I'm not concerned with Kasparov, who is a chess player, or whether he believes Fomenko's load of crap. For a few years now I have been aware that he does believe it, and in a way that is a good thing, because the Arabs, who would normally lap up this Fomenko "New Chronology", rejected it because Kasparov is Jewish.
Paintings can't be faked? Paintings are never done of figures who never existed? Inscriptions exist for everyone who has ever lived *apart* from Leif Erickson?
Fomenko's need for Leif Erickson to not exist is the same as the motivating force behind the rest of Fomenko's load of crap -- the Varangians, who served as mercenaries in the armies of the Byzantine Empire -- an empire that Fomenko claims did exist, because it's part of what he regards as the roots of Russia and therefore all of Europe -- were among the many Scandinavians who wandered through during the Middle Ages. This also included the Rus, a Swedish group, which gave its name to Russia. According to Fomenko, the Russians are the successors to the Byzantines, and all other European history was fabricated based on the Byzantine succession etc.
Fomenko's astronomical "evidence" consists of his saying that there's repetition over long periods in the eclipse cycle, and therefore the Great Fomenko is justified in saying that ancient eclipses documented in surviving ancient accounts aren't ancient, but must have occurred during much later times.
He also claims that early English sources record the term "Years of Grace" which is really "Years of Greece", blah blah blah.
Of course they can be. But the provenance of Stuart's works is well established. Contemporaries saw both Stewart's portraits and George Washington, so even if the curators of the NGA have been deceived they at least have a copy of a real painting of a real man.
Fomenko's need for Leif Erickson to not exist
I haven't reached this "need" yet in the book. It's common knowledge that the whole idea of Leif Erikson reaching North America before Columbus is thin gruel.
Fomenko's astronomical "evidence" consists of his saying that there's repetition over long periods in the eclipse cycle
This is certainly the conventional wisdom, though I admit to being a skeptic here. The whole uniformity concept is one that I do not accept, so if that's all Fomenko offers I'll be on your side before long. But that isn't the impression I get from the opening pages of his book.