| |
Main
Date: 28 Sep 2007 21:44:54
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Big article on Kasparov in the Oct 1 New Yorker
|
|
|
| |
Date: 01 Oct 2007 21:25:07
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Big article on Kasparov in the Oct 1 New Yorker
|
On Oct 1, 8:12 pm, "Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> On Oct 1, 2:55 pm, help bot <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > a host of idiotic lies.
>
> You're way too excited. Take it easy, take a step
> back, get distance.
I am in fact as calm as a carrot; as level as the sea;
you think you perceive that which does not exist, like
reason in politics; like perfection in chess; like thinness
in the Midwest; like zero inflation or a balanced budget.
Stepping back, I note that what I was standing in was
brownish, squishy stuff, laid out in a rounded pile; it
reminds me of my days back on the farm. Cape buffalo,
I expect. Nothing else quite like it. Best stay downwind,
for safety sake.
-- calm bot
|
| |
Date: 02 Oct 2007 01:19:03
From: Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
Subject: Re: Big article on Kasparov in the Oct 1 New Yorker
|
On Oct 1, 2:54 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
>
>They must find their own [Russian] way.
Phil, you're trying to sound more Russian than Russians,
like a simplified neo-Dostoevsky for the poor. It doesn't
buy anything (it's even harmful, because such talk muddies
the issues).
Regards,
Wlod
|
| | |
Date: 02 Oct 2007 12:29:37
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Big article on Kasparov in the Oct 1 New Yorker
|
"Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Oct 1, 2:54 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>They must find their own [Russian] way.
>
> Phil, you're trying to sound more Russian than Russians,
> like a simplified neo-Dostoevsky for the poor. It doesn't
> buy anything (it's even harmful, because such talk muddies
> the issues).
>
> Regards,
>
> Wlod
Wlod, I am quoting you Dostoyevski, who is repeating Pushkin - as recently
mentioned by fellow Vermonter, Alexsandr Solzenhitsyn.
While this has been 'the Russian problem' for 300 years, it is merely more
exacerbated there - and in fact, all nations need to find their own footing
in their own soil. That is even the foundation for the USA. While Colonists
were preponderantly English by culture, in America they had to evolve an
American identity, since English habit here was a disaster if left to the
mercy of the Puritans.
Cordially, Phil
|
| |
Date: 02 Oct 2007 01:12:29
From: Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
Subject: Re: Big article on Kasparov in the Oct 1 New Yorker
|
On Oct 1, 2:55 pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> a host of idiotic lies.
You're way too excited. Take it easy, take a step
back, get distance.
Wlod
|
| |
Date: 01 Oct 2007 15:39:39
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Big article on Kasparov in the Oct 1 New Yorker
|
On Oct 1, 11:17 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> >> The main thrust of the article is big politics, and chess references are
> >> small.
>
> > Gary Kasparov is instantly proclaimed to be "the greatest
> > player in the history of chess"; if this this is small, what's
> > big?
>
> An intelligent reader would assess the comment to mean the number of
> references to chess are small, rather than the material referenced being of
> small account
I think the nearly-an-English-speaker IM Innes must
mean "few"; that references to chess were few (in number).
Saying that they were small -- without mentioning the word
number -- means something else in English. Perhaps
things are different in Andean?
> > More fibs: "[GK] was /the/ world champion for 15 years".
>
> > "...[GK's] dominance was /unprecedented/".
>
> > The imbecile David Remnick then goes on to list a few
> > of those whose dominance preceded GK's, adding that
> > none of them even "came close";
>
> that is a matter of opinion, sure - but it is also my opinion
Then I would have to class the nearly-an-IM right
along with the other imbecile, the author, for knowing
nothing whatever about the subject he is attempting
to discuss.
Where GK stood out was in his amazing dominance
in big international tournaments (although he was not
nearly as active as some) and in his breaking the 2800
rating k for the first time ever. But in terms of some
criteria, he fell well short of other champions; one
example is in his match record, and another is in the
gap betwixt himself and other contenders, which was
not nearly as large as the gaps established by a few
of his greatest predecessors. Case in point: while
Jose Capablanca defeated his predecessor to take the
championship title without the loss of even a single
game (!!!), GK often squeaked out a victory after a
multitude of closely-contested games, or worse, kept
the title via an unfair advantage grated by FIDE, or drew
via proclamation while well behind in the score. (But
that was far from the best example, since JRC was
himself bettered in post-facto ratings by his own
great predecessor!)
> > a real expert on chess
> > history, as the following demonstrates beyond all doubt:
> > [...GK's hair was] "black and curly when he won the world
> > championship...". There's the proof, my friends, of this
> > guy's depth of expertise. He may well rank right up there
> > among the best-of-the-best of chess historians, judging by
> > this stuff.
>
> what are /you/ trying to 'judge'?
That would be the /value/ of the author's comments
regarding chess. You see, I cannot easily test the
value of his commentary regarding Russian politics --
except for self-consistency of course -- but I can very
easily note whether he is spewing B.S. when he talks
about chess. That's because I am a world-renowned
expert on chess; in fact, I am currently the world's
highest-rated player on GetClub. ; >D
(Note: I cannot deny that 2300+ Zebediah is in hot
pursuit, and will very likely surpass my stellar 1400
rating in due time. This is not my fault! My old
email address is no longer accessible, and so I can
not retrieve my old password from GetClub, and must
instead play under a newly-created ID. Se la vie.)
Now, having already established that the author is
quite the B.S.er, we need read no further... unless it
is *more* B.S. we are after, that is. (And if wanted
lots of that, I can just get it /here/ in rgc!)
> those would be comments on your comprehension, for example, if you never
> heard of an Andean language, or think even Mexican Spanish is the same as
> Castillian, as does Vaguer Kingbone.
If the nearly-an-IM cannot distinguish betwixt myself
and Tyler Kingbone, he is even more-dumberer that I
had ever imagined.
I think it was David Richerby who stated that the word
"brava" only applies to females (in Italian), so if the great
IM thinks he is impressing anyone here, he is way, way
off track. LOL!
> As for the Openings, this week it was deeper-than-ever into the Dilworth,
> which real players are engaging - even international ones, even Fritz-baby!
Notorious openings gurus for Rybka and Zappa
faced off recently, and I was anything but impressed
by the Rybka man's handling of the Ruy Lopez (about
which I know almost nothing). As White, Rybka-guy
got zippo, if not less than zippo, again and again.
> Now I have to read over Ray Keene's contributions to the W CH, and his
> analysis of the games of Vishy Anand in two linked-articles, with some
> historical perspective in /his/ opinion, being a strong player himself.
Indeed, a recently posted list put RK behind two greats
but ahead of GM Evans -- although that could be on account
of the latter's well-advanced age. A recent post here directed
readers to another forum to peruse commentary by a GM
Suba on the Rybka/Zappa match; I searched around, but all
I could find were mere snippets, plus a lot of talk about
placing (or not placing) bets on the world championships!
In sum, no meat or potatoes. (Again, these guys seem to
expect to get /paid/ for any work.)
> Interestingly, Shamkovich and Schiller reference Kasparov and Keene's
> re-appreciation of the Dilworth, stating that many lines where white was
> thought to have an edge, prove to be very diffident claims, if not outright
> false ;))
Some previous "work" by GK has later been called
into serious question, and I would take his co-authorship
with RK with a barrel of salt.
Besides, who cares what human grandmasters think
anymore? Rybka and Zappa are higher-rated, arguably
have even bigger egos, and though not so good-looking
as GK, are at least 100% objective on every position.
I think after 22 days/nights of thinking, an improvement
may be found which makes the entire line irrelevant.
Try something sound, for a change, like the Caro-Kann.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 02 Oct 2007 12:23:33
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Big article on Kasparov in the Oct 1 New Yorker
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Oct 1, 11:17 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >> The main thrust of the article is big politics, and chess references
>> >> are
>> >> small.
>>
>> > Gary Kasparov is instantly proclaimed to be "the greatest
>> > player in the history of chess"; if this this is small, what's
>> > big?
>>
>> An intelligent reader would assess the comment to mean the number of
>> references to chess are small, rather than the material referenced being
>> of
>> small account
>
> I think the nearly-an-English-speaker IM Innes must
> mean "few"; that references to chess were few (in number).
Well, at least that got a laugh from me - since if the references were few,
[what could they have been few of?]
> Saying that they were small -- without mentioning the word
Its your sentence structure, init. e.g. what are the 'they' in your sentence
if not the number of references? Try to remember the names of the objects
and see if you can name your nouns, and attendent adjectives.
> number -- means something else in English. Perhaps
> things are different in Andean?
How would corn-fed know? He has more opinions on more subjects of what
others must mean, and like all trolls, is a bit shy on what he himself
means.
Previously I asked if he could write his own piece, and he excused himself
by declaring no interest - while now writing more words than the original
article to illustrate his lack of interest. I declare Georg Kennedy winner
of the Blair-Prize for Lit-Writ-Sure!
>
>> > More fibs: "[GK] was /the/ world champion for 15 years".
>>
>> > "...[GK's] dominance was /unprecedented/".
>>
>> > The imbecile David Remnick then goes on to list a few
>> > of those whose dominance preceded GK's, adding that
>> > none of them even "came close";
>>
>> that is a matter of opinion, sure - but it is also my opinion
>
>
> Then I would have to class the nearly-an-IM right
> along with the other imbecile, the author, for knowing
> nothing whatever about the subject he is attempting
> to discuss.
>
> Where GK stood out was in his amazing dominance
You ever permit both hemispheres of brain to converse with each other? Is
there such a thing as corn-blockage?
> in big international tournaments (although he was not
> nearly as active as some) and in his breaking the 2800
> rating k for the first time ever. But in terms of some
> criteria, he fell well short of other champions; one
> example is in his match record, and another is in the
> gap betwixt himself and other contenders, which was
> not nearly as large as the gaps established by a few
> of his greatest predecessors.
I do not think the writer of the New Yorker article said GK superceded all
other players in all categories, not mentioned with another 1,000 words the
degree to which he differed from them.
> Case in point: while
> Jose Capablanca defeated his predecessor to take the
> championship title without the loss of even a single
> game (!!!), GK often squeaked out a victory after a
> multitude of closely-contested games, or worse, kept
Kept playing chess against the strongest in the world, which to compare Capa
against that criterion, would put Capa in the shade, no?
> the title via an unfair advantage grated by FIDE, or drew
> via proclamation while well behind in the score.
Are you meaning to say that by arbiter intercession on behalf of his
opponent's health, while both players wanted to continue [!] that this is
your cavil?
Good grief - you are like those armchair sailors who use more nautical terms
than actual sailors ! <yikes >
> (But
> that was far from the best example, since JRC was
> himself bettered in post-facto ratings by his own
> great predecessor!)
>
>
>
>> > a real expert on chess
>> > history, as the following demonstrates beyond all doubt:
>> > [...GK's hair was] "black and curly when he won the world
>> > championship...". There's the proof, my friends, of this
>> > guy's depth of expertise. He may well rank right up there
>> > among the best-of-the-best of chess historians, judging by
>> > this stuff.
>>
>> what are /you/ trying to 'judge'?
>
>
> That would be the /value/ of the author's comments
> regarding chess. You see, I cannot easily test the
> value of his commentary regarding Russian politics --
> except for self-consistency of course -- but I can very
> easily note whether he is spewing B.S.
I can see what you can 'easily note' from your mentions above, which I think
must mean that it requires no thought. Those are indeed 'easy' comments,
though fantastically partial ones.
> when he talks
> about chess. That's because I am a world-renowned
> expert on chess; in fact, I am currently the world's
> highest-rated player on GetClub. ;>D
You are so thick you would have resigned to 1550 rated Rob Mitchell, instead
of turning the game around in 2 moves. But, as with Sam Sloan, can we
address this subject beyond your 'experience', or at least admit the value
of your own insistent judgements are matched only by your exposure to chess?
Not that you are a vague obsessive or anything, but I ressurect one comment
below which has to do with somthing other than you
"Some previous "work" by GK has later been called
into serious question, and I would take his co-authorship
with RK with a barrel of salt."
I hope all GK's work is 'called into question' since how else would people
understand it? The very point of looking at the Dilworth was to re-evaluate
what 'previous work' had suggested.
How can you struggle against a 1200-level computer with book on [ROFL] and
still venture your brave opinions about the other end of the scale, as if
you could even understand what was said, or the continuous //process// of
evaluting chess which all real players undertake?
Old Andean Zen Koan*: "Do not attend the master, which is insincere, attend
the mastery, which is your own."
Phil Innes
*Some people think this is a type for Ken Cohen, or even Leonard Cohen, but
it's actually foreign-speak.
------
> (Note: I cannot deny that 2300+ Zebediah is in hot
> pursuit, and will very likely surpass my stellar 1400
> rating in due time. This is not my fault! My old
> email address is no longer accessible, and so I can
> not retrieve my old password from GetClub, and must
> instead play under a newly-created ID. Se la vie.)
>
> Now, having already established that the author is
> quite the B.S.er, we need read no further... unless it
> is *more* B.S. we are after, that is. (And if wanted
> lots of that, I can just get it /here/ in rgc!)
>
>
>> those would be comments on your comprehension, for example, if you never
>> heard of an Andean language, or think even Mexican Spanish is the same as
>> Castillian, as does Vaguer Kingbone.
>
> If the nearly-an-IM cannot distinguish betwixt myself
> and Tyler Kingbone, he is even more-dumberer that I
> had ever imagined.
>
>
> I think it was David Richerby who stated that the word
> "brava" only applies to females (in Italian), so if the great
> IM thinks he is impressing anyone here, he is way, way
> off track. LOL!
>
>
>> As for the Openings, this week it was deeper-than-ever into the Dilworth,
>> which real players are engaging - even international ones, even
>> Fritz-baby!
>
> Notorious openings gurus for Rybka and Zappa
> faced off recently, and I was anything but impressed
> by the Rybka man's handling of the Ruy Lopez (about
> which I know almost nothing). As White, Rybka-guy
> got zippo, if not less than zippo, again and again.
>
>
>
>> Now I have to read over Ray Keene's contributions to the W CH, and his
>> analysis of the games of Vishy Anand in two linked-articles, with some
>> historical perspective in /his/ opinion, being a strong player himself.
>
> Indeed, a recently posted list put RK behind two greats
> but ahead of GM Evans -- although that could be on account
> of the latter's well-advanced age. A recent post here directed
> readers to another forum to peruse commentary by a GM
> Suba on the Rybka/Zappa match; I searched around, but all
> I could find were mere snippets, plus a lot of talk about
> placing (or not placing) bets on the world championships!
> In sum, no meat or potatoes. (Again, these guys seem to
> expect to get /paid/ for any work.)
>
>
>> Interestingly, Shamkovich and Schiller reference Kasparov and Keene's
>> re-appreciation of the Dilworth, stating that many lines where white was
>> thought to have an edge, prove to be very diffident claims, if not
>> outright
>> false ;))
>
> Some previous "work" by GK has later been called
> into serious question, and I would take his co-authorship
> with RK with a barrel of salt.
>
> Besides, who cares what human grandmasters think
> anymore? Rybka and Zappa are higher-rated, arguably
> have even bigger egos, and though not so good-looking
> as GK, are at least 100% objective on every position.
> I think after 22 days/nights of thinking, an improvement
> may be found which makes the entire line irrelevant.
> Try something sound, for a change, like the Caro-Kann.
>
>
> -- help bot
>
>
>
>
>
|
| |
Date: 01 Oct 2007 14:55:37
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Big article on Kasparov in the Oct 1 New Yorker
|
On Oct 1, 7:20 am, "Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> On Sep 30, 8:56 pm, help bot <[email protected]> worries:
>
>
>
> > Gary Kasparov is instantly proclaimed to be "the greatest
> > player in the history of chess";
>
> In the context of the article, there are more
> serious issues to focus on.
Putting this article into its proper /context/ seemed
the right approach, in view of the lead off with a host
of idiotic lies.
Perhaps someone more reliable could be found to
write about the serious matter of Russian politics.
No more pretenders, please.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 01 Oct 2007 12:20:24
From: Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
Subject: Re: Big article on Kasparov in the Oct 1 New Yorker
|
On Sep 30, 8:56 pm, help bot <[email protected] > worries:
>
> Gary Kasparov is instantly proclaimed to be "the greatest
> player in the history of chess";
In the context of the article, there are more
serious issues to focus on.
Wlod
|
| |
Date: 01 Oct 2007 12:16:36
From: Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
Subject: Re: Big article on Kasparov in the Oct 1 New Yorker
|
On Sep 30, 6:01 am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Sep 29, 7:18 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > And by big, 13 pages of it! Unsure if it will turn up on-line, but the
> > article is titled: The Tsar's Opponent, and written by David Remnick.
>
> It appeared online several days ago:
>
> http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/10/01/071001fa_fact_remnick
Indeed, I read it a few days ago too.
It left me with a "twilight zone"
depressing feeling.
Russian politicians still think in terms
of Russia instead of "Russians" (Russian
citizens).
Regards,
Wlod
|
| | |
Date: 01 Oct 2007 21:54:37
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Big article on Kasparov in the Oct 1 New Yorker
|
"Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sep 30, 6:01 am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Sep 29, 7:18 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > And by big, 13 pages of it! Unsure if it will turn up on-line, but the
>> > article is titled: The Tsar's Opponent, and written by David Remnick.
>>
>> It appeared online several days ago:
>>
>> http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/10/01/071001fa_fact_remnick
>
> Indeed, I read it a few days ago too.
> It left me with a "twilight zone"
> depressing feeling.
yes
> Russian politicians still think in terms
> of Russia instead of "Russians" (Russian
> citizens).
vykod est!
... the way home was through a fallow filed of black earth...
Heuch!
I gazed around me, and my soul
was wounded by the
sufferings of mankind.
/Aleksandr Radischev
/A Journey from Moscow to Petersburg, 1790
They must find their own way, friend. Both their own way, and the way to do
it - for them, for us! But for them first.
'We wanted the best, but it turned out as always'
/Viktor Chernomyrdin
/Russina Prime Minister, 1992-1998
This is the cuspid state of Russian peoples.
Cordially, Phil Innes
> Regards,
>
> Wlod
>
|
| |
Date: 30 Sep 2007 20:56:51
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Big article on Kasparov in the Oct 1 New Yorker
|
On Sep 29, 6:18 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> And by big, 13 pages of it! Unsure if it will turn up on-line, but the
> article is titled: The Tsar's Opponent, and written by David Remnick.
>
> The main thrust of the article is big politics, and chess references are
> small.
Gary Kasparov is instantly proclaimed to be "the greatest
player in the history of chess"; if this this is small, what's
big?
More fibs: "[GK] was /the/ world champion for 15 years".
"...[GK's] dominance was /unprecedented/".
The imbecile David Remnick then goes on to list a few
of those whose dominance preceded GK's, adding that
none of them even "came close"; a real expert on chess
history, as the following demonstrates beyond all doubt:
[...GK's hair was] "black and curly when he won the world
championship...". There's the proof, my friends, of this
guy's depth of expertise. He may well rank right up there
among the best-of-the-best of chess historians, judging by
this stuff.
I did not bother to finish the article, because for all I
know the lies about Russian politics could be better or
worse than his lies about chess, and I would have no
way of being able to judge. I prefer to simply credit the
above lies, and allow that his others /might/ be even
bigger, and better.
> And now the seemingly impossible obstacle of championing democracy in
> Russia - or rather greater than that - of finding means to base that country
> in its own future. the tragedy of Russia has always been its imported
> culture, as if it has no confidence in its own; and whether the import is
> German/English xism, or American laissez-faire capitalism, it suffers,
> that Black Earth, and all mishievous men who roam over it.
It is obvious that IM Innes spent many years living,
breathing, and working in Russia; yes, he too, is an
undeniable expert.
"Base the country in its own future" -- I liked that one.
Good stuff. How about some comments on the origin
of nanotech, the evolution of Andean culture, or maybe
even the state of current theory in the Ruy Lopez,
shall Attack?
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 01 Oct 2007 16:17:01
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Big article on Kasparov in the Oct 1 New Yorker
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sep 29, 6:18 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> And by big, 13 pages of it! Unsure if it will turn up on-line, but the
>> article is titled: The Tsar's Opponent, and written by David Remnick.
>>
>> The main thrust of the article is big politics, and chess references are
>> small.
>
> Gary Kasparov is instantly proclaimed to be "the greatest
> player in the history of chess"; if this this is small, what's
> big?
An intelligent reader would assess the comment to mean the number of
references to chess are small, rather than the material referenced being of
small account
>
> More fibs: "[GK] was /the/ world champion for 15 years".
>
> "...[GK's] dominance was /unprecedented/".
>
> The imbecile David Remnick then goes on to list a few
> of those whose dominance preceded GK's, adding that
> none of them even "came close";
that is a matter of opinion, sure - but it is also my opinion
> a real expert on chess
> history, as the following demonstrates beyond all doubt:
> [...GK's hair was] "black and curly when he won the world
> championship...". There's the proof, my friends, of this
> guy's depth of expertise. He may well rank right up there
> among the best-of-the-best of chess historians, judging by
> this stuff.
what are /you/ trying to 'judge'?
> I did not bother to finish the article, because for all I
> know the lies about Russian politics could be better or
> worse than his lies about chess,
thank god it wasn't about the holocaust, then...
>
and I would have no
> way of being able to judge. I prefer to simply credit the
> above lies, and allow that his others /might/ be even
> bigger, and better.
>
>
>> And now the seemingly impossible obstacle of championing democracy in
>> Russia - or rather greater than that - of finding means to base that
>> country
>> in its own future. the tragedy of Russia has always been its imported
>> culture, as if it has no confidence in its own; and whether the import is
>> German/English xism, or American laissez-faire capitalism, it suffers,
>> that Black Earth, and all mishievous men who roam over it.
>
> It is obvious that IM Innes spent many years living,
> breathing, and working in Russia; yes, he too, is an
> undeniable expert.
two of the most famous lines in Russian literature make it obvious to
corn-fed that I spent many years... :)))
> "Base the country in its own future" -- I liked that one.
> Good stuff. How about some comments on the origin
> of nanotech, the evolution of Andean culture, or maybe
> even the state of current theory in the Ruy Lopez,
> shall Attack?
those would be comments on your comprehension, for example, if you never
heard of an Andean language, or think even Mexican Spanish is the same as
Castillian, as does Vaguer Kingbone.
As for the Openings, this week it was deeper-than-ever into the Dilworth,
which real players are engaging - even international ones, even Fritz-baby!
Now I have to read over Ray Keene's contributions to the W CH, and his
analysis of the games of Vishy Anand in two linked-articles, with some
historical perspective in /his/ opinion, being a strong player himself.
Interestingly, Shamkovich and Schiller reference Kasparov and Keene's
re-appreciation of the Dilworth, stating that many lines where white was
thought to have an edge, prove to be very diffident claims, if not outright
false ;))
Phil Innes
>
> -- help bot
>
>
|
| |
Date: 30 Sep 2007 06:01:58
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Big article on Kasparov in the Oct 1 New Yorker
|
On Sep 29, 7:18 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> And by big, 13 pages of it! Unsure if it will turn up on-line, but the
> article is titled: The Tsar's Opponent, and written by David Remnick.
It appeared online several days ago:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/10/01/071001fa_fact_remnick
|
| |
Date: 29 Sep 2007 11:08:51
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: Big article on Kasparov in the Oct 1 New Yorker
|
> And now the seemingly impossible obstacle of championing democracy in
> Russia - or rather greater than that - of finding means to base that country
> in its own future. the tragedy of Russia has always been its imported
> culture, as if it has no confidence in its own; and whether the import is
> German/English xism, or American laissez-faire capitalism, it suffers,
> that Black Earth, and all mishievous men who roam over it.
>
> Phil Innes
US has finished Russia by breaking it into 20-30 pieces. Just like
when a glass breaks into pieces Russia is now broken into pieces and
has become a small and weaker country. Earlier Russia was a Super
Power, Just like USA.
History tells all Super Powers had bad time.
USA as Super Power year - 1990 onwards
Russia & USA were Super Power, year - 1950-1990
One time Germany Was Super Power year 1930-1950
One time England was Super Power: year 1800-1900
One time France was Super Power year 1600-1700
One time India was Super Power year 1400-1600
Africa & South Asia - 1000 BC
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| | |
Date: 30 Sep 2007 10:59:34
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Big article on Kasparov in the Oct 1 New Yorker
|
"Sanny" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> And now the seemingly impossible obstacle of championing democracy in
>> Russia - or rather greater than that - of finding means to base that
>> country
>> in its own future. the tragedy of Russia has always been its imported
>> culture, as if it has no confidence in its own; and whether the import is
>> German/English xism, or American laissez-faire capitalism, it suffers,
>> that Black Earth, and all mishievous men who roam over it.
>>
>> Phil Innes
>
> US has finished Russia by breaking it into 20-30 pieces. Just like
> when a glass breaks into pieces Russia is now broken into pieces and
> has become a small and weaker country.
Actually Sanny, Russia is the same size it ever was. Its the Soviet Union
which is disintegrated, and now all the 'broken pieces' of it can return to
what they too were before, countries in their own right.
'Empire' is another imported idea into a Russia which, as I wrote above,
must find its own identity, not inhale other countries whole, nor import
their systems in place of its own efforts.
Just like chess, it requires work, not tricks combined with self-deluding
rhetoric, and at the expense of others. Everyone who attempted Empire has
been bitten back pretty hard, since living off other people is no substitute
for making your own way, and can only be faked in the short run.
Russia is still struggling with Tsarist ideas of 'the strong leader',
blithely unaware that that form of government is no longer appropriate in a
globla economy and ecology - and while the people are fixated on it, they
will stay as they are, poor, and a backwater in the world. Don't believe all
the showcase presentations of the cultural greatness of the place - only an
elite occupy that space, while the rest of it is as poor as it ever was.
Kasparov would obviously modernise the style of government itself, since I
think his exposure to the West has confirmed the idea that in the
information age, information is only valuable if it flows, or is circulated.
And like time, cannot be saved.
Phil Innes
> Earlier Russia was a Super
> Power, Just like USA.
>
> History tells all Super Powers had bad time.
>
> USA as Super Power year - 1990 onwards
> Russia & USA were Super Power, year - 1950-1990
> One time Germany Was Super Power year 1930-1950
> One time England was Super Power: year 1800-1900
> One time France was Super Power year 1600-1700
> One time India was Super Power year 1400-1600
> Africa & South Asia - 1000 BC
>
> Bye
> Sanny
>
> Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
>
|
| |
Date: 29 Sep 2007 11:18:54
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Big article on Kasparov in the Oct 1 New Yorker
|
And by big, 13 pages of it! Unsure if it will turn up on-line, but the
article is titled: The Tsar's Opponent, and written by David Remnick.
The main thrust of the article is big politics, and chess references are
small. The main problem is as Alexansandr Solzhenitsyn recently told /Der
Spiegel/, "You can scarecely find anyone in opposition, except for the
Communists. just like in Yeltsin's times."
And of course, this is a country with state-run media.
What seems interestering from the chessic point of view is that politics is
one of the few known uses of chess players. Perhaps the first was the
'supremely important' [Chuchill] deployment of chess players as
cryptanalysts to crack Enigma in WWII. Then maybe we have some players
exploring educational ideas [Heismann, Polgar].
And now the seemingly impossible obstacle of championing democracy in
Russia - or rather greater than that - of finding means to base that country
in its own future. the tragedy of Russia has always been its imported
culture, as if it has no confidence in its own; and whether the import is
German/English xism, or American laissez-faire capitalism, it suffers,
that Black Earth, and all mishievous men who roam over it.
Phil Innes
|
|
