Why didn't we place Kasparov in check?

In the game of Kasparov VS. The World Team,

http://www.zone.com/kasparov/todaysmove10-22.html

we resigned on move 62 when we could have moved our queen to c6 and placed Kasparov in check, preventing his pawn from reaching the bottom.

I have run this scenario on an advanced chess program and when I ran simulation play on expert mode the game resulted in stalemate.

Why did The World Team forfeit the game here?

Doc Moss: Here’s Kasparov’s unannotated analysis after Black resigns. Check it out. (Sorry.) He claims mate in 25.

We could have chased him around the board for a while, but not indefinitely, and that pawn would eventually have promoted and killed us. To be sure, there were places earlier in the game where we could have taken control, but by that time, barring any extraordinary mistakes on his part (he once said that the winner of a game of chess is the player who makes the second-to-last mistake), it was hopeless.

Actually, it was not Kasparov who said that ("the winner is he who makes the next to last mistake). That’s an old statement and I don’t recall who first said it. One of the early 20th century gms.

According to a number of sites:

“Victory goes to the player who makes the next-to-last mistake.” - Chess Master Savielly Grigorievitch Tartakower (1887 - 1956)

“The winner of a game of chess is the one that makes the next-to-last mistake.” - Jose Raoul Capablanca (World Chess Champion and contemporary of Tartakower’s)

I read that the world lost the game when they voted for a blunder on an earlier move, while one of the advisory panel members couldn’t get her move and analysis, which could have possibly won the game for the world, posted online.