GM Karjakin (2727) – GM Short (2655) [D37]
07.07.2008 / Chess Match – Game 9
1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 d5 3.c4 e6 4.Nc3 Be7 5.Bf4 0–0 6.e3 c5 7.dxc5 Bxc5 8.Qc2 Nc6 9.a3 Be7 10.cxd5 exd5 11.Be2 Be6 12.0–0 Rc8 13.Rfd1 a6 14.Ne5 Qb6 15.Nxc6 Rxc6 16.Be5 Ne4 17.Qb1 Nxc3 18.Bxc3 Rd8 19.Bf3 h6 20.h3 Qc7 21.Qd3 Bd6 22.Rd2 f6 23.Rad1 Bh2+ 24.Kh1 Be5 25.Bd4 Rc4 26.Qb3 b5 27.Be2 Rc6 28.a4 bxa4 29.Qxa4 Rb8 30.f4 Bxd4 31.Qxd4 a5 32.Bf3 Rb4 33.Qd3 Rc5 34.Qb1 Qb7 35.Rc1 Qb6 36.Rcd1 Qb7 37.Kh2 Qb5 38.Qg6 Bf7 39.Qf5 Rxb2 40.Rxb2 Qxb2 41.Rb1 d4 42.Rxb2 Rxf5 43.Rb8+ Kh7 44.Be4 Bg6 45.Bxf5 Bxf5 46.exd4 a4 47.Ra8 Bd7 48.d5 Kg6 49.Ra7 White wins 1–0
The current score is Karjakin 6.5 – Short 2.5
Click here to replay the game.
Chess Daily News from Susan Polgar
Short should give up. This is like watching a toad swimming in a blender set on whip.
It is a curious sight at first for the first few seconds and then disgusting when Mr. Nigel Toad gets sucked down into the spinning blades. BBBzzzzz! Red-Green colored goo.
Toad smoothie = Nigel Short.
Nigel should choose another career now, like teaching anger management or be a suicide counselor, or even a sensitivity coach for recovering bigots.
I know very little about Short, so I’m curious to find out: why is there such strong critism for him in the comments about these matches with Karjakin?
Ahum, did I miss out on Short’s previous win with the white pieces? Please let us see another mating attack of Nigel; be objective.
To sergey: the first Anonymous doesn’t know much about Nigel either, as many other parrots.
“Anonymous said…
To sergey: the first Anonymous doesn’t know much about Nigel either, as many other parrots.”
Wrong Anon 11:10!
Wrong Wrong Wrong! *Squawk!!*
The Parrot knows that Nigel is a flaming tactless rat-bastard nincompoop.
Read on and believe!
“Our Nigel” speaks up again at Chessbase and causes a [usual] furor, this time with the UK Telegraph’s Jonathon Rowson, Scotland’s top player. Nigel Short is for sure a plain-speaker, and unlikely diplomat, and instead of indepent country teams, opined on a joint UK team incorporating Scotland with the English one. A too-and-fro interchange ensued, Short mocking Fide’s acceptance of each individual UK country, and causing this reponse from Rowson on Short:
In a brief remark published on Wednesday, he labeled the notion as offensive and betraying “complete ignorance of the unique geopolitical situation in Britain, where several nations peacefully coexist within one nation state”.
But this elicited an angry reaction from Short, who mocked the status quo where five federations are recognized by FIDE, chess’s governing body.
The Parrot doesn’t really understand why Our Nigel brought this all up – or what it would achieve if there was any ‘unification’, except that the Parrot’s family lived in the Highlands of Scotland for a thousand years, and hardly recognised even the Lowlands as being very different from the Sassenachs proper – and with substantially differing culture and values. Sassenachs in the highlands is a version of ‘Saxons’, and a relatively polite terms used to describe English people.
While the interchange will no doubt continue for a week, I suggest to GM Rowson an old saw: “There is good, even in a Saxon.” Though, in truth, it is not much said.
Parrot
“Sergey said…
I know very little about Short, so I’m curious to find out: why is there such strong critism for him in the comments about these matches with Karjakin?”
This means you are very new to chess Sergey-boy. If you were around the last 20 years you will see a very intesting picture of Short: Young, brash, irreverent, and quite a jerk.
“Anonymous said…
Ahum, did I miss out on Short’s previous win with the white pieces? Please let us see another mating attack of Nigel; be objective.”
With 7.5 to 2.5, what difference does it make?
Karjakin gave those games to Shorty out of respect for an old has-been chess player, soon to be used car salesman.
I still don’t see why so many people dislike Short so much. I’ve never heard anything bad about him aside from people bashing him without, seemingly, a real reason.
This tournament is SOOOOOO boring!!! They should have paired Short against Leko if they wanted to give Short any real chances here. I really wonder what has happened to Shorts playing strength. He used to be a worthy opponent (like 10 years ago….or more). Today he is just another patze.
There are only victories, what you mean boring? And of course Karjakin gave those two games out of respect, as Short gave 6 to Karjakin. It’s all about respect, you’re right. All repect to you to Anonymous.
And to the previous Anon: there’s nothing wrong with Nigel Short, the comments here are based on parrots without too much brain. Sharks always come out when they see blood, it’s instinct more than ratio.
It is depressing to see all the insults to Nigel Short. I don’t see why one would say such things about even about an inferior player, but calling a player a patzer when he is vastly superior to you… what a terrible self image such a person must have.
Karjakin just won the last game also. Final score: 7.5-2.5. Too bad it wasn’t slower & FIDE rated….this might have put Sergey over 2750 (or #6 in the world rankings) !!!
Folks, you Short-bashers are really pathetic. Though no longer in his prime he is still a strong player and definitely a good sport.
Why not also blame Kasparov for breaking with FIDE? Or, perhaps, FIDE itself?! Seriously.
I got to admit not having bee interested in the suggestion of a joint UK team and, thus, cannot argue here, but even if you dislike this idea why insult the man continuously?! That’s pretty sad – for YOU…
A very good show for young Karjakin, hope he makes it in a real tournament, too! 🙂
Hmmmm, I’m more surprised about the folks blindly defending Short here than about the ones complaining about him. Was Michael Jordan a great basketball player because he was part of the NBA….or because he played amazingly every time he went out?? So in that line, and taking aside all those factors that the defenders are bringing up (as the breakup with FIDE, etc) which the bashers really don’t even mention…..are you trying to tell me that you really don’t see a decline in Short’s games in the past 12 years or so??? What are you guys implying, that having a GM title alone should be sufficient so we embrace Short as a champion??? PLEASE!!! Don’t be such hipocrates. Of course Short could beat any of us during a game of chess (and by the way, that is an oxymoron argument to be made)….but he is not playing amateurs. He is a Professional Chess player, and as such, he is expected to play at certain level. If tomorrow Kobe Bryant stopped scoring, you would be bashing him like there is no tomorrow…even though he would still beat you in a 1:1 game. If Alex Rodriguez all of a sudden couldn’t get a hit, you would bash him, like NY did 2 years ago. So in that line, why is short any different??? Until he starts winning, he will be bashed by chess fans all over the world. And I also agree with Anon above: he has become a patzer.
We’re not saying a GM title in itself is the reason to embrace anyone as a champion, even though in this case he’s proven more than just having a GM-title. But we claim there’s no, or not enough ground, to burn a great player down, especially by anonymous writers of whom many not even know Short’s past I’m sure, perhaps not even were grown-ups.
And what are we talking about here? Moving over to another bond, it’s a fair choice of any player, and in very american frame of mind: free choice! Did he diminish in strength after 12 years. Well yes, but that’s because he withdraw when he didn’t make it to world champion. So did Yusupov, Timman, Kamsky and even Kasparov, although the latter two can still come back at their original strength. You didn’t prove anything with your previopus statement I’m afraid.
Anon said: “…Moving over to another bond, it’s a fair choice of any player, and in very american frame of mind: free choice!”
Yes, so people here are taking their FREE CHOICE of criticizing Nigel Short. Every famous person out there knows that once in the public view, there are chances of them being adored or hated by the public. So, just like Short is being a good sport in taking this criticism, maybe you should be a good sport and let people express whatever they feel. If you don’t like it…..just don’t spend your time reading it.
The same goes for you, you’re simply criticizing my opnion, or better: explanation of your unproven point.
You be a good sport and accept or come with a new theory or view on the case.
Yes, not reading posts because you don’t agree isn’t an argument. I think Anon of 12:21 can’t handle what in real life is called: a discussion.
A real discussion would be for the folks who are defending Short to come here and actually provide their point of view of why Short should be considered an elite player as they claim…..instead of just coming here and criticizing the folks that don’t like Short’s current standing or playing abilities.
Oh, and asking someone not to read a post if they can’t stand what it says is as good an argument as: Short could beat anybody on this site so don’t criticize him.
That’s true, but what others say I can’t do much about.
OK, why Short is considered an elite player … First of all I didn’t call him an elite player, but OK, he actually had to be considered one in the early and mid-90’s. He beat, among others, Timman and Karpov in a match which wasn’t given not many other players those days, if any.
Yes, he sure was an elite player.
Is he now? Well, no, but does that make him a joke in the scene? Not for me, but why for you? That’s a good question.
And I don’t mind reading messages I don’t agree with, because how do I know beforehand? You suffer the same problem reading mine I see.