< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 11 OF 11 ·
|Apr-07-16|| ||perfidious: Using that standard to denigrate the merits of any player who has got so far as to challenge even once for the title, used in this context, is hopelessly self-serving; for such performances require <any> player to perform well above expectation.|
|Apr-07-16|| ||plang: <Makavelli II: @Plang. "No one would have beaten Kasparov in 1993>|
I meant in a match
|Apr-07-16|| ||perfidious: Not to mention in a serious game, a field in which Kasparov owned yet another <pretty> good player, what with his lifetime mark of +10 =8 in classical play against the English GM.|
|Apr-08-16|| ||Chessinfinite: <but the facts do not bear out your narrative.>|
what did i just show ? Zero tournament wins - not including wins at Open events such as Gibraltar or 'common'wealth. I don't know if we should go back to the 80s to find a tournament win for Short, but that will be some searching to be done.
|Apr-08-16|| ||Lambda: It is actually true that Short's tournament wins before his WC match are more impressive than afterwards:|
Reykjavik, 1987 ahead of Timman, Tal, Korchnoi, Portisch and Ljubojevic
Amsterdam 1991, equal with Salov, ahead of Karpov, Kasparov, Korchnoi and Timman
Wijk aan Zee 1987, ahead of Korchnoi and Ljubojevic
Amsterdam 1988, ahead of Karpov, Timman and Ljubojevic
|Apr-08-16|| ||Retireborn: <Lambda> I'm not sure I agree; Tallin/Parnu 1998 (category 15), British ch 1998 (2700+ performance), Pamplona 1999/2000 (cat 15), Beijing 2000 (cat 16) and Budapest 2003 (cat 17) are surely at least as impressive.|
It's true he didn't get many invitations to super-prestigious tournaments in those years, possibly because Michael Adams had replaced him as the top-rated British player.
Still, I suppose Short's peak achievement was his match victory over Karpov in 1992; something which a formidable array of other Grandmasters could not achieve.
|Apr-08-16|| ||Lambda: <Still, I suppose Short's peak achievement was his match victory over Karpov in 1992; something which a formidable array of other Grandmasters could not achieve.>|
That's certainly true. In other WC-relevant matches against players not called "Kasparov", only Korchnoi twice, Yusupov and Anand were even able to come close to Karpov, while he crushed Polugaevsky, Spassky, Korchnoi once, Sokolov, (Hjartarson match was a bit short,) Timman twice, Gelfand and Kamsky. Short beating him by two clear points really stands out.
|Apr-08-16|| ||MissScarlett: < <Lambda> I'm not sure I agree; Tallin/Parnu 1998 (category 15), British ch 1998 (2700+ performance), Pamplona 1999/2000 (cat 15), Beijing 2000 (cat 16) and Budapest 2003 (cat 17) are surely at least as impressive.>|
Which then top 10 players did he beat in those events?
|Apr-08-16|| ||Retireborn: <MissS> In those tournaments he defeated Gelfand, Lautier, Timman, Judit Polgar, Speelman, Andersson, Sadler, Ehlvest ao.|
Not that I know if any of them were top 10 at the time, but the point is post-93 there were a much larger number of very strong players, not that Short suddenly got weaker.
|Apr-08-16|| ||MissScarlett: <Not that I know if any of them were top 10 at the time, but the point is post-93 there were a much larger number of very strong players, not that Short suddenly got weaker.>|
Which actually argues in favour of the claim that Short was the weakest WC challenger since, well, David Janowski.
|Apr-08-16|| ||perfidious: <Retireborn....Still, I suppose Short's peak achievement was his match victory over Karpov in 1992; something which a formidable array of other Grandmasters could not achieve.>|
This was most impressive, the more so given that, redoubtable as Karpov was at tournament play, he could generally only be defeated in match play by the single player superior to him from the mid 1980s into the 1990s.
|Apr-08-16|| ||Olavi: I'll give exact results of the tournaments I mentioned. He didn't win any of them, but +2 in this Company, finishing a full point ahead of Kasparov in one ty... judge for yourself.|
http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/... http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/... http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/...
|Apr-13-16|| ||Chessinfinite: After the match, Short was involved in pussy bashing most of the time - maybe trying to find he lost morale..|
At one time, he was talking so much about it, that i thought he might challenge the world women champion - But unfortunately for him, Judith Polgar was still around. Maybe he would probably end up with the same fate as in 1993.
|Oct-02-16|| ||thegoodanarchist: <Petrosianic: <Makavelli II: The most one sided match up in the history of the world chess championship. I felt for Short at the time.>
I'm eagerly awaiting the rationale for how this match was more one-sided than Lasker-Janowski III. Or Lasker-Marshall. Or Lasker-Steinitz II. Or arguably, even Lasker-Tarrasch, Carlsen-Anand I, Capablanca-Lasker or Fischer-Spassky.|
I suspect it may be like one of those "All-Time" lists on whatculture.com where "All-Time" means "within the last 20 years".>
AA-Bogo II wasn't very close either:
Alekhine - Bogoljubov World Championship Rematch (1934)
|Apr-13-18|| ||Allanur: Had Nigel Short been sly he could have been champion by deafault.
Just object to FIDE first, after starting preperations for a championship match outside of FIDE jurisdiction come back to FIDE and acknowledge that you are ready to play Kasparov.
Kasparov would have probably not come back to play under FIDE in which case Nigel Short would have been declared a champion. He would have been considred by many to be someone Garry Kasparov feared and did not show up. Of course we are not sure whether Garry Kasparov would reject it but it was a worth trying trick.
In case it worked Nigel Short would have been a champion, he would have at least had on - paper status and thus could have earned more money by sponsors.
But what if Kasparov agreed to play under FIDE? I do not know what to say but no one would have put a gun on Short's head to force him to proceed with the FIDE match, he could have objected to something else and gone back to outside of FIDE match to earn more.|
It would be a gambit which in case succeeds could make Nigel Short a legend.
|Apr-13-18|| ||Check It Out: Nigel Short *is* a proper legend, not the least of which is in his own mind.|
|Apr-13-18|| ||Sally Simpson: Don't know why people knock this match and in particular Nigel Short.|
This match had some of the most exciting and double-edge games ever played in a world title match and, as Retireborn has noted, he did save us all from Kasparov - Karpov 6.
"Short was never to be seen again at top level chess."
Other have mentioned this is not quite true.
He was 28 when he played his world title match and time creeps up on players. Yet even today 25 years after this event he is still in the top 100 as the oldest player there and the only +50 year old.
|Apr-13-18|| ||Retireborn: I always love getting a name check!
Although I don't actually remember saying that, Geoff. The old memory is not what it was. Only the other day....only the other day what?
|Apr-14-18|| ||Sally Simpson: Hi retireborn,
I was looking at this post.
"Short's peak achievement was his match victory over Karpov in 1992; something which a formidable array of other Grandmasters could not achieve."
Which in effect means did he stop Kasparov - Karpov 6.
|Apr-14-18|| ||Retireborn: Thanks, Geoff.|
|Apr-14-18|| ||Howard: The fact that Short "stopped" K-K VI was not necessarily a good thing. Such a match would almost undoubtedly have been more of a fair fight than the one which actually took place.|
Still remember Short-Karpov 1992 rather well, on the other hand. Hard to believe that Karpov was eliminated from the WC cycle for the first time in almost 20 years!
|Oct-11-18|| ||thegoodanarchist: < MissScarlett: <I suspect it may be like one of those "All-Time" lists on whatculture.com where "All-Time" means "within the last 20 years".>|
The delineation of ancient and modern history is marked by the advent of colour TV.>
Soon it will be delineated by the point in history where <Dire Straits> first sang about selling colored TVs.
If it hasn't already.
|Oct-11-18|| ||Petrosianic: There's no fixed definition even at any one time. Like, in baseball, what does the word "modern" mean? It can mean anything you want. It can mean starting 1901 when the AL founded. It can mean the end of the Dead Ball era. It can mean postwar. It can mean after so-and-so retired. It can mean whatever you want to make the statistic you're looking for fit. It can also mean nothing specific at all. It's not like the definition keeps changing. There's no single definition to change.|
|Oct-11-18|| ||thegoodanarchist: I am always surprised when I write something tongue-in-cheek, and receive a serious reply.|
|Oct-11-18|| ||offramp: Tell me about it!|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 11 OF 11 ·