Russia’s election spectacle on March 18 isn’t only a domestic distraction. It provides Putin’s defenders in the free world with rhetorical ammunition… - Garry Kasparov

I retired from professional chess to form a pro-democracy, anti-Putin movement in Russia. As you could see, it didn't go so well. But it was not about winning or losing. I knew it was my moral duty in keeping with the slogan of Soviet dissidents: "Do what you must and so be it." Ah, my friends and critics both kept telling me, "Gary, you are a chess player, you're not a politician. This is not chess. You see everything in black and white. Politics are gray. You have to compromise." Really? Those who peacefully marched with me for free Russia are either in exile, like me. Or in jail, like Alexei Navalny. Or even murdered like Boris Nemtsov. Compromise? Not black and white? Are you sure? Compromise with this?

[C]hess is not a game for dictators for numerous reasons. One, it's transparent. It’s all information hundred percent available so you know exactly what you have, you know exactly what your opponent has. You don’t know what he or she is thinking, but you definitely know what kind of resources your opponent can use to hurt you, to damage your position. Also, chess is very much a strategic game so you have to think long-term. Dictators don’t think long-term. Dictators, especially who are in power for so long as Putin is, they have to work on the survival mode. Because it’s all about today, maybe tomorrow morning. Everything that helps us survive is good. Because the moment the dictator thinks long-term, he’ll definitely miss guys from his own entourage hitting him in his own back. The game that defines dictators much better is poker because it’s about bluffs. It doesn’t matter whether you have a strong hand or weak hand. You can have a weak hand, but if you’re comfortable bluffing, raising stakes, and if you can read your opponent.

In conclusion, if you want to unravel the multitude of secrets of chess then don't begrudge the time.