3 ms·

I was a much bigger fan of Garry Kasparov before I found out he was a follower of the "new chronology" psuedohistory. Though I still hope he can help bend Russ

I was a much bigger fan of Garry Kasparov before I found out he was a follower of the "new chronology" psuedohistory. Though I still hope he can help bend Russia toward democracy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Chronology_(Fomenko) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Chronology_(Fomenko)

nl 12y ago
Wow.. I'd never read that before. There's some pretty crazy stuff in that. I'd note that it seems likely that people may have an open mind about some of the theories espoused without believing the whole thing. For example, the statement In 1887, Edwin Johnson expressed the opinion that early Christian history was largely invented or corrupted in the 2nd and 3rd centuries has some basis in historic facts: The Nicene Creed wasn't written until 325, and it's influence on what is considered "standard" Christianity cannot be underestimated. One of the links on Wikipedia[1] makes Kasparov sound more sceptical than saying he is a follower: I do not advocate Fomenko and Nosovsky’s theory. However, as a man with an analytical mind-set who is used to analysing all the information that I receive, I am very sceptical about the constructions and findings of official history. I believe that Fomenko and Nosovsky have rightly pointed out numerous inconsistencies and gaps in the official concept. Instead of pursuing their work by asking questions and dismantling schemes which are often mythological, they have put forward a new theory, which unfortunately is subject to the same problems. Because it is clear that today we still lack the information needed to create another, alternative concept. And that is why the main attacks on Fomenko and Nosovsky’s work are not related to the critical aspects of their work but, rather, to what is put forward today as its positive outlook.’ [1] http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/newchronology.html http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/newchronology.html
- ewzimm 12y ago
  I agree with Kasparov. I've never known a historian who didn't agree that there were major gaps and distortions in historical records. Fomenko may be a radical and an outsider, but he does have a very logical approach, which I appreciate. Sometimes it's worthwhile to question everything you assume is correct and reason from available evidence alone. This approach should be celebrated and encouraged, especially when it produces such different and interesting results. If it's wrong, great! We can still learn from it. Many political problems could be solved with a similar approach. There's too much investment in established ways of doing things.
afterburner 12y ago
A Russian believing in a deeply Russo-centric alternate history... nationalism can get to anyone I suppose.
- lvh 12y ago
  I'm not sure to what extent it makes sense to call Kasparov a Russian nationalist; even calling him Russian seems only technically correct at this point.
  - afterburner 12y ago
    How so?
jc123 12y ago
Probably better to stick to admiring his masterpieces. From his twitter, here's one "innovation": http://www.kasparov.com/chess-archeology-in-montenegro http://www.kasparov.com/chess-archeology-in-montenegro He had many innovations and this last one is in quotes because apparently it was discovered 35 years ago.

nl 12y ago

Wow.. I'd never read that before. There's some pretty crazy stuff in that. I'd note that it seems likely that people may have an open mind about some of the theories espoused without believing the whole thing. For example, the statement In 1887, Edwin Johnson expressed the opinion that early Christian history was largely invented or corrupted in the 2nd and 3rd centuries has some basis in historic facts: The Nicene Creed wasn't written until 325, and it's influence on what is considered "standard" Christianity cannot be underestimated. One of the links on Wikipedia[1] makes Kasparov sound more sceptical than saying he is a follower: I do not advocate Fomenko and Nosovsky’s theory. However, as a man with an analytical mind-set who is used to analysing all the information that I receive, I am very sceptical about the constructions and findings of official history. I believe that Fomenko and Nosovsky have rightly pointed out numerous inconsistencies and gaps in the official concept. Instead of pursuing their work by asking questions and dismantling schemes which are often mythological, they have put forward a new theory, which unfortunately is subject to the same problems. Because it is clear that today we still lack the information needed to create another, alternative concept. And that is why the main attacks on Fomenko and Nosovsky’s work are not related to the critical aspects of their work but, rather, to what is put forward today as its positive outlook.’ [1] http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/newchronology.html http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/newchronology.html

ewzimm 12y ago
I agree with Kasparov. I've never known a historian who didn't agree that there were major gaps and distortions in historical records. Fomenko may be a radical and an outsider, but he does have a very logical approach, which I appreciate. Sometimes it's worthwhile to question everything you assume is correct and reason from available evidence alone. This approach should be celebrated and encouraged, especially when it produces such different and interesting results. If it's wrong, great! We can still learn from it. Many political problems could be solved with a similar approach. There's too much investment in established ways of doing things.

afterburner 12y ago

A Russian believing in a deeply Russo-centric alternate history... nationalism can get to anyone I suppose.

lvh 12y ago
I'm not sure to what extent it makes sense to call Kasparov a Russian nationalist; even calling him Russian seems only technically correct at this point.
- afterburner 12y ago
  How so?

jc123 12y ago

Probably better to stick to admiring his masterpieces. From his twitter, here's one "innovation": http://www.kasparov.com/chess-archeology-in-montenegro http://www.kasparov.com/chess-archeology-in-montenegro He had many innovations and this last one is in quotes because apparently it was discovered 35 years ago.