Talk:Garry Kasparov

Favorite openings has bad claims poorly supported

"Kasparov's favourite opening systems were the Queen's Indian with White and variations of the Sicilian Defence with Black."

What is the claim his favorite opening system was the QID as White supposed to mean? It's utter nonsense. The claim that his favorite opening as Black is the Sicilian has much better foundation, but if I was White in a thousand games with Kasparov he wouldn't play his favorite opening as Black a single time and chess players will understand why. We must be better than this.

Not only are the claims bad, the sourcing is terrible. The article has https://www.nkj.ru/archive/articles/1791/ which I must read in Google translation because I can't read Russian, but I don't see anything in that article supporting any claims about Kasparov's favorite openings. Can anyone explain how that link supports the claims? The other citation is https://www.365chess.com/players/Garry_Kasparov. Ugh, a database link. I have a problem with using games databases searches to make claims in articles and I think this is generally not OK. In this case the page says that Kasparov has 37 games as White in the QID. So the support we have for the nonsensical claim that the QID was Kasparov's favorite opening as White is that he played it 37 times out of 2533 total games. I didn't take the time to determine precisely how many of those 2533 games were as White, but we won't be too far off by assuming 50%. That suggests that Kasparov faced the QID in a little less than 3% of his games as White.

The issue here is that the 365Chess database is reporting based on ECO codes. That isn't very helpful here since as most chess players know ECO codes aren't of equal "girth". The Sicilian is divided into 80 ECO codes while the QID has only 8 codes. That illustrates how the issue is especially acute as the more generally popular openings are split into more ECO codes and thus appear less popular than they are when used in a dumb games database counting way as we do in this article. We might be able to support a claim that Kasparov played more games as White using ECO code 12 than any other ECO, but that would tell the chess cognoscenti little and the general Wikipedia reader less than nothing. Quale (talk) 00:15, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

The Queen's Indian was certainly one of the most popular resonses to 1.d4 when Kasparov was active, but it's an opening that Black plays, not White. It's a bit silly to say it was Kasparov's "favourite opening with white". MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I had a little discussion of "favorite openings" with Billsmith60 during or soon after the GA process. It's in my talk page if you are curious.

I agree that "favorite opening" is a phrase that does not work as well for Kasparov playing against the QID as it might for, e.g., Morphy playing the Evans Gambit. Anyway, the title of the section is, "Contributions to opening theory", and it's sort of irrelevant what his favorite openings were, it only matters what contributions he made.

In the 80's and maybe the 90's Kasparov played some important games in the variation of the QID with 4.a3. A variation was even named for him; our article Queen's Indian Defense cites a book about that variation by Mikhail Gurevich.

I also agree that citing Chess365 or chessgames.com to make claims about someone's opening repertoire is not legitimate. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I removed the sentence making claims about Kasparov's favorite openings. Something can be added to the article about this if it is supported by WP:RS and if it makes sense. If there were a verified quote where Kasparov said the QID was his favorite opening to play on the white side then it could be reasonable to put that in the article. But that claim could never be established by citing a games database search. Quale (talk) 06:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Notable games

Chijioke2007, Billsmith60: It would be a good idea for this article to have a "notable games" section. Many of our articles about chess players have such sections, and notable games are a well-established feature of articles about chess players in print encyclopedias, such as Hooper and Whyld's Oxford Companion to Chess. However such a section must obey the usual Wiki rules. Look for a reliable source that says that the game is notable; it's especially good if you can quote the source as to why the game is notable, and if you can quote the annotations. For this purpose chessgames.com is not a reliable source, because it is full of user-generated content. It's handy to link to the chessgames.com score so that readers can click through the game, but you have to have another source to vouch for the notability and the annotations.

I have not ventured to add a "notable games" section to this article, because I don't have a good sense of which of his games are notable. So I was happy to see the attempt by Chijioke2007, and I would encourage that editor to keep trying. Bruce leverett (talk) 22:10, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

You saying this means a lot as it was my first edit. Thank you so much. Another admin said that the edit was in "point of view" and that it was in the wrong section. Please if you can explain that to me, it'll mean a lot as I'm a first-time editor. Can you also give me an idea of a good source to use so that next time, my edit won't be taken down? Chijioke2007 (talk) 00:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

WRT Notable Games, "POV" refers to deciding for yourself that some game is notable, rather than relying on published sources. As I read the comments in the chessgames.com page about Karpov-Kasparov, I realized that there were several commenters who thought that that game and Kasparov-Topalov were his best, so I would guess that you were not pushing an unpopular POV, but it's necessary to find some better source, as I mentioned.

To find sources for chess articles, the easiest places to look are online chess news sources such as Chessbase, and (more recently) chess24 and chess.com. The era when Kasparov was at his peak was roughly 1980's to 2000, and it may be that his earlier spectacular games were only covered in print (i.e. magazines and books). This will make it harder to search for them, but you yourself don't have to solve the entire problem: just come up with, say, two good games, and other readers with better libraries can come up with other games.

I'm not sure what the other editor meant by "wrong section". You put the Notable games where I would expect them. I'll let him clarify what he meant. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the help. I've improved the edit according to your advice. Maybe whenever you have time, you can see whether you like it, Chijioke2007 (talk) 00:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I think that you have met the requirements. Language like "one of the most famous combinations ever" is MOS:PUFFERY -- read that guideline carefully, it's important for biographical articles like this one! You'll want to tone down that kind of stuff for both games.

Some Notable Games include the score and a diagram. That might not be a bad idea here, but it's a lot of work, it's OK to leave it for later.

Thanks for this contribution! Garry Kasparov has really needed it. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello all. See the most recent edit summary for why these changes were reverted again. Who defines how notable a game is? However, the new editor should be able to introduce a sub-heading something like 'Some notable games' at the end of 'Assessment and legacy' – my best guess at location – but not merely two games. A minimum of five surely, referenced as attempted so far. Regards Billsmith60 (talk) 09:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

1).I feel like what defines a notable game is the amount of quality shown and the games that I put there are extremely high quality and are probably among the best games ever played. If you were to go through them and see the public opinion of them, you would agree.

2.) I was planning on adding more games and even if I didn't, then surely others with better knowledge would contribute.

3.) Out of the 17 World Champions, 12 have Notable Games as a totally separate section. The remaining 5 don't have that section at all. Why would we break the trend with Garry Kasparov?

With all due respect, because of the reasons stated above, I don't believe that the edit should have been reverted Chijioke2007 (talk) 10:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

As with everything in Wikipedia, we judge the notability of something by the extent of coverage in reliable sources. We do NOT judge it by the "quality" of the games. As unheralded and usually anonymous Wikipedia editors, we are presumed to be unqualified to judge quality; thus we MUST rely on our sources.

Chijioke found sources for both games, and they look like good sources to me. If you (Billsmith60) or anyone else does not think that these sources are reliable enough for the purpose, that's another argument. But since you did not make that argument, there is no basis for calling this Notable games section POV. I will take the liberty of restoring it when I finish posting this comment.

I hasten to acknowledge that I thought some of the language used by Chijioke was MOS:PUFFERY, which is a form of POV. I would encourage him to correct that issue, as I indicated in an earlier comment, before I or someone else jumps in to correct it ourselves. Relying on our sources does not include relying on their puffery. It's OK for chess.com or chessbase to publish over-the-top praise of some game, but we're an encyclopedia, and it's not OK for us.

The original placement of the new section was not in the Personal Life section, but after it. That is, the headings for these sections were at the same level, and they appear consecutively in the table of contents. If there is any written guidance (e.g. in WP:CHESS) about the placement of a Notable Games section, I haven't seen it, so we're just using our own judgment. Your idea of putting it under assessment/legacy looks plausible to me, but other chess biographies have put it at the level of the other major sections, so I don't want to take sides. In any case, if you think the section was incorrectly placed, the appropriate response would be to move it, not to delete it. Bruce leverett (talk) 13:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I understand now. I'll try and correct the language used in the section. At the same time, I'll like to apologize for my incorrect assumption as to what makes a notable game. I'll try to correct this in future chess edits. Chijioke2007 (talk) 16:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

It's been moved to where I suggested it should be. Hopefully that works now. Regards Billsmith60 (talk) 20:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

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)