Talk:Kasparov versus the World

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kasparov versus the World article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

A question[edit]

If Kasparov was analyzing the endgame with Deep Junior, what's to say he didn't play the whole match using the program?

He may have done that, but as a Grandmaster his chess strength is higher than the software. He may have been assisted by Deep Junior but he still has the final say, or the final decision as to what move he will submit to MSN. The Deep Junior was just a tool assisting him. And there is no underhand therein because a great number of the World team members were, in all probability, also using chess software to aid them in their analysis at that time.122.3.210.165 (talk) 10:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Analaysis by Deep Fritz 8[edit]

Fritz says that ...f5 was a bad move, maybe because it allowed the Qb3-f7.

old talk[edit]

For much of this game, I was an active participant on the World Team, therefore I can give a first-hand account of the dynamics of the bulletin board. Unfortunately, my memory is hazy as to the exact details in several places. I would much appreciate it if someone could verify the following:

When did Kasparov call a press conference (presumably to announce a forced win)?
When did Kasparov call off the press conference and admit that the position was still unclear?
When did Krush scale back her bulletin board participation?
When, and with what reservations, did Krush resume leadership of the bulletin board?

Thanks in advance, --Fritzlein 22:36, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

First of all, congrats on a terrific article. I don't know if you've looked at relevant issues of The Week in Chess, but I checked issues 242 through 259 (which cover the period the game was underway), and found two issues which may be of interest: issue 252 reports a press conference given by Kasparov on September 2 - it looks like he didn't make any specific comments on the state of the game, and whether it's related to the press conference you allude to here, I don't know. Then there's issue 258, which has some details and links on the various ballot stuffing incidents. I don't know if these are of any use - the TWIC archives are at [1] if you want to check them out. I won't edit the article just yet myself, as I wasn't there at the time and might end up emphasising things that shouldn't be emphasised, and so on. --Camembert

I'm glad you like the article! Your links to the TWIC archives are very useful. The September 2 press conference was indeed the one to which I was referring, and it shows that I was correct to within one move of when it happened. It might have been one move earlier than I have it in the article, but it might be as I have it. Kasparov acted very much like he was about to announce a forced win, but then found a hole in his lines. Also the information about ballot stuffing is very useful. Among other things, if there were 250 nonsense votes to give up the queen on move 53, then we can conclude that there were over 5000 legitimate votes. I'll change the estimate earlier in the article. Thanks, --Fritzlein 05:53, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

To truly check the facts, I would need to read the book "Kasparov against the World", written by Kasparov and King, but my metropolitan library system doesn't have it. I don't think my Wikipedia addiction has advanced quite to the point that I buy books just to write better articles. Maybe I'll let someone (some day!) fix the article who already has a copy or who can borrow one more easily. :-/ --Fritzlein 02:54, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

One thought, I won't edit it myself yet though: A clear idea that Kasparov won, and after how long should be provided early on in the intro. (It may spoil a little suspense, but it would be proper for an encyclopedia) - siroxo 11:15, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)

Good idea Siroxo, thanks. I've changed the intro. I want the article to sound like straightforward reporting, not a cheesy TV history program. I am still struggling to understand gramatically how to give present analysis of past events, but anyway the reader deserves to know what happened as efficiently as it can be told, and that includes the result in the beginning. --Fritzlein 18:02, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Headings[edit]

I think that there should be fewer headings and that they should not use chess notation. This would make the article far more readable.

Acegikmo1 05:08, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Feel free to edit it for greater readability. --Fritzlein 01:38, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

35.Kh1! comment[edit]

Concerning the last line in the 35.Kh1! paragraph, which suggests 35... Ne5, I think Ne5 is a poor alternative compared to b3, leading to 36.Bxe5 Bxe5 37.Rf3 Bg7 38.g4 Bh6 39.Kg2 d5 40.Kg3 Bg5 41.Rb3 Bd2 42.Rd3 Bg5 43.Rd4 b3 44.Rb4, with the loss of a pawn.

Also, any thoughts on 37...e5 ? --Turidoth 22:13, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't exactly an answer, more background: Igor Stohl annotated the game for Chessbase Magazine (I'm not sure which issue, I stick them all in one database as they arrive); there, there is the line 35...Ne5 36.Bxe5 dxe5!?= attributed to Kasparov, and a line starting 37...e5? 38.Bc1 b2 39.Bxb2 Bxb2 40.h6, given as winning for White. One day, Stohl and co's comments should be incorporated into this article (I'm too lazy to do it myself just now). --Camembert 02:10, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't analyzed in any depth, but I think the point is that the bulletin board only examined retaking with the bishop on move 36, and failed to consider that retaking with the pawn might hold. That is to say 35... Ne5 36.Bxe5 Bxe5 is not good for Black, but 35...Ne5 36.Bxe5 dxe5 is OK, and the World Team totally missed it until Kasparov pointed it out after the game. --Fritzlein 05:26, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that is very unusual... I didn't consider dxe5, because on the surface, doubling the pawns looked strange. For 37...e5 I was thinking about 38.Bc1 Ne7 39.Ba3 e4 40.Kg2 Be5 --Turidoth 15:06, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Krush POV[edit]

This article is blatantly slanted, praising Irina Krush at every possibility. For example, I think that referring to her "genius" is a stretch at best. Are there any objections to trying to tone it down a bit and move some of the focus off her? Great read otherwise, though. --Malathion 02:56, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No one objected, so I did it. --Malathion 30 June 2005 19:45 (UTC)

Pointless Praise[edit]

I would just like to say, and I usually don't waste people's time with stuff like this but I feel the urge to do so, that this is one of the greatest articles I have ever read. It strikes me, who is a chess newbie, as an awesome article that isn't too hard to get into for a rookie and which actually inspired me to zip around Wikipedia for hours learning more about the game (when I should probably be sleeping). Kudos to all editors on one of the best articles, like, eva. Lord Bob 09:14, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

I'll second that. Better than most featured articles I've read. -Silence 00:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm much less impressed. The article reads like a piece for an enthusiast's magazine rather than a cited, sourced, neutral and verifiable encyclopaedia article. It's engaging and entertaining, although it has a fannish air, but it's full of bald statements, and language such as "shrill cries", "this fine move", "the dust settled" and so forth. And it reads as if written by an interested party, and it would be greatly improved - and shortened - by simply cutting out the commentary after each move. -Ashley Pomeroy 13:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

...at which point it would become boring and stale, a transitition which would, in my view, add absolutely nothing to it. I can only presume that this is some fundamental difference in WikiPhilosophy so I'm not going to argue, but I just wanted to state where I was coming from. Lord Bob 14:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there are serious tone problems with this article. It's nice to have articles that are a pleasure to read, but WP:NPOV is not negotiable. ⟳ausa کui ^× 22:48, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair criticism. I can love an article without thinking that it doesn't have areas to improve in. Those of us here who have the time, energy, and interest, let's work on fixing this problem as best we can while preserving what makes this an enjoyable and fascinating read. -Silence 23:48, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, except for the recommendation of the removal of the commentary after each move. NPOV says that we should provide all significant points of view on an issue, not no non-neutral points of view on anything. Ideally, if any of the article's significant claims are disputed, add in the contrary opinion rather than removing the disputed text. Instead of destroying the commentary, either (a) make it less opinionated/melodramatic, (b) add other, contrary views on the issue, or (c) cite sources and use an occasional quote for some of the commentary, so we won't get complaints. -Silence 23:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of NPOV[edit]

This article has been heavily edited, and on the balance much improved, since I first composed it. I have not complained about a single edit until now. I understand that Wikipedia needs to maintain a neutral point of view. However, I believe that the November 8 edits of Ryan Delaney are clearly out of bounds. What kind of impoverished commentary on chess remains when one is forbidden to call a move a good move? NPOV does not mean that anything which could be construed as an opinion must be deleted. The intent of the NPOV policy is to protect all points of view. Deleting every opinion out of hand protects no point of view, is equally oppressive to all thinkers, and is thoroughly contrary to the intent of the NPOV policy.

I do not intend to revert the article, because I have no stomach for edit wars. Instead I merely urge Mr. Delaney to rethink his editing philosophy, so that he doesn't destroy the very thing he is trying to protect. --Fritzlein 01:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, as I now glance at the history, it seems to me that most of the material removed was less POV material and more commentary on the match, commentary that I find extremely valuable. Personally, I take NPOV to not mean 'no commentary' so much as 'all major points of few should be represented in commentary' unless said commentary gets unwieldy. I prefer the article in its pre-November 8 incarnation. Lord Bob 01:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem Delaney has with the article may have as much to do with WP:NOR as with WP:NPOV; Wikipedia is typically not allowed to make judgment calls on anything, even things that are blatantly obvious or universally agreed upon, and is instead required to cite sources for any such claims, to quote and paraphrase specific people's opinions on a matter rather than having any sort of opinion (even a clearly correct one) of its own. And yes, following that rule in this case would murder this article. I think it's more or less inevitable that all well-written, beautiful, hilarious, or fascinating text on Wikipedia articles will be destroyed over the years as the community's attention shifts to encompass those articles and grinds them down until there's nothing any single editor dislikes. You'd probably be better off (or at least have a much easier time) trying to get the original form of the "Kasparov versus The World" article published somewhere, or at least put on a different website, than trying to keep it intact here.

Welcome to Wikipedia. -Silence 07:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I saw these comments three years (!) late, but if someone can find the disputed edits, we can talk about restoring them. Please feel free to contact me about this via my talk page, despite the warning at the top not to do so. Cheers ⟳ausa کui ^× 16:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Typo?[edit]

Should 3..Nd7 actually be 3..Bd7? Only because you have 5..Nc6 and talk about Black's "remaining" bishop.

Thanks, Adam D.

Bad edit for move 59 vote?[edit]

(I'm new at this, all advice appreciated)

The edit on 2007-11-08 to move 59 looks wrong. The current version of the page has 59. ... Qd1, which is not a valid move. The previous version of the article had 59. ... Qe1, which I believe is correct.

"Aftermath" section needed[edit]

Since this is said to be one of the most important chess games of all times, I think we need a section that summarizes post-game reactions and legacy. The article cuts off abruptly at the end of the game, which seems wrong to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zdrak2 (talk • contribs) 13:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cites:

http://web.archive.org/web/20000817211748/www.zone.com/kasparov/endgamefaq.asp archive.org record of zone.com, microsoft's cite for the game "On Move 59, the Gaming Zone found indication of quite significant ballot sutffing (improper ratio of votes to unique PCs) for the sacrificial move QE1. Due to rampant 'ballot stuffing' which is the equivalent of 'cheating' by World Team Members, we disqualified this move from voting and recomputed the votes accordingly."

http://web.archive.org/web/20010108034100/http://www.maths.uq.edu.au/~rwb/kas/1017.txt archive.org record of a copy of "Kasparov vs. the World News" published by KASPNEWS@MICROSOFT.COM "The World's last move was Qe1 with 66.27% of the votes."

Is that enough cites to change the move back to "59. ... Qe1" ?

- Mchastain (talk) 10:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC) --• The Giant Puffin • 18:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move 59 was 59 ...Kb2 even though 59 ...Qe1 got the higher vote. This is explained in the current version of the article. ChessCreator (talk) 23:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final position[edit]

The article claims Kasparov announced a mate in 25. However, entering the position in the Nalimov tablebase reveals that White mates in 29. Was Kasparov wrong or is this a typo? 91.107.136.246 (talk) 19:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have entered the position before 62.g7 into the Shredder tablebase and there is a mate in 29. Either there is a typo in an original source or Kasparov was wrong. At move 62, White has three winning moves: g7 (mate in 29), Qg1+ (mate in 40) and Qf1 (mate in 42). -- B.D.Mills (T, C) 23:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are the bulletin board discussions online somewhere?[edit]

Are those heated bulletin board discussions online somewhere? (I mean, the disussions among the world team players meantioned in the article.) --173.75.182.141 (talk) 02:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tags[edit]

Before tagging the article, first discuss it here. Otto (talk) 07:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edits from 24.23.89.145[edit]

This user starts with adding overweight emphasis to one of the posters on the bulletin board ("This move was posted by United States Senior Master and Life Master Brian McCarthy, one of the most prolific contributors to the World Team forum. He found the move working with his Bookup database and the integrated computer program Zarkov."). I find many of the remaining edits questionable and certainly no improvement of the article. Otto (talk) 07:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The same bias appears from the anonymous edits from 64.178.250.59 Otto (talk) 11:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis by Shredder for Black's 55th[edit]

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
8									8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

After 55.Qxb4. Endgame tablebases show that this position is lost for Black.

Black's 55th is when the position has been simplified to 6 pieces, placing it within the reach of modern 6-piece tablebases such as those used by Shredder. 6-piece tablebases show that the position is dead lost for Black with best play but White must play accurately in order to secure the win.

Best moves for Black are 55...Qf1+ and 55...Qf3+, both of which lose in 82 moves. All other moves lose in 45 moves or less.

The text moves are the best moves for both sides until Black's decisive error on move 58.

55...Qf3+ 56.Kg7 (only winning move) 56...d5 (Qf5 is also playable here) 57.Qd4+ (only winning move) 57...Kb1 58.g6 (only winning move) Qf5

The text move of 58...Qe4 loses in 40 moves, whereas 58...Qf5 loses in 79. After 58...Qf5, there are five winning moves for White, rather than the single winning move that is available between 56 and 58. -- B.D.Mills (T, C) 23:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Win for White with 27.h3-h4 in stead of 27.Qf7 ?[edit]

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
8									8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

After 33.h5 White wins.

I analysed with Houdini the position when White should have played 27.h4 in stead of 27.Qf7 and come to win (or at least significant advantage) for White.

The main line is: 27.h4 Ne5 28.Qh3+ e6 29.Bf6 f3 30.Bxe5 fxg2 31.Rc1! Qxe5 32.Qf3 Bc5 33.h5 +- Otto (talk) 21:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Better for black is 27... Qf5 28.Qb1 Qe5 29.Qd3 b5 30.Qf3 b4 31.Bxf4 with some advantage for white.

analysis in book[edit]

The article says "The 202-page book holds the record for the longest analysis devoted to a single chess game." There is very little analysis in the book. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dates[edit]

The exact dates (day and month) should be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.97.25.129 (talk) 05:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Outside consultation by Kasparaov?[edit]

To what extent did Kasparaov consult with others and/or computers during this match? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Two kinds of pork (talk • contribs) 13:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Twitch Plays Pokémon[edit]

I added a link to this in the See also section, but this change was repeatedly reverted. I don't see what the big deal is - Kasparov vs. the World and this were both games played over the Internet by users around the world against one opponent (in Twitch Plays Pokémon's case, the CPU) - yet one editor feels that, because it is Pokémon, which as we all know is morally inferior to the great game of chess, it does not belong. I was told to come here and ask for a consensus. Tezero (talk) 00:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The connection is tenuous at best. The primarily focus of this article is on Kasparov vs the World as a chess game, rather than as an internet/sociological phenomenon. The "Grandmaster vs Team voting on moves" format actually predates the internet, newspapers used to run games in that format. It's still chess, all the usual strategies apply, there's just a few added complication such as getting the team working together cohesively. The pokemon/twitch thing is much more random by the sound of it. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By structure, yes, there isn't as much of a connection, but in execution it's virtually the same. TPP wasn't random; it's just that inputs were being logged more frequently than in KvtW, so the world didn't have as much of a chance to think. And not that it matters for this argument, but for the record, Pokémon has a great deal of strategy and knowledge involved, particularly in the competitive scene. Tezero (talk) 01:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're suggesting that a situation where the public is coached by a panel of grandmasters to compete against the greatest player in history is "virtually the same in execution" to a real-life demonstration of the infinite monkey theorem in which people cry foul when "the potential for randomness which had helped to drive the elaborate narrative and mythology" is taken out. Riiiiight... Cobblet (talk) 04:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am. Simple commands from lots of people go into computer; most popular one is picked; game is played. I don't think I'm out of line here. (Also, if neither of you noticed, KvtW is in the See also of that article.) Tezero (talk) 05:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point: corporate-promoted exhibition of an unprecedented level of prestige due to participation of the greatest player in history, taken seriously by professionals and amateurs alike to create a game that was surprisingly deep in strategic content; vs. anonymously created viral internet phenomenon that became, as these things sometimes do, an unexpectedly prolific source of entertainment, but has made no impact in the strategy of competitive multiplayer Pokémon. Oranges are not "virtually the same" as basketballs despite both being round, orange, slightly squishy and generally rough-skinned. Cobblet (talk) 06:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "see also" section is for articles that we expect many people who read this article to be interested in. In this case, the number of people who would be interested in both articles is very small, the games are played in a completely different fashion (for one thing, voting over one move at a time is several orders of magnitudes slower than how the Twitch Plays Pokemon game was played). There is nothing wrong with Pokemon games, it is one of the most successful gaming franchises ever which would not be the case if people didn't enjoy it. But the gap between the two games is so big that I cannot see any justification for a "see also" link. Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would echo some of the concerns expressed above. The KvtW page is not likely to attract people with a casual or passing interest in chess or games generally, but people who have a keen interest in that 'very specific' contest. The likelihood that they will want to supplement their reading with a vaguely, but not very comparable contest involving Pokémon is way too slim in my opinion. Brittle heaven (talk) 08:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that there is a clear consensus against its inclusion, so I will also remove it from TPP's article. Tezero (talk) 13:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think many people who read this article will care to read "Twitch Plays Pokémon", defeating the purpose of adding it to the "See also" section. On top of that the two online games are not alike. Don't include the link. -- Kndimov (talk) 14:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Kasparov versus the World. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for fdl.msn.com/zone/kasparov/gameanalysis.txt
Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060216233521/http://classic.zone.msn.com:80/kasparov/todaysmove10-14.html to http://classic.zone.msn.com/kasparov/TodaysMove10-14.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis with Hoffman EGTB generator[edit]

Analysis of black's moves after 50...d1=Q. Conditions: black king can move only in field a-e 1-4, black can't promote a pawn at all (while 7 pieces are on board). So we give white even more advantage.

After 51.Qh7 black can draw with Ka1 and b5

After 52.Kf6+ black can draw with Kc1 and Kb2

After 53.Qh2+ black can draw with Ka1

After 54.Qf4 black can draw with Qd5

After reply 54...b4 white wins in 83 moves

At the moment (26.01.2016) there are mistakes in commentary to the moves:

1) 52...Kb2 also draws

2) 53.Qe4 can't lead to a forced win for white but leads to clear draw

There were no mistakes from both sides until move 54...b4

Hoffman generator is free available:

http://www.freesoft.org/software/hoffman/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.12.96.19 (talk) 21:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've verified this analysis with the Lomonosov 7 piece tablebases. 52 ... Kb2 draws. Baccala@freesoft.org (talk) 03:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can the playable chess board be embedded in the article?[edit]

Can the playable chess board be embedded in the article? Becomes easier to go through the game and relate to written comments.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kasparov versus the World. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121011002621/http://www.chess.co.uk/twic/twic258.html to http://www.chess.co.uk/twic/twic258.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Loosing move[edit]

I think 37 ... e6 is a loosing move (after 38 Rd1), 37 ... e5 looks better. Rudolphous (talk) 13:01, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, the analysis in this article doesn't even cover https://cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/chess/K-W/38Rd1.html which is from August 2000 and showed that 37... e6? 38. Rd1! was a win. Stockfish with 6-piece EGTBs also demonstrates that these days in a fraction of a second. Also there's lots of subjectivity in the exclams e.g. "18... f5!" when 18... Bd4 is an immediate clear draw and "26... f4!" when, ultimately, 26... Bc5 and 26... f4 are about the same, both leading to an approximately equal position. The article has tone problems and reflects knowledge of about 20 years ago.

Cancerward (talk) 01:19, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Original research[edit]

In the section, "The game", there's an original research tag.

It looks like much of the words are exactly the same as https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIR1FR2rEkU. AltoStev ^Talk 20:15, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that video is just a read-aloud of the Wikipedia article, which would explain it. The analysis should definitely link to some sources, though. I'm looking for potential sources currently. Ovinus (talk) 04:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The only book I can find on the subject is https://www.amazon.com/Kasparov-Against-World-Garry/dp/0970481306. I think I'll order it; it seems like a good read anyway. Perhaps most of the analysis can come from this source, and the more critical moments can have additional citations from online sources. Ovinus (talk) 04:22, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Kasparov admitted that 58...Qf5 would have put up stiffer resistance, but claimed it was also losing, and published a "forced win". Subsequently, tablebases showed an error in Kasparov's analysis, but confirmed that 58...Qf5 could not have saved the draw with best play on both sides.

Are you sure about this ? When I check it with stockfish on lichess, it seems that black's 58 doesn't matter, even before 58 black already lost with perfect play on both sides.

Garo (talk) 01:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amateur voting[edit]

I recently removed this section from the article on Move 10:

It was clear from a look at the voting results that, although the World Team was managing to pick theoretically correct moves, many rank amateurs were voting as well. Demonstrably bad moves were garnering a significant percentage of the votes; even worse, on move 12, about 2.4% of the voters chose illegal moves which did not get the World Team out of check.
The World Team was not coordinating well on the bulletin board. Typical posts were brash, emotionally heated, and confrontational; profanity flowed freely. Much more energy was being spent on flame wars than on analysis.

@PRRfan: The largest reason to delete that section is that it's unsourced. If it can be sourced as relevant material, great, maybe put it back. But even if there was a source... it's just not saying anything interesting. The whole point of Kasparov vs. the World was that random people on the Internet, scrubs, would get to vote on the game. Obviously, this will include some people voting for bad moves! It doesn't actually matter unless the bad move wins, though. If 2% of voters picked a bad move... whatever.

The bit about flame wars & profanity on the bulletin board is both unsourced and irrelevant. Again, Who Cares? Flame Wars were common back then, go read old Slashdot archives, and they're common now. The real claim is that they hampered coordination - which I highly doubt. Some idiots off in the corner arguing doesn't stop the useful people talking elsewhere. Anyway, I bet 80% of the voters never read the boards and only read the expert's analysis. So the boards were only relevant in so far as they might convince an expert one way or the other, and the experts wouldn't care about XxVegetaX calling Sephiroth420 an idiot in a side discussion. SnowFire (talk) 02:36, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SnowFire: I'm with you on "unsourced", and that trumps. But I disagree that—if properly sourced—this is uninteresting or unworthy of inclusion. It is fascinating to know just what percentage of participants were submitting illegal moves. And perhaps you're right that these flame wars were removed from the main discussions, but perhaps they weren't; a reliable source could tell us. But as we have none (so far), I'll revert my reversion of your edit. PRRfan (talk) 03:16, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see you've already done so. Bad form. PRRfan (talk) 03:17, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have done so normally, but your reversion came in the middle of the other edit I ended up making after looking at the article more (I was a little surprised when checking the differences that I'd apparently re-removed the section). I didn't want to hold off forever on that one, and felt that re-removing was fairly safe.

My strong suspicion is that the lore of what happened on bulletin boards pre-modern social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.), much like Usenet, basically has been shoved off Wikipedia after various standards were tightened to be more "Respectable" from 2006–2009. I agree it can certainly be interesting - I participated on them too - but the sources are going to be Internet folklore websites at best, which don't rank very highly on WP:RS. The official answer would probably be something like "Take it to Wikia/Fandom" if the sources are just random commenters who were there at the time. SnowFire (talk) 03:50, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

38. Rd1 is winning[edit]

See this analysis, and also note Stockfish 15 (running up to at least Depth 26) gives a win. Thus the claim made in the article is incorrect. 2001:569:57B2:4D00:A121:9E4D:F859:41F3 (talk) 03:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed this claim Arcie68805 (talk) 03:29, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]