Correction: I meant Nc4, but now I think 35.Nf3 would be better, though after 35...gxf5 36.Bxf5 black is still better. I didnt say my analyisis was better then the game, but merely stated that's what I would play from the position.

yes, I've noticed, my style of play swing's so far towards tactical that I can't spell positional correctly.

However, after your recommended <38. Nc4!?> Black can play 38...Bxc5! when White is a pawn down, has an inferior position and doesn't appear to be much better off than in the game continuation (note that now 39. Nxe5?? would lose immediately to the pin 39...Bd6!). Black's superior Queenside pawn structure and safer King position seem to guarantee Hydra a strong advantage in this position.

All I can counter with is that most GM's - say Garry Kasparov or John Nunn, just to give two examples - feel that if Fritz gives White a large advantage, it is correct. (Although, I must admit, the exact weighting of any advantage is open to some partial debate; expecially in those positions that lack a concrete material advantage ... or a decisive combination such as a forced "mate in X" number of moves.)

Adolf Anderssen vs Staunton, 1851

Also what do people think of in this game 9.Qg4,0-0 10.Nc3,Bd7 11.Qg3 (11.Be3,Bxe3 12.fxe3 is also good) And why didnt Adam's play it? He would have built a strong attack with it.

All I can say is that Adams played the first part of the game pretty convincingly, and built up a fairly solid edge.

Then "Mikey" proceeded to play a whole string of moves ... many were less than best. He ended this process with a blunder, that allowed Black to win on the spot.

Question:
<Given the controversy surrounding the 1997 Kasparov-Deep Blue match, were there any checks put in place to ensure there is no human intervention in the Hydra evaluation or move-selection process during the match?>

Adams: <I wasn’t really concerned about that possibility. In any case it would be impossible for me to tell, because Hydra plays a very different game to any other computer that I ever saw. Even in these six games it actually played differently to anything I saw in its own previous games, so it’s not easy to judge. But no, I don’t have any suspicions about human intervention. That’s not something that concerned me.>

But this concerns the whole chessworld. I am not saying human intervention has happened (I usually do not think about conspiracies) and if Adams said it would be impossible for him to tell, or not easy to judge, this would certainly count for me. But it was not impossible as it was also stated!

There is no doubt that chessprograms are very strong but I was hoping we would have learned from the Kasparov vs Deep Blue match by now that checks in a match, especially one like this, are crucial. Not just for humans but also in the interest of the machine. This match will only have any (present and future) scientifical and sport's value if it was transparent and checked.

Top chessplayers should know their responsibilities. The conditions for a man vs machine match should be clear. There should be independent observers, arbiters and experts present all the way in Abu Dhabi, where the computer was located.

Hydra was a very comercial program. A CNN report before the match said, the goal was to try to sell the computer to a firm for other purposes. Top-chessplayers sometimes seem not wanting to look beyond the board. They figure if no one of the top ten players is involved in the computerteam it must be the computer who beat them. But they tend to forget that the combination of man + machine is lethal. An ordinary grandmaster and an ordinary computer is stronger than a super-grandmaster. In fact the freestyle tournament proved that even an amateur with computer is stronger than any top grandmaster and any super computer! Hydra included. Just a few months before this match.