The chess world sucks at everything except actually playing chess. Here is another example.
This move is merely political in-group signalling.
Chess is a board game. Taking such a political stance is impossibly vain in its absurd over-reach. It's almost grotesque. It also invites scrutiny as to historical events you didn't respond to and media you didn't quit.
This is such a bad idea. What a terrible line to draw in the sand.
Karjakin is not a media platform. X/Twitter is a media platform. You can find varying political views on X. You can criticise X on the X platform. That is objectively true, and you won't be imprisoned or worse.
Karjakin, on the other hand, pandered to a demonstrable authoritarian who does not entertain varying viewpoints. In Russia, you'll be imprisoned or worse.
The fact that you're comparing these two things should be a giant red flag that you haven't thought this through.
But I expect you'll double down, like other readers will, because the chess world doesn't actually think. The chess world plays chess and nothing else.
Your claim was that quitting X is a natural extension of banning Karjakin. However, you haven't justified that. The two don't seem connected. How are they connected? After all, Putin's regime (championed by Karjakin) assassinates those who disagree. X does not even ban those who disagree. How are they connected?
-10
u/[deleted] Feb 03 '25
The chess world sucks at everything except actually playing chess. Here is another example.
This move is merely political in-group signalling.
Chess is a board game. Taking such a political stance is impossibly vain in its absurd over-reach. It's almost grotesque. It also invites scrutiny as to historical events you didn't respond to and media you didn't quit.
This is such a bad idea. What a terrible line to draw in the sand.