This discussion has been going on for 9 years. It started in 1999.
However, discussion about these particular games has been going on
ever since the day they were played in 1948. You will find this
controversy mentioned in issues of Chess Review back then.
I have always assumed that since you keep invoking the name of John
Nunn, that there was an article by Nunn published somewhere disputing
the analysis by Grandmaster Evans.
Now, I find out that you cite Nunn for just a generalized statement
that even grandmasters sometimes make terrible blunders. This is
something everybody already knew.
Back when they were played, I studied the games of the Anand-Kasparov
Match and I can assure you than in none of those games was an
elementary rook and two pawns against rook and one pawn position ever
reached. Thus, it is not possible that Anand ever blundered in such an
elementary position.
A few months ago, the World Chess Champion blundered into a mate in
one. That was a bad blunder, but the position was complex and unusual.
Will you claim that it was a worse blunder because it caused the game
to end quicker? What does it mean when Nunn says that other
grandmasters have made "worse blunders"? What makes one blunder worse
than another?
Sam Sloan
