Talk:Garry Kasparov

Pointless mention of ELO

The only point of mentioning Magnus Overrated Carlsen's ELO v Kasparov is to try to insinuate he's a stronger player. ELO is based on the field of players you are against. Kasparov's main rival was a top 10 player of all time - Karpov. Magnus doesn't have that. It's pointless to even mention ELO of different eras. 217.155.68.51 (talk) 08:01, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

No. The article highlights how very strong Kasparov was, rating wise. It does not argue that either is the superior player Billsmith60 (talk) 09:34, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes.

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

There is absolutely ZERO reason to have this in the opening paragraph of an article on Kasparov.

1. ELO is not a measure of one player's strength against another separated by that much time and with different competition. It is a measure of strength v the field they are in. Mentioning his ELO being "surpassed" is not neutral and it's idiotic. You can't "surpass" an ELO rating. It is not a measure of strength of one player v another so WHY IS IT THERE MAKING THAT EXACT INSINUATION?

2. It does argue specifically that either player is superior, but it heavily implies it.

3. "The highest recorded" is making the silly implication also that ELO can be used in this manner.

4. If you want to make a case of his ELO being high, you compare him to the players he was against -- not to Magnus overrated Carlsen.

So please remove it.

But since we now have A, let me demonstrate even that's against you:

"To avoid being considered biased or misleading, the language in a Wikipedia article about Kasparov should be carefully worded. It should acknowledge the factual accuracy of Carlsen’s higher ELO while also explaining the context and limitations of comparing ratings across different eras. This ensures that readers are provided with a well-rounded understanding of the information. Since it does not do this, you are correct that it could indeed be perceived as biased or misleading." 217.155.68.51 (talk) 04:23, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

"ELO" is a rock band, not a rating system. The fact that you continuously say that Carlsen is "overrated" clearly shows you are not coming at this from a neutral point of view. Besides, rating inflation/deflation is less of a phenomenon than is commonly assumed. Today's top GM's really do play better than their predecessors by all objective measures, not because they're more talented but because chess technology (databases, engines etc) has led to significant advances in chess knowledge and made this knowledge more accessible. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

The points I made all stand. Having a petulant moment regarding my use of Elo does you no favours. Whether you like it or not, the article has clearly been designed to elevate Carlsen on a Kasparov article for the reasons I mentioned. I can't fix stupid. 217.155.68.51 (talk) 22:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Your view that this article somehow portrays Kasparov as a lesser player than Carlsen has not been accepted by the Wikipedia community. Furthermore your use of personal attacks strongly suggests that you are unsuited to editing Wikipedia. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Played under Croatian flag

@Billsmith60 and Herr chagall: The recent change, mentioning Kasparov's playing a tournament under the Croatian flag, was, I think, correct. WP:Nationality only applies to the lead; it's normal to describe the subject's changes of nationality later in the document, as was done here. The cited source might be good enough, but if somebody thinks that a source less closely tied to Croatia would be preferable, I am sure that I have seen this mentioned in one of the major chess news websites. Unfortunately I am about to start traveling, but I will be available to reinstate this change on about Monday, if it hasn't already been done by then. Bruce leverett (talk) 15:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

@Bruce leverett: Thanks for the heads up, appreciated. HINA is a government-controlled Croatian news agency. Implying that the source is unreliable or »not good enough« is quite remarkable, to be honest, and beyond the capacity of someone demanding a different source to fit their preference (whoever did so). Kasparov at the time tried taking it a step further and receive backing to become the Croatian FIDE delegate [1][2]. He also played under the Croatian flag @ GCT 2021, splitting his starting slot with Ivan Šarić. It helps speaking more than one language, then more sources are readily available. What I find quite disconcerting are knee-jerk unilateral reverts by some editors without doing the proper research on their end first, particularly as it comes across as tailoring the article to one’s liking and POV. A revert is in order if the source or edit is refuted. Of note is the constant suppressing of the fact that Kasparov was a Soviet chess player, first and foremost. His first four world championship titles were won when Russia was not independent, and it was as a Soviet player that he rose to international fame. This is no issue with the leads of Karpov, Smyslov, Botvinnik, Tal, but it is repeatedly and without consequence being removed from Kasparov’s lead, which effectively amounts to ownership attempts regarding the article.--esse quam videri - to be rather than to seem (talk) 19:35, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Add-on: Out of all WP editions, the Russian one lists his national affiliation in the chronological order as Soviet Union, Russia, Croatia in the article about him [3].-esse quam videri - to be rather than to seem (talk) esse quam videri - to be rather than to seem (talk) 19:41, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi. Please adjust the Croatian bit nationality as appropriate. My issue is one person coming on to a relatively newly upgraded GA page and repeatedly making a change *without discussion* – as if their word is law. I do not agree with the relevance of the Soviet Union bit. As regards "ownership" of a page, no one has that privilege. You might, however, see Armand Duplantis as an example to the contrary Billsmith60 (talk) 11:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

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)