If is black move .... with Ah2+ begin a stupid game I
believed was played between Kasparov - Deep Junior
Stupid because seems a comp game and I never understand why Kasparov come in this variant playing as a comp .....

Was it a comparable mistake like Kasparov played in his last game against Deep Blue? Playing with black he allowed the position of a wellknown Caro Kann line, where white could successfully sac a knight on e6.What is your opinion GM Svidler?

f2-f4

Well, maybe you can call such behaviour stupid. I remember another computer game of Kasparov, where he sacrificed something. He lost, because the computer defended flawlessly (as computers always do).
Trying to compete with computers on the one sector, where they are *really* strong (tactics), may appear like fighting windmills. But, just like Don Quichote, this has something heroical at the same time. I am no Kasparov fan, but I always admired him for trying the near impossible. Nobody except Kasparov dared to do this - and nobody except him would have had a chance to survive. Winning with the usual anti-computer strategies is much more effective, but so boring.
For me, Kasparov is probably the last hero that tried to win a tactical battle against a computer. And he nearly succeeded.

je pense cette position ne peut pas exister car je vois elle est imaginee pour moi playchess c est ameliorer le niveu des gens
pour ameliorer le niveu il faut fauire des positions reales jouer par le champion du monde que son niveu pour moi et moyen car il est loin d etre un artiste comme alekhine et ficher appel moi je suis future alekhine 0021370354815

Kasparov - Deep Junior New York 05.02.2003
1.d4 Sf6 2.c4 e6 3.Sc3 Lb4 4.e3 0-0 5.Ld3 d5 6.cd: ed: 7. Sge2 Te8 8.0-0 Ld6 9.a3 (better is 9.Ld2 ) c6 !? NOVELTY
Well known is here 9. ..h5 and 9. ..Sg4 played by Eric Lobron in 1995
10.Dc2 now we have the diagram position (10.f3 !? to avoid the ugly draw was played in Sukhareva-Chernova Kazan women 2003 but with bad sucess 10...Lc7 11.e4 Lb6 12.Lg5 de4: 13.Le4:+- 1-0, 27)10... Lh2:+ this leads nearly forced to a draw, the game is dead now, it was a strategic mistake by Kasparow to allow the comp to escape into that draw. 11.Kh2: Sg4 + 12.Kg3 (12.Kg1? Dh4 13.Td1 Dh2 14.Kf1 Dh1 15. Sg1 Sh2 16.Ke2 Lg4 17.Kd2 Ld1: 18.Dd1: Dg2: +-) 12. ..Dg5 13.f4 Dh5 14.Ld2 Dh2: 15.Kf3 Dh4 16.Lh7:+ (16.Sg3 Gulko Sh2+ 17.Kf2 Sg4 18.Kf3 = 16.g3!? Gulko Sh2+ 17.Kf2 18.Ke1 +- Gulko I don`t like this for Black at all)16. ..Kh8 17.Sg3 Sh2+ 18.Kf2
Sg4+ 19.Kf3 Sh2+ 1/2

WHITE CASTLED WITHOUT PREVENTION OF THE BISHOP ATTACK AT h2.
THE ACTION OF PREVENTING IS FOR A MASTER AS BUILDING A BASE UPON THE ROCK FOR A BUILDER. IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW BORING IT LOOKS: TACTICS IS ONLY THE WAY, DETERMINED BY A VERY GOOD STRATEGICAL PLAN.

Fake or real? Have a look at the E-Mail adress of Astrolopitecus ! Is it GM P.Svidler?

Of course this is not GM Svidler ! He would never post something like this ! Look at his minor brilliant english !

Sorry, it´s a poor reply. I saw and I heard him in Stutttgart in 2004, and his english wasn´t perfect.As I know he comes from Russia ... .
The point of his comment is the observation that Kasparov ( in this game against a comp) played like a comp by himself.This judgement requires a deeper understanding of that what happened on the board.