|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
| Mar-14-05 |
| Minor Piece Activity: Kaspy was beginning to reach his peak by 1993. In this match, Short lost 5-1 even though he just destroyed both Karpov(!) and Timman with +2 scores in the candidate matches. There is a common suggestion that Short was psychologically unable to believe he could beat Kasparov, but it sounds dubious. Before this match, Short had already beaten him at least 5 times. Kaspy had won even more games, but it showed that he was not invincible. If after winning five games, Short still couldn't believe he could beat Kaspy, maybe it's because he was being objectively right, he just wasn't strong enough. Going into the match, their score stood at around 16-5 (without draws) which is a ratio of about 4:1 wins. There wasn't a reason to believe that Short stood a good chance of winning. Just my two cents. =) |
 |
| Mar-14-05 |
| alexandrovm: I agree with you <Minor> |
|
Mar-15-05
 |
| euripides: Only one of the previous wins was at a 'classical' time control. My impression from Lawson's book was that beating Kasparov was a pretty momentous thing for Short. The strange thing about the match was that Short's attacking play with White was some of the best of his career, but he couldn't put the guy away - but then, as Kasparov said, the world champion is more slippery than other players. With Black, his play was much less good and Kasparov didn't have to produce anything exceptional to win enough games. |
|
| Mar-15-05 |
| WMD: <Before this match, Short had already beaten him at least 5 times.> Four serious games, I think. 3 of those rapidplay. |
|
| Mar-15-05 |
| WMD: <Kaspy offered Short a draw when he had 15 minutes left on the clock and Short had only 10.> Actually, it was more like 15 and 10 seconds each. On move 38. |
|
| Mar-16-05 |
| Minor Piece Activity: <WMD> There were two draws offered, the first was at around 15 (Kaspy) and 10 (Short) minutes. The second is the one you describe. <Four serious games, I think.>
Are you sure? Can you point these out? I was going by the db, which unfortunately doesn't always distinguish between classical games and rapid games. Thanks for the correction. |
|
Mar-16-05
|
| euripides: Twe of the earlier wins were in a televised 6-game match of games at 25 minutes each side, played in 1986 or 1987. |
|
| Mar-16-05 |
| WMD: <<WMD> There were two draws offered, the first was at around 15 (Kaspy) and 10 (Short) minutes. The second is the one you describe.> Sorry, I didn't read closely enough. But on the subject of this first draw offer, can you provide me with a source? It's news to me, and I can't conceive why, from the course of the game, Short would have turned it down. |
|
| Mar-16-05 |
| WMD: <The position was about equal until Kaspy blundered with 36. Bxg7 but Short ran out of time right after.> There was some initial enthusiasm about Short's winning chances in the final position, but analysis demonstrated the draw without much trouble. The true story of this game is that Kasparov had all the real winning chances, but squandered them in time pressure. After the game Kasparov claimed he was winning in the line 33.hxg4 (instead of 33.Bf6) Qxa5 34.Bf6 Qa1+ 35.Kg2 d3 36.Qf3 dxc2 37.Bxa1 c1=Q 38.Qf6 Qh6 39.Re1 Bg7 40.Qxd6 Bxa1 41.Qxa6 Rf8 42.Qxa1 Qf4 43.Qd1. Short's 34....Ra8 was a mistake which should have lost to 35.Qh4 or Rf4, eg. 35.Qh4 Bg7 36.Rf4 Qb8 37.Bxg7 winning because 37...Kxg7 leads to mate after 38.Qf6+. Kasparov gave 35.Qg5 Bg7 36.Rh4 Qd7 37.Bxg7 Kxg7 38.Qh6+ Kf6 39.Rf4+ Ke5 40.Qg5+ f5 41.f3 winning, but Fritz shows Black's best chance would have been 35...Qxa5 36.Kh2 Qa1 37.Rh4 Bg7 38.Bxg7 Qf1 39.Rf4 Re8 40.Bh6 and White's extra piece should eventually decide. Even Kasparov's actual move 35.Qxh3?! was probably sufficient to win after 35...Bg7 36.Re7 (instead of Bxg7) Qc8 37.Qxc8 Rxc8 Bxg7 Kxg7 39.Rd7 Re8 40.Kf1 Rh8 41.Rxd6 etc. Instead of 34...Ra8, Short should have gone with 34...Bg7 35.Re7 Bxf6 36.Rxc7 Rxc7 which looks very drawish. |
|
| Mar-16-05 |
| Minor Piece Activity: WmD, I just looked up Lawson's book again and I can't find mention of any other draw offer, so I might be confusing this game with another. The analysis that the final position is won for black was done later by Kaspy and Short after the game, but since I haven't seen it, you may be right that it's in fact drawn. |
|
| Dec-28-05 |
| seeminor: After the game Kasparov gave the move 40.Qe6+ as what he would have played. However Analysis by GM Daniel King claims that after 40.Qe6+ black can play 40....fxe6 41 Rxc7 exd5 42 cxd5 Rf8! with ideas of Rf3-c3 looking at the pawn on c2, a winning endgame for black. |
|
| Jun-01-06 |
| Runemaster: I remember from the Lawson book that Short had prepared the Marshall as his major "defence" against 1.e4 for this match. I know it's easy to be wise after the event (particularly when you don't have to actually play Kasparov yourself), but I rememeber thinking at the time that that wasn't very bright thinking by Short and his team. The Marshall would have suited Short's style, but it's too easy to avoid - in the match we saw a number of games in which Kasparov simply avoided the Marshall, as in this game. Short's preparation was therefore annulled - I don't think from memory that a single Marshall was played in the match - and Kasparov obtained the type of positions that he could play much better than Short. |
|
| Sep-20-06 |
| slomarko: game 1 already decided the match. |
|
Dec-14-06
 |
| who: <runemaster> Kasparov only allowed the Marshall twice in his career. So it really does seem like quite the bad decision. |
|
Dec-14-06
|
| euripides: <rune, who> I rather think that bfore this match the anti-Marshall lines were not thought to be dangerous for Black. In Lawson's book, Short complains that Kasparov is ducking his challenge by playing the anti-Marshall which is 'nothing' and Robert Huebner, recently drafted as a second, suggests Short is not at home in the positions. I have the impression that the reputation of these lines has risen since - one of Gazza's great qualities was that many of his ideas have proved quite resilient. So some kudos to the champ for second-guessing the challenger. |
|
| Dec-24-06 |
| Father Merrin 1: The simple fact is Short was a weak challenger - possibly the weakest ever - and didn't deserve the shot at the title in the first place. He was just an average GM level player who happened to get to the final match when other superGMs hit poor form and age caught up with them. |
|
Dec-25-06
 |
| plang: Of course he deserved a shot at the title. He defeated Gelfand, Karpov and Timman consecutively to earn the right. Who could you possibly suggest as an alternative? As for Karpovs age he went on to win Linares the next year in his greatest tournament performance. |
|
| Mar-15-07 |
| piroflip: "didn't deserve the shot"!!!!!!!!!!
give me a break, if Nigel won his qualifying matches and reached the final that's good enough to play the W/C in anyone's book. "average GM" ,,,,Nigel was ranked number 4 in the world for a while. Hardly average. |
|
Aug-18-07
 |
| MUG: <Minor: Kaspy offered Short a draw when he had 15 minutes left on the clock and Short had only 10. Short declined for some reason and they ran into severe time trouble in this game.> "Here <move 38> Kasparov offered me a draw but I felt I was a pawn up for nothing, so I said nothing. I just made my move in response. If only I had a few more seconds left to think." - Short |
|
| Apr-13-08 |
| seeminor: "Father Merrin 1: The simple fact is Short was a weak challenger - possibly the weakest ever - and didn't deserve the shot at the title in the first place. He was just an average GM level player who happened to get to the final match when other superGMs hit poor form and age caught up with them." Kramnik became champion even though he lost to Shirov in the match to decide the challenger, i think he is the least deserving for a shot at the title. Short played who he was paired with, their form was their problem not his. To beat Karpov in the candidates was a great success, only kasparov had managed to beat him in a series of games up to that point. |
|
| Aug-10-08 |
| eisenherz: Its a pity to see, how Short could so amazingly defeat Karpov and fall so easily to Kasparov. His performance against Karpov was world-champion like. Thanks for that magical games, Short ! |
|
| Dec-17-08 |
| Nf6: I was at this game, see link below
(http://www.chess.com/photos/view_al...) |
|
Jun-29-09
 |
| Knight13: 22...b3 was better. ...h6 seems like a waste of move! |
|
| Sep-27-09 |
| djbl: knight13...you say 22...b3 is better than ...h6, you are very wrong, this would certainly be losing for black. white can simply take the pawn cxb3 and black can't retake ...Rxb3 due to Qe8+ etc. following cxb3 white simply reinforces the pawn and builds a solid barrier on the queen side. |
|
| Sep-27-09 |
| djbl: in fact 22...h6 is essential due also to Bxb4. |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
