No discussion of what sources have what moves, or which sources are more reliable, and why?

Do non-editors even get a hint as to the history of the published games here on <CG>, or what was in deleted pages?

What kind of process is being followed?

Where is it?

Susan told us to "have fun" after all, and I don't really have a choice, given the asymmetry.

If I knew the rules were fair, I'd be more sympathetic.

People are looking at an engine, and deciding 25.Rf5 is clearly the move that Kasparov made.

At least, I think that's what they're doing. As if it's clearly winning and was the obvious move to make.

But I don't think it is... the game allows Black his complications even if 26.Rf5, though the eval clearly is winning. What is the play after, e.g. 26.Rf5 Rb4:

click for larger view

It may be something as simple as <z> monetizing himself?

Aren't all those aliases convertible to bar codes? I think every time you click on a page that has one of the "z codes" he gets a quarter.

<Zanzibar> and all my handles are "censored"(*).

So I get one, or a handful of posts / day on each account, if I'm lucky.

Given I have so much to offer <CG> (in both wanted and unwanted departments), I have to move from one account to another to get a post in.

I'm committed to the political stuff, but when I want to historically contribute I get throttled down as well.

(*) Why should my posts get whacked, but not those on the right, who I think are "gaming" the system with sock-armies?

Anyways, I try to recycle the old handles, but it's a chore. Especially as <CG> lets you compose an entire message and only after posting informs you that you're being throttled.

I apologize(+), but like I said, it's easy enough to scroll over these posts (most of which aren't really offensive). It's a temporary situation, though I intend to stick it out, at least until <CG> is willing to be transparent about the algorithms used.

(+) As few have been targeted, I doubt you can really sympathize - so I ask a small measure of patience.

You appear to think laying hands on original sources for these Kasparov simul games is a relatively straightforward matter. I don't share your optimism. And this is hardly an isolated example. Failing that, I contend it can be reasonable to make a decision based on the play itself. I judge it much more likely that a top junior would resign after 26.Rf5 than 26.Rdg5 because ...Ne7 shouldn't be a move that a player of that class (let alone Kasparov) would overlook.

<Do non-editors even get a hint as to the history of the published games here on <CG>, or what was in deleted pages?>

<beatgiant> yes, you're right of course. The skewer isn't so hard to find. I just like to fatten out the play, apologies.

FWIW - 26.f4 sets up some nice play for White as well, one variation has a nice smothered mate.

<A̶b̶a̶n̶d̶o̶n̶ ̶h̶o̶p̶e̶ ̶a̶l̶l̶ ̶y̶e̶ ̶w̶h̶o̶ ̶e̶n̶t̶e̶r̶.̶>

<The harvest is great, yet the labourers are few.>

As <Missy> pointed out, 26...Ne7 (protecting g8, and then to g6) shuts White right down.

The best play seems to be a 2 vs 1 edge for White, but with both rooks on the board it's a draw.

- Women