The origin of Man and the design debate V .

 The Big Bang Origin of Homo 

Casey Luskin 

Editor’s note: We are delighted to present a series by geologist Casey Luskin asking, “Do Fossils Demonstrate Human Evolution?” This is the fifth post in the series, which is adapted from the recent book, The Comprehensive Guide to Science and Faith. Find the full series here. 

After realizing that Homo habilis could not serve as a link between Homo and Australopithecus, two paleoanthropologists lamented that “this muddle leaves Homo erectus without a clear ancestor, without a past.”1 Indeed, it is difficult to find fossil hominins to serve as direct transitional forms between the ape-like australopithecines and the first human-like members of Homo. The fossil record shows abrupt changes that correspond to the appearance of our genus Homo about two million years ago. 

From its first appearance, Homo erectus was very human-like, and differed markedly from prior hominins that were not human-like. Yet Homo erectus appears abruptly, without apparent evolutionary precursors. An article in Natureexplains: 

The origins of the widespread, polymorphic, Early Pleistocene H. erectus lineage remain elusive. The marked contrasts between any potential ancestor (Homo habilis or other) and the earliest known H. erectus might signal an abrupt evolutionary emergence some time before its first known appearance in Africa at ~1.78 Myr [million years ago]. Uncertainties surrounding the taxon’s appearance in Eurasia and southeast Asia make it impossible to establish accurately the time or place of origin for H. erectus.2 

A 2016 paper likewise admits, “Although the transition from Australopithecus to Homo is usually thought of as a momentous transformation, the fossil record bearing on the origin and earliest evolution of Homo is virtually undocumented.”3 While that paper argues that the evolutionary distance between Australopithecus and Homo is small, it concedes that the lineage that led to Homo is “unknown.”4 

Unique and Previously Unseen  

Early members of Homo, namely Homo erectus, show unique and previously unseen features that contributed to this “abrupt” appearance. The technical literature observes an “explosion,”5 “rapid increase,”6 and “approximate doubling”7 in brain size associated with the appearance of Homo. Wood and Collard’s major Science review found that only a single trait of one hominin species qualified as “intermediate” between Australopithecus and Homo: the brain size of Homo erectus.8 However, this one trait of brain size does not necessarily indicate that humans evolved from less intelligent hominids. Intelligence is determined largely by internal brain organization, and is much more complex than the singular dimension of brain size.9 Christof Koch, president of the Allen Institute for Brain Science, observes that “total brain volume weakly correlates with intelligence … brain size accounts for between 9 and 16 percent of the overall variability in general intelligence.”10 Because of this, brain size is not always a good indicator of evolutionary relationships.11 In any case, erectus had an average brain size within the range of modern human variation. A few skulls of “intermediate” size do not demonstrate that humans evolved from primitive ancestors.

Much like the explosive increase in skull size, a study of the pelvis bones of australopithecines and Homo found “a period of very rapid evolution corresponding to the emergence of the genus Homo.”12 One Nature paper noted that early Homo erectus shows “such a radical departure from previous forms of Homo (such as H. habilis) in its height, reduced sexual dimorphism, long limbs, and modern body proportions that it is hard at present to identify its immediate ancestry in east Africa.”13 A paper in the Journal of Molecular Biology and Evolution found that Homo and Australopithecus differ significantly in brain size, dental function, increased cranial buttressing, expanded body height, visual, and respiratory changes, and stated, 

We, like many others, interpret the anatomical evidence to show that early H. sapiens was significantly and dramatically different from…australopithecines in virtually every element of its skeleton and every remnant of its behavior.14 

“A Real Acceleration of Evolutionary Change”

Noting these many differences, the study called the origin of humans “a real acceleration of evolutionary change from the more slowly changing pace of australopithecine evolution” and stated that such a transformation would have required radical changes: 

The anatomy of the earliest H. sapiens sample indicates significant modifications of the ancestral genome and is not simply an extension of evolutionary trends in an earlier australopithecine lineage throughout the Pliocene. In fact, its combination of features never appears earlier.15 

These rapid and unique changes are termed “a genetic revolution” in which “no australopithecine species is obviously transitional.”16

For those not constrained by an evolutionary paradigm, it is not obvious that this transition took place at all. The stark lack of fossil evidence for this hypothesized transition is confirmed by three Harvard paleoanthropologists: 

Of the various transitions that occurred during human evolution, the transition from Australopithecus to Homo was undoubtedly one of the most critical in its magnitude and consequences. As with many key evolutionary events, there is both good and bad news. First, the bad news is that many details of this transition are obscure because of the paucity of the fossil and archaeological records.17 

As for the “good news,” they admit, “[A]lthough we lack many details about exactly how, when, and where the transition occurred from Australopithecus to Homo, we have sufficient data from before and after the transition to make some inferences about the overall nature of key changes that did occur.”18 

Before and After, but No Transition 

In other words, the fossil record shows ape-like australopithecines (“before”), and human-like Homo (“after”), but not fossils documenting a transition between them. In the absence of intermediates, we’re left with inferences of a transition based strictly upon the assumption of evolution — that an undocumented transition must have occurred somehow, sometime, and someplace. They assume this transition happened, even though we do not have fossils documenting it.

The literature thus admits the “abrupt appearance”19 of early Homo and calls the origin of our genus “an enduring puzzle.”20 The great evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr recognized these problems: 

The earliest fossils of Homo, Homo rudolfensis and Homo erectus are separated from Australopithecus by a large, unbridged gap. How can we explain this seeming saltation? Not having any fossils that can serve as missing links, we have to fall back on the time-honored method of historical science, the construction of a historical narrative.21 

Another commentator proposed that the evidence implies a “big bang theory” of the appearance of Homo.22 This large, unbridged gap between the ape-like australopithecines and the abruptly appearing human-like members of genus Homo challenges evolutionary accounts of human origins. 

Notes 

1)Walker and Shipman, Wisdom of the Bones, 134.

2)Berhane Asfaw et al., “Remains of Homo erectus from Bouri, Middle Awash, Ethiopia,” Nature 416 (March 21, 2002), 317-320.

3)William Kimbel and Brian Villmoare, “From Australopithecus to Homo: The Transition that Wasn’t,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 371 (2016), 20150248. 

4)Kimbel and Villmoare, “From Australopithecus to Homo: The Transition that Wasn’t.”

5)Stanley A. Rice, Encyclopedia of Evolution (New York: Checkmark, 2007), 241. 

6)Franz Wuketits, “Charles Darwin, Paleoanthropology, and the Modern Synthesis,” Handbook of Paleoanthropology, 97-125, 116. 

7)Dean Falk, “Hominid Brain Evolution: Looks Can Be Deceiving,” Science 280 (June 12, 1998), 1714.

8)Specifically, Homo erectus is said to have intermediate brain size, and Homo ergaster is said to have a Homo-like postcranial skeleton with a smaller, more australopith-like brain size.

9)Terrance Deacon, “Problems of Ontogeny and Phylogeny in Brain-Size Evolution,” International Journal of Primatology 11 (1990), 237-282. See also Terrence Deacon, “What Makes the Human Brain Different?,” Annual Review of Anthropology 26 (1997), 337-357; Stephen Molnar, Human Variation: Races, Types, and Ethnic Groups (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 5th ed., 2002), 189.

10)Christof Koch, “Does Brain Size Matter?,” Scientific American Mind (January/February, 2016), 22-25.

11)See Wood and Collard, “The Human Genus.” 

12)Marchal, “New Morphometric Analysis of the Hominid Pelvic Bone.”

13)Robin Dennell and Wil Roebroeks, “An Asian Perspective on Early Human Dispersal from Africa,” Nature 438 (Dec. 22/29, 2005), 1099-1104.

14)John Hawks, Keith Hunley, Sang-Hee Lee, and Milford Wolpoff, “Population Bottlenecks and Pleistocene Human Evolution,” Molecular Biology and Evolution 17 (2000), 2-22.

15)Hawks et al., “Population Bottlenecks and Pleistocene Human Evolution.”

16)Hawks et al., “Population Bottlenecks and Pleistocene Human Evolution.”

17)Daniel E. Lieberman, David R. Pilbeam, and Richard W. Wrangham, “The Transition from Australopithecus to Homo,” Transitions in Prehistory: Essays in Honor of Ofer Bar-Yosef, eds. John J. Shea and Daniel E. Lieberman (Cambridge, MA: Oxbow, 2009), 1

18)Lieberman et al., “The Transition from Australopithecus to Homo.”

19)Alan Turner and Hannah O’Regan, “Zoogeography: Primate and Early Hominin Distribution and Migration Patterns,” in Handbook of Paleoanthropology, 623-642.

20)Kimbel, “Hesitation on Hominin History.”

21)Ernst Mayr, What Makes Biology Unique?: Considerations on the Autonomy of a Scientific Discipline (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 198.

22)“New Study Suggests Big Bang Theory of Human Evolution,” University of Michigan News Service (January 10, 2000), http://www.umich.edu/~newsinfo/Releases/2000/Jan00/r011000b.html (accessed October 26, 2020).

Abolishing slavery some more?

States are voting to eradicate slavery under any terms, but what about prison work? 

KATIA RIDDLE

Is there any circumstance in the United States in which slavery should be legal? That is a question that voters in five states — Vermont, Oregon, Louisiana, Alabama and Tennessee — will consider this fall. Ballot measures in these states would amend state constitutions to eradicate slavery under any terms. Though the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution abolished slavery in 1865, it still includes an exception clause allowing it as "punishment for crime." Many state constitutions use similar wording.

Prisoners are not legally considered slaves in the United Sates, but advocates for these amendments to state constitutions argue that prisoners are often treated as such. Organizers from the Abolish Slavery National Network — a group that has galvanized this effort — point out that incarcerated people are made to work for little money, often under threat of punishment.

"A lot of people ask, 'Why y'all calling this slavery?'" said Savannah Eldridge, lead organizer for the group. "Because it is."

"After the Civil War, Black people were made to work as slaves as part of prison systems," says Sandy Chung of the American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon. The group supports the measure in its state. Chung says the amendment is not an effort to eliminate incarceration altogether but a step toward establishing basic rights for prisoners. "Just because someone is incarcerated and is being held accountable for a crime doesn't mean they should be treated as a slave." 

If passed, these measures would not have an immediate, practical impact on imprisoned populations. The amendment does not specify that prisoners be paid at minimum wage, for example, or provide specifics about work environments. But it would "remove language allowing slavery and involuntary servitude as punishment for crime." Three states — Colorado, Nebraska and Utah — have already made similar amendments.

Troy Ramsey was incarcerated for nearly 24 years. After he was released last year, Ramsey got involved in the campaign in Oregon to pass the measure. He says just changing the wording of the law has the potential to disrupt a pervasive power dynamic between prisoners and those who work at prisons. "A lot of officers use that language against you," says Ramsey. "Because it says you can be treated like a slave while you're incarcerated."

The implications of these measures are concerning to law enforcement in at least one state. In Oregon's voter guide, the Oregon State Sheriffs' Association submitted an argument in opposition to the state's measure: "Oregon Sheriffs do not condone or support slavery," it reads, but if the measure were to pass as written, "Sheriffs will have no choice but to suspend all reformative programs." These programs include working in jail libraries, cleaning cells and doing laundry, among other tasks — jobs that the association argues help incarcerated people gain skills and incentivize good behavior. The statement also reflects concerns about increased costs. 

The Oregon State Sheriffs' Association did not reply to requests for comment.

Eldridge, of the Abolish Slavery National Network, says Oregon's measure would not immediately disrupt current work programs in prisons or demand budget changes. But she argues that increasing pay and living standards for prisoners would be a good use of state money eventually. She points out the historical parallel with ending slavery the first time in the United States: "We know it's wrong, but we can't afford to end slavery," she says. "It doesn't even sound right." Economic arguments, she says, should not justify forced labor — even in prisons — which she describes as slavery. 

Still seeking straight answers.

 For those who claim that the scriptures are nothing but the propaganda of Hebrew ethno-nationalists:

Deuteronomy9:6ASV"6Know therefore, that JEHOVAH thy God giveth thee not this good land to possess it for thy righteousness; for thou art a stiffnecked people."

Why would an ethno-nationalist fabricate such a thing about his nation?

File under "well said" LXXXIV

 "What is history but the story of how politicians have squandered the blood and treasure of the human race?"

Thomas Sowell 

Ferried by the ghosts of missing links past, Darwinists don't need bridges.

 Still Searching: Evolutionist Jon Perry Responds 

Evolution News @DiscoveryCSC 

Ah, filmmaker and evolutionist Jon Perry on his Stated Clearly Twitter feed responded to our post about him of last week. See, “An Evolutionist Searches for Missing Evidence.” 

Perry knows best what was in his mind when he started the thread about single mutations of large effect. However, we as observers had NO INKLING he was just looking for “known exceptions” to an otherwise uniform pattern, over evolutionary time, of the accumulation of mutations of small effect. Rather it looked as if he wanted to show, with evidence, that single mutations could radically change morphology very quickly, in a way that natural selection could then amplify. 

Ps. A u2 earworm just lodge itself in my brain for some reason or the other.

Garry Kasparov: a brief history.

 Garry Kasparov 

Garry Kimovich Kasparov[a] (born 13 April 1963) is a Russian chess grandmaster, former World Chess Champion, writer, political activist and commentator. His peak rating of 2851,[2] achieved in 1999, was the highest recorded until being surpassed by Magnus Carlsen in 2013. From 1984 until his retirement in 2005, Kasparov was ranked world No. 1 for a record 255 months overall for his career, the most in history. Kasparov also holds records for the most consecutive professional tournament victories (15) and Chess Oscars (11). 

Kasparov became the youngest ever undisputed World Chess Champion in 1985 at age 22 by defeating then-champion Anatoly Karpov.[3] He held the official FIDE world title until 1993, when a dispute with FIDE led him to set up a rival organization, the Professional Chess Association.[4] In 1997 he became the first world champion to lose a match to a computer under standard time controls when he lost to the IBM supercomputer Deep Blue in a highly publicized match. He continued to hold the "Classical" World Chess Championship until his defeat by Vladimir Kramnik in 2000. Despite losing the title, he continued winning tournaments and was the world's highest-rated player when he retired from professional chess in 2005.

Since retiring, he devoted his time to politics and writing. He formed the United Civil Front movement and joined as a member of The Other Russia, a coalition opposing the administration and policies of Vladimir Putin. In 2008, he announced an intention to run as a candidate in that year's Russian presidential race, but after encountering logistical problems in his campaign, for which he blamed "official obstruction", he withdrew.[5][6][7] In the wake of the Russian mass protests that began in 2011, he announced in 2013 that he had left Russia for the immediate future out of fear of persecution.[8] Following his flight from Russia, he had lived in New York City with his family.[9][10] In 2014, he obtained Croatian citizenship, and has maintained a residence in Podstrana near Split.[11][12][13]

Kasparov is currently chairman of the Human Rights Foundation and chairs its International Council. In 2017, he founded the Renew Democracy Initiative (RDI), an American political organization promoting and defending liberal democracy in the U.S. and abroad. He serves as chairman of the group. Kasparov is also a Security Ambassador for the software company Avast.[14] 

Early life and career 

Kasparov was born Garik Kimovich Weinstein (Russian: Гарик Кимович Вайнштейн, Garik Kimovich Vainshtein) in Baku, Azerbaijan SSR (now Azerbaijan), Soviet Union. His father, Kim Moiseyevich Weinstein, was Jewish and his mother, Klara Shagenovna Kasparova, was Armenian.[15][16][17][18] Kasparov has described himself as a "self-appointed Christian", although "very indifferent"[19] and identifying as Russian: "[A]lthough I'm half-Armenian, half-Jewish, I consider myself Russian because Russian is my native tongue, and I grew up with Russian culture."[20][21] Kasparov and his family had to flee anti-Armenian pogroms in Baku in January 1990 that were coordinated by local leaders with Soviet acquiescence.[22]

According to Kasparov himself, he was named after United States President Harry Truman,[23] "whom my father admired for taking a strong stand against communism. It was a rare name in Russia, until Harry Potter came along."[24]

Kasparov began the serious study of chess after he came across a chess problem set up by his parents and proposed a solution.[25] When Garry was seven years old, his father died of leukemia.[26] At the age of twelve, Garry, upon request of his mother Klara and with the consent of the family, adopted Klara's surname Kasparov, which was done to avoid possible antisemitic tensions, which were common in the USSR at the time.[27][28]

From age 7, Kasparov attended the Young Pioneer Palace in Baku and, at 10 began training at Mikhail Botvinnik's chess school under coach Vladimir Makogonov. Makogonov helped develop Kasparov's positional skills and taught him to play the Caro-Kann Defence and the Tartakower System of the Queen's Gambit Declined.[29] Kasparov won the Soviet Junior Championship in Tbilisi in 1976, scoring 7 points of 9, at age 13. He repeated the feat the following year, winning with a score of 8.5 of 9. He was being trained by Alexander Shakarov during this time.[30]

In 1978, Kasparov participated in the Sokolsky Memorial tournament in Minsk. He had been invited as an exception but took first place and became a chess master. Kasparov has repeatedly said that this event was a turning point in his life and that it convinced him to choose chess as his career. "I will remember the Sokolsky Memorial as long as I live", he wrote. He has also said that after the victory, he thought he had a very good shot at the World Championship.[31]

He first qualified for the Soviet Chess Championship at age 15 in 1978, the youngest-ever player at that level. He won the 64-player Swiss system tournament at Daugavpils on tiebreak over Igor V. Ivanov to capture the sole qualifying place.[32]

Kasparov rose quickly through the FIDE world rankings. Starting with oversight by the Russian Chess Federation, he participated in a grandmaster tournament in Banja Luka, SR Bosnia and Herzegovina (part of Yugoslavia at the time), in 1979 while still unrated (he was a replacement for the Soviet defector Viktor Korchnoi, who was originally invited but withdrew due to the threat of a boycott from the Soviets). Kasparov won this high-class tournament, emerging with a provisional rating of 2595, enough to catapult him to the top group of chess players (at the time, number 15 in the world).[33] The next year, 1980, he won the World Junior Chess Championship in Dortmund, West Germany. Later that year, he made his debut as the second reserve for the Soviet Union at the Chess Olympiad at Valletta, Malta, and became a Grandmaster.[34] 

Career 

As a teenager, Kasparov tied for first place in the USSR Chess Championship in 1981–82. His first win in a superclass-level international tournament was scored at Bugojno, SR Bosnia and Herzegovina, Yugoslavia in 1982. He earned a place in the 1982 Moscow Interzonal tournament, which he won, to qualify for the Candidates Tournament.[35] At age 19, he was the youngest Candidate since Bobby Fischer, who was 15 when he qualified in 1958. At this stage, he was already the No. 2-rated player in the world, trailing only World Chess Champion Anatoly Karpov on the January 1983 list. 

Kasparov's first (quarter-final) Candidates match was against Alexander Beliavsky, whom he defeated 6–3 (four wins, one loss).[36] Politics threatened Kasparov's semi-final against Viktor Korchnoi, which was scheduled to be played in Pasadena, California. Korchnoi had defected from the Soviet Union in 1976 and was at that time the strongest active non-Soviet player. Various political manoeuvres prevented Kasparov from playing Korchnoi, and Kasparov forfeited the match. This was resolved by Korchnoi allowing the match to be replayed in London, along with the previously scheduled match between Vasily Smyslov and Zoltán Ribli. The Kasparov-Korchnoi match was put together on short notice by Raymond Keene. Kasparov lost the first game but won the match 7–4 (four wins, one loss).[37]

In January 1984, Kasparov became the No. 1 ranked player in the world, with a FIDE rating of 2710. He became the youngest ever world No. 1, a record that lasted 12 years until being broken by Vladimir Kramnik in January 1996; the record is currently held by Magnus Carlsen.[38]

Later in 1984, he won the Candidates' final 8½–4½ (four wins, no losses) against the resurgent former world champion Vasily Smyslov, at Vilnius, thus qualifying to play Anatoly Karpov for the World Championship. That year he joined the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU), as a member of which he was elected to the Central Committee of Komsomol in 1987.[39]

The World Chess Championship 1984 match between Anatoly Karpov and Garry Kasparov had many ups and downs, and a very controversial finish. Karpov started in very good form, and after nine games Kasparov was down 4–0 in a "first to six wins" match. Fellow players predicted he would be whitewashed 6–0 within 18 games.[40]

In an unexpected turn of events, there followed a series of 17 successive draws, some relatively short, and others drawn in unsettled positions. Kasparov lost game 27 (5–0), then fought back with another series of draws until game 32 (5–1), earning his first-ever win against the World Champion. Another 14 successive draws followed, through game 46; the previous record length for a world title match had been 34 games, the match of José Raúl Capablanca vs. Alexander Alekhine in 1927.[41]

Kasparov won games 47 and 48 to bring the scores to 5–3 in Karpov's favour. Then the match was ended without result by Florencio Campomanes, the President of the Fédération Internationale des Échecs (FIDE), and a new match was announced to start a few months later. The termination was controversial, as both players stated that they preferred the match to continue. Announcing his decision at a press conference, Campomanes cited the health of the players, which had been strained by the length of the match.[42]

The match became the first, and so far only, world championship match to be abandoned without result. Kasparov's relations with Campomanes and FIDE were greatly strained, and the feud between them finally came to a head in 1993 with Kasparov's complete break-away from FIDE.

The second Karpov–Kasparov match in 1985 was organized in Moscow as the best of 24 games where the first player to win 12½ points would claim the World Champion title. The scores from the terminated match would not carry over; however, in the event of a 12–12 draw, the title would remain with Karpov. On 9 November 1985, Kasparov secured the title by a score of 13–11, winning the 24th game with Black,[43] using a Sicilian defence. He was 22 years old at the time, making him the youngest ever World Champion[44] and breaking the record held by Mikhail Tal for over 20 years.[45] Kasparov's win as Black in the 16th game has been recognized as one of the all-time masterpieces in chess history, including being voted the best game played during the first 64 issues of the magazine Chess Informant.[46][47]

As part of the arrangements following the aborted 1984 match, Karpov had been granted (in the event of his defeat) a right to rematch. Another match took place in 1986, hosted jointly in London and Leningrad,[48][49] with each city hosting 12 games. At one point in the match, Kasparov opened a three-point lead and looked well on his way to a decisive match victory. But Karpov fought back by winning three consecutive games to level the score late in the match. At this point, Kasparov dismissed one of his seconds, grandmaster Evgeny Vladimirov, accusing him of selling his opening preparation to the Karpov team (as described in Kasparov's autobiography Unlimited Challenge, chapter Stab in the Back). Kasparov scored one more win and kept his title by a final score of 12½–11½.[49]

A fourth match for the world title took place in 1987 in Seville,[50] as Karpov had qualified through the Candidates' Matches to again become the official challenger. This match was very close, with neither player holding more than a one-point lead at any time during the contest. Kasparov was down one full point at the time of the final game and needed a win to draw the match and retain his title. A long tense game ensued in which Karpov blundered away a pawn just before the first time control, and Kasparov eventually won a long ending. Kasparov retained his title as the match was drawn by a score of 12–12.[51]

The fifth match between Kasparov and Karpov was held in New York and Lyon in 1990, with each city hosting 12 games. Again the result was a close one, with Kasparov winning by a margin of 12½–11½. In their five world championship matches, Kasparov had 21 wins, 19 losses, and 104 draws in 144 games.[52] 

With the World Champion title in hand, Kasparov began opposing FIDE. In November 1986, he created the Grandmasters Association (GMA), an organization to represent professional chess players and give them more say in FIDE's activities. Kasparov assumed a leadership role. GMA's major achievement was in organizing a series of six World Cup tournaments for the world's top players. This caused a somewhat uneasy relationship to develop between him and FIDE.

This stand-off lasted until 1993, by which time a new challenger had qualified through the Candidates cycle for Kasparov's next World Championship defence: Nigel Short, a British grandmaster who had defeated Anatoly Karpov in a qualifying match and then Jan Timman in the finals held in early 1993. After a confusing and compressed bidding process produced lower financial estimates than expected,[53] the world champion and his challenger decided to play outside FIDE's jurisdiction, under another organization created by Kasparov called the Professional Chess Association (PCA). At this point, a great fracture occurred in the lineage of the FIDE World Championship. In an interview in 2007, Kasparov called the break with FIDE the worst mistake of his career, as it hurt the game in the long run.[54]

Kasparov and Short were ejected from FIDE and played their well-sponsored match in London in 1993. Kasparov won convincingly by a score of 12½–7½. The match considerably raised the profile of chess in the UK, with an unprecedented level of coverage on Channel 4. Meanwhile, FIDE organized a World Championship match between Jan Timman (the defeated Candidates finalist) and former World Champion Karpov (a defeated Candidates semi-finalist), which Karpov won.

FIDE removed Kasparov and Short from the FIDE rating lists. Until this happened, there was a parallel rating list presented by PCA which featured all the world top players regardless of their relation to FIDE. There were now two World Champions: PCA champion Kasparov and FIDE champion Karpov. The title remained split for 13 years.

Kasparov defended his title in a 1995 match against Viswanathan Anand at the World Trade Center in New York City. Kasparov won the match by four wins to one, with thirteen draws.[55]

Kasparov tried to organize another World Championship match under another organization, the World Chess Association (WCA) with Linares organizer Luis Rentero. Alexei Shirov and Vladimir Kramnik played a candidates match to decide the challenger, which Shirov won in an upset. But when Rentero admitted that the funds required and promised had never materialized, the WCA collapsed. This left Kasparov stranded, and yet another organization stepped in: BrainGames.com, headed by Raymond Keene. No match against Shirov was arranged, and talks with Anand collapsed, so a match was instead arranged against Kramnik.[56]

During this period, Kasparov was approached by Oakham School in the United Kingdom, at the time the only school in the country with a full-time chess coach,[57] and developed an interest in the use of chess in education. In 1997, Kasparov supported a scholarship programme at the school.[58] Kasparov also won the Marca Leyenda trophy that year.[59]

In 1999, he played a well-known game against Topalov wherein he won after a rook sacrifice and king hunt.[60][61] 

The Kasparov-Kramnik match took place in London during the latter half of 2000. Kramnik had been a student of Kasparov's at the famous Botvinnik/Kasparov chess school in Russia and had served on Kasparov's team for the 1995 match against Viswanathan Anand.[62]

The better-prepared Kramnik won game 2 against Kasparov's Grünfeld Defence and achieved winning positions in Games 4 and 6, although Kasparov held the draw in both games. Kasparov made a critical error in Game 10 with the Nimzo-Indian Defence, which Kramnik exploited to win in 25 moves. As White, Kasparov could not crack the passive but solid Berlin Defence in the Ruy Lopez, and Kramnik successfully drew all his games as Black. Kramnik won the match 8½–6½.[63]

After losing the title, Kasparov won a series of major tournaments, and remained the top-rated player in the world, ahead of both Kramnik and the FIDE World Champions. In 2001 he refused an invitation to the 2002 Dortmund Candidates Tournament for the Classical title, claiming his results had earned him a rematch with Kramnik.[64]

Kasparov and Karpov played a four-game match with rapid time controls over two days in December 2002 in New York City. Karpov surprised the experts and emerged victorious, winning two games and drawing one.[65]

Because of Kasparov's continuing strong results and status as world No. 1 in much of the public eye, he was included in the so-called "Prague Agreement", masterminded by Yasser Seirawan and intended to reunite the two World Championships. Kasparov was to play a match against the FIDE World Champion Ruslan Ponomariov in September 2003. But this match was called off after Ponomariov refused to sign his contract for it without reservation. In its place, there were plans for a match against Rustam Kasimdzhanov, winner of the FIDE World Chess Championship 2004, to be held in January 2005 in the United Arab Emirates. These also fell through owing to a lack of funding. Plans to hold the match in Turkey instead came too late. Kasparov announced in January 2005 that he was tired of waiting for FIDE to organize a match and so had decided to stop all efforts to regain the World Championship title.[66] 

After winning the prestigious Linares tournament for the ninth time, Kasparov announced on 10 March 2005 that he would retire from serious competitive chess. He cited as the reason a lack of personal goals in the chess world (he commented when winning the Russian championship in 2004 that it had been the last major title he had never won outright) and expressed frustration at the failure to reunify the world championship.[67][66]

Kasparov said he might play in some rapid chess events for fun, but he intended to spend more time on his books, including the My Great Predecessors series, and work on the links between decision-making in chess and other areas of life. He also stated that he would continue to involve himself in Russian politics, which he viewed as "headed down the wrong path."[68][69] 

On 22 August 2006, in his first public chess games since his retirement, Kasparov played in the Lichthof Chess Champions Tournament, a blitz event played at the time control of 5 minutes per side and 3-second increments per move. Kasparov tied for first with Anatoly Karpov, scoring 4½/6.[70]

Kasparov and Anatoly Karpov played a 12-game match from 21 to 24 September 2009, in Valencia, Spain. It consisted of four rapid (or semi rapid) games, in which Kasparov won 3–1, and eight blitz games, in which Kasparov won 6–2, winning the match with a total result of 9–3. The event took place exactly 25 years after the two players' legendary encounter at World Chess Championship 1984.[71]

Kasparov actively coached Magnus Carlsen for approximately one year, beginning in February 2009. The collaboration remained secret until September 2009.[72] Under Kasparov's tutelage, Carlsen in October 2009 became the youngest ever to achieve a FIDE rating higher than 2800, and he rose from world number four to world number one. While the pair initially planned to work together throughout 2010,[73] in March of that year it was announced that Carlsen had split from Kasparov and would no longer be using him as a trainer.[74] According to an interview with the German magazine Der Spiegel, Carlsen indicated that he would remain in contact and that he would continue to attend training sessions with Kasparov;[75] however, in fact, no further training sessions were held, and the cooperation gradually fizzled out over the course of the spring.[76]

In May 2010, he played 30 games simultaneously, winning each one, against players at Tel Aviv University in Israel.[77] In the same month, it was revealed that Kasparov had aided Viswanathan Anand in preparation for the World Chess Championship 2010 against challenger Veselin Topalov. Anand won the match 6½–5½ to retain the title.[78] 

On 22 August 2006, in his first public chess games since his retirement, Kasparov played in the Lichthof Chess Champions Tournament, a blitz event played at the time control of 5 minutes per side and 3-second increments per move. Kasparov tied for first with Anatoly Karpov, scoring 4½/6.[70]

Kasparov and Anatoly Karpov played a 12-game match from 21 to 24 September 2009, in Valencia, Spain. It consisted of four rapid (or semi rapid) games, in which Kasparov won 3–1, and eight blitz games, in which Kasparov won 6–2, winning the match with a total result of 9–3. The event took place exactly 25 years after the two players' legendary encounter at World Chess Championship 1984.[71]

Kasparov actively coached Magnus Carlsen for approximately one year, beginning in February 2009. The collaboration remained secret until September 2009.[72] Under Kasparov's tutelage, Carlsen in October 2009 became the youngest ever to achieve a FIDE rating higher than 2800, and he rose from world number four to world number one. While the pair initially planned to work together throughout 2010,[73] in March of that year it was announced that Carlsen had split from Kasparov and would no longer be using him as a trainer.[74] According to an interview with the German magazine Der Spiegel, Carlsen indicated that he would remain in contact and that he would continue to attend training sessions with Kasparov;[75] however, in fact, no further training sessions were held, and the cooperation gradually fizzled out over the course of the spring.[76]

In May 2010, he played 30 games simultaneously, winning each one, against players at Tel Aviv University in Israel.[77] In the same month, it was revealed that Kasparov had aided Viswanathan Anand in preparation for the World Chess Championship 2010 against challenger Veselin Topalov. Anand won the match 6½–5½ to retain the title.[78]In January 2011, Kasparov began training the U.S. grandmaster Hikaru Nakamura. The first of several training sessions was held in New York just before Nakamura participated in the Tata Steel Chess tournament in Wijk aan Zee, the Netherlands.[79] In December 2011, it was announced that the cooperation had come to an end.[80]

Kasparov played two blitz exhibition matches in the autumn of 2011. The first was in September against French grandmaster Maxime Vachier-Lagrave, in Clichy (France), which Kasparov won 1½–½. The second was a longer match consisting of eight blitz games played on 9 October, against English grandmaster Nigel Short. Kasparov won again by a score of 4½–3½.

A little after that, in October 2011, Kasparov played and defeated fourteen opponents in a simultaneous exhibition that took place in Bratislava.[81]

On 25 and 26 April 2015, Kasparov played a mini-match against Nigel Short. The match consisted of two rapid games and eight blitz games and was contested over the course of two days. Both commentators GM Maurice Ashley and Alejandro Ramírez remarked how Kasparov was an 'initiative hog' throughout the match, consistently not allowing Short to gain any foothold in the games, and won the match decisively with a score of 8½–1½.[82] Kasparov also managed to win all five games on the second day, with his victories characterised by aggressive pawn moves breaking up Short's position, thereby allowing Kasparov's pieces to achieve positional superiority.[83]

On Wednesday 19 August 2015, he played and won all 19 games of a simultaneous exhibition in Pula, Croatia.[84]

On Thursday 28 April and Friday 29 April 2016 at the Chess Club and Scholastic Center of Saint Louis, Kasparov played a 6-round exhibition blitz round-robin tournament with Fabiano Caruana, Wesley So, and Hikaru Nakamura in an event called the Ultimate Blitz Challenge.[85] He finished the tournament third with 9.5/18, behind Hikaru Nakamura (11/18) and Wesley So (10/18). At the post-tournament interview, Kasparov announced that he would donate his winnings from playing the next top-level blitz exhibition match to assist funding of the American Olympic Team.[86]

On 2 June 2016, Kasparov played against fifteen chess players in a simultaneous exhibition in the Kaiser-Friedrich-Halle of Mönchengladbach. He won all games.[87]

On 7 October 2013, Kasparov announced his candidacy for World Chess Federation president during a reception in Tallinn, Estonia, where the 84th FIDE Congress took place.[88] Kasparov's candidacy was supported by his former student, reigning World Chess Champion and FIDE#1 ranked player Magnus Carlsen.[89] At the FIDE General Assembly in August 2014, Kasparov lost the presidential election to incumbent FIDE president Kirsan Ilyumzhinov, with a vote of 110–61.[90]

A few days before the election took place, the New York Times Magazine had published a lengthy report on the viciously fought campaign. Included was information about a leaked contract between Kasparov and former FIDE Secretary General Ignatius Leong from Singapore, in which the Kasparov campaign reportedly "offered to pay Leong US$500,000 and to pay $250,000 a year for four years to the ASEAN Chess Academy, an organization Leong helped create to teach the game, specifying that Leong would be responsible for delivering 11 votes from his region [...]".[91] In September 2015, the FIDE Ethics Commission found Kasparov and Leong guilty of violating its Code of Ethics[92] and later suspended them for two years from all FIDE functions and meetings.[93] 

In 2017, Kasparov came out of retirement to participate in the inaugural St. Louis Rapid and Blitz tournament from 14 to 19 August, scoring 3.5/9 in the rapid and 9/18 in the blitz, finishing eighth out of ten participants, which included Nakamura, Caruana, former world champion Anand, and the eventual winner, Aronian.[94][95] Any tournament money that he earned would go towards charities to promote chess in Africa.[96]

In 2020, he participated in 9LX, which is a Chess 960 tournament. He finished eighth in a field of 10 players.[97] Notably, he drew a game against Magnus Carlsen, who tied for first place.

In 2021, he launched Kasparovchess, a subscription-based online chess community featuring documentaries, lessons, puzzles, podcasts, articles, interviews, and playing zones.[98]

In 2021, Kasparov played in the blitz section of the Grand Chess Tour event in Zagreb, Croatia. He performed poorly, however, scoring 0.5/9 on the first day and 2.0/9 on the second day, getting his only win against Jorden Van Foreest.[99][100] He also participated in 9LX 2, finishing fifth in a field of 10 players, with a score of 5/9.[101] 

Records and achievements 

Kasparov holds the record for the longest time as the No. 1 rated player in the world—from 1984 to 2005 (Vladimir Kramnik shared the No. 1 ranking with him once, in the January 1996 FIDE rating list).[200] He was also briefly ejected from the list following his split from FIDE in 1993, but during that time he headed the rating list of the rival PCA. At the time of his retirement, he was still ranked No. 1 in the world, with a rating of 2812. His rating has fallen inactive since the January 2006 rating list.[201]

In January 1990, Kasparov achieved the (then) highest FIDE rating ever, passing 2800 and breaking Bobby Fischer's old record of 2785. By the July 1999 and January 2000 FIDE rating lists, Kasparov had reached a 2851 Elo rating, at that time the highest rating ever achieved.[202] He held that record for the highest rating ever achieved until Magnus Carlsen attained a new record high rating of 2861 in January 2013.[203] 

Kasparov holds the record for most consecutive professional tournament victories, placing first or equal first in 15 individual tournaments from 1981 to 1990.[204] The streak was broken by Vasyl Ivanchuk at Linares 1991, where Kasparov placed second, half a point behind him after losing their individual game. The details of this record winning streak follow:[35]

Frunze 1981, USSR Championship, 12½/17, tie for 1st;

Bugojno 1982, 9½/13, 1st;

Moscow 1982, Interzonal, 10/13, 1st;

Nikšić 1983, 11/14, 1st;

Brussels OHRA 1986, 7½/10, 1st;

Brussels SWIFT 1987, 8½/11, tie for 1st;

Amsterdam Optiebeurs 1988, 9/12, 1st;

Belfort (World Cup) 1988, 11½/15, 1st;

Moscow 1988, USSR Championship, 11½/17, tie for 1st;

Reykjavík (World Cup) 1988, 11/17, 1st;

Barcelona (World Cup) 1989, 11/16, tie for 1st;

Skellefteå (World Cup) 1989, 9½/15, tie for 1st;

Tilburg 1989, 12/14, 1st;

Belgrade (Investbank) 1989, 9½/11, 1st;

Linares 1990, 8/11, 1st.

Kasparov went 9 years winning every super-tournament he played, in addition to contesting his series of 5 consecutive matches with Anatoly Karpov. His only failure in this time period in either tournament or match play was in the World Chess Championship 1984 when the 21-year-old Kasparov was trailing (−5, +3 = 40) against the defending champion Karpov before the match was abruptly cancelled.

Later on in his career, Kasparov went on another long streak of consecutive super-tournament wins.[205]

Wijk aan Zee Hoogovens 1999, 10/13, 1st;

Linares 1999, 10½/14, 1st;

Sarajevo 1999, 7/9, 1st;

Wijk aan Zee Corus 2000, 9½/13, 1st;

Linares 2000, 6/10, tie for 1st;

Sarajevo 2000, 8½/11, 1st;

Wijk aan Zee Corus 2001, 9/13, 1st;

Linares 2001, 7.5/10, 1st;

Astana 2001, 7/10, 1st;

Linares 2002, 8/12, 1st.

In these 10 consecutive classical super-tournaments wins, Kasparov had a score of 53 wins, 61 draws and 1 loss in 115 games with his only loss coming against Ivan Sokolov in Wijk aan Zee 1999.

Kasparov won the Chess Oscar a record eleven times.[206] 

Books and other writings 

Kasparov has written books on chess. He published a controversial[232] autobiography when still in his early 20s, originally titled Child of Change, later retitled Unlimited Challenge. This book was subsequently updated several times after he became World Champion. Its content is mainly literary, with a small chess component of key unannotated games. He published an annotated games collection in 1983, Fighting Chess: My Games and Career,[233] which has been updated several times in further editions. He also wrote a book annotating the games from his World Chess Championship 1985 victory, World Chess Championship Match: Moscow, 1985.[234]

He has annotated his own games extensively for the Yugoslav Chess Informant series and for other chess publications. In 1982, he co-authored Batsford Chess Openings with British grandmaster Raymond Keene and this book was an enormous seller. It was updated into a second edition in 1989. He also co-authored two opening books with his trainer Alexander Nikitin in the 1980s for British publisher Batsford – on the Classical Variation of the Caro-Kann Defence and on the Scheveningen Variation of the Sicilian Defence. Kasparov has also contributed extensively to the five-volume openings series Encyclopedia of Chess Openings from Chess Informant which Kasparov also wrote personal columns Garry's Choice, the publication which is inarguably the beginning of modern chess.[235][236]

In 2000, Kasparov co-authored Kasparov Against the World: The Story of the Greatest Online Challenge[237] with grandmaster Daniel King. The 202-page book analyzes the 1999 Kasparov versus the World game, and holds the record for the longest analysis devoted to a single chess game.[238] 

In 2003, the first volume of his five-volume work Garry Kasparov on My Great Predecessors was published. This volume, which deals with the world chess champions Wilhelm Steinitz, Emanuel Lasker, José Raúl Capablanca, Alexander Alekhine, and some of their strong contemporaries, has received lavish praise from some reviewers (including Nigel Short), while attracting criticism from others for historical inaccuracies and analysis of games directly copied from unattributed sources. Through suggestions on the book's website, most of these shortcomings were corrected in following editions and translations. Despite this, the first volume won the British Chess Federation's Book of the Year award in 2003. Volume two, covering Max Euwe, Mikhail Botvinnik, Vasily Smyslov and Mikhail Tal appeared later in 2003. Volume three, covering Tigran Petrosian and Boris Spassky appeared in early 2004. In December 2004, Kasparov released volume four, which covers Samuel Reshevsky, Miguel Najdorf, and Bent Larsen (none of these three were World Champions), but focuses primarily on Bobby Fischer. The fifth volume, devoted to the chess careers of World Champion Anatoly Karpov and challenger Viktor Korchnoi, was published in March 2006.[239] 

His book Revolution in the 70s (published in March 2007) covers "the openings revolution of the 1970s–1980s" and is the first book in a new series called "Modern Chess Series", which intends to cover his matches with Karpov and selected games. The book Revolution in the 70s concerns the revolution in opening theory that was witnessed in that decade. Such systems as the controversial (at the time) "Hedgehog" opening plan of passively developing the pieces no further than the first three ranks are examined in great detail. Kasparov also analyzes some of the most notable games played in that period. In a section at the end of the book, top opening theoreticians provide their own "take" on the progress made in opening theory in the 1980s.[240] 

In October 2015, Kasparov published a book titled Winter Is Coming: Why Vladimir Putin and the Enemies of the Free World Must Be Stopped. The title is a reference to the HBO television series Game of Thrones. In the book, Kasparov writes about the need for an organization composed solely of democratic countries to replace the United Nations. In an interview, he called the United Nations a "catwalk for dictators".[102] 

Kasparov believes that the conventional history of civilization is radically incorrect. Specifically, he believes that the history of ancient civilizations is based on misdatings of events and achievements that actually occurred in the medieval period.[241][242] He has cited several aspects of ancient history that he says are likely to be anachronisms.[243]

Kasparov has written in support of the pseudohistorical New Chronology (Fomenko), although with some reservations.[244] In 2001, he expressed a desire to devote his time to promoting the New Chronology after his chess career. "New Chronology is a great area for investing my intellect ... My analytical abilities are well placed to figure out what was right and what was wrong."[245] "When I stop playing chess, it may well be that I concentrate on promoting these ideas... I believe they can improve our lives."[245]

Later, Kasparov renounced his support of Fomenko theories but reaffirmed his belief that mainstream historical knowledge is highly inconsistent.[246][247]In 2007, he wrote How Life Imitates Chess, an examination of the parallels between decision-making in chess and in the business world.[248]

In 2008, Kasparov published a sympathetic obituary for Bobby Fischer, writing: "I am often asked if I ever met or played Bobby Fischer. The answer is no, I never had that opportunity. But even though he saw me as a member of the evil chess establishment that he felt had robbed and cheated him, I am sorry I never had a chance to thank him personally for what he did for our sport."[249]

He is the chief advisor for the book publisher Everyman Chess.[250]

Kasparov works closely with Mig Greengard and his comments can often be found on Greengard's blog.[251][252]

Kasparov collaborated with Max Levchin and Peter Thiel on The Blueprint, a book calling for a revival of world innovation, planned to release in March 2013 from W. W. Norton & Company. The book was never released, as the authors disagreed on its contents.[253]

Kasparov argued that chess has become the model for reasoning in the same way that the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster became a model organism for geneticists, in an editorial comment on Google's AlphaZero chess-playing system. "I was pleased to see that AlphaZero had a dynamic, open style like my own," he wrote in late 2018.[254]

Kasparov served as a consultant for the 2020 Netflix miniseries The Queen's Gambit. He gave an extended interview to Slate describing his contributions.[255]

In 2020, Kasparov collaborated with Matt Calkins, founder and CEO of Appian, on HYPERAUTOMATION, a book about low-code development and the future of business automation. Kasparov wrote the foreword where he discusses his experiences with human–machine relationships.[256][257]

The New York Times published an essay by Kasparov titled "Garry Kasparov: What We Believe About Reality" in 2021.[258] The essay is part of a series called The Big Ideas: What Do We Believe,[259] which also includes essays by T.M. Luhrmann, Harry Reid, Ini Archibong, Errol Morris, and Carlo Rovelli, amongst others. 

The Watchtower Society's Commentary on tithes.

 TITHE 

A tenth part or 10 percent given or paid as a tribute, especially for religious purposes.

The Bible tells of two instances prior to the setting up of the Law covenant in which a tenth part of possessions were paid to God or to his representative. The first of these was on the occasion when Abraham gave Melchizedek one-tenth of the spoils of his victory over Chedorlaomer and his allies. (Gen. 14:18-20) The apostle Paul cites this incident as proof that Christ’s priesthood according to the manner of Melchizedek is superior to that of Levi, since Levi, being in the loins of Abraham, paid tithes, in effect, to Melchizedek. (Heb. 7:4-10) The second case concerned Jacob, who vowed at Bethel to give one-tenth of his substance to God.—Gen. 28:20-22.

However, these two accounts are merely instances of voluntarily giving one-tenth. There is no record to the effect that Abraham or Jacob commanded their descendants to follow such examples, thereby establishing a religious practice, custom or law. It would have been superfluous for Jacob, if already under a compulsory obligation to pay tithes, to vow to do so, as he did. It is therefore evident that the tithing arrangement was not a custom or a law among the early Hebrews. It was instituted with the inauguration of the Law covenant, not before. 

MOSAIC TITHING LAWS 

Jehovah gave Israel tithing laws for definite purposes, apparently involving the use of two tenths of their annual income, except during the sabbath years, when no tithe was paid, since no income was anticipated. (Lev. 25:1-12) However, some scholars believe there was only one tithe. Such tithes were in addition to the firstfruits they were under obligation to offer to Jehovah.—Ex. 23:19; 34:26.

The first tithe, consisting of one-tenth of the produce of the land and fruit trees and (evidently of the increase) of the herds and flocks, was brought to the sanctuary and given to the Levites, since they had no inheritance in the land but were devoted to the service of the sanctuary. (Lev. 27:30-32; Num. 18:21, 24) The Levites, in turn, gave a tenth of what they received to the Aaronic priesthood for their support.—Num. 18:25-29.

Evidently the grain was threshed and the fruit of the vine and of the olive tree was converted into wine and oil before tithing. (Num. 18:27, 30; Neh. 10:37) If an Israelite wished to give money instead of this produce, he could do so, provided he added an additional fifth to the valuation. (Lev. 27:31) But it was different with the flock and the herd. As the animals came out of the pen one by one through a gate, the owner stood by the gate with a rod and marked every tenth one as the tithe, without examination or selection.—Lev. 27:32, 33.

It seems there was an additional tithe, a second tenth, set aside each year for purposes other than the direct support of the Levitical priesthood, though the Levites shared in it. Normally it was used and enjoyed in large measure by the Israelite family when assembling together at the national festivals. In cases where the distance to Jerusalem was too great for the convenient transport of this tithe, then the produce was converted into money and this, in turn, was used in Jerusalem for the household’s sustenance and enjoyment during the holy convention there. (Deut. 12:4-7, 11, 17, 18; 14:22-27) Then, at the end of every third and sixth years of the seven-year sabbatical cycle, this tithe, instead of being used to defray expenses at the national assemblies, was set aside for the Levites, alien residents, widows and fatherless boys in the local community.—Deut. 14:28, 29; 26:12.

These tithing laws binding on Israel were not excessive. Nor should it be overlooked that God promised to prosper Israel by opening “the floodgates of the heavens” if his tithing laws were obeyed. (Mal. 3:10; Deut. 28:1, 2, 11-14) When the people became negligent as to tithing, the priesthood suffered, for the priests and Levites were forced to look to secular work and consequently neglected their ministerial services. (Neh. 13:10) Such unfaithfulness tended to bring about a decline in true worship. Sadly, when the ten tribes fell away to calf worship they used the tithe to support that false religion. (Amos 4:4, 5) On the other hand, when Israel was faithful to Jehovah and under the rule of righteous administrators, tithing for the Levites was restored, and true to Jehovah’s promise, there were no shortages.—2 Chron. 31:4-12; Neh. 10:37, 38; 12:44; 13:11-13. 

Under the Law there was no stated penalty to be applied to a person’s failing to tithe. Jehovah placed all under a strong moral obligation to provide the tithe; at the end of the three-year tithing cycle they were required to confess before Him that the tithe had been paid in full. (Deut. 26:12-15) Anything wrongfully withheld was viewed as something stolen from God.—Mal. 3:7-9.

By the first century C.E., the Jewish religious leaders, particularly among the scribes and Pharisees, made a sanctimonious show of tithing and other outward works, in a form of worship, but their hearts were far removed from God. (Matt. 15:1-9) Jesus reproved them for their selfish, hypocritical attitude, calling attention to their being meticulous to give a tenth even of “the mint and the dill and the cummin”—something they should have done—yet at the same time disregarding “the weightier matters of the Law, namely, justice and mercy and faithfulness.” (Matt. 23:23; Luke 11:42) By way of illustration, Jesus contrasted the Pharisee who boastfully felt self-righteous because of his own works of fasting and tithing, with the tax collector who, though considered as nothing by the Pharisee, humbled himself, confessed his sins to God and begged for divine mercy.—Luke 18:9-14. 

NO TITHING FOR CHRISTIANS 

At no time were first-century Christians commanded to pay tithes. The primary purpose of the tithing arrangement under the Law had been to support Israel’s temple and priesthood; consequently the obligation to pay tithes would cease when that Mosaic law covenant came to an end as fulfilled, through Christ’s death on the torture stake. (Eph. 2:15; Col. 2:13, 14) It is true that Levitical priests continued serving at the temple in Jerusalem until it was destroyed in 70 C.E., but Christians from and after 33 C.E. became part of a new spiritual priesthood that was not supported by tithes.—Rom. 6:14; Heb. 7:12; 1 Pet. 2:9.

As Christians they were encouraged to give support to the Christian ministry both by their own ministerial activity and by material contributions. Instead of giving fixed, specified amounts to defray congregational expenses, they were to contribute “according to what a person has,” giving “as he has resolved in his heart, not grudgingly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.” (2 Cor. 8:12; 9:7) They were encouraged to follow the principle: “Let the older men who preside in a fine way be reckoned worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard in speaking and teaching. For the scripture says: ‘You must not muzzle a bull when it threshes out the grain’; also: ‘The workman is worthy of his wages.’” (1 Tim. 5:17, 18) However, the apostle Paul set an example in seeking to avoid bringing an undue financial burden on the congregation.—Acts 18:3; 1 Thess. 2:9. 

A good listener?

 Cats Recognize and Respond to Our Voices 

Denyse O'Leary 

Do cats care whether we talk to them or not? In a recent study, animal cognition experts found that cats may change their behavior when their “humans” are talking in a tone directed to them. But they don’t react the same way to a stranger who is talking that way or when the voice is directed elsewhere. Charlotte de Mouzon and colleagues from Université Paris Nanterre (Nanterre, France) investigated the way 16 cats reacted to “pre-recorded voices from both their owner and that of a stranger when saying phrases in cat-directed and human adult-directed tones.” With adult-directed tones, no “endearing” kitty talk is used. It might not be clear who the intended recipient of the message is, apart from what is being said: 

The authors investigated three conditions, with the first condition changing the voice of the speaker from a stranger’s voice to the cat’s owner. The second and third conditions changed the tone used (cat-directed or adult-directed) for the cat’s owner or a stranger’s voice, respectively. The authors recorded and rated the behavior intensity of cats reacting to the audio, checking for behaviors such as resting, ear moving, pupil dilation, and tail moving, amongst others.

SPRINGER, “CATS DISTINGUISH BETWEEN SPEECH DIRECTED AT THEM AND HUMANS” AT PHYS.ORG (OCTOBER 24, 2022); THE PAPER REQUIRES A FEE OR SUBSCRIPTION.

So What Happened? 

 Ten of the 16 cats decreased their behavior intensity when they heard three audio clips of a stranger calling them by name. But once they heard their owner’s voice, the cats turned their ears to the speakers and moved around the room more — and their pupils dilated. Not surprisingly, the researchers concluded that the cats recognized the voices of people they knew.

The second test involved ten cats, eight of which had been in the first test. They “decreased their behavior” (quit paying much attention) when their owners were speaking in an adult-directed tone. But they “significantly increased their behavior” (started paying more attention) when they heard that same owner speaking in the cat-directed tone. The cats — not surprisingly — did not change their behavior when a stranger’s voice was played in either tone. Conclusions?: 

The authors suggest that their findings bring a new dimension to cat-human relationships, with cat communication potentially relying on experience of the speaker’s voice. They conclude that one-to-one relationships are important for cats and humans to form strong bonds.

SPRINGER, “CATS DISTINGUISH BETWEEN SPEECH DIRECTED AT THEM AND HUMANS” AT PHYS.ORG (OCTOBER 24, 2022). 

One difficulty we face when trying to determine what a cat “can” or “can’t” understand is that the cat handles information differently from the dog — and it is natural for us to compare cats with dogs, especially in matters like intelligence or capacity for relationship. 

A Small Lone Predator 

The dog, in a natural state, hunts with other dogs. Communication is essential for success. The cat, by contrast, is a small lone predator who operates by stealth. He takes great care to conceal any information as to his presence until his prey is firmly in his power. In fact, many domestic cats will hide and conceal symptoms of their own pain and sickness because they are prey as well as predators. So determining what the cat actually knows is a more complex business than determining what a dog actually knows (for one thing, the dog may be much more anxious to tell you).

And it turns out that cats know more than many have supposed. For example, they know the names of other cats who live in the same household. But, of course, that’s information cats need.

For example, “FLUFFY! It’s time for your PILL!” is a piece of information that Fluffy’s housemate Tabby may understand quite well, in terms of its outcome (Fluffy is chased into the basement and cornered in the furnace room by a human clutching a pill). But Tabby, characteristically, stays well away from the whole business. Thus we would need artful research methods to show that Tabby does in fact know whether a particular “cat talk” communication was or was not directed at him and whether he knows what it means.

Read the rest at Mind Matters News, published by Discovery Institute’s Bradley Center for Natural and Artificial Intelligence. 

The "gentleman's game" : a brief history.

cricket:

By Marcus K. Williams 

cricket, England’s national summer sport, which is now played throughout the world, particularly in Australia, India, Pakistan, the West Indies, and the British Isles. 

Cricket is played with a bat and ball and involves two competing sides (teams) of 11 players. The field is oval with a rectangular area in the middle, known as the pitch, that is 22 yards (20.12 metres) by 10 feet (3.04 metres) wide. Two sets of three sticks, called wickets, are set in the ground at each end of the pitch. Across the top of each wicket lie horizontal pieces called bails. The sides take turns at batting and bowling (pitching); each turn is called an “innings” (always plural). Sides have one or two innings each, depending on the prearranged duration of the match, the object being to score the most runs. The bowlers, delivering the ball with a straight arm, try to break (hit) the wicket with the ball so that the bails fall. This is one of several ways that the batsman is dismissed, or put out. A bowler delivers six balls at one wicket (thus completing an “over”), then a different player from his side bowls six balls to the opposite wicket. The batting side defends its wicket. 

There are two batsman up at a time, and the batsman being bowled to (the striker) tries to hit the ball away from the wicket. A hit may be defensive or offensive. A defensive hit may protect the wicket but leave the batsmen no time to run to the opposite wicket. In that case the batsmen need not run, and play will resume with another bowl. If the batsman can make an offensive hit, he and the second batsman (the nonstriker) at the other wicket change places. Each time both batsmen can reach the opposite wicket, one run is scored. Providing they have enough time without being caught out and dismissed, the batsmen may continue to cross back and forth between the wickets, earning an additional run for each time both reach the opposite side. There is an outside boundary around the cricket field. A ball hit to or beyond the boundary scores four points if it hits the ground and then reaches the boundary, six points if it reaches the boundary from the air (a fly ball). The team with the highest number of runs wins a match. Should both teams be unable to complete their number of innings before the time allotted, the match is declared a draw. Scores in the hundreds are common in cricket.

Matches in cricket can range from informal weekend afternoon encounters on village greens to top-level international contests spread over five days in Test matches and played by leading professional players in grand stadiums. 

History 

Cricket is believed to have begun possibly as early as the 13th century as a game in which country boys bowled at a tree stump or at the hurdle gate into a sheep pen. This gate consisted of two uprights and a crossbar resting on the slotted tops; the crossbar was called a bail and the entire gate a wicket. The fact that the bail could be dislodged when the wicket was struck made this preferable to the stump, which name was later applied to the hurdle uprights. Early manuscripts differ about the size of the wicket, which acquired a third stump in the 1770s, but by 1706 the pitch—the area between the wickets—was 22 yards long.

The ball, once presumably a stone, has remained much the same since the 17th century. Its modern weight of between 5.5 and 5.75 ounces (156 and 163 grams) was established in 1774. 

The primitive bat was no doubt a shaped branch of a tree, resembling a modern hockey stick but considerably longer and heavier. The change to a straight bat was made to defend against length bowling, which had evolved with cricketers in Hambledon, a small village in southern England. The bat was shortened in the handle and straightened and broadened in the blade, which led to forward play, driving, and cutting. As bowling technique was not very advanced during this period, batting dominated bowling through the 18th century. 

The earliest reference to an 11-a-side match, played in Sussex for a stake of 50 guineas, dates from 1697. In 1709 Kent met Surrey in the first recorded intercounty match at Dartford, and it is probable that about this time a code of laws (rules) existed for the conduct of the game, although the earliest known version of such rules is dated 1744. Sources suggest that cricket was limited to the southern counties of England during the early 18th century, but its popularity grew and eventually spread to London, notably to the Artillery Ground, Finsbury, which saw a famous match between Kent and All-England in 1744. Heavy betting and disorderly crowds were common at matches. 

The aforementioned Hambledon Club, playing in Hampshire on Broadhalfpenny Down, was the predominant cricket force in the second half of the 18th century before the rise of the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) in London. Formed from a cricket club that played at White Conduit Fields, the club moved to Lord’s Cricket Ground in St. Marylebone borough in 1787 and became the MCC and in the following year published its first revised code of laws. Lord’s, which was named after its founder, Thomas Lord, has had three locations over its history. Moving to the current ground in St. John’s Wood in 1814, Lord’s became the headquarters of world cricket.

In 1836 the first match of North counties versus South counties was played, providing clear evidence of the spread of cricket. In 1846 the All-England XI, founded by William Clarke of Nottingham, began touring the country, and from 1852, when some of the leading professionals (including John Wisden, who later compiled the first of the famous Wisden almanacs on cricketing) seceded to form the United All-England XI, these two teams monopolized the best cricket talent until the rise of county cricket. They supplied the players for the first English touring team overseas in 1859.

Technical development 

Until early in the 19th century all bowling was underhand, and most bowlers favoured the high-tossed lob. Next came “the round-arm revolution,” in which many bowlers began raising the point at which they released the ball. Controversy raged furiously, and in 1835 the MCC rephrased the law to allow the hand to be raised as high as the shoulder. The new style led to a great increase in pace, or bowling speed. Gradually bowlers raised the hand higher and higher in defiance of the law. Matters were brought to a head in 1862 when an England team playing against Surrey left the field at London’s Kennington Oval in protest over a “no ball” call (i.e., an umpire’s decision that the bowler has thrown an illegal pitch). The argument centred on whether the bowler should be allowed to raise his arm above the shoulder. As a result of this controversy, the bowler was in 1864 officially accorded liberty to bowl overhand (but not to cock and straighten the arm). This change dramatically altered the game, making it yet more difficult for a batsman to judge the ball. Already a bowler was allowed to take a running start from any direction and for any distance. Once the bowler was allowed to release overhand, the ball could then reach speeds above 90 mph (145 km/hr). Though this is not as fast as the pitching speed in baseball, cricket has an additional twist in that the ball is usually delivered so as to bounce on the pitch (field) before the batsman can hit it. Thus, the ball may curve to the right or the left, bounce low or high, or spin toward or away from the batsman. 

Batsmen learned to protect themselves with pads and batting gloves, and a cane handle increased the resilience of the bat. Only the best batsmen, however, could cope with fast bowling, because the poor condition of most pitches made it yet more difficult for a batsman to predict the motion of the ball. As the grounds improved, however, batsmen grew accustomed to the new bowling style and went on the offensive. Other new bowling styles were also discovered, causing batsmen to adjust their technique further. 

In the early 20th century so many runs were being scored that debate ensued on reforming the “leg-before-wicket” law, which had been introduced in the 1774 laws to prohibit a batsman from using his body to prevent the ball from hitting his wicket. But the heavy scores were actually due to the performances of several outstanding batsmen, such as W.G. Grace, Sir John Berry Hobbs, and K.S. Ranjitsinhji (later the maharaja of Nawanagar). This was cricket’s golden age.

In the 20th century there was a series of attempts to aid the bowler and quicken the tempo of the game. Nevertheless, the game by the mid-20th century was characterized not by overwhelming offense but by defensive play on both sides and by a slow pace. In an attempt to shore up a declining fan base, one-day, or limited-overs, cricket was introduced. One-day cricket had first been played internationally when, after a Test match was rained out for the first days, on the last scheduled day of play a limited-overs match was held in order to give the fans some game to watch. The response was enthusiastic, and one-day cricket came into being. In this version of cricket the limited number of overs (usually 50 per side) leads to a faster paced though much-altered game. In one-day cricket there are some restrictions on placement of fielders. This led to new batting styles, such as the paddle shot (wherein the ball is hit behind the wicket because there are usually no fielders there) and the lofted shot (where the batsman tries to hit the ball past the fielders and over their heads). Twenty20 (T20), a style of one-day cricket consisting of 20 overs per side, debuted in 2003 and quickly became an international sensation. The first Twenty20 world championship was held in 2007, and one-day cricket, particularly Twenty20, became more popular than Test matches worldwide, although Test cricket retained a large following in England. The pace of Test matches increased dramatically in the late 20th century with the introduction of new bowling strategies. 

Organization of sport and types of competition

County and university cricket 

Some of the earliest organized cricket matches were between amateur and professional players. From 1806 (annually from 1819) to 1962, the Gentlemen-versus-Players match pitted the best amateurs against the best professionals. The series was ended in 1962 when the MCC and the counties abandoned the distinction between amateurs and professionals. Other early cricket matches took place between British universities. The Oxford-versus-Cambridge match, for example, has been played mainly at Lord’s since 1827 and became a high point of the summer season in London. 

University cricket was a kind of nursery for county cricket—i.e., matches between the various counties of England. Although the press acclaimed a “champion county” (Sussex) as early as 1827, qualification rules for county cricket were not laid down until 1873, and it was only in 1890 that the format of the county championship was formalized by the counties themselves. Gloucestershire dominated the 1870s, thanks to W.G. Grace and his brothers E.M. and G.F. Grace. From the 1880s to World War I, Nottinghamshire, Surrey, Yorkshire, Lancashire, Kent, and Middlesex constituted the Big Six that dominated county cricket. After World War I the northern counties, led by Yorkshire and Lancashire, largely professional teams, were the leaders. Surrey, with seven successive championships, dominated in the 1950s and Yorkshire in the 1960s, followed by Kent and Middlesex in the 1970s. The 1980s were dominated by Middlesex, Worcestershire, Essex, and Nottinghamshire. Other counties in first-class county cricket are Leicestershire, Somerset, Hampshire, Durham, Derbyshire, Warwickshire, Sussex, Northamptonshire, and Glamorgan.

After a postwar boom, slow play and lower numbers of runs characterized the 1950s, and this defensive nature of county cricket led to progressively decreased attendance. In the 1960s the MCC and the counties introduced a one-day knockout competition—called the Gillette Cup (1963–1980), the NatWest Bank Trophy (1981–2000), the C&G Trophy (2000–06), and the Friends Provident Trophy (2006–09)—and a separate Sunday afternoon league (the two competitions were merged in 2010 as the Clydesdale Bank 40), which revived public interest, although most counties remained dependent financially on proceeds from football pools and money received from Test matches and broadcasting fees. The immediate registration of overseas players was permitted, and each county, as of the early 1980s, was allowed one such player, who could, however, still play for his national team. The change worked well for the counties, and it also strengthened the national teams for whom those players appeared. In county cricket, bonus points were created to encourage batsmen and bowlers to play less defensively, and from 1988, to help the development of young batsmen and spin bowlers, four-day games increasingly replaced the three-day format. The longer game gives batsmen more time to build an innings and relieves them of the pressure to score runs quickly. Spin bowlers benefit from the longer game because the pitch wears as the game progresses and permits greater spin. 

The Cricket Council and the ECB 

A reorganization of English cricket took place in 1969, resulting in the end of the MCC’s long reign as the controlling body of the game, though the organization still retains responsibility for the laws. With the establishment of the Sports Council (a government agency charged with control of sports in Great Britain) and with the possibility of obtaining government aid for cricket, the MCC was asked to create a governing body for the game along the lines generally accepted by other sports in Great Britain. The Cricket Council, comprising the Test and County Cricket Board (TCCB), the National Cricket Association (NCA), and the MCC, was the result of these efforts. The TCCB, which amalgamated the Advisory County Cricket Committee and the Board of Control of Test Matches at Home, had responsibility for all first-class and minor-counties cricket in England and for overseas tours. The NCA consisted of representatives from clubs, schools, armed services cricket, umpires, and the Women’s Cricket Association. In 1997 there was another reorganization, and the TCCB, the NCA, and the Cricket Council were all subsumed under the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB). 

International cricket 

International cricket in the early part of the 20th century was dominated by the original members of the Imperial Cricket Conference, England, Australia, and South Africa. Later renamed the International Cricket Conference and then the International Cricket Council, the ICC gradually took over more responsibility for the administration of the game and shifted its power base from west to east. When in 2005 the ICC moved its offices from Lord’s in London—home of the MCC, the game’s original rulers and still its lawmakers—to Dubai, the shift away from the old ways of governance was complete. The priorities of the game changed too. By the turn of the 21st century, only Australia and England still played Test cricket to full houses. Everywhere else, and particularly in India and Pakistan, crowds flocked to see limited-overs internationals. Test cricket became almost an afterthought. Although the power to change the laws of the game have remained with the MCC, the ICC developed its own Code of Conduct for players, officials, and administrators, which sets out disciplinary procedures and protects the spirit of the game. It also organized major international tournaments, including the one-day and Twenty20 World Cups and the Champions Trophy. In 2000 the ICC set up the Anti-Corruption Unit (renamed the Anti-Corruption Unit and Security Unit in 2003) to combat the growing threat of illegal gambling and match fixing. At the beginning of the 2010s, the ICC had 10 full members and dozens of associate and affiliate members. 

One of the founding members of the ICC, Australia remains one of its most powerful countries both on and off the field. The history of cricket in Australia dates to 1803 when the game was introduced by the crew of a British ship. The first intercolonial match took place in 1851 between Victoria and Tasmania, and by the end of the 19th century teams from England were touring Australia regularly. The first official Test match was played in Melbourne in 1877 by Australia and England, beginning the oldest rivalry in international cricket, a series that became known as The Ashes (see Test Matches below).

Cricket is played throughout Australia, and matches are ferociously competitive at every level. All the great Australian players from Sir Don Bradman to Shane Warne developed their skills in club cricket before graduating to the state and national teams, and the Australian style of cricket is marked by aggressiveness with bat, ball, and, often, voice in an attempt to intimidate opponents. Through the 20th century, Australia produced a series of outstanding teams, and the country dominated international cricket into the new century, winning three successive one-day World Cups (1999–2007) and twice recording runs of 16 consecutive Test victories (1999–2001 and 2005–08). In 2005 England’s Test victory over Australia, the first since 1987, was celebrated with an open-top bus ride through the city of London 

In June 2000 Bangladesh became the 10th country to be accorded full Test status. It played its first Test match in November of that year, against India in Dhaka. Known as the Tigers, the Bangladeshi team struggled to perform at the highest level, winning only three of its first 68 Tests. However, Bangladesh has defeated the nine countries that preceded it to Test status in one-day matches, a feat completed with a victory over England in Bristol in 2010. Bangladesh’s first appearance in an international tournament had come in England in the ICC Trophy competition for associate members in 1979. In 1997 Bangladesh won the trophy and qualified for the 1999 World Cup, beating Pakistan in the group stages. A domestic first-class tournament between six regional teams was established in 2000–01. Since Bangladesh gained Test status, cricket arguably has become the most popular sport in the country. 

Cricket is played in every corner of India, on city streets, in village fields, and on maidans—open playing fields, the largest of which (such as the Azad, Cross, and Oval maidans in South Mumbai) can host dozens of overlapping matches. Historically, Indian cricketers have displayed a good eye and strong wrists, and Indian batsmen, most notably Sunil Gavaskar and Sachin Tendulkar, have been some of the most productive and stylish in the history of cricket. The dry flat pitches of the subcontinent have also traditionally produced high-class spin bowlers.

The origins of the game in India date to the 18th century. A touring team led by the English gentleman cricketer Lord Hawke played a match against the “All India” team in January 1893. India played its first Test in 1932 and waited 20 years for its first Test victory, against England in Madras (now Chennai). The game developed so fast in India, however, that by the end of the 20th century India was one of the world’s foremost cricketing countries. With the growth of the Indian Premier League in the early 21st century, it became the undisputed home of Twenty20 cricket and the financial hub of the international game, though the popularity of Test cricket has declined dramatically in India. India’s prominence in one-day cricket was further confirmed when it won the Cricket World Cup in 2011. 

Cricket has always taken second place to rugby in the sports priorities of New Zealanders, but, as in Australia, the game has a strong national structure in New Zealand. The long history of domestic cricket in the country is often dated from the first representative interprovincial match, between Auckland and Wellington, in 1860, though there is evidence that unofficial matches between provinces were played in New Zealand decades earlier. The NZ Cricket Council was formed in 1894 and was admitted to full membership of the ICC in 1926. With only a small base of players on which to draw, New Zealand has always struggled to compete with England and Australia in Test cricket. As in most cricketing countries, the one-day game has proved more popular in New Zealand. In Richard Hadlee, who was knighted in 1990, the country produced one of the greatest cricketers of any era. 

The development of cricket in Pakistan has been chaotic, quixotic, and exotic in roughly equal measure. Under the leadership of Imran Khan, Pakistan won the 1992 World Cup, but often its cricket was blighted by political interference and scandal. A low point was reached in 2010: To begin with, the national team was in virtual exile, unable to persuade other countries to play in Pakistan for fear of terrorist attacks in the wake of an assault in Lahore on the visiting Sri Lankan team bus in March 2009 that left six policemen dead and several players injured. Moreover, three members of the Pakistani team touring England were involved in allegations of “spot fixing”—that is, fixing the results of certain bowls in return for money—and were banned by the ICC. Huge profits could be made in illegal betting markets in Asia by predicting the results of individual bowls. Only a few years earlier several Pakistan players also had been banned as a result of investigations over match fixing. Yet Pakistan has also produced a host of talented cricketers such as Khan, Wasim Akram, Abdul Qadir, and Inzamam-ul-Haq and has proved itself adept at Twenty20 cricket, winning the T20 World Cup in 2009. 

South Africa played its first Test, against England in Port Elizabeth, as early as in 1889. Cricket has been at the heart of the country’s sporting culture ever since. When South Africa was banned from the ICC from 1970 to 1991 because of its apartheid policies, cricket administrators worked quietly to integrate nonwhite players into the system, which was based largely on traditional all-white schools and state teams. When apartheid was abolished, cricket was far more prepared to cope with the social and political changes than was rugby union. Makhaya Ntini, a world-class fast bowler, who made his international debut for South Africa in 1998 and played in more than 100 Tests, served as a role model for the new generation of black cricketers. On the other hand, in 2000 Hansie Cronje, the captain of South Africa, was banned for match fixing in a scandal that brought into question the integrity of South African cricket. It was not until 2003, when South Africa hosted a successful World Cup, that the rehabilitation of country’s cricketing reputation was complete. South Africa has always been a great exporter of cricketers, mainly to England. Allan Lamb and Robin Smith were prominent members of the England team in the 1980s and ’90s; Kevin Pietersen and Jonathan Trott were mainstays of the Ashes-winning side of 2010. 

Even before Test status was awarded to Sri Lanka in 1981, the island country was a popular destination for touring teams, particularly for English teams on the way to Australia by boat. Given the disadvantages of its relatively small population and of the civil war that disrupted life on the island for three decades, Sri Lanka developed into a top cricketing country with surprising speed. In 1996 it won the World Cup, beating Australia in the final by playing aggressive, innovative cricket under the inspired leadership of Arjuna Ranatunga. The victory instilled belief in a new generation of players that included Sanath Jayasuriya; Mahela Jayawardene, an elegant and aggressive batsmen; and Muttiah Muralitharan, who in 2010 became the first bowler to take 800 Test wickets. The Indian Ocean tsunami of 2004 devastated the cricket-playing regions of southern Sri Lanka, including the Test match ground at Galle, and took the lives of many promising young players. Nonetheless, Sri Lanka recovered to reach the World Cup final again in 2007. Calamity struck again in 2009, when the Sri Lankan team’s bus was attacked by terrorists on the way to the ground for the second Test against Pakistan in Lahore. 

Cricket has been a unifying force in the Caribbean since the West Indies became the fourth Test-playing side in 1928. The islands have generally played other sports as independent countries, but British colonial influence contributed to the formation of a united regional team. For a time in the 1970s and ’80s, when the West Indian team featured a quartet of fast bowlers—led by Michael Holding, Malcolm Marshall, Andy Roberts, and Joel Garner—and batsmen of the destructive capacity of Sir Viv Richards and Clive Lloyd, the West Indies were virtually unbeatable. Blessed with an abundance of talented players and true pitches, Caribbean cricket has always been played with an unorthodox flourish, seen most clearly in the batsmanship of Sir Garfield Sobers, Richards, and Brian Lara.

In the 21st century cricket declined in popularity in the West Indies, a result of a lack of strong administrative leadership and because of the increasing appeal of potentially more lucrative sports such as athletics (track and field), football (soccer) and basketball. After playing in the finals of the first three World Cups (1975, 1979, and 1983) and winning the first two, the West Indian team failed—with the exception of 1996—to reach even the knockout stage of subsequent World Cups, including in 2007, as the host of the event. 

Until Test status was granted to Zimbabwe in 1992, the country’s best cricketers, such as Colin Bland, played for South Africa. Indeed, the history of the cricket in the two countries has been inextricably linked. Long before the newly independent and renamed Zimbabwe became an associate member of the ICC in 1980, teams representing its Rhodesian forerunner states had participated in the Currie Cup, the South African domestic first-class tournament (first in 1904–05, then in the early 1930s, and again after World War II). Competing in its first World Cup in 1983, Zimbabwe surprised the world by beating Australia, yet Graeme Hick, arguably the country’s best batsman, left shortly thereafter to play for England.

Zimbabwean cricket in the early 21st century has been marked by chaotic administration and political interference. In 2004 Heath Streak was sacked as captain of the national team, precipitating a crisis from which Zimbabwe took years to emerge, including an exile from Test cricket that began in 2006 and ended in 2011. The country’s political volatility during this period had much to do with the situation. In the 2003 World Cup, for example, England forfeited its match in Zimbabwe, citing security concerns. During the same tournament, two Zimbabwe players, Andy Flower and Henry Olonga, wore black armbands to “mourn the death of democracy” in their country. 

The first Test match, played by two national teams, was between Australia and England in Melbourne in 1877, with Australia winning. When Australia again won at the Oval at Kennington, London, in 1882, the Sporting Times printed an obituary notice announcing that English cricket would be cremated and the ashes taken to Australia, thus creating the “play for the Ashes.” The Ashes, kept in an urn at Lord’s irrespective of which country is victorious, are supposed to be those of a bail burned on the England tour of Australia in 1882–83. For the rest of the 19th century, the two countries met almost yearly. With W.G. Grace, the greatest cricketer of Victorian England, on its side, England was often too strong for the Australians, though Australia had the greatest bowler of this era in F.R. Spofforth and the first of the great wicketkeepers in J.McC. Blackham.