Kasparov versus the World — computer analysis

Chessgames.com game link

Updated 2026-05-09 — Stockfish at very deep ply

Fresh analysis with Stockfish in 2026.

The three decisive moments, with diagrams

Analyst scorecard at the decisive moments

The four expert analysts who advised the World Team in 1999 — Irina Krush, Elisabeth Paehtz, Florin Felecan and Etienne Bacrot — each posted a recommendation per move. Krush was the principal expert advisor; the World Team usually but not always voted in her recommendation (early-game exceptions: moves 3 and 6). Cross-referencing those recommendations against the 2026 Stockfish verdict, the picture is striking.

Green = drawing or winning; red = losing; shaded cell = the move the World Team played. Move 16 is included because it is the only position where any analyst found a move strictly better than the played one. Endgame moves 51–53 are after the game became theoretically lost (Krush's recommendations there are in a position where 51… b5 had already let White win); the colours show whether the recommendation itself was a tablebase draw or loss in isolation.

Tally per analyst (across the seventeen rows above):

• Krush: drawing at 6 (g6, not voted in), 7, 10, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 25, 26, 32, 36, 51, 53; losing at 37 and 54. The two times Krush picked a losing move are exactly the two times White had immediate winning options.
• Paehtz: drawing at 7, 10, 15, 18, 21, 26, 51, 52, 54; near-equal at 6 (Ne5, +0.49); uniquely better than the played move at 16 (Ra5, −0.15) and uniquely correct at 37 (e5); losing at 19, 25, 32, 36, 53.
• Felecan: drawing at 6, 7, 10, 15, 18, 25, 26, 32, 52, 53, 54; near-equal at 16 (Nd4, +0.27); losing at 19, 21, 36, 37, 51.
• Bacrot: drawing at 6, 10, 15, 16, 18, 19 (uniquely Qd4), 21, 25, 26, 54; near-equal at 7 (Ne5, +0.26); losing at 36, 37, 52. Absent at 30–33 (winning the French Championship at Besançon) and at 51 / 53 (Beliavsky match in Albert).

Two structural observations:

• At the two losing moments — 37… e6?? and 54… b4?? — Krush picked the losing move. Paehtz uniquely found the only drawing move at move 37 (e5); at move 54 the other three analysts (Paehtz, Felecan, Bacrot) all found drawing moves.
• At the precarious move-36 turning point, the order reversed: only Krush's Kd5 holds; Paehtz's Nb4 and Felecan/Bacrot's b2 all lose by force.

The single non-decisive moment where the World Team had a strictly better choice than what was played — 16… Ra5 at −0.15 — was also Paehtz's recommendation.

The two near-equal positions worth a diagram

Other candidate moves — sorted by move number

Sorted by move number, with the played move marked. The leftmost column is the centipawn evaluation; depth in plies and wall-clock time per group are noted at the end of each line where given.

Move 6 (Black): analyst picks

Krush's g6 and the played Nf6 transpose into the same position after 8. Nxd4 Nf6 9. f3 (Krush's pick is essentially identical at +0.19 vs +0.20). Paehtz's Ne5 trades off Black's c6-knight, doubles White's f-pawns, but gives White a near-half-pawn pull from the broken pawn structure.

Move 7 (Black): analyst picks

The played 7… g6 (recommended by three of the four) equalises; Bacrot's 7… Ne5 leaves White a quarter-pawn pull but still drawn. Note the move-7 PV foreshadows the actual game continuation up to move 12.

Move 10 (Black): three equal alternatives

Move 18 (Black): five equal alternatives

Krush rejected 18… Bd4, e6, and Nd4 in detail in her 1999 commentary. At depth 60 all five alternatives hold; her tactical refutations were depth artefacts.

Move 19 (White): all five tried moves are equal

The 2010 Rybka finding that 19. Bd2 was significantly better (+0.56) does not hold at this depth.

Move 19 (Black): four candidates — Nd4 loses

Move 21 (White): all five tries equal

Move 21 (Black): Felecan's Rh8 loses

Older engine runs preferred 21… f4 over Rxa4; at this depth both are equal.

Move 25 (Black): Paehtz's d5 loses

Move 32 (Black): Paehtz's f3 loses

Bacrot was at the French Championships and didn't post commentary at move 32.

Move 34 (Black): both bishop moves draw

Bacrot did not post commentary at move 34 (he was competing at the French National Championships).

Move 35 (Black): three drawing moves

Move 36 (Black): the precarious turning point

The played 36… Kd5 and the long-recommended 36… Bc3 are only at depth 34 here. Earlier 6-piece tablebase analysis (2017) showed both lead to a draw provided Black follows up with the unique 37… e5.

Moves 51–53 (Black): Q+P vs Q+P endgame — analyst splits resolved by tablebase

From move 49 (Black's d-pawn promotes) the position is in 7-piece tablebase territory and every claim can be checked deterministically. Three of the analyst recommendations in this stretch are confirmed losing.

Move 51 (Black)

Move 52 (Black)

Move 53 (Black)

Across the three moves, each of Felecan, Bacrot, and Paehtz has one losing recommendation, all decisive in tablebase. Bacrot returned to commentary after his French Championship win on 27 August.

Verdict

The game was decided on three moves: Black's 37… e6?? (the only losing move from the analyst suggestions), White's 38. h6?? (missing the only winning move 38. Rd1), and Black's 54… b4?? (with 54… Qd3 or 54… Qd5 drawing). Every other Stockfish-evaluated move on the critical list returns +0.00, with the single exception of Elisabeth Paehtz's 16… Ra5 at −0.15.