'One Move In, One Move Out'

Is it safe to come out now? Although last month's Cheating Mania (September 2022; aka Carlsen/Nakamura vs. Niemann), seems to be calming down, it's important to remember that there are two aspects to 'Fair Play':-

1) Thou shall not cheat. • 2) Thou shall not accuse the winner of cheating unless thou hast proof.

Accusing your opponent of cheating without having proof opens you to accusations of being a 'sore loser'. One of the best known sore loser sagas happened 25 years ago. I've covered the details in several posts, of which the most important were:-

• 2018-12-31: Kasparov's 1997 Team • '[Previously] I mentioned the official programs for the 1996 and 1997 matches that Garry Kasparov played with IBM's Deep Blue. The two programs include many details about the matches collected into a single place.'
• 2022-06-21: June 1972 & 1997 'On the Cover' • 'Deeper Blue beats Kasparov'
• 2022-05-16: 25 Years Ago in Chess History • 'Kasparov started accusations that the match was not all that it appeared to be. [...] I wrote a couple of articles exploring Kasparov's suspicions. Here they are on Archive.org [with links]'

Two years after the loss to Deep Blue, Kasparov was still complaining to people who had insufficient knowledge to differentiate fact from fiction. One example was recorded on video for posterity in Garry Kasparov -- Charlie Rose (charlierose.com):-

18 June 1999 • Chess grandmaster Garry Kasparov recounts his discouraging loss to an IBM computer [...]

Kasparov was a frequent guest on the Charlie Rose show; see 'Other appearances' for more videos. For the June 1999 appearance, I excerpted the portion of the Deep Blue interview from the page's 'See Transcript':-

06:11 CR: Right. Chess.
06:14 GK: Yes?
06:15 CR: Have you recovered from this loss to --
06:17 GK: Yes.
06:18 CR: -- the computer?
06:19 GK: Yes. It was tough. I had to go through a very difficult period, and --
06:24 CR: What does that mean? What was difficult?
06:26 GK: It was difficult because I lost, and also, you know, I wanted to have some explanations from IBM, just to have more information about the computer. And unfortunately, IBM denied all the requests to release print-outs and to cooperate with me and many other scientists that wanted to see how, really, Big Blue played. And then the machine was dismantled. IBM refused to play A rematch. All these events, they were very tough for me to swallow. And that's why my results deteriorated for a while. Yeah. And you know, nearly for a year, I couldn't play with my normal strength. But you know, at the end of the year, I recovered, and in 1999, I play probably my best chess. You know, I'm ranked number one, and the gap between me and number two now is the largest in my life.
07:11 CR: If you -- you know what's coming.
07:14 GK: Yes.
07:17 CR: If you played Deep Blue again, would you beat the computer?
07:22 GK: IBM dismantled the computer. I think --
07:24 CR: I know.
07:26 GK: I think they guessed the result.
07:27 CR: Is that's right?
07:29 GK: I would play computer, whether it's Deep Blue or any other computer, if the machine is properly supervised. If machine is properly supervised, I guarantee I will beat any computer today.
07:36 CR: What does "properly supervised" mean and -- and --
07:40 GK: Easy. One move goes in, one move goes out. There's a 100 percent guarantee that machine is not assisted by anything or anyone.
07:47 CR: So you think this was a stacked deck.
07:50 GK: I'm not -- it's my word against their word. Now, first of all, you have to study print-outs. You have to find out how the decision-making process worked. But just if not going far to the past, you look for the future, any match should have proper supervision. I'm sitting here across -- you know, across the table, and the referee's watching my movements. I cannot go back to my coaches to talk to them, to use a computer.
08:13 CR: Right.
08:15 GK: So the machine should be properly supervised, and if it's IBM, there should be panel of independent specialists from Microsoft, from Intel, from Oracle watching the decision-making process. It should be guaranteed that there was no interference.
08:27 CR: And why do you think they wouldn't do that?
08:29 GK: They already answered. They dismantled the machine. As I said, they killed the only impartial witness. And also, they refused even to consider a rematch. And for two years, despite their public promise, they never released print-outs because without print-outs, no one could analyze what actually happened in the game.
08:48 CR: Right. The irony of all this is you used computers to study --
08:52 GK: Yes.
08:53 CR: -- the games of rival. You've probably used them more than any other modern champion.
08:56 GK: Anyone could go to the shop to buy the computer and to use it. So it's impossible to imagine the preparation for the chess tournament now without the computer because you have to look at a new idea. You have to analyze it, and then it's -- you have to avoid blunders. You have to avoid mistakes. And the most effective preparation is for a person who is created, has a great idea, and then you guide the computer, and you can go very, very far because the mixture of man plus computer -- it's a killing one. It's the best combination. In theory, if I'm assisted by the computer, you know, a portable P.C. next to me, I don't think there's any chance for ultra-powerful machine, a future Deep Blue, to win the game.

Fast forward to 20 years after the match: Chess master Garry Kasparov still 'a sore loser' two decades after Deep Blue (smh.com.au; Sydney Morning Herald; June 2017).

SMH: 'Garry Kasparov, left, gives up in defeat against IBM's chess playing computer, Deep Blue, at the conclusion of the sixth game of their rematch in May 1997.'

Kasparov looks dazed and confused. Could the same be said of Carlsen after his game against Niemann?