Gary Kasparov

This page was originally posted to contact others rather than as any tool of self promotion. The decision was to produce an introduction and to portend basic data conceptual to the ideas and ideals that have formed both a future studies and chess studies reference. It is autobiographical and biographical.

My friend Gary Kasparov was detained recently regarding the critical Russian election issues involved with his formulation of a candidacy. For me an involvement in the political process has proceeded on faith, rather than upon any public involvement. At the match in London in 1993 in the press room not to the players, Eric Schiller made the comment that I had "written SDI." He had stayed at my apartment in Hawaii in 1991, so I showed him the document at the bottom of the page in this blog, opened the right pages and showed the corollary of adapted phrases. The specific article I had cited on "Socialist Approaches to the future," and the subsequent "It seems that this is what we are up against," indicated my position.

I was hard put to answer but said "yes." Now people there commented to the effect that my response was "not true," then Ali Mortizavi our chess analysis and co-worker said "CIA agent is you," or something to that effect. I had no paycheck here, so to hire people without paying them is absurd. Then my response was to reinforce the position "yes," by stating "let me put it this way, the SDI speech would not exist in its form without a comment that I made to the White House commentary line on March 21, 1983." The exact words are hazy but the gist of it is here.

I do not know if the involvement of Gary Kasparov politically had anything to do with this episode, but I met Gary in the celebration of the aftermath of the match and found singular best wishes from Brian Clivaz the Simpson's manager who introduced me as "the incomparable Skip Shipman."

I played Gary two chess games in the Savoy Theater, the auditorium where the match between Nigel Short, and Gary Kasparov played for almost two months. I held fairly even positions but lost the first game on time. The other game yielded a similar result, but I spoke with Gary for some 10 minutes outside the theater, when the Chess Base representative came to interrupt our post game analysis.

You see "writing SDI," if you will was nothing very much more than providing an external source that the White House needed to see. It was off the shelf technology if you will. It was for me as it was for Reagan, another commentary, when I picked up that book from my shelf my personal library on about 9AM EST March 21, 1983. The subsequent interplay of the news media and the concurrent discussions made it into a synergy, a much larger reality.

Now I am only touching the surface, however my political science work was entirely a point of understanding, and a will that "I like to see you do well," as regards the actors set for Ronald Reagan. You recognize your own writing, especially when you read your own letters over and over again to get the words right. As stated earlier here it was only because I recognized my ideograph in Reagan's speeches, unique phrases I had written to him prior, that I started with the letters again. You just know the odds, and extrapolate the high likelihood you were quoted, cited, paraphrased, and put to service through your writings.

It was about an every six weeks packet there until 1991, when the end of the Soviet Union, at least for public consumption, made me think "this is too much, and my basic mission is over." It was "getting ridiculous," when your writings held some top priority, and you cannot really tell anyone for years nor make any actual livelihood from it.

My comeback was working that match in London for two months. It was the only real job I had for a long time, and even the remaining compensation of over 1180 quid in cash was stolen at the staff house in Forest Hill London. There were promises that were partially kept but others that were never fulfilled; I suppose they were messages to make me feel better.

Now in any regard to responsibility for world events, any "limited liability if you will," I see for myself is I had only presented the data, while others speak, write it and popularize it. These things were applause lines, things you remember for a long time. Phrases keep coming from the 1980s when they are repackaged.

Is this entire project "power without much wealth?" you could suppose if you look at this project as an impersonal experiment, it could be so. There is a high level of competency involving these issues of speaking and writing. It is in another realm than only experiment. No one is really on top of it all but people can maintain their personal sovereignty here.

The problem is the abstraction here is one of dominion by indirect example, not by direct example. The effect is the same. Maybe people who think they are influential are only correct in their own minds, and to the extent they convince others. People aspire to public office so they will have "power." But no one really defines it other than by the office and the "bully pulpit."

I suppose almost no one will read this, given this blog has been posted for more than a year and I have not really promoted it and note the traffic counter.

Charlemagne once said “Let my armies be the rocks and the trees, and the birds in the sky."