You can match this with the gushing wonderment over how Kortchnoi is doing so well for an old geezer.
Disrespect for Short baffles me
Sort:
Players like Short and Korchnoi are obviously not playing as well as they were in their primes. And it is easy to attack them because of their personalities and some of their past actions. But I have great respect for world class players who continue to play and compete as they age even though they leave themselves open for disparagement and criticism. I'm 54 years old and longevity means something to me. I'm actually one of the top ranked players over 50 in my state, not because I'm a strong player(my USCF rating has fallen from the 1900s to under 1800), but simply because I'm still playing! Korchnoi's record speaks for itself, and Short was a phenomenal player who actually beat Karpov in a match.
Hear, hear. One of my best memories was watching Short and Kasparov on Channel 4 in '93 with my brother. Whether known or intended at the time, he was part of something that helped lift the profile and interest in Chess in the UK. He deserves respect for that alone.
Dec 7, 2011
0
#6
its the negative minded people who always degrade such thing.. Go sit and talk to them they'l fill you with negative talks.
P.S. Nigel is just so..... *awesome*
Dec 7, 2011
0
#7
Well Nigel Short is a better Chess player than me... so I can only admire his play! Whether he is playing as well as he used to do is another matter... but it was good to see him get off the mark yesterday in the London Chess Classic.
Nigel Short deserves respect... as does any Chess player at that level.
Dec 7, 2011
0
#8
You can see a big difference when they interview the players with out the other player there at the analysis table. Wonder what Nigel would say if he went over the game of the IM's, that do the live show.
Dec 7, 2011
0
#9
Short is a great chessplayer, apparently not as consistently great now as in his prime but certainly deserving respect as a GM. On the other hand I recall him dissing Kasparov sometime around their title match (or afterwards) which struck me as odd because I'm guessing Short probably got the biggest paycheck of his life when he played Kasparov, so he struck me as being a bit of a whiner (or git as they would say in the UK?)
The only thing I would badger Short on is being fooled by that Bobby Fischer internet scam. I wonder if the Nigerian's spam scam ever got to him too...
Three cheers for Nigel!
WestofHollywood wrote:
Players like Short and Korchnoi are obviously not playing as well as they were in their primes. And it is easy to attack them because of their personalities and some of their past actions. But I have great respect for world class players who continue to play and compete as they age even though they leave themselves open for disparagement and criticism. I'm 54 years old and longevity means something to me. I'm actually one of the top ranked players over 50 in my state, not because I'm a strong player(my USCF rating has fallen from the 1900s to under 1800), but simply because I'm still playing! Korchnoi's record speaks for itself, and Short was a phenomenal player who actually beat Karpov in a match.
Well, I dont think much of Short. And neither does Kasparov. When asked who would be his opponent in the championship match (1993) and how long would the match be Kasparov said "It wil be short and it will be short". And man it was short!
Word was out that Kasparov let him win one game because he was afraid nobody would show up for the second match if Short fought his way through the candidates again.
It was during the championship match that Short fired lubomir Kavalek, one of his seconds. He sent his wife in to do the dirty deed. When your wife has more hair on her ass than you do---YOU ARE A PIP-SQUEAK!
I will always look upon Short as a pip-squeak and it would have been nice if you could have written "and Short was a phenomenal player who actually beat Karpov in a match when Karpov was in his prime! Never happen amigo---never happen! 
raul72 wrote:
WestofHollywood wrote:
Players like Short and Korchnoi are obviously not playing as well as they were in their primes. And it is easy to attack them because of their personalities and some of their past actions. But I have great respect for world class players who continue to play and compete as they age even though they leave themselves open for disparagement and criticism. I'm 54 years old and longevity means something to me. I'm actually one of the top ranked players over 50 in my state, not because I'm a strong player(my USCF rating has fallen from the 1900s to under 1800), but simply because I'm still playing! Korchnoi's record speaks for itself, and Short was a phenomenal player who actually beat Karpov in a match.
Well, I dont think much of Short. And neither does Kasparov. When asked who would be his opponent in the championship match (1993) and how long would the match be Kasparov said "It wil be short and it will be short". And man it was short!
Word was out that Kasparov let him win one game because he was afraid nobody would show up for the second match if Short fought his way through the candidates again.
It was during the championship match that Short fired lubomir Kavalek, one of his seconds. He sent his wife in to do the dirty deed. When your wife has more hair on her ass than you do---YOU ARE A PIP-SQUEAK!
I will always look upon Short as a pip-squeak and it would have been nice if you could have written "and Short was a phenomenal player who actually beat Karpov in a match when Karpov was in his prime! Never happen amigo---never happen!
Nice to see you talking through your arse again raul
I am okay with disrespecting Short people as I think I am big enough to take them in a fight. Bruce Lee for example, come on wee man if you think you're hard enough...
Arctor wrote:
raul72 wrote:
WestofHollywood wrote:
Players like Short and Korchnoi are obviously not playing as well as they were in their primes. And it is easy to attack them because of their personalities and some of their past actions. But I have great respect for world class players who continue to play and compete as they age even though they leave themselves open for disparagement and criticism. I'm 54 years old and longevity means something to me. I'm actually one of the top ranked players over 50 in my state, not because I'm a strong player(my USCF rating has fallen from the 1900s to under 1800), but simply because I'm still playing! Korchnoi's record speaks for itself, and Short was a phenomenal player who actually beat Karpov in a match.
Well, I dont think much of Short. And neither does Kasparov. When asked who would be his opponent in the championship match (1993) and how long would the match be Kasparov said "It wil be short and it will be short". And man it was short!
Word was out that Kasparov let him win one game because he was afraid nobody would show up for the second match if Short fought his way through the candidates again.
It was during the championship match that Short fired lubomir Kavalek, one of his seconds. He sent his wife in to do the dirty deed. When your wife has more hair on her ass than you do---YOU ARE A PIP-SQUEAK!
I will always look upon Short as a pip-squeak and it would have been nice if you could have written "and Short was a phenomenal player who actually beat Karpov in a match when Karpov was in his prime! Never happen amigo---never happen!
Nice to see you talking through your arse again raul
Arctor---point out the places in my post where I'm talking through my arse. Just show me the facts dumb-dumb.
Like everyone else, I do talk through my arse occasionally, but ignoramuses, such as yourself, will never know when I'm doing it. You have a chess IQ of around 25!!!!! 
raul72 wrote:
WestofHollywood wrote:
Players like Short and Korchnoi are obviously not playing as well as they were in their primes. And it is easy to attack them because of their personalities and some of their past actions. But I have great respect for world class players who continue to play and compete as they age even though they leave themselves open for disparagement and criticism. I'm 54 years old and longevity means something to me. I'm actually one of the top ranked players over 50 in my state, not because I'm a strong player(my USCF rating has fallen from the 1900s to under 1800), but simply because I'm still playing! Korchnoi's record speaks for itself, and Short was a phenomenal player who actually beat Karpov in a match.
Well, I dont think much of Short. And neither does Kasparov. When asked who would be his opponent in the championship match (1993) and how long would the match be Kasparov said "It wil be short and it will be short". And man it was short!
Word was out that Kasparov let him win one game because he was afraid nobody would show up for the second match if Short fought his way through the candidates again.
It was during the championship match that Short fired lubomir Kavalek, one of his seconds. He sent his wife in to do the dirty deed. When your wife has more hair on her ass than you do---YOU ARE A PIP-SQUEAK!
I will always look upon Short as a pip-squeak and it would have been nice if you could have written "and Short was a phenomenal player who actually beat Karpov in a match when Karpov was in his prime! Never happen amigo---never happen!
People talk as if the Kasparov-Short match was a whitewash when in fact it was 12.5-8.5. Don't forget we are talking about the greatest player that ever lived here. Short took a while to get his win but not as long as Kasparov did in his first world championship match. Also, nerves got to Short in the first game when he had a win but lost on time. I'm not saying there wasn't a gulf in class, just that the gulf was not as large as people make out. As for beating Karpov in a match when Karpov was in his prime - well, only one man ever did that. I wouldn't say that Karpov was over the hill in 93 - he ran Kasparov to a one-game loss only two years before.
Campione wrote:
raul72 wrote:
WestofHollywood wrote:
Players like Short and Korchnoi are obviously not playing as well as they were in their primes. And it is easy to attack them because of their personalities and some of their past actions. But I have great respect for world class players who continue to play and compete as they age even though they leave themselves open for disparagement and criticism. I'm 54 years old and longevity means something to me. I'm actually one of the top ranked players over 50 in my state, not because I'm a strong player(my USCF rating has fallen from the 1900s to under 1800), but simply because I'm still playing! Korchnoi's record speaks for itself, and Short was a phenomenal player who actually beat Karpov in a match.
Well, I dont think much of Short. And neither does Kasparov. When asked who would be his opponent in the championship match (1993) and how long would the match be Kasparov said "It wil be short and it will be short". And man it was short!
Word was out that Kasparov let him win one game because he was afraid nobody would show up for the second match if Short fought his way through the candidates again.
It was during the championship match that Short fired lubomir Kavalek, one of his seconds. He sent his wife in to do the dirty deed. When your wife has more hair on her ass than you do---YOU ARE A PIP-SQUEAK!
I will always look upon Short as a pip-squeak and it would have been nice if you could have written "and Short was a phenomenal player who actually beat Karpov in a match when Karpov was in his prime! Never happen amigo---never happen!
People talk as if the Kasparov-Short match was a whitewash when in fact it was 12.5-8.5. Don't forget we are talking about the greatest player that ever lived here. Short took a while to get his win but not as long as Kasparov did in his first world championship match. Also, nerves got to Short in the first game when he had a win but lost on time. I'm not saying there wasn't a gulf in class, just that the gulf was not as large as people make out. As for beating Karpov in a match when Karpov was in his prime - well, only one man ever did that. I wouldn't say that Karpov was over the hill in 93 - he ran Kasparov to a one-game loss only two years before.
I dont think Kasparov ever really convincingly beat Karpov. In the ever present "who was the greatest, Kasparov or Fischer" arguments, if one picks Kasparov as #1, I think you should be consistent and pick Karpov #2 unless you are prepared to argue that Fischer can fit in the razor thin margin between them (I think the WC game score was something like 21-19 in Kasparovs favor, so if Fischer was #2 He would have to get a score of like 21-20. )
First of all lets get you facts straight---it was 12 1/2 to 7 1/2. Short won one game. Short was 26 when he played Karpov and Karpov was 41. Karpov wasn't over the hill but was on a downward slide.
You say "Short took a while to get his win but not as long as Kasparov did in his first world championship match."
Karpov was in his prime in that match---it was close to being a skunk match---6-0.
That match in 93 was one of the most pathetic matches I have ever witnessed. Short was a bum!
raul72 wrote:
First of all lets get you facts straight---it was 12 1/2 to 7 1/2. Short won one game. Short was 26 when he played Karpov and Karpov was 41. Karpov wasn't over the hill but was on a downward slide.
You say "Short took a while to get his win but not as long as Kasparov did in his first world championship match."
Karpov was in his prime in that match---it was close to being a skunk match---6-0.
That match in 93 was one of the most pathetic matches I have ever witnessed. Short was a bum!
Strange hills where you live huh?
ashwath wrote:
its the negative minded people who always degrade such thing.. Go sit and talk to them they'l fill you with negative talks. P.S. Nigel is just so..... *awesome*
Well said. [Almost] everybody's a critic. I have the impression the people mentioned in this quote derive some type of satisfaction from the very action of degrading. Maybe at some point in time they can form their own community and the the rest of us can simply observe the outcome of such a community. Or should I say the result?
It seems to have become fashionable these days to talk about how badly Nigel Short is playing as if he's some sort of patzer. This year I've heard several commentators, many on chess.com, talk about him like he's an object of pity. In fact the nicest thing I've heard said about him was 'he's an ok player... I guess'.
Of course, all of these detractors have earned the right to say this by putting in a respectable show against the greatest player ever, in a world championship decider, having beaten Anatoly Karpov to get there.
And all of the wise guys on the forums will in time, of course, match Nigel's performance of having been the oldest man in the world's top 50.
They have also beaten all of the world's greatest players while at their peak strength and shown courage and self-belief of the highest order by not backing down from playing the very best when most of their contemporaries would baulk at such a challenge, now their truly best days are behind them.
Seriously, though, this is the same disease that sees people commenting on member analysis videos about how awful the players are, despite the fact that they're rated several hundred points below them.
I really can't get my head around it and I hope yesterday's fine win isn't the last by Nigel.
Rant over.