At the time I was involved in the Computer Chess Team and wrote the post-game summary for slashdot.org. I still like to analyse the game with the latest version

At the time I was involved in the Computer Chess Team and wrote the post-game summary for slashdot.org. I still like to analyse the game with the latest versions of Stockfish when they come out, with whatever EC2 hardware I can get hold of. The problem with the Wikipedia article is the subjectivity of how the "?" and "!" annotations on the moves are handed out - sometimes they are quite wrong. The clearest example in the article is the fact that 37... e6 loses and thus it deserves a double question mark, because 37... e5 draws. Anybody who downloads Stockfish and the six piece table bases can see that very quickly in 2018, but I suppose Wikipedia requires an "authoritative" published source on that before it can go into the article. Similarly on the next move, 38. Rd1 wins, whereas Kasparov's 38. h6 only draws. So that also deserves at least a question mark. (perhaps Chessbase should do an article on it) Other dubious annotations are 18... f5 when 18... Bd4 is a clear draw (also in the Kasparov and King book) and perhaps 26... f4 when 26... Bc5 was better (in "Reinventing Discovery" the author writes about this move choice quite a bit).