Kasparov - Short PCA World Championship Match (1993)

Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players ·

<< previous

HISTORY OF THE WORLD CHESS CHAMPIONSHIP

next >>

<< previous

FIDE CHAMPIONSHIPS

next >>

Kasparov vs Short, 1993
London, England

Nigel Short began his chess career as a bona fide prodigy. He defeated Korchnoi in a simul at the age of 10. In 1977 at the age of 12 he became by far the youngest ever participant in the British Chess Championship. When Nigel was 14, he became British Champion (tied with John Nunn).

Kasparov vs Short
Kasparov and Short at the Savoy Theater
During the FIDE candidates matches, when Garry Kasparov was asked who the challenger would likely be, he made the glib answer: "It will be Short and it will be short!" As predicted, Short earned the right to play Kasparov, by beating Speelman 5½ to 4½, Gelfand 5 to 3, Karpov 6 to 4 and Timman 7½ to 5½.

Unhappy with the bidding process to select the site for the match, FIDE's lack of consultation with the players, and the 20% cut of the prize fund going to FIDE, Kasparov and Short made the historic decision to play the title match outside of FIDE's jurisdiction. A new organization called the PCA (Professional Chess Association) was formed for the marketing and organization of the championship match. FIDE reacted by stripping Kasparov of his title and holding its own championship match, Karpov-Timman 1993, to be played concurrent with the Kasparov-Short match.

The Times of London newspaper sponsored the event, dubbing it "The Times World Chess Championship." It was played in the heart of London at the Savoy Theater, a short distance from Trafalgar Square and across the street from Simpson's-on-the-Strand, a famous chess center during the mid-1800s. It was estimated that as many as one million viewers watched the first few games on television.^[1]

The match itself was a lopsided victory for Kasparov. The match started tragically for Short, who lost on time in a superior position. Although the games were very hard fought and exciting, Kasparov opened up a big early lead and won comfortably.

With a final score of 12½ to 7½, Garry Kasparov became the PCA Chess Champion--however, he was recognized by the world as the one true World Chess Champion.

click on a game number to replay game 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Short 0 ½ 0 0 ½ ½ 0 ½ 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 0 1 ½ ½ ½ ½

Kasparov 1 ½ 1 1 ½ ½ 1 ½ 1 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 0 ½ ½ ½ ½

FINAL SCORE: Kasparov 12½; Short 7½
Reference: game collection WCC Index [Kasparov-Short 1993]

NOTABLE GAMES [what is this?]

    · Game #8     Short vs Kasparov, 1993     1/2-1/2
    · Game #4     Short vs Kasparov, 1993     0-1
    · Game #16     Short vs Kasparov, 1993     1-0

FOOTNOTES

1993 Kasparov-Short Match HIghlights by Mark Weeks

page 1 of 1; 20 games

Game		Result	Moves	Year	Event/Locale	Opening
1. Kasparov vs Short		1-0	39	1993	Kasparov - Short PCA World Championship Match	C84 Ruy Lopez, Closed
2. Short vs Kasparov		½-½	51	1993	Kasparov - Short PCA World Championship Match	B67 Sicilian, Richter-Rauzer Attack, 7...a6 Defense, 8...Bd7
3. Kasparov vs Short		1-0	59	1993	Kasparov - Short PCA World Championship Match	C84 Ruy Lopez, Closed
4. Short vs Kasparov		0-1	40	1993	Kasparov - Short PCA World Championship Match	B97 Sicilian, Najdorf
5. Kasparov vs Short		½-½	18	1993	Kasparov - Short PCA World Championship Match	E34 Nimzo-Indian, Classical, Noa Variation
6. Short vs Kasparov		½-½	31	1993	Kasparov - Short PCA World Championship Match	B90 Sicilian, Najdorf
7. Kasparov vs Short		1-0	36	1993	Kasparov - Short PCA World Championship Match	C84 Ruy Lopez, Closed
8. Short vs Kasparov		½-½	41	1993	Kasparov - Short PCA World Championship Match	B90 Sicilian, Najdorf
9. Kasparov vs Short		1-0	52	1993	Kasparov - Short PCA World Championship Match	E34 Nimzo-Indian, Classical, Noa Variation
10. Short vs Kasparov		½-½	43	1993	Kasparov - Short PCA World Championship Match	B90 Sicilian, Najdorf
11. Kasparov vs Short		½-½	50	1993	Kasparov - Short PCA World Championship Match	C45 Scotch Game
12. Short vs Kasparov		½-½	40	1993	Kasparov - Short PCA World Championship Match	B90 Sicilian, Najdorf
13. Kasparov vs Short		½-½	34	1993	Kasparov - Short PCA World Championship Match	D18 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav, Dutch
14. Short vs Kasparov		½-½	39	1993	Kasparov - Short PCA World Championship Match	B90 Sicilian, Najdorf
15. Kasparov vs Short		1-0	39	1993	Kasparov - Short PCA World Championship Match	D35 Queen's Gambit Declined
16. Short vs Kasparov		1-0	38	1993	Kasparov - Short PCA World Championship Match	B87 Sicilian, Fischer-Sozin with ...a6 and ...b5
17. Kasparov vs Short		½-½	41	1993	Kasparov - Short PCA World Championship Match	C45 Scotch Game
18. Short vs Kasparov		½-½	33	1993	Kasparov - Short PCA World Championship Match	B87 Sicilian, Fischer-Sozin with ...a6 and ...b5
19. Kasparov vs Short		½-½	26	1993	Kasparov - Short PCA World Championship Match	C73 Ruy Lopez, Modern Steinitz Defense
20. Short vs Kasparov		½-½	36	1993	Kasparov - Short PCA World Championship Match	B87 Sicilian, Fischer-Sozin with ...a6 and ...b5


page 1 of 1; 20 games

REFINE SEARCH: White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2)

< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 12 OF 12 · Later Kibitzing>
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!

Sep-10-21		todicav23: This was a very poor match with a large number of mistakes on both sides (according to the engine). In the first game for example Kasparov spoiled a +8 advantage and Short resigned in an equal position. In game 10 Short spoiled multiple chances of winning the game.

Sep-10-21		saffuna: <In the first game for example Kasparov spoiled a +8 advantage and Short resigned in an equal position.> I believe Short flagged.

Sep-10-21		keypusher: < saffuna: <In the first game for example Kasparov spoiled a +8 advantage and Short resigned in an equal position.> I believe Short flagged.> Right, I looked at the first game and you've pointed that out before. <In game 10 Short spoiled multiple chances of winning the game.> Very few matches where that didn't happen at least once. The way to play an engine-blessed match is to avoid sharp positions and time trouble. Fortunately Short and Kasparov didn't do that.

Sep-10-21		Dionysius1: Of all Kasparov's opponents, I wouldn't be surprised if he feared Short most. Not because Short was the one he was most likely to lose to, but because of the consequences if he did. And it WAS possible.

Sep-11-21		Williebob: <Sally Simpson: 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.> <keypusher: The way to play an engine-blessed match is to avoid sharp positions and time trouble. Fortunately Short and Kasparov didn't do that.> I'm joining that chorus. Let's hope that Nepo plays like a hungry wolf come November. Carlsen - Caruana made me wonder whether classical-time match play is dead.

Mar-18-22		keithbc: at the end of the first game, many commentators were lamenting that Short lost on time in a (much) better position. It was sad indeed that he lost on time by a few seconds but the end position was no more that a draw. Due to this, I am left wondering why digital clocks were not used as they were available at the time!

Mar-18-22		Petrosianic: <Allanur: Had Nigel Short been sly he could have been champion by deafault.> He might have become FIDE Champion that way, but the FIDE Championship was considered the Booby Prize, and sort of still is. Not worth giving up even a failed shot at the real world championship for.

Mar-19-22		MissScarlett: < Due to this, I am left wondering why digital clocks were not used as they were available at the time!> Good question. I was going to say that there may have been an obligation to play the final match under the same conditions across the cycle (1991-1993), but the PCA, of course, was a new organisation. Probably there simply wasn't time to test and agree upon a particular model of clock. Digital timers were in use by the PCA Intel Grand Prix series in 1994.

Mar-19-22		Z free or die: <<Missy> Digital timers were in use by the PCA Intel Grand Prix series in 1994.> Do you know the time control? And of course I'm wondering how you know this interesting fact about the digital clocks.

Mar-19-22		Sally Simpson: The time control was 40 moves in 2 hours, then 20 moves in 1 hour, followed by adjournment. (no game was adjourned.) Garde still sell their digital clock (£64.00) when a good digital retails at about £30.00 The Garde advert adds: "In 1993, the Ruhla GARDE chess clock was the last non-digital clock to be used in a World Championship, in a match between Garry Kasparov of Russia and Nigel Short of the UK." https://www.mastersofgames.com/cat/...

Mar-19-22		MissScarlett: <Garde still sell their digital clock (£64.00) when a good digital retails at about £30.00> Mechanical clock. These Germans and their engineering....they don't want to let a good thing go. <And of course I'm wondering how you know this interesting fact about the digital clocks.> I was somewhere in the shadows for both the 1994 and 1995 London events: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3_...

Mar-19-22		Z free or die: <... in the shadows...> https://youtu.be/B3_DvCdIsqI?t=840 Yup, I think I spotted you over on the right side of the screen. Of course, analog vs digital is pretty much a push until incremental (or delay) time is used. What was the first such event at these levels then?

Mar-19-22		MissScarlett: <What was the first such event at these levels then?> First event with digital clocks or with increments?

Mar-19-22		Z free or die: Increments (and/or delays)

Mar-19-22		MissScarlett: May have been the Tilburg Interpolis tournament held in November-December 1993, which had a knockout format. The January 1994 <BCM> describes it thus: <Each round consisted of two games against the same opponent. If the score was 1-1, quickplay playoffs were held using the patented 'Fischer clock'. After a normal 20 minute or 10 minute quickplay, each player then had a set amount of time per move (i.e. 10 seconds).> The impression given is that the classical games were held using a mechanical clock.

Mar-20-22		Z free or die: Well, I finally went to wiki for a looksee: <The increment time control was first used in the privately organised 1992 Fischer–Spassky match, and quickly became popular in the wider chess world, and was used in the FIDE World Chess Championship 1998.> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess... Curious about Tilburg if they did indeed use two different clock systems.

Nov-16-22		MissScarlett: Short on Kasparov in the <Daily Mirror>, April 1st 1993, p.38: <He's the sort of bloke who walks into a room full of people watching TV and changes the channel.>

Nov-16-22		HeMateMe: I remember the disco match at stringfellows nightclub. For each of the four games the players wore alternating black and white tuxedos, to match the chess pieces.

Mar-21-23		MissScarlett: Posted before, but here's the link to Julian Barnes's <Trap. Dominate. @#$%.> piece on the match. https://granta.com/trap-dominate-@#...

Jun-19-23		Sally Simpson: Some good footage with game analysis of the first 7 games. https://youtu.be/FCFyrL8aW_E

Jul-06-23		FSR: Carlsen - Nepomniachtchi World Championship Match (2021) is, in percentage terms, the most decisive world championship match in the modern era (i.e. since Lasker - Janowski World Championship Match (1910), which Lasker won 9.5-1.5). But Kasparov-Short was really even more lopsided than Carlsen-Nepomniachtchi, even though Kasparov "only" scored 62.5% in the end, while Carlsen scored 68.2%. Kasparov-Short was never competitive. The only time the players were tied was before the match started. Kasparov won Games 1, 3, 4, 7, and 9, with no wins by Short, giving Kasparov a 7-2 lead. It was a 24-game match, so he still needed another 5.5 points, but obviously Short wasn't going to overcome a 5-game deficit. Kasparov could coast the rest of the way, and did so. Nine of the last 11 games were drawn, with Kasparov and Short each winning one. So Short could and did claim (paraphrasing), "After the first nine games I figured out how to play on even terms with him." Not really, Kasparov just didn't need to win any more games. By contrast, in Carlsen-Nepo, the first 5 games were drawn, with Nepo having had chances to win in some of them. Then Nepo lost the heartbreaking 136-move Game 6. He fell apart after that, also losing Games 8, 9, and 11. Since this was only a 14-game match, meaning that 7.5 points were needed for victory, that ended the match. But Carlsen "only" had a +4 score after 11 games, while Kasparov was +5 at that point, and had indeed reached +5 after just 9 games.

Jump to page # (enter # from 1 to 12)
search thread:
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 12 OF 12 · Later Kibitzing>

NOTE: Create an account today to post replies and access other powerful features which are available only to registered users. Becoming a member is free, anonymous, and takes less than 1 minute! If you already have a username, then simply login login under your username now to join the discussion.

Please observe our posting guidelines:

No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts.
No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members.
Nothing in violation of United States law.
No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members.
No trolling.
The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by moderators, create a false impression of consensus or support, or stage conversations, is prohibited.
Do not degrade Chessgames or any of it's staff/volunteers.

Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a moderator.

NOTE: Please keep all discussion on-topic. This forum is for this specific tournament only. To discuss chess or this site in general, visit the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
All moderator actions taken are ultimately at the sole discretion of the administration.

Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!

Copyright 2001-2025, Chessgames Services LLC