Talk:Garry Kasparov

General Question: public service during and post the Soviet Union

Do You know where did Kasparov his national service during the Cold war and what was / is / will be his military value counted (how is he officially / unoffiacially - ergo shadow - ranked?)? 193.210.202.99 (talk) 23:28, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Nagorno-Karabakh?

The cited source just says "Karabakh". Bruce leverett (talk) 18:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Fixed, thank you Billsmith60 (talk) 19:16, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

No longer youngest-ever world champion

I see Dommaraju now carries that mantle, if someobe cares to place it in the lead and text at the right place: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crl3d5gyxr7o Billsmith60 (talk) 19:19, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Conclusion of poor performance

Billsmith60 The assertion that 'he played poorly' is a conclusion not mentioned in the articles WP:OR, and it is also a fully subjective. How do we know he didn't approach the tournament with the mentality that achieving at least one draw would mean he performed well? Bottle for Bread (talk) 22:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

His scores, in a career of almost unprecedented excellence, are the evidence for a very poor performance on that occasion. OAO Billsmith60 (talk) 12:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

The source we site for this event only gives the scores, so you are justified in disputing our conclusion that Kasparov "played poorly". However, if we had chosen a better source, you could see that indeed it was the universal opinion that Kasparov played poorly. For instance this article from chess.com uses the word "disastrous".

This is an example of why we should try to avoid using articles with bare crosstables as sources for chess results. When I have time, I will replace the sources we are using for this citation with a better one, perhaps the one from chess.com. Bruce leverett (talk) 16:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, please do. 'disastrous' sounds good to me. I am really scratching my head at how a brand-new editor has queried this point. We're not slow to praise Kasparov for excellent performances but the truth can't be spoken when he falls off a cliff, it would seem. Happy Christmas to you Billsmith60 (talk) 10:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

GOAT

We are no longer putting statements about being "the greatest of all time" in articles about chess champions. This has been discussed many times in the talk pages of Bobby Fischer, Garry Kasparov, Magnus Carlsen, and others, but these discussions tend to get archived so it doesn't hurt to rehearse the matter one more time. (The most recent discussion in Garry Kasparov's talk page was Talk:Garry Kasparov/Archive 2#The Greatest?.)

The most recent attempt to add such a statement to Garry Kasparov had the following problems:

• Kasparov was one of only about 20 world champions of chess. So he is, by definition, "one of the greatest to have played the game". It isn't necessary, and is self-defeating, to say what doesn't need to be said.
• Two sources are cited. The first, from chessify, is a blog entry. Blogs are not considered reliable sources.
• The other cited source is at least not a blog. But is it a reliable source? The author is not a well-known authority on chess history, nor a titled chess grandmaster (let alone at world championship level). He does not state any criteria for deciding the ranking of the 10 players on his list, or for determining who is on the list or who isn't. Why should the reader give any credence to the author's claims?
• This statement is in the lead section of the article. Everything in the lead is supposed to summarize something in the main article, so the lead doesn't have to cite sources (sources are cited in the main article). This statement doesn't summarize anything in the main article.

Everyone who has followed professional chess has opinions about who is or was the greatest. Or should I say, "opinions are a dime a dozen." Encyclopedias are often used to resolve arguments, and if Wikipedia could resolve the question of who is or was the greatest, it would be helpful indeed. But there is no reason to expect that this can happen, in chess or in any popular sport. Wikipedia does have an article, Comparison of top chess players throughout history, which discusses the question of "who was the greatest", and although it does not answer the question or even try to, it provides some entertaining historical tidbits. Bruce leverett (talk) 21:53, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I concur – and Kasparov's article is of WP:GA standard. This fondness for 'GOAT' is also a highly subjective matter, even if published sources are cited. While most contributions are genuine and well-meaning, WP:PEACOCK also raises its ugly head, as does the issue of the 'fanboy' who is determined to have their way. Ultimately, the key is to retain an encyclopaedic and neutral tone Billsmith60 (talk) 11:48, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I disagree with your argument. Yes, having been world champion, “Kasparov is one of the greatest chess players of all time” goes without saying. But your argument misses something important, which is that Kasparov is often cited as the VERY greatest (only two other players share this quality: Carlsen and Fischer). Therefore, a statement along the lines of “Kasparov is arguably/often considered the greatest chess player of all time” is well worth including. (Also, you say “We are no longer putting…” – who’s “we”?) AprilShowersStormtrooper (talk) 03:37, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't know why you are claiming that Kasparov and two other players are the only ones cited as the VERY greatest. In their day, Morphy, Steinitz, Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, and Karpov all were so cited. And I make no claims as to the completeness of this list; it is limited to sources that I have personally read. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:38, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

I did not claim that Kasparov, Carlsen and Fischer are the only players ever cited as the very greatest. I said that those three are the only three who are OFTEN cited as the very greatest, i.e. as a MAINSTREAM opinion. Clearly, for example, the view that Alekhine was the greatest of all time is very much a minority opinion. Moreover, your point that all of the world champions have, at some point in history, been considered the greatest is irrelevant, because historical opinions (opinions formed before Kasparov and Carlsen were even born) are obviously irrelevant in the face of contemporary opinion which is able to appraise the entirety of chess history. Also, since you have not addressed this point: "We are no longer putting statements about..." – Wikipedia is a democracy, not a dictatorship by a select minority "We". There is very cogent reason to include a statement, with appropriate citation, along the lines of "Kasparov is considered by a large portion of the chess community to be the greatest chess player of all time" – regardless of the diktat of this mysterious "We". AprilShowersStormtrooper (talk) 21:26, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

This article has passed the reasonably exacting standards for a Good Article. It already conforms to what is required of a comprehensive review of the subject. POV regarding their all-time status is not required to enhance this article. The "we" you ask about are the editors who give up their time to contribute to keeping Wikipedia the encyclopaedic resource it is Billsmith60 (talk) 10:40, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

It’s astonishing that this mysterious “we” has convinced itself that a statement along the lines of “Kasparov is considered one of the greatest players of all time, often the very greatest” isn’t worthy of inclusion or isn’t sufficiently informative in an encyclopedia entry designed to give the general public/layreader a reasonable overview of Kasparov. Is this what Wikipedia has come to? AprilShowersStormtrooper (talk) 17:34, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a forum. It is supposed to help people settle arguments, not to start them. You want to argue over who was the GOAT, go to Reddit. Bruce leverett (talk) 18:02, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I have zero interest in arguing who was the GOAT. My only interest is in deciding what is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia entry intended for layreaders. The only one who is guilty of weird dogmatism here is you. AprilShowersStormtrooper (talk) 19:06, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Once again, the "we" you ask about are the editors who give up their time to contribute to keeping Wikipedia the encyclopaedic, non-fanboy resource it is. Wikipedia is not X/Twitter Billsmith60 (talk) 11:48, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the ad hominem. I rest my case. AprilShowersStormtrooper (talk) 19:18, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

You've still got the nonsense Elo crap in the intro.

"His peak FIDE chess rating of 2851, achieved in 1999, was the highest recorded until being surpassed by Magnus Carlsen in 2013"

Which is itself fanboy nonsense. Again, Elo comparisons across different eras is completely meaningless.

AI:

Elo is a relative metric — it measures a player’s strength against their contemporary field, not against players from other generations.

So saying "Carlsen surpassed Kasparov’s Elo" without context can misleadingly imply that Carlsen is the stronger player overall — which is not what Elo is designed to assess.

Your criticism of the sentence in the Kasparov article:

"achieved in 1999, was the highest recorded until being surpassed by Magnus Carlsen in 2013."

is valid in that:

It's inserted in the lead, which gives it disproportionate weight.

It subtly implies Carlsen's superiority, unless it's immediately followed by a clarifying note about the non-comparability of Elo across generations.

In a neutral, encyclopedic context (like Wikipedia), that nuance should absolutely be included if Elo is mentioned at all. 217.155.68.51 (talk) 22:14, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

You are hijacking a discussion about one issue (GOAT), to start or resume a discussion about your favorite issue (sentence about comparative ratings in the lead). Please do not do this.

I see that the earlier discussion of your favorite issue has been archived; it can be found in Talk:Garry Kasparov/Archive 3#Pointless mention of ELO. If you want to resume the discussion of your favorite issue, please do so by starting a new topic in this talk page. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:07, 18 May 2025 (UTC)