Garry Kasparov is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
	Garry Kasparov has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 11, 2005.
Article milestones Date Process Result December 24, 2003 Featured article candidate Promoted January 4, 2006 Featured article review Demoted June 12, 2021 Good article nominee Not listed March 1, 2023 Good article nominee Listed Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on November 9, 2014, and November 9, 2015. Current status: Former featured article, current good article

This  level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Chess Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chess on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChessWikipedia:WikiProject ChessTemplate:WikiProject Chesschess Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is in the list of selected articles that are shown on Portal:Chess. Armenia Mid‑importance Garry Kasparov is within the scope of WikiProject Armenia, an attempt to improve and better organize information in articles related or pertaining to Armenia and Armenians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page for further information.ArmeniaWikipedia:WikiProject ArmeniaTemplate:WikiProject ArmeniaArmenian Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Azerbaijan Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Azerbaijan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Azerbaijan-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AzerbaijanWikipedia:WikiProject AzerbaijanTemplate:WikiProject AzerbaijanAzerbaijan Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Russia: Sports & games / Politics and law High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the sports and games in Russia task force. This article is supported by the politics and law of Russia task force. Soviet Union High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Biography: Sports and Games This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the sports and games work group (assessed as Top-importance).

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]