Talk:Kasparov versus the World

message: 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)
thread_title: A question

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Headings 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  35.Kh1! comment 

message: 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)
replies: text: ...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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Pointless Praise 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Meaning of NPOV

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Aftermath" section needed 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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). --<SPAN STYLE="font-family:monospace; color:#008800; background-color:#ffffcc; border:1px solid #ff4444;"> B.D.Mills </SPAN> (T, C) 23:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final position 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Are the bulletin board discussions online somewhere?  

message: Before tagging the article, first discuss it here. Otto (talk) 07:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Tags

message: 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)
thread_title: Edits from [[Special:Contributions/24.23.89.145|24.23.89.145]]

message: 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. --<SPAN STYLE="font-family:monospace; color:#008800; background-color:#ffffcc; border:1px solid #ff4444;"> B.D.Mills </SPAN> (T, C) 23:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Analysis by Shredder for Black's 55th 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Win for White with 27.h3-h4 in stead of 27.Qf7 ? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  analysis in book 

message: 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)
thread_title: Dates

message: 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)
thread_title:  Outside consultation by Kasparaov? 

message: 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 Pokémons 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: It seems that there is a clear consensus against its inclusion, so I will also remove it from TPPs article. Tezero (talk) 13:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  [[Twitch Plays Pokémon]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Kasparov versus the World. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  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.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: I've verified this analysis with the Lomonosov 7 piece tablebases.  52 ... Kb2 draws.  Baccala@freesoft.org (talk) 03:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Analysis with Hoffman EGTB generator 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Original research 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Question 

message: 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)
replies: text: I've fixed this claim Arcie68805 (talk) 03:29, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  38. Rd1 is winning