< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 14 OF 14 · Later Kibitzing> Feb-20-13 Shams : <AgentRgent> <The individual who committed the ballot stuffing did so in order to hand Kasparov the game.> Is there more written about this somewhere? I honestly don't have any recall of it. At first I know the tech team (which certainly didn't include me!) had an eye on potential voting fraud on the world team. But as the game went on, it's possible they got a bit distracted or lazy. Was the fraud only discovered after the fact? Feb-20-13

OhioChessFan : <Shams: So if he peeked under the hood, so to speak, I can sort of see why. > I think that is a close second to taking back a move against Polgar in the Kasparov ugly behavior sweepstakes. He was "curious"? Really, he couldn't wait? Come on. Feb-20-13

Tiggler : Remind anyone of the POGO scandal?

And <OCF> : you get around too. Going to start looking over my shoulder in case any Buckeye fans are after me. Feb-20-13

OhioChessFan : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YvA... Feb-20-13 AgentRgent : <Tiggler: As to the motive: pure speculation.> No, the perpetrator admitted as much. I was present when he did so. <Shams: Is there more written about this somewhere? I honestly don't have any recall of it.> Certainly if you look hard enough. I remember it first hand (as I said, I was present when the individual confessed to it), but I've also seen it documented it online in the past. <At first I know the tech team (which certainly didn't include me!) had an eye on potential voting fraud on the world team. But as the game went on, it's possible they got a bit distracted or lazy. Was the fraud only discovered after the fact?> It was admitted by the culprit immediately after the losing move won the vote, then denied by the MS Tech team, and finally deliberately repeated by another World team member in order to prove it was possible (at which point the Tech team reversed the 2nd fraudulent vote all the while claiming the 1st instance never occurred). Feb-20-13

Tiggler : <OCF> That's real nice! You'r so special you should get parking privileges. Feb-20-13

Tiggler : <AgentRgent> In all that, you omitted to mention that the number of fraudulent votes was so few that they would not have mattered had not 48% of World Team voters concurred. <AgentRgent: <Tiggler: As to the motive: pure speculation.> No, the perpetrator admitted as much. I was present when he did so.> So, in spite of everything, the perpetrator is a reliable witness? Pshawww! Like I said, before: excuses. Feb-20-13 AgentRgent : <Tiggler> A few moments searching the internet and you know more than one of the participants? Strange I didn't know Troll was spelled with 2 Gs.

Good day. Feb-20-13

Tiggler : <AgentRgent> : < A few moments searching the internet and you know more than one of the participants?> How many participants were there? I guess you were also present when Babe Ruth called his famous home run. In fact y'r so special you should ride the special bus. Feb-20-13 AgentRgent : <Shams> Here's a fair rundown of the controversy. http://games.slashdot.org/story/99/... Feb-21-13 Shams : <OCF> <I think that is a close second to taking back a move against Polgar in the Kasparov ugly behavior sweepstakes. He was "curious"? Really, he couldn't wait? Come on.> You know what, you're right. (I don't know about close second though. We'll leave that for an _Informator_ jury.) He absolutely should have waited. Until now I didn't know he had not. I retract my comment; please see my forthcoming post to <AgentRgent> for more. Feb-21-13 AgentRgent : <Shams: please see my forthcoming post to <AgentRgent> for more.> I'm trembling with antici.........pation! ;) Feb-21-13 Shams : <AgentRgent> Halfway there. I didn't know they played RHPS in Indiana! Feb-21-13 Shams : <AgentRgent> My darn browser crashed and I had to redraft this post from scratch. Thanks for the slashdot link. Before I comment on the top post, I want to note this post in the comments by user <XDG> dated 10.18.99: <People seem to be forgetting that Kasparov vs. The World is really just a PR gambit. It promotes the MS gaming site "The Zone" (in MS's interests) and it promotes the game of chess (in GK's interests). It really wasn't set up as some sort of great test of "electronic democracy" -- ensuring the impossibility of cheating wasn't tops in the organizers minds. That notion is a construct of the tech and cyber heads who are making more of this than it was ever intended to be.> This unfortunate truth must be stressed. In hindsight I regret not advocating more forcefully for the hundreds of chessplayers whose time and effort Microsoft had invited them to donate. It was my first summer out of college, and I was wide-eyed at having gained a software testing job at such a hot company. (In 1999, even the contract employment that I had was a plum job in the Seattle area-- particularly for an English major.) I'd like to think that if I had another year under my belt, I would have hit the big red button on the wall and kept hitting it, but who is to say whether I would have, or if it would have done any good. The story as told by slashdot user <Roblimo> in your link strikes me as plausible in its entirety. I can't speak for specific dates and events since I don't remember, but the general picture he paints of an inconsistent and unresponsive team at MSN, capricious, laggardly, and deaf to the legitimate objections of the World team, meshes all too well with my recollection of the atmosphere at MSN at the time. Microsoft was all about promotion. They had a mortal lock on the hottest industry in the world, in 1999. Piss off a few customers? They were about as worried as AT&T might have been in their heyday if you called to complain. What were you gonna do, get another telephone service? Well, at this late date it's not news to anyone that Redmond was swallowed by corporate arrogance... By that time we had gone past move 50, more than 100 days into the event, the Project Manager ("The spokesman named 'Ben'" in the slashdot piece) and the other project heads had long since moved on to other projects. Kasparov had already done his meet-and-greet, the revenues and expenditures had been booked many weeks previous, and everyone's focus had moved on. In a way though it's hard to blame my co-workers-- don't forget the disastrous 'stack-ranking' structure Microsoft had set up, which demanded managers and non-manangers alike act in their own short-term self-interest if they desired promotion: http://www.forbes.com/sites/frederi... My feeling in hindsight is that Microsoft is the corporate version of what Molly Ivins said about George Bush: they were born on third base and thought they hit a triple. Neither technically nor as a corporation did they ever show much forward thinking, to my knowledge. (Hiring <frogbert> may be regarded as a good sign though.) They just happened to gain ownership of an vital piece of technology at the perfect moment in history. A lot of smart people worked there, and it's great that so many new millionaires were minted in Puget Sound since that keeps the opera funded and Seahawks stadium filled, but I get why they are regarded as a negative example. Don't forget, in 1999 Microsoft's official position was still that the internet was a passing fad (!). That should tell you a lot right there. <AgentRgent> , you're a good player and I've followed your games on gameknot with admiration. I can see you put a lot of work into KvW and I don't blame you for being cheesed off about how things worked out. At least these GM-vs-World contests are more tightly organized now. It would make me happy if you, the other dedicated team members and IM Krush retrospectively claimed the moral half-point in this historical game that it sounds like you rightly earned. Cheers. Feb-21-13 AgentRgent : <Shams: <AgentRgent> Halfway there. I didn't know they played RHPS in Indiana!> Once a year around here now, but long ago in my misspent youth it was once a month! ;) Your version of life at Microsoft meshes well my my experience with them from my time in the software industry (albeit out in the vast hinterlands far from the Redmond "core"). Certainly the event was intended as merely a publicity stunt (i.e. the recent Carlsen vs the World), but it should have become readily apparent to all involved that it quickly grew beyond the original scope. Had MS opened their eyes to the opportunity that event presented them things could have been very different, not just for that event, but for Chess itself. Hindesight being 50/50 (;D a personal joke) and all that, it is what it is. I have spoken to Irina about the event and she certainly seems to have made peace with the situation, and with considerably more grace than I have managed on her behalf I must add. ;) Feb-21-13 Ulhumbrus : One reason why 9 f3 is more exact than 9 0-0 is that then on 9...Nc6 White can respond with 10 Be3 without allowing 10...Ng4 whereas on 9 0-0 Nc6 10 Be3 Ng4 is possible. Whereas after 9 0-0 Nc6 10 Nde2 Black has the option of the fork 10...Qe6 after 9 f3 Nc6 10 Be3 Black does not have this option. However this suggests the question of why then Naiditsch chooses the move 9 0-0. One possible reason is that on 9 f3 Nc6 10 Be3 Black can play 10...e6 and so prepare to smash up White's Maroczy bind by the advance ...d5, preceded or not by the move ...Ne5 Feb-21-13 Everett : What is with protecting the perpetrators name? Have out with it already. And if the fraudulent votes were not done by Kasparov, and he did not condone them, then be did not cheat. Sounds like sabotage which was not his fault. Feb-22-13 AgentRgent : <Everett: What is with protecting the perpetrators name? Have out with it already.> I don't know that his real identity has ever been determined. <And if the fraudulent votes were not done by Kasparov, and he did not condone them, then be did not cheat. Sounds like sabotage which was not his fault.> In regards to the ballot stuffing, cheating occurred, but no one claimed that Kasparov was the one who cheated. Reading the World's strategy page may or may not have been "cheating" in a literal sense. I personally don't consider that cheating on Garry's behalf, only a bit unsportsmanlike. Feb-22-13 Everett : Sorry, I didn't understand completely. It is this post.. <AgentRgent: <Tiggler: As to the motive: pure speculation.> No, the perpetrator admitted as much. I was present when he did so.> that threw me off. Feb-22-13 AgentRgent : <Everett: Sorry, I didn't understand completely.> No worries. Yes I was present when "Jose Unodos" made his admission, but I do not know his real identity. Feb-26-13 chessworm : Why isn't 11.. ♕xe4 considered as an exchange sacrifice from Black? Mar-07-13 Ulhumbrus : <chessworm: Why isn't 11.. xe4 considered as an exchange sacrifice from Black?> In return for for the exchange Black gains two pawns, which is more than enough Dec-05-13

Richard Taylor : I prepared this line as Black to play against a strong player (FM Master, who I knew plays this) but when it came to the game I chickened out! As it was I tried to avoid swapping queens to avoid an endgame but my time moving my Q around lost time and I eventually lost. Dec-05-13

Richard Taylor : Despite everything the original game was quite fascinating (in Stohl's book as I have it). Mar-12-17 mpsweber : <AgentRgent: Voting more often than once per account was specifically against the rules, thus "cheating" is completely appropriate.> <AgentRgent: The individual who committed the ballot stuffing did so in order to hand Kasparov the game.> Neither statement is true. There was no rule at the time of move 51 that prohibited anyone from voting more than once. MSN "merely" said after the fact that it could not be done (which also was not a true statement). Moreover, and most important for this discussion, "Jose Unodos" voted for b5 because I thought it was the best move. Jump to page # (enter # from 1 to 14)

search thread:

< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 14 OF 14 · Later Kibitzing>