Kasparov's Anger

When Kasparov was asked what he thought about Judit Polgar, the immensely talented Hungarian chess genius, he replied that she is a,"trained dog" (as in, she was brought up by her father to play chess and has no real talent.) Is this proper behavior from the World Champion? I respected Kasparov very much, but after this comment I am truly taken aback.

Kasparov is a russian blowhard.  Pay no attention to his words, they are meaningless.

Polgar and Kasparov have had a run-in in the past...

"In 1994 she suffered a controversial defeat at the hands of then-world champion Garry Kasparov, the highest-rated chessplayer of all time. Kasparov changed his mind after making a losing move and then made another move instead. According to chess rules, once a player has released a piece s/he cannot make a different move, so Kasparov should have been made to play his original move. However, Polgár did not challenge this because she says there were no witnesses and an arbiter was not around. She was also unaware at the time that the re-move was caught on tape by a television crew. The tournament director was criticised for not forfeiting Kasparov when the videotape evidence was made available to him.^[7] However, she won a rapid chess game against Kasparov in 2002." -Wikipedia

Maybe there is still some tension between them?

Not just a blowhard, but a Russian blowhard! That is harsh.

If he was a nice guy, would you call him a Russian nice guy?

The rules should have been enfoorced period!!!

 I was pretty surprised at this the first time I heard it several years ago but considering some of the wacky things chess players have been documented to do over the decades I probably shouldn't have been.

Sigmarson, thank you for your question it is as humorous as it is irrelevant.

Kasparov may or may not be a blowhard (ok he is).  But he is definitely an interesting person to listen to or read imho (always enjoyed his appearances on Charlie Rose).  

 I have never heard this before, do you have a reliable source for this ?

Fide?? overlooking rules???? BAH!! I mean, the next thing you are going to tell me is that the russians no longer hold the world chess title and it actually belongs to someone from India who could never beat Kasparov.  Such preposterous things spoken on this website.

 Heard it before but unfortunately I can't recall where.

"According to chess rules, once a player has released a piece s/he cannot make a different move"

Not sure when this changed, or if I'm confusing FIDE rules with USCF, but the last I checked, a player's move is not complete until he touches the clock.  The piece touch is only rellevant in that that piece must be moved, but it is perfectly legal to touch a piece, release it, move it, release it, move it back, think a while, etc. as long as all the time is coming off your own clock.  It might be bad form or bad ettiquete, but it is not, as far as I know, against the technical rules of chess.  Maybe that is why she did not challenge....

Although the comment (if true) is a bit rude, it's definitely not untrue.  When she was ( they were ) born , She was pencilled in to be a chess pupil from the start.  I wonder if the girls ever thought that they had a choice of exploring something else.  But I think it's true with most young kids, once they hear:  Ok you don't have to go to school, but you must learn chess instead, what do you think they'd choose?

In short, dog? No, But trained? Oh yeah!

Thanks for adding nothing to the conversation, Spoiler.  All chess masters are trained on some level. Oh yeah!

The move is not complete until the clock is pushed. But the move is determined as soon as your hand releases from the piece. So you cannot put a piece on a square, let go of it, decide you don't like that move and switch to a different one.

In between releasing the piece and pushing the clock your move is determined, but not yet completed. This is the time to claim a draw on threefold repetition or 50 move rule, or to offer a draw.

 I don't agree with this at all.  In my opinion the move is completed as soon as you take your fingers off the piece.  The other player doesn't have to wait for you to hit your clock before they make their move.  The clock is irrelevant as far as the game is concerned, if neither player wanted to even touch the clock during the game then they are officially and technically entitled to not bother.  I think that's the FIDE rules but I have no idea what the USCF rules are.  It's also the rules in my country as far as I am aware.

 I've also not heard it. I think that for such accusations should be reference to

the available source. May be it's  not accurate citation .

If my opponent makes his move before I hit the clock, then he's essentially using my time to make his move -- seems a little unfair.

The time you spend picking up the piece and putting it down onto another square -- that time should be from your own clock, not stolen from your opponent's.