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. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
If Kasparov was analyzing the endgame with Deep Junior, what's to say he didn't play the whole match using the program?
Fritz says that ...f5 was a bad move, maybe because it allowed the Qb3-f7.
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:
Thanks in advance, -- Fritzlein 22:36, 10 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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'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)
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)
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)
Should 3..Nd7 actually be 3..Bd7? Only because you have 5..Nc6 and talk about Black's "remaining" bishop.
Thanks, Adam D.
(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.
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)
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 [email protected] "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)
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)
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)
Before tagging the article, first discuss it here. Otto ( talk) 07:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
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)
The same bias appears from the anonymous edits from 64.178.250.59 Otto ( talk) 11:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
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 |
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)
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 |
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)
Better for black is 27... Qf5 28.Qb1 Qe5 29.Qd3 b5 30.Qf3 b4 31.Bxf4 with some advantage for white.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 20:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
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)
Can the playable chess board be embedded in the article? Becomes easier to go through the game and relate to written comments.
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I think 37 ... e6 is a loosing move (after 38 Rd1), 37 ... e5 looks better. Rudolphous ( talk) 13:01, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
I recently removed this section from the article on Move 10:
@ 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)
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)