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)