Demolition Job by Kasparov Against Short

Kasparov is still a beast. The inactive Kasparov  demolished, in his typical agressive style, the active GM Short with 8 wins 1 defeat and 1 draw at their recent  rapid match.  Short has been playing numerous tournament in the past 10 years. Kasparov has not played a match in years.

Kasparov also beat him 7-1 in their blitz match.

I thought it was a 10 game match, 2 rapids and 8 blitz games?

Yeah you are correct. I made a mistake.

People putting too much meaning in an exhibition match where one player played below his actual level. It was nice to see Kasparov play, but he is definetely not even close to what he has been when he was active.

He and Short are probably about the same level right now. Remember when they played 4 years ago, where Kasparov only won by a slight margin.

It would be more interesting to see Kasparov playing Karpov again ...  At the same time controls I do believe Karpov would do better than Short did ... 

I don't think fast time controls would give a proper evaluation of Kasparov's current strength as a chess player. I'd be more excited to see a Kasparov against a current top 100 player play a match in classical time controls, when he could prepare before the match and then see how he performed. Even more if it was against someone like Kramnik or Topalov for example. Would be an interesting crowd fund project which I'm sure chess players would donate generously towards. But I'm almost certain Kasparov would decline that challenge.

In fairness he has every right to decline that considering the time and energy it would take. Book and preparation is much more important in standard. And for what? As a guinea pig of how an aging inactive world champion plays? A person is of more value than moves they can play on a chess board. (not that I agree with Kasparov's politics). 

He has nothing to prove, and in a way he has everything to lose. If he lost badly to say Kramnik, it would likely always hang over him and haunt him, especially if he knew why Kramnik won and really wanted to rematch him then. And if he won, everything would be great for a while, but people would ask him to please come back again. And in five years time it would be "Kasparov was great before, but could he do it again?". So it's neverending.   

Fischer's giving up everything chess was too much though. I think Kasparov has the right idea.... some blitz and rapid now and again just for fun. Standard chess is rough for anyone.     

He'd still be a top 10 player, but he's not interested in being only a top 10 player.

Of course, only being top 10 is a lot better than running for office and losing all of the time.

Kasparov doesn´t get any younger and he would be probably still in the top 100 today, but surely not top 10 anymore.

Sure I wouldn't blame him for not wanting to. At the same time, as he constantly says and has attempted over the years, his work to help promote chess in the world and improve it's popularity and potential professionalism with sports we see today, doing something like that would certainly help towards that I think. I'm not saying he should play Carlsen or something, although I can only imagine such a match and the media storm it'd draw (remember when people wanted Fischer to come back and play Kasparov a match?). But I just don't understand how or why people would try to speculate how well Kasparov would play in todays chess arena over a few blitz and rapid games against Short. If you had a classical match to go on then I would understand better but still, it's just against one guy. As chess fans of course we'd like to see Kasparov return to tournament play but I know that the chances of that is almost nill of happening. But a classical match against an active top 100 player from time to time, or if only once, I see that as something more in the realm of a possibility. With the spirit of promoting chess anyway, not necessarily to prove anything to anyone (although people could easily view it as such). Big name's like Kasparov generate media and talk and positive talk is good for chess (unlike how general media now only talks about chess when some cheating scandal happens).

I guess to me I see that as more possible, very interesting, and a great promotional event for chess in the world. And yeah, maybe if that event went well for Kasparov he might consider more positively the idea of returning to tournament play...Hope dies last right? ;)

Kasparov used to whoop Anand up and down the street.  If Anand is still top 10, Kasparov is top 10.

This.

Kramnik has a plus score against Kasparov and he beat him in a match and he is worse than Anand, so Anand must be better than Kasparov... You see that your kind of logic has some serious flaws?

Fact is Kasparov is old now and he doesn´t play actively like Anand does. Also his rating went slowly downhill when he retired at 2812 Elo ten years ago. Logically he isn´t anywhere near that rating even if he would start playing classical chess again, due to his inactivity and aging. He would be probably still in the top 100 though. Another point is not all players are like Korchnoi to keep their playing level very high at old age and Korchnoi was a very active player at an old age.

that's just way too pessimistic. Kasparov battered the world number 60.

Kasparov also beat Lagrave before. And Nigel Short is world number 79.

Double post.

Short got battered, but he played far below his possibilities in those games and made lots of unforced errors. The live commentators who are weaker players than Short wondered a lot about his strange move choices and Shorts explanation that he was feeling very tired support this pretty much. Otherwise I think it should have been a close match like that one in 2011.

You clearly don't know much about chess ratings if you're using that "logic". 2812 back then was more than enough to comfortably be the best in the world, even 2700 was for an elite bunch. You can't compare it to now, where even the likes of Shorty are about 2700. 

In fact Short and some other GMs hit peaks in their ratings in the past few years because the ratings inflation is so bad and Short said he was playing much better back at his original peak. I'm willing to bet chess inflation has outstripped Kasparov's decline and then some.  

Did you really think Carlsen's rating means he must be much better than Kasparov ever was and by far the best player in history? Or that Kasparov's rating put him past Fischer? lol.