|Jun-05-04|| ||acirce: Weak play by Short. |
|Jun-05-04|| ||seoulmama: <acirce> you must understand that Nigel was short of chances in this game :-) |
|Jun-05-04|| ||acirce: hee hee ;) |
|Oct-25-04|| ||Apocalypse79: What will happen if 23... exd5 ?? |
|Oct-25-04|| ||Cyphelium: <Apocalypse79> 23.- exd5 24. Nxf6+ Bxf6 25. Rxe8+ Qxe8 26. Qxf6 and black has to give the queen. |
|Jun-03-05|| ||aw1988: A good move(!)
Shut up already!
|Oct-17-05|| ||Poisonpawns: First 18 moves are Theory!! and Nigel loses in 26 moves so much for being prepared this is gm 5 of the match/beating Kamsky put on this guy.Which is worse than the one Kasparov gave him a year earlier.It is hard to believe Nigel was playing for a World Title or even in contention for that matter looking at these games.23.d5!! is an awsome move but 23..Nxe4?? is one of the worse blunders you will see in chess losing the queen and mate is threatened after the simple 24.dxe6.|
|Nov-12-05|| ||chessnewbie: what about 23....Nxd5? or 23..Bxd5?|
|Nov-13-05|| ||suenteus po 147: <chessnewbie> If 23...Nxd5, then 24.Ng5! I'm not sure about 23...Bxd5, but the idea is that black's position is too precarious, and taking the pawn allows white to strike at already existing weaknesses.|
|Jan-22-06|| ||something1234: hey seoulmama i have a funny one for kasparov games say that gary was kasparov of chances in this game thats a rib tickeler|
|Oct-10-06|| ||Marmot PFL: Perhaps this was the game that Short had to lose or else be killed by Mr. Kamsky's father.|
|Oct-24-06|| ||notyetagm: <Marmot PFL: Perhaps this was the game that Short had to lose or else be killed by Mr. Kamsky's father.>|
Rustam Kamsky to Short: "If you keep breaking the rules, I will kill you!"
And everyone thinks Danailov was bad.
|Jul-25-07|| ||piroflip: Nigel described Rustam Kamsky as a "thug"|
|Jan-16-08|| ||UdayanOwen: What a beautiful game, a model for white isolated d-pawn strategy.|
The question has been posed about what would happen if 23...Bxd5 or Nxd5. There is actually an embarrassment of tactical riches for white in this position and both moves fail rather dramatically:
23...Bxd5 24.Nxf6 Bxf6 25.Bxd5, when the piece can't be recaptured (25...exd5 26.Rxe8+ Qxe8 27.Qxf6, when immediate mate on g7 can't be avoided without catastrophic material loss, eg., 27...Qe5 28.Qxe5 f6 ). An alternative win in this line after 25...exd5 is the more spectacular 25.Qxf6!, since if 25...Rxe1+ 26.Rxe1 Qxf6 27.Re8#).
So 23...Bxd5 leads to a forced loss, what about 23...Nxd5? The correct move is 24.Bxd5, and now there are two options for recapture:
24...exd5 25.Nf6+ Bxf6 26.Rxe8 (or 26.Qxf6! wins again) Qxe8 27.Qxf6 ; if after 25.Nf6+, black tries 25...Kh8, then 26.Nxe8 wins a whole rook, since if 26...Qxe8 white has 27.Qf6+! Bxf6 28.Rxe8#.
After 23.Nxd5 24.Bxd5, the other recapture is 24...Bxd5, but now white has the pretty 25.Rxd5!
If 25...Qxd5, now 26.Nf6+ Bxf6 (or else lose the queen) 27.Qxf6 with the winning mate threat on g7. White also has 27.Qxd5, when the queen can't be recaptured because of back rank mate.
In the line 23.Nxd5 24.Bxd5 Bxd5 25.Rxd5!, if black tries 25...exd5 then white plays 26.Nf6+, when 26...Bxf6 loses to the familiar idea of 27.Rxe8 Qxe8 28.Qxf6 (but this time not 27.Qxf6?? Rxe1+ 28.Kh2 Qxf6 ).
In the previous line after 26.Nf6, if black instead tries 26...Kh8, then simply 27.Nxe8 when the knight is again immune (27...Qxe8 28.Qf6+! Bxf6 29.Rxe8#). Hence, white is a piece ahead, and furthermore, black can't stop both threats 28.Nxc7 and 28.Qxf7. Game over.
|Jan-16-08|| ||UdayanOwen: <Poisonpawns: 23..Nxe4?? is one of the worse blunders you will see in chess losing the queen and mate is threatened after the simple 24.dxe6.>|
Yes this move loses a queen and pawn for rook and knight, with a bad position to boot, but it is not a blunder, since everything else is worse!!
All captures on d5 fail miserably, and if black doesn't play 23...Nxe4, he will get severely smashed after 24.dxe6 with the threat of exf7+. The line 23...Nxe4 allows 24.dxe6 to be met with 24...f5, which reduces the dynamic potential of the white attack and cuts the losses... but of course Short quickly admits its totally lost anyway.
|Jun-14-08|| ||hedgeh0g: It's unbelievable that Kamsky was able to get away with winning the match after his thug of a father's campaign of violence and intimidation against his opponent. I'd have thought behaviour like that would merit disqualification for the offending party.|
|Aug-27-10|| ||picard: Poor Nigel... playing Nxe4 in such an important game. i would have gone home and cried|
|Aug-27-10|| ||FISCHERboy: What if he didn't play 21... N7f6 ??? Could that have turned the table?|
|Oct-16-11|| ||Jambow: Ealier long since past controversies aside this is another Kamsky gem and as usual with his brilliantcies they involve strong coordination with his Bishops.|
|May-14-13|| ||Capabal: <hedgeh0g: It's unbelievable that Kamsky was able to get away with winning the match after his thug of a father's campaign of violence and intimidation against his opponent. I'd have thought behaviour like that would merit disqualification for the offending party.>|
Big exaggeration. Of course Rustam Kamsky is not a nice character, but in this match Short was totally anihilated at the board by Gata Kamsky, not because of any confrontation with Gata's father. Gata had already won the first three games when he got a bad cold and could not help coughing during the next game. The coughing annoyed Short, who told him to drink some water – apparently against the rules. This led Gata’s father to accost Short later in a bad manner, but it’s not the reason Short lost the match.
http://www.chessninja.com/dailydirt... <As everyone keeps posting about, Gata Kamsky and Nigel Short had a chat spat during the Playchess commentary today. Nigel was looking to settle a score from 1994, when they played a PCA candidates match full of enough insult and acrimony to make Topalov-Kramnik look like a Buddhist ceremony. I dug up the contemporaneous reports on the match to refresh my memory. There are certainly some similiarities between Elista and that match in Linares (Danailov and Kamsky count bathroom visits; Short counted Kamsky coughs), but I'd like to think Topalov has more control over Danailov than Kamsky had over his choleric father. And apparently match officials have gotten dumber over the years.
I didn't know Kamsky then, although I met him and his father briefly later in 1994 in Buenos Aires. He's been such a charmer since returning to the scene a few years ago that digging up all these things from what was practically a former life isn't really fair. Not that Short should sympathize similarly, of course, but if 1994 reflected poorly on the Kamskys, today's online aggression reflects poorly on Short in 2006. He rebuffed Gata's attempts to deflect the accusations amicably until eventually things got out of hand. That's a pretty old axe to grind. Aren't we supposed to get older and wiser instead of just older? I suppose Gata could have apologized for his father threatening Short's life in the dining room after game 4. On the other hand, if Gata took the time to apologize to everyone his dad offended back then his own child would grow up fatherless.
A mercifully brief recap of the 1994 match: After winning the first three games Kamsky caught a cold and was sniffling and hacking at the board. An annoyed Short suggested - during the game, a violation of PCA rules - that Kamsky drink some water. Kamsky lost the game. An engraged Rustam Kamsky accosted Short in the restaurant after game 4 and said "If you keep breaking the rules I will kill you!" (Now that's a provocation, Danailov you piker.) Short even filed a police report, though no charges were filed. Kamsky went on to win the next two and then draw to win the match 5.5-1.5. There were various protests from the Kamsky side during the match, including, I believe, about trips to the bathroom (!) and making eye contact with another player (Anand) during the games. I'm not sure if any of these protests came before the game 4 incident.>