10310 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
Does anyone know what this theory is called?
There's equivariant Kasparov theory of finite groups, if you're into extremely obscure math.
No I was just interested in a idea I had that he thinks all ancient history was invented in the recent past?
Or there's also this.
I haven't heard of Kasaprov's views on this myself, but if he does believe this it is likely that it is based on the work of the Russian scientist/professor Anatoly Fomenko.
For more information - including book links - see http://www.amazon.com/Anatoly-Fomenko/e/B0032J096G/ref=ntt_athr_dp_pel_1
Its very interesting I'll read more about it and get back with a comment .
"History is a set of lies agreed upon."
Napoleon Bonaparte. (n.d.). 1-Love-Quotes.com. Retrieved Wed Jul 20 15:18:38 2011, from 1-Love-Quotes.com Web site: http://www.1-love-quotes.com/quote/821033
Well I didn't really understand all this too much,I think he misreads it theres always anomalies in History are they not....?
One interesting thing is that I think he mentioned how the Ancient Greeks worked out a lot of their mathematics without the use of Arabic numerals,apparently he thinks its a bit of a mystery...
It is interesting, but I wish the interviewer would have pushed Kasparov a little bit harder. The implications of what he is saying is that a group of people just decided to make all that up. Who did that? And then the follow up is why? Is it a more important discovery if you say something came from the 1st century than if you discover something in the 16th century? I just don't see what historians would have to gain by 'inventing' history like that. I don't want to instantly be close minded to a new idea like this, but I certainly am skeptical. It was an interesting article though, I'll have to look into it a little bit more.
Or there's also this, where Kasparov goes into how he believes some history is wrong due, for example, to unrealistic time skips between major events e.g. the Roman Empire lost two wars within a span of 400 years in the same way. That means the great Roman military learned NOTHING from their first defeat, even though they were given only 400 years.
no they forgot the lesson they learnd imagine for example that you live an amazing 500 years at age 50 you lick a spark plug and get shocked and for some reason you dont see another spark plug for 400 years then you lick it again becuse your obsesed with licking things and you get shocked again?
Nothing against him, but it does appear he's wearing cosmetics.
Very dramatic picture.
Funny thing is he says that the Roman didn't innovate in terms of Military tactics for 400 years,it kind of makes sense why they didn't though doesn't it?
Because they had no meaningful rival(only semi barbarians) for much of that time hence no need for improvement of tactics.Its like chess if you're a 1500 player and you play people that are 900 rating all the time you're never going to improve your tactical ability ,because there is nothing to push against if Persia had been geographically closer to Rome it might have forced them to.
What he said about the mathematics was kind of interesting though.
Kasparov appears to the the history version of a patzer, from the interview linked to by khpa. To address the topic of the Roman military, the army of 216 B.C. was completely different from that of 376 A.D. While both fell victim to a flank attack, this is because a flank attack is one of two ways that armies in the days of massed formations would try to defeat each other, and occasionally someone other than the Romans would pull it off. To say that they learned nothing is to look at one of Kasparov's games, see that he has twice in his life succumb to a kingside attack, and draw the conclusion that he does not know how to defend his kingside.
Unfortunately I do not see any conclusion that is not based on more than idle assumption and the History Channel.
To say that they learned nothing is to look at one of Kasparov's games, see that he has twice in his life succumb to a kingside attack, and draw the conclusion that he does not know how to defend his kingside.
Very good comment,I thought they might be more to this but its just something like a conspiracy theory BS basically ...Which there is a lot of on the net.
Kasparov simply likes to be contraversial. What a silly guy.
I'm sorry if my post misrepresented what Kasparov means. I've edited it.
It is interesting tho--how did the greeks do all that stuff with geometry and stuff without arabic numbers?
For the most part they used a geometric rather than numerical approach to solve problems. Otherwise they did it with Greek numbers.
The Ultimate Test of Engine Fanatics
by macer75 a few minutes ago
by chungle a few minutes ago
what the #$%^was he playing and how did he win?
by QueenTakesKnightOOPS 4 minutes ago
12/11/2013 - Topalov-Kramnik, Dortmund 1996
by GSERGIO 5 minutes ago
by AndyClifton 8 minutes ago
Where to find live chess feeds
by chungle 8 minutes ago
Bullet rating decrease
by chesswitness 13 minutes ago
How do I go about studying the middlegame
by AndyClifton 14 minutes ago
Click-click move entry
by chesswitness 14 minutes ago
by Mr_Grizzly 25 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2013 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!