Talk:Kasparov versus The World

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

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:

  1. When did Kasparov call a press conference (presumably to announce a forced win)?
  2. When did Kasparov call off the press conference and admit that the position was still unclear?
  3. When did Krush scale back her bulletin board participation?
  4. 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)

Contents

[edit] Headings

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)

[edit] 35.Kh1! comment

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)

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)
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)

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)

[edit] Krush POV

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)

[edit] Pointless Praise

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)

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)

...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)
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. --Ryan Delaney talk 22:48, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)

[edit] Meaning of NPOV

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)

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)


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)

[edit] Typo?

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

Thanks, Adam D.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../k/a/s/Talk%7EKasparov_versus_The_World_d7a8.html"