This deep complex ending was post-mortem discussed by Krush and Regan online. A powerful chess program was written several weeks after the game finished which dealt with this type of ending. The program's public access tablebase is at http://chess.jaet.org (FEN is decipherable by using google search). This has enabled anyone to ascertain this very ending after it is reduced to 6 chessmen on the board, and similar type queen and pawn endings which can be so very complex. Mate in say 50-80 moves is no joking matter to find--therefore Peter Karrer of Switzerland wrote this program (for Crafty, modifying apparently a Sanchez program) on 11-20-1999. This has moved the chess world theoretically forward a great deal and it has enabled the truth of K-World to become known, in part thru the work of Krush and Regan online, and hopefully also here following.

With 52...Kc1 extensive theory has found the following, which has made post-mortem comparison to the game's 52...Kb2 possible.

53. Qe4! Qf1+, 54. Ke7 b4. Here IF 55. Qb4, black must find 55...Qf5 only move, 56. Qc3+ Kb1, 57. Qf6 Qe4+ only move, 58. Kf7 Qc4!+, 59. Kg7 a5 only move and so black can draw. Naturally this is no simple analysis and no simple matter to present clearly to the public within 48 hours--the time between World team moves during the game. Furthermore, white may play the accurate 55. g6!, another branch, then black must choose between 55...d5? and 55...Qg1!. With 55...d5, Karrer's tablebase gives 56. Qb4 & mate with best play in 45 moves. Continuing 55...Qg1! the correct response to 55. g6, then 56. Qf4+ traps black if he misses 56....Kd1! which avoids a later dangerous check; with 56...Kd1!, 57. Kg7 b3=.

To finish what could be called the main line of 52...Kc1, 55. g6! Qg1!, 56. Qc4+ Kd1, 57. Qd3+ Kc1--here white cannot theoretically progress; this was difficult to clearly understand within the 48 hours available during the game.

Then the issue of comparing the rough assessments of 52...Kc1 with that of 52...Kb2 (played during the game) arises. We know that the general public had very little idea of the relative values of 52...Kc1 and 52...Kb2, and that very few if any experts actually did during gametime.

The general public comprising the World team voting at Microsoft games online in the crucial ending phase voted three times against the Krush advice (moves 51, 52, 58), demonstrating thusly little confidence in the endgame leadership of Krush. Why? In the first place the public relations campaign to assert Irina Krush as America's new chess queen--thereby popularizing chess in America thru a popular idol--fell flat, although there was a push at Microsoft game message board for Krush especially during hours surrounding the 54...b4 vote. Secondly, as Etienne Bacrot pointed out during the game, Krush was only the second-ranked adviser for the World team anyway in terms of chess rating. But Bacrot was not grist for Madison Ave's mill. The endgame as played thus managed to become very complex, which motivated Karrer to write a greatly beneficial to chess 6-man-ending program. He apparently had Hayes family sponsorship in order to make his tablebase accessible on the net.

The actual leadership of the World team then was divided between Khalifman (gmchess.com), Bacrot, Krush & Karrer. Rather than the public voting for each World team move, a World team consisting of about 4 players could be selected by the public who would decide all World team moves without the clumsy voting process for each move. This then is the representative democracy model, not a wide-open democratic voting model that Kasparov supposed is the American political system model. Kasparov apparently has not been clear on the nature of representative leadership. Another problem was that the World team communications-analysis was wide open to Kasparov's support team if they chose to peek; this problem is easily avoided by a 4-player World team representing the public & informing/consulting the public at times. However, this experiment as played did lead to the producing of Karrer's program, later made accessible, so credit falls to those worthy of it! Thanks to Karrer for saving the day, making "The greatest chessgame of the 20th century" actually worthwhile! Thanks to the other leaders, to Kasparov, Microsoft and Danny King the moderator for making their own efforts as they saw best.