when beaten so badly, the first thing a chessplayer needs is an excuse.
Demolition Job by Kasparov Against Short
Sort:
Apr 27, 2015
0
#23
I hope that after the match Kssparov told Short that he played like a girl.
Uhohspaghettio1 hat geschrieben:
Molotok89 wrote:
SilentKnighte5 hat geschrieben:
Molotok89 wrote:
Kasparov doesn´t get any younger and he would be probably still in the top 100 today, but surely not top 10 anymore.
Kasparov used to whoop Anand up and down the street. If Anand is still top 10, Kasparov is top 10.
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.
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.
Short peaked at 2712 in 2004 mate, what are you talking about? Also research on the topic of rating inflation has shown that there basically is no rating inflation at all, you can look up Regans papers.
And yeah one must be a fool to think that Carlsen now isn´t better than Kasparov from ten years ago and also that both Kasparov and Carlsen aren´t better players than Fischer ever was. Dude, you are living in dreams. 
About Short giving excuses, you don´t need to listen to him, but look at his games, he played piss poorly.
Currently we have 45 people with rating 2700+, 13 with 2750+ and 3 2800+, but of course there isn't any inflation.
OCTOBER 2005
| 1 | Kasparov, Garry | g | RUS | 2812 | 0 | 1963 |
| 2 | Anand, Viswanathan | g | IND | 2788 | 0 | 1969 |
| 3 | Topalov, Veselin | g | BUL | 2782 | 9 | 1975 |
| 4 | Leko, Peter | g | HUN | 2751 | 9 | 1979 |
| 5 | Ivanchuk, Vassily | g | UKR | 2748 | 31 | 1969 |
| 6 | Svidler, Peter | g | RUS | 2740 | 17 | 1976 |
| 7 | Kramnik, Vladimir | g | RUS | 2739 | 9 | 1975 |
| 8 | Polgar, Judit | g | HUN | 2735 | 0 | 1976 |
| 9 | Bacrot, Etienne | g | FRA | 2725 | 19 | 1983 |
| 10 | Aronian, Levon | g | ARM | 2724 | 21 | 1982 |
| 11 | Grischuk, Alexander | g | RUS | 2720 | 0 | 1983 |
| 12 | Adams, Michael | g | ENG | 2718 | 9 | 1971 |
| 13 | Gelfand, Boris | g | ISR | 2717 | 18 | 1968 |
| 14 | Shirov, Alexei | g | ESP | 2710 | 8 | 1972 |
| 15 | Nisipeanu, Liviu-Dieter | g | ROM | 2707 | 28 | 1976 |
| 16 | Akopian, Vladimir | g | ARM | 2707 | 17 | 1971 |
| 17 | Morozevich, Alexander | g | RUS | 2707 | 0 | 1977 |
| 18 | Radjabov, Teimour | g | AZE | 2704 | 22 | 1987 |
| 19 | Ponomariov, Ruslan | g | UKR | 2704 | 0 | 1983 |
jambyvedar2 wrote:
SQxA wrote:
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.
Kasparov also beat Lagrave before. And Nigel Short is world number 79.
SQXA: Right but in a few rapid and some blitz games where he played poorly. They were pretty equal back in like, 2011 was it? And those time controls are a poor indicator of his classical time strength to me.
Like I said, I'd be far more interested if he played a classical time control match with a top 100 player- better if it was a 2700+ rated player.
NewArdweaden hat geschrieben:
Currently we have 45 people with rating 2700+, 13 with 2750+ and 3 2800+, but of course there isn't any inflation.
I think you misunderstand what rating inflation means. Just because there are more players with 2700+ rating now than ten years ago doesn´t mean that these players play worse. The competition just got much tighter because there are generally more and stronger players right now.
okay, just shut up and go away please.
Apr 27, 2015
0
#29
Comparing ratings over time is relatively meaningless regardless of inflation. Ratings tell you how strong you are compared to other players.
If you take a 2100 player and a random collection of weaker players ranging from 1000 to 1900 and strand them on some deserted island somewhere for a couple years, that 2100 player is going to have a rating well over 2000, and possibly pushing 3000. The top of the weaker players will also be well over 2000.
The fact that Magnus Carlsen's rating is higher than Kasparov's was means Carlsen is more dominant against today's chess players than Kasparov was back than.
However, that doesn't necessarily mean Carlsen is more dominant against top-level GMs than Kasparov was. It means Carlsen is more dominant against chess players in general.
There are a lot more amateurs who maintain a FIDE rating these days than there were in Kasparov's time. So there are a lot more weak players in the ratings pool. So of course Carlsen is more dominant against chess players in general.
The amazing thing is that it took so long to beat Kasparov's rating. That probably means that Kasparov at his peak is better than Carlsen now.
Hahaha ok, sorry to shatter your dreams.
Apr 27, 2015
0
#31
patzermike wrote:
I hope that after the match Kssparov told Short that he played like a girl.
You mean he played like Judit Polgar? That's a compliment.
Molotok89 wrote:
About Short giving excuses, you don´t need to listen to him, but look at his games, he played piss poorly.
Different strokes... I really enjoy more listening to his interview than analysing his games :D
Apr 27, 2015
0
#33
Maybe he doesn't have enough blitz games to have a stable rating but...
Nigel Short is 2655 in blitz (89th) and 2710 in rapid (38th).
Having seen this exhibition match and interviews after days 1 and 2, the reason for GM Short's poor performance can be distilled down to the following IMO:
1. He was jet lagged coming from Thailand. Moral here - never play serious chess with strong opponents when you are mentally and physically tired. GMs these days are very aware of match fitness and do not over-commit. Everybody knows that chess is very tough at the best of times!
2. He did not sleep from 3am and 2:30am on Days 1 and 2 (his words). This only amplified his condition. Should have strategies and discipline to get over jet lag. May be a sleeping pill or two would have helped?
3. Aforesaid, he played some dubious openings banking on GM Kasparov's lack of match practice. The tired brain started playing dubious chess and this only lead to them being refuted and he just was not on time to pose any threats as Kasparov is such an attacking player. Bad strategy! Would have been wiser to grind out Kasparov with familiar openings and positions. Kasparov would have ended up with time trouble for sure in that strategy. You DO NOT give Kasparov a "sniff" by playing dubious chess. It's like waking up a sleeping tiger! You are better advised to cage it, rather than tease it!! The whole strategy was flawed!
4. On a 1 againt 1 match, organisers should also make sure that both players are well settled before the match to get true and decent result both for the players and the watching chess fans. In this case, I think Nigel was short-changed into accepting an inferior date immediately after his Thai Open. On a 1 against 1, this is unfair and a failed experiment and I blame the organisers as well in this case. They have a responsibility towards the players and the game of chess too at this level.
What's the poing of making the poor guy look like an amateur when he is surely capable of playing better chess. Having said this I think Nigel was pretty complacent about this match anyways. All in all somewhat of a farce. We do not want to hear excuses from players after Day 1 and 2 about how tired they felt. What on earth were you organisers doing??? I think this exhibition match was all in all irresponsible. (By the way I am NOT a Nigel fan. I am just a fan of CHESS.)
arvind99 wrote:
Having seen this exhibition match and interviews after days 1 and 2, the reason for GM Short's poor performance can be distilled down to the following IMO:
I know Nigel Short score was bad. However, I honestly didn't think all of his performance was very bad. I believe he did have a nice game. As the match continued it did seem as if he was getting more weary but this game here was played in the begin of the match on day 2. He got in time trouble toward the end. I think he was playing very reasonable. He was ahead in the clock and was in a very unique position. After move 23...Ba6 by Garry it does seem as if Nigel took a long time to think their which lead to him having time trouble. I thought it looked very marvelous. It has inspired me to try that white line.
Well, yeah...
This was an unrated event, organised for the promotion of chess
So i think that perhaps Kasparov, because of his legacy and ego, took it too seriously, and destroyed his opponent without any mercy!
And perhaps Short, on the contrary, didn't take it so seriously, and wasn't up to the task. Maybe his excuses were true, but i found them hillarious, anyway :D
Fiveofswords wrote:
uh i dunno i tihnk whites line in that game looked pretty miserable. The commentators were expecting black to play 19...Qa8 for some reason and suggesting clear black advantage....im guessing its a computer line. They pretended like instead Qc8 was an error...maybe it was? but no strong player is going to want to put their queen on a corner square without seriously good reason...and i just didnt see it and apparently niether did kasparov. Perhaps the tactics work out dunno, ask computer. Anyway jsut looking at the position i get the impression that black has way too much activity for the exchange-pawn. I dont trust whites position at all.
I saw the commentary as well if I rememeber. Yeah your right. They did suggest Qa8. I put it on a computer engine and it shows Qa8 as an equal move so I'm not 100% sure either. I'm using Stockfish the new version lol suppose to be the best so I don't know.
Apr 27, 2015
0
#38
Yes, well. Short may have played like a typical girl, but he most certainly did not play like Judit or Hou Yifan .
Robert0905 wrote:
patzermike wrote:
I hope that after the match Kssparov told Short that he played like a girl.
You mean he played like Judit Polgar? That's a compliment.
I let the computer engine thing for a little while and it likes the move Qc7 or Qc8 instead of Qa8. Apparently white has a move here that gives him the advantage No idea how though.
20.Rb1 no idea? the killer blow for white? Might be why black played Qc8. No idea! It seems like such a hallow threat. and strangely enough engines like Qc7 instead of Qc8 maintaining the defense of the B pawn? Perhaps?
Apart from giving excuses for his performance, Short himself used even stronger words than demolition for the result, iirc massacre was one of them :D can anyone find the video of his interview after the final result and post it here?