Kramnik - Kasparov beef?

Now I realize that I'm a little late to the party, but it appears that the two former world champions have gotten into a bit of a row with each other:

http://chess-news.ru/en/node/20973

http://chess-news.ru/en/node/20976

I'm not going to summarize the two mini-"articles" here, since they're already pretty short. Nor do I plan on taking sides. I will say, though, that I'm a bit surprised at how personal Kasparov's comments are, considering that (as far as I'm aware) there is no history of enmity between the two. But of course, Kramink's accusations were pretty serious, so I can see why Kasparov would be angry.

Anyway, does anyone else have an opinion on the subject? What's your take on what is going on?

I'm surprised no one else has replied. I would bet that Kasparov had no direct involvement.

Kasparov's initial reaction was rather cryptic, in that he didn't actually deny anything:

C'mon - I like, admire and respect both players but that whole "toiletgate" episode was an absolute joke. 

Kramnik discusses the controversy candidly in this interview (it's in four parts and I'm sorry but I can't remember where Elista 2006 comes in):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sATtSFC9gfg

Right.

This sounds likely, and at the least wouldn't surprise me:

"This is very sad, - the former World Champion says. - Whatever opinions people might have about Ilyumzhinov, I am sure that exactly those accusations are far-fetched. It looks more like a revenge for the 2014 FIDE elections which Kasparov lost to Ilyumzhinov by a wide margin. Kasparov had a colossal support by the USA during the elections, including the financial side of the matter. Perhaps the people who were backing him have good contacts in the U.S. Department of State. Thus, they decided to combine business with pleasure as they got their revenge for the failed elections and also attempted to hamper conclusion of a major contract..."

Vladimir Kramnik

Diplomacy has never been one of Kasparov's strengths. Then again, if it had been, perhaps he wouldn't have been the great champion that he was.

On the other hand, Kasparov seems to be living in some kind of cloud: he never seemed to accept that being (arguably) the best player that has ever lived has little to do with being able to convince others of your views. 

Although I do agree with a lot of his views on Putin and Russian politics, one has to question whether he'll ever be able to become a great political leader, when he couldn't even convince the people that loved him the most to become FIDE president...  

On his last visit to Australia, he never mentioned chess on any of his TV interviews -for instance, he could have mentioned that Australia is one of the few countries in the world where chess is still not recognised as a sport-, but he couldn't be bothered, not a single word, he was more interested in talking about Russian politics.

Very disappointing. One day he wants us to vote for him because he wants to be FIDE president, the next, he doesn't even remember who we are... 

Although I do agree with a lot of his views on Putin and Russian politics

So you think Putin is Hitler too, JavierGil? 

I also admire Kasparov the player and 13th World Champion, but the man? hmmm

It's also worth pointing that his commitment to human rights doesn't extend apparently to the occupied territories - he is fiercely pro-Israel.

He's a neocon, pro-interventionist who thinks that there is little difference between Putin and the nazis. Kasparov is as cuckoo as Dick Cheney.

I didn't think anyone could possibly be as flat-out potty as Dick Cheney, but I take your point.

Kasparov is. Here's an exerpt from his book:

Winter is Coming: Why Vladimir Putin and the Enemies of the Free World Must be Stopped. 

"Preemptive strikes and deposing dictators may or may not have been a good plan, but at least it was a plan. If you attack Iraq, the potential to go after Iran and Syria must also be on the table. Inconsistency is a strategic deficiency that is nearly impossible to overcome (p. 192)."

Condoleeza Rice had to have helped him write that.

He's also a great admirer of John McCain:

"Can anyone … not believe that the world would be a safer, more democratic place today had John McCain been elected?... In the universe where McCain is president, Putin does not invade Ukraine."(p. 197).

<sigh>

chess and politics eh , my local chess federation 14 clubs , have a majority that meet in conservative clubs and one that uses a unionist club , the majority of the federation are apolitical thankfully or dont push political views , we have had a few ukippers  tho , in my club we have one of us who has stood as a prospective tory councillor and prospctive mp in the last election , no joy mancunions are not tory voters  we are aware of each others politics , but we put that aside as we are there to represent our club not some politician

Well, lets see...

I'm a fan of a lot of NBA players. Roy Hibbert is an NBA player. Does that necessarily mean that I'm a fan of Roy Hibbert?

I think chess might be better off if both Ilyumzhinov and Kasparov were completely gone from it.

Is that what you teach your students in troll school, macer, that logic is not only a handicap but that you don't know what logic is anyway?

Well, then tell me: what is the correct logic in your example or mine?

How about this:

'I agree with Kasparov 's views on Putin.'

'So do you agree with his view that Putin is Hitler?'

And then, in response, the person who made the original statement would tell me if he agreed with Kasparov concerning that particular view or not. Is that simple enough?