If I am looking for dirt on some event, I don't look for it in the ICB,

The incident could have been portrayed honestly, without recourse to
slamming or criticizing Kasparov. It was fraught with discussion points: was
Garry right to abort the game? What prompted him to do so? Did he see
ability that he KNEW was over a 2000 rating (apparently the opponent's
rating was not visible). Gary made a generous offer to restart from the
beginning, against the same player--this time he planned to play a more
normal line. Should Black have accepted the restart? (He didn't---I sure
would have!) What was the theoretical Garry was using, and why might it have
been dangerous for him against an Expert-level player? And many readers
might not be so informed as to the delicate nature of simul rules,
especially those concerning ratings limits...this too could have been
charted, in a sidebar. Were special exceptions made at this one, or is 2000
the normal limit for a GM simul?

All of this potentially interesting content, surrounding the very rare
Chicago appearance of the greatest player in the game, was ignored. And the
article was not that interesting, especially the huge amount of text
dedicated to pushing the sponsors. Yes, they deserve some, but not 2/3 of
the feature.

TMB