Garry Kasparov, the Man Who Would Be King

I'd note that it seems likely that people may have an open mind about some of the theories espoused without believing the whole thing.

For example, the statement In 1887, Edwin Johnson expressed the opinion that early Christian history was largely invented or corrupted in the 2nd and 3rd centuries has some basis in historic facts: The Nicene Creed wasn't written until 325, and it's influence on what is considered "standard" Christianity cannot be underestimated.

One of the links on Wikipedia[1] makes Kasparov sound more sceptical than saying he is a follower: I do not advocate Fomenko and Nosovsky’s theory. However, as a man with an analytical mind-set who is used to analysing all the information that I receive, I am very sceptical about the constructions and findings of official history. I believe that Fomenko and Nosovsky have rightly pointed out numerous inconsistencies and gaps in the official concept. Instead of pursuing their work by asking questions and dismantling schemes which are often mythological, they have put forward a new theory, which unfortunately is subject to the same problems. Because it is clear that today we still lack the information needed to create another, alternative concept. And that is why the main attacks on Fomenko and Nosovsky’s work are not related to the critical aspects of their work but, rather, to what is put forward today as its positive outlook.’

[1] http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/newchronology.html

He had many innovations and this last one is in quotes because apparently it was discovered 35 years ago.