying to make this article better.

please what is it to mean "Starting with an oversight by the Russian Chess Federation"? --142.163.194.130 (talk) 01:05, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

An editor is trying to modify the infobox to state that Kasparov's Country was Croatia as of 2017. A comment says to look up the Grand Chess Tour 2017.

Kasparov played under the Russian flag in the 2017 Grand Chess Tour: [4]. Kasparov is still playing under the Russian flag: [5]. I do not know of any source that states that Kasparov ever played under the Croatian flag.

The infobox for a chess player gives the countries under whose flag the person played, not the countries where he resided or the countries in which he had citizenship. Bruce leverett (talk) 14:30, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Kasparov's nationality in the lead sentence has gone back and forth recently so thought I would open a discussion. How should we describe Kasparov's nationality in the lead sentence?:

1. "Russian"
2. "Russian-Croatian"
3. Something else

Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 21:23, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

In the lead paragraphs of chess biographies, where we are describing what makes the person notable, the usual practice has been to use the country under whose flag the person played. Kasparov initially played under the flag of the Soviet Union; then, when that country dissolved, he played under the flag of Russia. He retired from chess in the early 2000's, but has played some serious (speed) chess in recent years; he is still playing under the Russian flag, although he has apparently given up on living in Russia, at least for the time being. The flag under which a person plays is often different from that of the country (or countries) in which he lives, or the country (or countries) of which he is a citizen, or the country where he was born, etc. The first paragraph of the "Early life and career" section talks about where he was born and his own ethnic self-identification.

After the lead paragraphs, of course it's necessary to describe fully his connection with Croatia. Bruce leverett (talk) 22:49, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

There are a lot of grey areas. Do you list "FIDE" as someone's country in the Infobox if they play under the FIDE flag? Larsen continued to play under the Danish flag for over 40 years while living in Argentina, and presumably obtaining citizenship. I see this case as more analogous to Fischer's, who also took residence/citizenship in another country due to political/legal problems with his home country. Every now and then some edit warrior tries to write that Fischer was "Icelandic-American" in the lead, even though he only really used Iceland as a retirement home. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:51, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Bruce leverett, i think, has made some valid points as to the general practices on such biographies above, but i have to take issue with his "is still playing under the Russian flag". What is that based on? Conversely, there is recent (since 2017) evidence he has been playing under the Cr flag (I admit, the reports may not be entirely accurate):

https://www.croatiaweek.com/chess-legend-garry-kasparov-represents-croatia-at-comeback-tournament-in-america/

https://www.vecernji.hr/sport/kasparov-se-vratio-iz-mirovine-i-nastupio-pod-hrvatskom-zastavom-1189108

http://www.chess-news.ru/node/23605

As a footnote to the issue, he appears to be the first sportsman who tried to play under the Russian Flag as early as October 1990 ( https://www.svoboda.org/a/108582.html ).Axxxion (talk) 01:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the links to these sources. I was wondering where the idea that he played under the Croatian flag in this tournament came from. When you look at crosstables in places like the St. Louis chess club website or chess24.com, you just see the Russian flag next to his name, but it looks very much as if he wanted to play under both flags, or at least that's what he told the media. I do not know exactly how we should treat this, but I would still tend to favor leaving his Croatian affiliation out of the lead paragraphs and the infobox. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

[Note: Bruce leverett I put the comment below on your Talk page after receiving a revert notification. Perhaps this page is the proper form? Apologies if I put the pieces on the wrong squares. Pretty new to this game. Cl3phact0 (talk) 17:59, 3 December 2022 (UTC)]

(Re: revert of revision #1125242211)

A: He wrote one of the essays published in the book. (It's a compendium of essays published in the NYT, one of which is titled: "Garry Kasparov: What We Believe About Reality"). It's a good essay and it's mentioned in the Section "Other post-retirement writing". Sorry if I'm not seeing the move correctly here.

Cheers Cl3phact0 (talk) 15:53, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for going this route. The article talk page is somewhat better than another editor's talk page, usually, since you asked.

Since the essay is already cited in the article, there's no point in adding it to the "Further reading" section. If you think that readers might have trouble following up on the citation in the article (e.g. it's behind a paywall or something), you can add an additional source to that citation, so that readers can choose which source to go to.

Whether or not you end up doing that, here is some general advice: in citing an essay within a collection of essays, you should give a page number, and give at least the title of the essay. Hypothetically, if the essay were not already mentioned in the article but you wanted to mention it under "Further reading", you might also want to give a one-sentence summary, to help readers decide if this is really something they are interested in. Bruce leverett (talk) 19:55, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Very helpful. Thank you for the advice and good counsel. I'll proceed accordingly. Cl3phact0 (talk) 20:20, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

PS: As newspapers are now (mostly) just websites—even the vaunted Grey Lady, alas—and books are, well, still books, the latter ref seemed likely more valuable to a future reader (though I suspect the NYT will be around for a while still). But that's all just editorialising. I'll carry on and amend in due course. Thanks again.

PPS: Of course, Wikipedia is a website too... Stalemate.

 Done

In its summary entry, Encyclopaedia Britannica states: "Garry Kasparov, (born April 13, 1963, Baku, Azerbaijan, U.S.S.R.), Russian chess master."

The longer version states: "Garry Kasparov, in full Garri Kimovich Kasparov, original name Garri Weinstein or Harry Weinstein, (born April 13, 1963, Baku, Azerbaijan, U.S.S.R. [now Baku, Azerbaijan]), Soviet-born chess master who became the world chess champion in 1985."

Would wording along these lines help resolve the question of (original) nationality?

With the sincerest and best of intentions (and absolutely zero interest in stepping into the line of fire in this matter). Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 16:05, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for recognizing this problem and trying to solve it.

Wikipedia has its own very particular rules for composing first sentences of biographies, lead paragraphs of biographies, first sentences of articles in general, lead paragraphs of articles in general, etc. For the particular question of nationality, MOS:CONTEXTBIO gives the rules, although if there is another section somewhere that give illustrative examples, I'd mention it as well and gives some illustrative examples.

It would be a mistake to try to copy the format used by Britannica. They have a format that works for them, and we have a format that works for us, but for either encyclopedia to try to imitate the other's format would lead to no end of trouble, likely even more than the trouble we already have.

In the particular case of Kasparov, we get people who want to change his nationality to Armenian (because his mother was ethnically Armenian), or Azerbaijani (because he was born in Baku), or Croatian (because he owns a home in Croatia, spends some time there, and has Croatian citizenship in addition to his Russian citizenship, and even once, in 2015, tried to play in a tournament under both the Russian and Croatian flags). I suspect, in spite of WP:GOODFAITH, that some of these editors are motivated at least partly by nationalistic sentiment. But in any case, we are sticking with Russian. I guess you already know why, but if you are not sure, feel free to ask. Bruce leverett (talk) 21:22, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Glad I asked the question. Your response helped clear-up some confusion (mine) concerning the conventions and logic behind this particular aspect of WP style. Thank you, Cl3phact0 (talk) 22:51, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

GA toolbox
Copyvio detector Authorship External links
Reviewing
Templates Criteria Instructions

This review is transcluded from Garry Kasparov/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Billsmith60 (talk · contribs) 16:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

This article has failed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of February 1, 2023, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass

2. Verifiable?: Pass

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Stable?: Pass

6. Images?: Pass

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.

(I edit on my phone and apologise for not being clued into various assessment templates. Still, my findings below are numbered for easy checking off).

1. Well written?: FAIL 2. Factually accurate?: FAIL 3. Broad in coverage?: PASS 4. Neutral point of view?: FAIL 5. Article stability?: PASS 6. Images?: PASS

PREAMBLE The recommendations made by the assessor in June 2021 regarding writing style have been largely attended to. However, this article does not pass GA review, primarily for the structural, presentational and referencing issues noted below. These are not onerous and will see the article move much closer to GA status, since there is little it is lacking.

That’s everything for now. I’m willing to do a once run-through copyedit if/when the article is closer to passing GA. All the best Billsmith60 (talk) 16:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

SPECIFICS 1. Document template: set language to British English, as that’s what is used.

Short description: 'and political activist'? Why not ‘writer’ too?

2. Lead I am not insisting on this, but do you need ‘and commentator’ given he’s an “active” activist?

Explain ‘peak rating”: rated by whom?

‘he devoted’ --> ‘he has devoted’

‘he had lived in New York’ -->

‘he lived’

‘a Security Ambassador’ -->lowercase

3. ‘Early life and career’ is followed by ‘Career’. Revise these main headings to (e.g.) ‘Early life and introduction to chess’ and ‘Chess career’

Move the last two paragraphs of ‘Early life’ (‘He first qualified...’) to be the start of ‘Chess career’

Change heading ‘Towards the top’ to ‘Rising up the ranks’

Para. 2: ‘Various political manoeuvres...’: citation?

4. 1984 WC: para. 3 ’The termination was controversial as...’ – citation?

From the split from FIDE onwards, change ‘his title’ or ‘the title’ to ‘his PCA title’ or “the PCA title’

5. ‘Losing [the] title’: para. 3, ‘remained the top player in the world...’ – if you mean according to the PCA list (as FIDE had removed him from theirs), then say so.

para. 5, first sentence, first clause (‘Because of Kasparov’s... public eye’): unsupported POV.

Section also needs another reference before fn 79.

Last sentence of section: revise ‘to regain the WC title’ to ‘..become undisputed World Champion once more’.

6. ‘Retirement from chess’ and ‘Post-retirement chess’ headings are contradictory, as the second is quite detailed: revise these headings carefully.

Also, revise ‘Return from retirement’ heading in light of the above points.

7. The ‘Politics’ section is *very dense and would benefit from more lower-level headings, e.g. ‘Presidential candidate'.

Add a subheading ‘Croatian citizenship’ before that paragraph and make it the last paragraph of that section.

Also, there is no reason for a separate main heading ‘Political views’. Move it to ‘Politics’ and change that headings to ‘Politics and political views’.

It should also become thematic, i.e. with subheadings ‘Russia’, ‘Armenia’, ‘Ethnic conflicts’, etc. Alternatively, as the majority of his views and activities relate to Russia, other countries could be treated in one headings.

What I’m getting at is the need for the “political” section to be structured much better.

8. Computers and chess: citation for players intervening in contravention of the rules?

9. ‘Playing style’: should be part of an ‘Assessment’ and/or “Legacy’ section, which should be larger.

10. References: while these need not be formatted perfectly some are very messy. See for instance fn 2. There is no reason why it shouldn’t appear like nos 3 or 4.

Fn 256 and 257 are poorly formed. Further, the title ‘Robot or human?’ is incorrect, as link goes to a Kasparov book instead.

My strong recommendation is to go through all citations, tighten them up and remove any that do not support the assertions made in the text.

Please ignore the six "passes" shown in the criteria: I apologise for inserting that template in error. That part is incorrect. See the findings below it to see what needs attended to in three of the six criteria. Regards Billsmith60 (talk) 16:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

This article has failed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of February 1, 2023, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: FAIL 2. Verifiable?: FAIL 3. Broad in coverage?: PASS 4. Neutral point of view?: FAIL 5. Stable?: PASS 6. Images?: PASS

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.

(I edit on my phone and apologise for not being clued into various assessment templates. Still, my findings below are numbered for easy checking off).

1. Well written?: FAIL 2. Factually accurate?: FAIL 3. Broad in coverage?: PASS 4. Neutral point of view?: FAIL 5. Article stability?: PASS 6. Images?: PASS

PREAMBLE The recommendations made by the assessor in June 2021 regarding writing style have been largely attended to. However, this article does not pass GA review, primarily for the structural, presentational and referencing issues noted below. These are not onerous and will see the article move much closer to GA status, since there is little it is lacking.

That’s everything for now. I’m willing to do a once run-through copyedit if/when the article is closer to passing GA. All the best Billsmith60 (talk) 16:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

SPECIFICS 1. Document template: set language to British English, as that’s what is used.

Short description: 'and political activist'? Why not ‘writer’ too?

2. Lead I am not insisting on this, but do you need ‘and commentator’ given he’s an “active” activist?

Explain ‘peak rating”: rated by whom?

‘he devoted’ --> ‘he has devoted’

‘he had lived in New York’ -->

‘he lived’

‘a Security Ambassador’ -->lowercase

3. ‘Early life and career’ is followed by ‘Career’. Revise these main headings to (e.g.) ‘Early life and introduction to chess’ and ‘Chess career’

Move the last two paragraphs of ‘Early life’ (‘He first qualified...’) to be the start of ‘Chess career’

Change heading ‘Towards the top’ to ‘Rising up the ranks’

Para. 2: ‘Various political manoeuvres...’: citation?

4. 1984 WC: para. 3 ’The termination was controversial as...’ – citation?

From the split from FIDE onwards, change ‘his title’ or ‘the title’ to ‘his PCA title’ or “the PCA title’

5. ‘Losing [the] title’: para. 3, ‘remained the top player in the world...’ – if you mean according to the PCA list (as FIDE had removed him from theirs), then say so.

para. 5, first sentence, first clause (‘Because of Kasparov’s... public eye’): unsupported POV.

Section also needs another reference before fn 79.

Last sentence of section: revise ‘to regain the WC title’ to ‘..become undisputed World Champion once more’.

6. ‘Retirement from chess’ and ‘Post-retirement chess’ headings are contradictory, as the second is quite detailed: revise these headings carefully.

Also, revise ‘Return from retirement’ heading in light of the above points.

7. The ‘Politics’ section is *very dense and would benefit from more lower-level headings, e.g. ‘Presidential candidate'.

Add a subheading ‘Croatian citizenship’ before that paragraph and make it the last paragraph of that section.

Also, there is no reason for a separate main heading ‘Political views’. Move it to ‘Politics’ and change that headings to ‘Politics and political views’.

It should also become thematic, i.e. with subheadings ‘Russia’, ‘Armenia’, ‘Ethnic conflicts’, etc. Alternatively, as the majority of his views and activities relate to Russia, other countries could be treated in one headings.

What I’m getting at is the need for the “political” section to be structured much better.

8. Computers and chess: citation for players intervening in contravention of the rules?

9. ‘Playing style’: should be part of an ‘Assessment’ and/or “Legacy’ section, which should be larger.

10. References: while these need not be formatted perfectly some are very messy. See for instance fn 2. There is no reason why it shouldn’t appear like nos 3 or 4.

Fn 256 and 257 are poorly formed. Further, the title ‘Robot or human?’ is incorrect, as link goes to a Kasparov book instead.

My strong recommendation is to go through all citations, tighten them up and remove any that do not support the assertions made in the text. Billsmith60 (talk) 16:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Billsmith60 I have made improvements up to the 7th point and will finish the rest in the coming days. I'm not sure if you intended to fail the GA already or not (you left me talk page messages that it is both failed and on hold), but officially it is still open, so I hope you will allow some time to make these changes. --Dallavid (talk) 00:17, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I see you've started your improvement drive. Certainly, I'll keep the review open until it's complete. My conflicting notifications of first "fail" then "on review" were on account of my using the various assessment templates incorrectly! Regards Billsmith60 (talk) 20:36, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Billsmith60 All of the improvements should be complete now. Are you sure it is necessary to explain "Peak rating"? I haven't seen any other chess biographies that do this, not even good articles like Magnus Carlsen. The reader can always click the link if they want to learn more about the Elo system. And do you like how I rearranged a "Politics and political views" section? --Dallavid (talk) 19:47, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I see you’ve done sterling work to date. Please see below for my second set of observations, which will bring the article much closer to GA status. For your reply, please mark each correction or change as done or to be done or whatever, so I can check quickly. Thanks! It’ll be Monday evening before I get back to this in any meaningful way.

(a) Lead

‘peak rating”: rated by whom?’: ‘BY WHOM’ NOT ADRESSED (FIDE!)

Done.

(b) Heading ‘Career’: change to ‘Chess career’

Done.

(c) ‘The split and PCA title’: in reverting an edit, user Bruce leveret has noted that the PCA existed from 1993-96 only. He has also noted this background: “From 1993 to 2006, first the PCA and then a company called Braingames organized their own world championships, while FIDE continued to organize its own, which was less prestigious [his opinion] because it didn't have Kasparov. In 2006 the title was "unified" (see World Chess Championship 2006)”. Hence, you need to revise the text to that period accordingly to ensure the terminology regarding the two titles and versions of the world championship are referred to consistently.

I am confused/unsure of what to call the world title in these scenarios. I don't think it would be right to call it "FIDE title" because the title has a long history before FIDE existed, as the World Chess Championship article shows. I also noticed the Carlsen and Fischer often just refer to it as "title", and those are both Good Articles.

(d) You changed ‘various political manoeuvres’ to ‘’…the threat of a boycott from the Soviets)’: CITATION NEEDED

Done.

(e) ‘Losing [th] title..’: WHAT TITLE?

See C.

(f) Also, para. 3, ‘remained the top player in the world...’ – if you mean according to the PCA list (as FIDE had removed him from theirs), then say so. NOT DONE

Done.

(g) ‘Because of Kasparov's continuing strong results and status as world No. 1’: ACCORDING TO WHOM?

FIDE, and done.

(h) ‘Computers and chess: citation for players intervening in contravention of the rules? NOT DONE

The Gimbel citation is the source.

(i) Heading ‘Retirement from regular chess’: change to ‘Retirement from serious competitive chess’

I wrote regular competitive chess because seriousness is subjective. Thoughts?

(j) Images

- remove the picture of Kasparov with Sting: I can see no reason in the text for it to appear there, and that section is already illustrated.

- right align the other two pics that appear on the left of the article.

Done.

(k) Russia: there is so much about Russia that it’ll need broken up a little more, with perhaps at least one more subheading. If you have to, you could use something like ‘Early political activities’, then keep ‘presidential candidate’ and split the rest with one more subheading (maybe ‘Continued opposition to Putin’ or ‘Opposition in Putin’s [second/third? Term as president’, etc,?]

- also, find an image to break up the large chunks of text in the current ‘Opposition to Putin’ section. + right align it.

Done.

(l) Structure

That ‘Politics’ section interrupts the chess part, so move it down as part of the following improved layout

1. Early life

2. Chess career

3. Olympiads…

4. Chess and computers

5. Achievements and Legacy (to comprise what’s currently in ‘Assessment’ and ‘Records and achievement but to answer the question: ‘why is this fellow so important’?

6. Politics

7. Books and other publications (note the new title)

9. Personal life

11. Refs

Done.

Regards Billsmith60 (talk) 12:42, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Billsmith60 Essentially all of the improvements have been made and I have added notes for each of them. --Dallavid (talk) 19:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello again. Thank you for the improvements to date. I've gone through much of the text in detail now, as per below, and have updated the list of changes needed.

1. Lead

Swap “writer and political activist” to match the short description.

“when he lost to the IBM…” --> “when he was defeated by the IBM…” (to avoid overuse of “lose”)

“when he retired from professional chess in 2005” --> “when he retired from regular competitive chess in 2005”

“and joined as a member of”: unclear, as The One Russia was the umbrella coalition body. Revise to “was a member of”

“he obtained Croatian citizenship, and”: delete comma

2. Introduction to chess

“When Garry was seven years old, his father died of leukemia.[28] At the age of twelve, Garry” --> “When he was seven years old, his father died of leukemia.[28] At the age of twelve, Kasparov”

“and, at 10 began” --> “and, at 10, began”

“He had been invited as an exception” --> “He had received a special invitation to enter the tournament”

3. Rising up the ranks

“Starting with oversight by the Russian Chess Federation,“: unclear. Do you mean something like “Thanks to the RCF securing him a place,”?

“travel to the United States, preventing Kasparov from playing Korchnoi, who won the match by default.” The clause in parenthesis is unnecessary. Revise to “States, meaning that Korchnoi could have had a walkover.”

“This was resolved by Korchnoi allowing the match to be replayed in London,” This is not totally accurate. See The Guardian article on how public/chess opinion, and (yes) Korchnoi himself, led to the match taking place in London. But avoid “replayed”, as the original did not take place. Start your amended text with “This problem was resolved by…”

“in January 1996; the record is currently held by Magnus Carlsen”: delete the Carlsen bit.

4. 1984 WC

“had many ups and downs, and a very controversial finish”: delete comma

“some relatively short, and others drawn “: delete “and”

“by Florencio Campomanes, the President of the Fédération Internationale des Échecs (FIDE),” --> “by FIDE President FC”

“34 games, the match of José Raúl Capablanca vs. Alexander Alekhine in 1927” --> “34 games (José Raúl Capablanca vs. Alexander Alekhine in 1927)”

“According to grandmasters Boris Gulko and Korchnoi and historians Vladimir Popow and Yuri Felshtinsky in their The KGB Plays Chess book”: This could read as if all four wrote the book, so put a comma after “Korchnoi”. Are the views of Gulko and Korchnoi covered by note 50 from ChessBase?

5. World Champion  World champion

“World Champion and breaking the record held by Mikhail Tal “ --> “WC, a record held by…”

“recognized as one of the all-time masterpieces in chess history” --> “recognized as one of the all-time chess masterpieces” chapter Stab in the Back  ‘chapter “Stab in the Back”

“lead at any time during the contest” --> “lead at any time”

“Kasparov had 21 wins, 19 losses, and 104 draws”: delete comma before “and”

6. Break with FIDE

“With the World Champion title in hand”: delete. Revise to “Kasparov now began opposing FIDE”.

“(GMA), an organization to represent “ --> “(GMA) to represent”

“uneasy relationship to develop between him and FIDE” --> ”uneasy relationship to develop between Kasparov and FIDE”

“cycle for Kasparov's next World Championship defence:” --> ”cycle:”

“who had defeated Anatoly Karpov” --> “who had defeated Karpov”

“decided to play outside FIDE's jurisdiction, under another organization,…”. Part of a long, awkward sentence. Revise to “jurisdiction. Their match took place under the auspices of the Professional Chess Association (PCA), an organization established by Kasparov.”

“a great fracture occurred” --> “a fracture occurred” --> “Meanwhile, FIDE organized a World Championship match between” --> “Meanwhile, FIDE organized its World Championship match between”

“…Short from the FIDE rating lists.” --> “Short from its rating list.”

“Until this [removal of Kasparov and Short] happened, there was [--> had been] a parallel rating list presented by PCA which featured all the world top players regardless of their relation to FIDE”: unclear. The split occurred in 1993, after the PCA was formed, so should this read: “Subsequently, the PCA created a rating list of its own, which featured all the world top players regardless of their relation to FIDE”? If so, who else had left FIDE but might be on the PCA list [Kramnik, etc,?] ? You might consider deleting that sentence altogether, otherwise revise it carefully.

“the World Chess Association (WCA) with” --> “the World Chess Association (WCA), with”

“This left Kasparov stranded, and yet another organization stepped in: BrainGames.com, headed by Raymond Keene.“ Not helpful. Delete “This left Kasparov stranded,”. If I have the flow correct (please check), consider perhaps: “After a match with Shirov could not be agreed by BrainGames.com, an organization headed by Raymond Keene, and talks with Anand had collapsed, a match was instead arranged against Kramnik.”

7. Losing the title

“1995 match against Viswanathan Anand” --> “1995 match against Anand”

“although Kasparov held the draw in both games” --> “although Kasparov managed a draw in both games”

“After losing the title, Kasparov won a series of major tournaments, and remained… “ --> “Kasparov won a series of major tournaments and remained…”

“Kramnik and the FIDE World Champions” --> “Kramnik and the FIDE World Champion”.

“City. Karpov surprised the experts and emerged victorious, winning two games and drawing one”: four-game match? As this is Kasparov’s article. Revise: “City. Kasparov suffered a surprise loss (1.5 – 2.5)”

“and so had decided to stop all efforts” --> “and had decided to stop all efforts”

8. Retirement from regular…

“(he commented when winning the Russian championship in 2004 that it had been the last major title he had never won outright) and expressed frustration at the failure to reunify the world championship.” No reason for this to be in parenthesis, so make it into a sentence.

Delete all multiple occurrences of chess players’ first names in this section.

“legendary encounter” --> “unfinished encounter”

“however, in fact, no” --> “however, no”

9. Candidacy for president

“Kasparov's candidacy was supported by his former student, reigning World Chess Champion and FIDE#1 ranked player “  “He was supported by reigning World Champion Carlsen”.

“incumbent FIDE president” --> “the incumbent,”

10. Return from chess retirement

“blitz, finishing eighth out of ten participants, which included”: long, awkward sentence --> “blitz. He finished eighth in a strong field of 10, including”

“Anand, and the eventual” --> “Anand and the eventual”

“Any tournament money that he earned would go towards charities to promote chess in Africa.” --> “Kasparov promised that any tournament money he earned…”

“interviews, and playing zones,” --> “interviews and playing zones,”

11. Chess and Computers

This section suffers from the chronology by rote problem referred to in the Politics section below. There are too many bitty sentences that are not part of any thematic approach, e.g. “Several commercially available Kasparov computers were made in the 1980s, the Saitek Kasparov Turbo King models”.

Chronology is important, but revise this section to mix it up a bit and avoid too many sentences beginning with, e.g. “In 2013,…”

“In 1983, Acorn Computers acted as one of the sponsors for Kasparov's Candidates semi-final match against Viktor Korchnoi”: revise to say why impt (evidence of the growing potential of computer chess? Otherwise delete it).

“albeit with some difficulty”: delete.

“In December 1992, Kasparov visited Frederic Friedel in his hotel room in Cologne…”: so what? Why is the hotel relevant? If you retain it, unlink Friedel.

First two paragraphs of the Deep Blue bit should be combined.

Combine the two Deep Junior paragraphs.

“important moments in his career; the top four NFTs sold for $14,342, $14,342, $11,439 and $11,439.” --> “The top four sold for more than $11,000”.

12. See Also section: move it to the very end (after “External Links”)

13. References

No. 2: fix the mal-formed citation an Administrator added recently

14. Politics section (in particular)

While I am not bound by any previous GA assessment, I do subscribe to the view of the previous assessor that this section (in particular) is weakened by appearing simply to be a chronological list of things that took place and Kasparov’s role in them. There is an absence of a thematic approach noted above under Chess and computers. While stand-alone sentences have disappeared and the headings are much improved, I think you could improve the flow and coherence of that section by *not starting with, e.g. “In 2013, Kasparov..” Dates are important, but they can appear in other parts of a sentence, too! But simply moving the first clause in every other paragraph won’t do. This point must be addressed sufficiently without causing too much work.

This section is comprehensive, hence not too far away for a pass.

15. Further, this particular criticism re dates applies throughout the article.

I’ve left the Assessment and Records sections for another day, as there’s plenty to be going on with if this article is to reach GA status, which it certainly can. I see that another editor has removed a paragraph of yours about the "greatest ever". I agree with him.

Regards Billsmith60 (talk) 15:12, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Billsmith60 I have done everything. How does the politics section look? I made more changes to make it appear less like a chronological list, but it is difficult when Kasparov was only a politician for a two-month candidacy, and has otherwise been more of a commentator. --Dallavid (talk) 21:10, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello again. Please see below for what I hope will be the last significant edit needing to be made. I’ll do a final copy-edit before it becomes a GA, although it might need very little further work after you’re done. Well done and all the best, Billsmith60 (talk) 15:40, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

“Olympiads and other major team events” -> “Olympiads and major team events”

Chess and computers section

“In 1985, computer chess magazine editor Frederic Friedel invited Kasparov to his house, and the two of them discussed how a chess database program would be useful for preparation”. As asked last time, so what? Why is the hotel room relevant? I see no reason, so revise to: “Computer chess magazine editor Frederic Friedel consulted with Kasparov in 1985 on how a chess database program would be useful preparation for competition; Friedel founded…” – so that the one reference covers the two points.

Assessment

You’ll note serious problems with POV and repetition here! This section is very badly thought out.

“Kasparov led the rating list from 1985 to 2006, with the exception of two short periods: in 1993-1994, FIDE expelled him due to the match with Nigel Short under the auspices of the PCA, and in one of the releases in 1997, he shared first place with Vladimir Kramnik”. -> “With the exception of the PCA period and sharing first place with Vladimir Kramnik in 1997, Kasparov led the rating list from 1985 to 2006”.

“On 1 January 2006, Kasparov ranked first with a coefficient of 2812, but according to FIDE rules, he was excluded from the rating list of 1 April 2006, because he had not participated in tournaments for the previous 12 months.[132]“ -> “On 1 January 2006, Kasparov ranked first with a coefficient of 2812. However, he was excluded from the FIDE rating list of 1 April 2006 because he had not participated in tournaments for the previous 12 months [132]”.

“Kasparov was a versatile chess player who, in the heyday of his talent, had almost no weaknesses”: delete this POV sentence. Replace with “Kramnik called Kasparov a chess player with virtually no weaknesses.[144]“, i.e. move up the Kramnik sentence with ref.

“Alexander Alekhine.[146][147] Alekhine was Kasparov's chess idol since childhood.” -> “Alexander Alekhine,[146][147] Kasparov's chess idol since childhood”

“A great influence on the growth of Kasparov as a chess player were the coaches he had from childhood”  “Other influences on Kasparov were his early coaches” “which determined the development of Kasparov's abilities” : evidence, otherwise delete.

“In tactics and combinational play, the future grandmaster was strong from childhood, positional thinking was formed gradually in the course of duels with the best players in the world”: “childhood,” -> “childhood, while…” More importantly what evidence is there for this bland assertion? If none can be found, delete it.

“Garry Kasparov's contribution to opening theory is widely acknowledged. Many studies were inspired by his series of matches with Karpov, and in the 1990s Kasparov systematically developed new variants with computer programs.” What studies? Evidence for these claims?

“The foundations of work on the debut repertoire were laid at a young age by joint work with Shakarov, who collected and systematized materials, and then became the keeper of Kasparov's information bank.” Evidence for this claim? Also, if it can be supported, why is it here when it should, more properly, appear in “playing style” as it refers to his youth?

“subtle calculation, and original” -> “subtle calculation and original”

“aggressive play in the opening” -> “aggressive play in it”

Records and Achievements

“He was also briefly ejected from the list following his split from FIDE in 1993, but during that time he headed the rating list of the rival PCA.” -> “He headed the PCA rating list during the split from FIDE”.

“Later on in his career, Kasparov went on another long streak of consecutive super-tournament wins” -> “At the end of the 1990s, Kasparov went on another long streak of 10 consecutive super-tournament wins”

“In these 10 consecutive classical super-tournaments wins, Kasparov had a…” -> “In these wins, Kasparov had a…”

“Kasparov won the Chess Oscar a record eleven times.[162]“ Delete this repetition but move up the reference to the very start of the Assessment section to support “Kasparov received a Chess Oscar eleven times as the best chess player of the year in 1982-1983, 1985-1988, 1995-1996, 1999 and 2001-2002”.

Heading “Assessment” -> “Assessment and legacy”

Heading “Chess ratings achievements” -> “Chess rating”

Heading “Other records” -> “Other achievements”

Delete main heading “Records and achievements” but ensure “Chess rating” and “Other achievements” remain as part of “Assessment and legacy” section

Politics

It’s still a little bitty, so let’s make larger paragraphs.

Combine second and third paragraphs into one. Revise “Kasparov was involved” -> “He was also involved” to improve the flow.

Do the same with paragraphs 4 and 5, this time with something like: “Another organization he was instrumental in setting up was The Other Russia…”

Opposition to Putin admin

“no grounds to believe the testimony of the police".[citation needed] Fix this.

And append “Kasparov wrote in February 2013…” to the previous paragraph

Move sentence “In an April 2013 op-ed piece..” up to end of previous paragraph. Also, as the month is the same, “In an April 2013 op-ed piece, K” -> (simply) “He also accused…”

Then add “Further,” and bring up the last sentence “At the 2013…” changing “At” to “at” to follow “Further,”

Opposition from exile

This sentence “Kasparov has spoken out against the 2014 Russian annexation of Crimea and has stated that control of Crimea should be returned to Ukraine after the overthrow of Putin without additional conditions.[228]”” is important but is stand-alone. Can you relocate it to be part of a different paragraph to avoid it sticking out like a sore thumb?

USA

“and criticized Trump” -> “and criticized him”

“He also criticised the economic policies” -> “He also impugned/disparaged [you choose which] the economic policies” (to avoid overuse of “criticize”)

Other international affairs

As above, make sure there are no stand-alone sentences. You can easily have no more than three paragraphs, remembering to use “and” “further”, “in addition”, etc., to combine sentences.

Other post-retirement writing

The same point holds. This must be revised into two paragraphs for continuity.

Update (22 Feb.): as you're almost finished, note that all images need an alternative text tab. If the caption is ideal, then "|alt=refer to caption" before the closing "]]" is fine. Thats something I've learnt this morning. Thanks Billsmith60 (talk) 12:06, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Billsmith60 Everything should be completed now. Thanks for all of your help! What do you think of the article as it is now? --Dallavid (talk) 19:08, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I'll get back to this tomorrow and let you know. Regards Billsmith60 (talk) 21:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Helo again, I found only the following two issues (in "Assessment")

1. “Kasparov's contribution to opening theory is widely acknowledged”: ‘widely?? Who else other than the Chessbase source (note 153?). If you cannot find any, delete “widely”.

2. “Kasparov's favourite opening systems were the Sicilian and King's Indian.[153“: this source does not mention those openings. Revise.

I've done several edits to tighten up the text and make it consistently British English. I also did a spot check of 20 references, and they are all "present!" If you can fix up these two points, we can go to GA very soon. All the best, Billsmith60 (talk) 13:22, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but I've found several weaknesses in the "Writings" section that need addressed Billsmith60 (talk) 18:03, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Billsmith60 The issues should be resolved now. Seems two "Assessment" sources had gotten mixed up while I was revising. --Dallavid (talk) 18:58, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I've replaced that dead link with a new one, and the correct text, covering his preferred openings. Only the 'Early Writings' issues to fix now (as above). Regards Billsmith60 (talk) 21:08, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Billsmith60 I've added the 'Early Writings' citations where they were needed. --Dallavid (talk) 22:26, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I/we missed one "citation needed" in 'My Great Predecessors', as the sole citation at the end of that paragraph is insufficient regarding the praise, criticism and inaccuracies bit.

Then delete this sentence and citation at the very end of 'Rising up the ranks' (it occurs in 'Politics'): "That year he joined the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU), as a member of which he was elected to the Central Committee of Komsomol in 1987.[44]" When both done, it'll pass GA. Regards Billsmith60 (talk) 23:26, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Billsmith60 I could not find a citation for the Predecessors reviews, so I just removed that part. I deleted the Komsomol sentence and added a source for the Candidates' final. --Dallavid (talk) 21:57, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I'll run through this a final time very soon and upgrade it when it's finally ready. Regards Billsmith60 (talk) 00:21, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, this article has now been upgraded to GA status. It was quite an effort, in which endeavour I helped out myself once much of the spade work had been done by the nominator.

1. Well written?: Pass

2. Verifiable?: Pass

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Stable?: Pass

6. Images?: Pass

Well done! Billsmith60 (talk) 15:10, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, this article has failed assessment, as detailed in the previous topic concerning the template used. Regards Billsmith60 (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

@Bruce leverett:: in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Garry_Kasparov&oldid=1084339020, you reverted my previous edit in which I mentioned Garry Kasparov having been named after Harry Truman, with a reference. You wrote:

Stating that Harry Truman was his namesake is not the same as, and does not imply that, he was named for Harry Truman.

… but he was named for Harry Truman, and has said so on numerous occasions. (Another ref here: https://en.chessbase.com/post/garry-kasparov-talks-about-his-life). Because it's clearly supported by reliable source, I'm re-adding this information. Please discuss here if you have some specific concern with the accuracy. —Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 00:33, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

What part of "Stating that Harry Truman was his namesake is not the same as, and does not imply that, he was named for Harry Truman." do you not understand?

Pretty much all of it, frankly. If you're reading the word "namesake" in such a broad way as to include "pure coincidence of name", it would help to say so. Many English speakers use "namesake" to specifically mean "named after", and it appears that GK himself meant it that way. When he wrote "my namesake Harry Truman," he meant that his parents had actually named him after Harry Truman, as is clear from the context. —Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 18:47, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

He was presumably named by his parents. Only if his parents said that they named him after Harry Truman, would one be justified in saying that he was named after Harry Truman. Otherwise, it must be assumed that it was just a coincidence that they gave him the same name as a past president of the United States. Is this not obvious? Bruce leverett (talk) 01:12, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

There is no call for such a harshly worded response here. I also do not understand the distinction you're trying to draw. The sources do clearly show that he was named after Harry Truman. However, claims about common transliterations of names do need citations. - Astrophobe (talk) 05:08, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. When I wrote the above, I had not read the citation of the Chessbase article. Bruce leverett (talk) 12:58, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

In terms of "transliteration of common names," the pattern of rendering the /h/ into Russian Cyrillic using either <Г> (pronounced /g/ in Russian) or <Х> (pronounced /x/ in Russian) is very widespread. Can't find anything approaching a "reliable source" in English (perhaps https://www.jewishgen.org/infofiles/givennames/slide46.html?), but the example of Harry Potter → Гарри Поттер is a pretty clear one. —Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 18:47, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I would take this with a bit of salt, and say in the text Garry himself claimed so. Maybe jokingly, maybe for another purpose. He's a professional speaker and politician after all. Making his money mainly in USA, I think. (sure an author too). --J. Sketter (talk) 11:53, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@J. Sketter: take what with a bit of salt? Kasparov's claim that his father named him for Harry S. Truman, with the specific explanation that his father's admiration of Truman's anti-communist stance? Or Kasparov's claim about the popularity of the name Гарри (which is what you actually replied to)? —Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 19:15, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Quoting Kasparov's claim that he was named for Harry S. Truman is problematic because it is an autobiographical claim. The following summary of what's wrong with using autobiographical material is quoted from WP:AUTO:

The quote above illustrates a number of fundamental problems with autobiographies:

They are often biased, usually positively. People will write overly positive impressions of themselves, and often present opinions as facts. Wikipedia aims to avoid presenting opinions as facts. (Neutral point of view does not mean simply writing in the third person).

They can be unverifiable. If the only source for a particular fact about you is yourself, then readers cannot verify it. (One common area where this is the case is with hopes, dreams, thoughts, and aspirations. There is no way for readers to verify what you think.) Everything in Wikipedia articles must be verifiable.

They can contain original research. People often include in autobiographies information that has never been published before, or which is the result of firsthand knowledge. This type of information would require readers to perform primary research to verify it. Wikipedia does not distribute previously-unpublished information; original research is not permitted in Wikipedia.

I assume that this is what User:J. Sketter had in mind. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

The obvious solution is to rephrase this as "According to Kasparov, he was named after...". His claim that he was named after Truman is verifiable and not OR. Nor is it unduly self-serving, just a statement of alleged fact. As for the linguistic plausibility of the claim, you only need to look as far as ru:Трумэн, Гарри. Cobblet (talk) 13:29, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

That is the normal and obvious way, yes. And would solve all the problems with this rather minor issue. Even if GK was right and name Garri was rare that time, it's not enough. To u/Moxfyre: I was commenting the former. --J. Sketter (talk) 12:22, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I'll be able to check this tomorrow. Thanks Billsmith60 (talk) 20:37, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

@Billsmith60: It appears that you forcefully switched the article from American English to British English by changing the spelling of a bunch of words. What’s up with that? What ever happened to MOS:RETAIN? Bruce leverett (talk) 02:01, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello, you are incorrect to state that I switched anything, much less acted forcefully. My first edit to this article, of 4 Feb., added the tag to use British English where none existed at all: check the versions if you don't believe me. Hence there was nothing to "retain", for the article did indeed contain a mixture of language styles. But is now in British English, for the GA assessment that is almost complete. I hope you will continue to act as watchdog for this page once it passes GA. Regards Billsmith60 (talk) 01:06, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Great news! Billsmith60 (talk) 20:51, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Please excuse my ignorance of this "Hook" issue, but I am grateful to Bagumba for noting the need for an additional reference in the article regarding the split from FIDE and emergence of the PCA – done. The Lead and on particular, text do indeed make it clear, with sources, that he was world champion from 1985 to 2000, but I've added those dates into the first paragraph. Regards Billsmith60 (talk) 15:13, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

After exhaustive work, this article has now been promoted to a "Sports and recreation" GA Billsmith60 (talk) 14:57, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Congratulations to everyone involved! @My very best wishes who may want to second this :) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:21, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

As I can't use the"reply" button to do so by phone, please note that the provenance of the 1993 split from FIDE has been fixed with an additional source – an article written by Bill Hartston, a chess IM (who should know whats going on!) in "The Independent" newspaper. It clearly states what happened and when. Also, I've updated the one from Britannica Billsmith60 (talk) 10:31, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

The "country" parameter in the Infobox should NOT mention Croatia. We are going with WP:CONTEXTBIO here. The most recent earlier discussion of this is at #Russian_v._Azerbaijani. Bruce leverett (talk) 20:52, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

A slow-motion edit war is in progress over the choice of Infobox image. This should be resolved here, in the talk page. The use of the older (2015) image was the outcome of a discussion that is now in Talk:Garry Kasparov/Archive_2#Infobox image.

Informally, I think the older image is a bit better-looking, but the newer (2023) image is not bad, and, after all, it is newer. I know that other considerations, such as photo quality, which I am not necessarily competent to judge, also sometimes come into play. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:53, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Agree the older image is better-looking for the bio. (Much better.) --IHTS (talk) 05:07, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

As the person that assessed the article for GA, I agree that the 2015 photo is perfect and need not be replaced. The origin of those making that change is clear enough Billsmith60 (talk) 09:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

A decent-quality pic of Kasparov from 2017 has been uploaded by user Artem G. I've no objection to it if no one else has Billsmith60 (talk) 16:57, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of this discussion or edit war about the photo. I was reverted, but I still think that 2017 photo is better and is of better quality. Artem.G (talk) 05:25, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Opinions evidently differ about the 2017 photo compared with the 2015 photo. In the 2021 discussion, a version of the 2017 photo was enthusiastically replaced by the 2015 photo, not by me, but with my concurrence. Both the 2017 photo and the 2015 photo have about the same resolution; 2015 is taken from an angle and distance that, it appears to me, better shows his face (plus, I like the smile).

The recent edit war involved a very recent photo. As he ages, we may find ourselves abandoning older photos even if they're better-looking, just because they're older. But for now, the 2015 and perhaps 2017 photos are preferable to the very recent one. Bruce leverett (talk) 17:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)