Nigel Short, age 44, and back to the top !

 For me, those fide knock out tournies for the WC are all a joke. Look at the "champions" they produced : Ponomariov, Kasimdzhanov, Khalifman ....... where are they today ? Are any of them even still in the top ten ? If the WC must be determined by a tournament I think a DRR among the best players would be more reliable at producing the best player than a knock out event. However, I still prefer the way it was done in the era of Fischer myself. I dont think any of the champions produced in this manner are "questionable" . 

Yeah, I liked those style of qualifications. The whole Smyslov - Fischer Wch era had some great stories in it (taking out Botvinnik's questionable right to rematch) - Smyslov failing against Botvinnik but then prevailing, and for some reason I think it's rather excellent that Spassky reached the final vs Petrosian once and lost, but finally found 'the answer' three years later.

In latest live world ratings:

Ponomariov 13th

Kasimdzhanov 30th

Khalifman was born in 1966 and is still rated over 2600.

Karpov born 1951 and still over 2600.

 I believe Petrosian was the first WC to actually defeat his challenger ! Botvinnik kept his title by drawing the match a time or two but Petrosian actually defeated Spassky in 1966.

The first in that era of qualifications, yes - I hadn't considered that before!

Kinda makes the achievement all the more impressive really. One of very few to have defeated the challenger. And moreover, Spassky was extremely strong in the 60s.

Petrosian's game really was made for matchplaying, wasn't it?

 Yes, Petrosian was custom made for matches but his style kept him from winning very many strong tournaments but he almost always would finish in the first 3 ! He drew too much to be a great tournament player.

 True, though he had his periods of fine tournament successes. As a WC his tournament record wasn't so good though, finishing down a bunch of places--I'd have to look it up but I think 6th in one important tourney. But yeah, I'd have to look it up to be more specific.

Has Adams even played a match of 12 games or more ? I dont like seeing the WC match shortened to 12 games myself.

 13 games vs. Tiviakov seems to be his longest match.

Agree, Reb. 12 games isn't a World Championship match, it's a long training match. Should be 20 games or more.

most stats say after 16 the result is decided i ray keene our first garandmaster recomends it

 Me  - Born a long time ago and rated almost half that.

Adams' highest rating is world #4, while Short made it to world #3. On the other hand, Adams' peak rating is considerably higher than Short's.

When exactly did Adams overtake Short?

It's interesting to note that Short reached his peak rating in 2004, long after his win over Karpov for the right to meet Kasparov.

 This is true, but short was no 3 in the world when he beat Karpov in the match. His rating was approx 2685 - this was at a time when nobody (except karpov and kasparov) were over 2700. So that was a fantastic achievment from Nigel Short - he was way above other players (Gelfand, Timman, Speelman and so on) and only a little behind Karpov. Now there are approx 30 GM's with 2700 + rating (including Short). But, the question is - is Nigel Short a better player now (rating 2706,world no 25 approx) or back in early 1990's (rating 'only' 2685, world no 3)? Or has he maintained about the same standard?

Nigel often gets criticism for his performance against Kasparov in 1993 - I would point out that he did better than was expected according to the elo ratings difference (as such Nigel's rating increased after the match and Kasparov's went down a little). Especially nice was the second half of the match, which was equal.

I've tried to assess the playing style of both and gain some understanding.

Adams, a classical style, a few years back he annotated a kid win which I found very instructive, not seen many games published which he annotates though has anyone reference.

Short, style I don't know, seems to play for the two bishops at times that's about the only thing I can pick up on, can anyone reference Shorts playing style and strategy ideas.

Thanks

>:)

 A similar story about GM Kevin Spraggett who played in 2 candidates matches in the mid 80s. His rating back then never broke 2600 but in the last few years he has broken 2600 despite being past 50 years of age. I have asked him if he thinks he's a stronger player now than in the 80s and he just laughs and says ofcourse not and contributes this oddity to rating inflation in FIDE. I have a feeling Short might feel the same way...

mumble mumble mumble rating inflation mumble mumble mumble

As recently as 2004 Korchnoi was at 2642. His max rating when he was fighting it out with Karpov was 2695. Either we have inflation or Viktor was playing at age 73 only 50 odd points off his max strength.

Typically the argument about rating inflation has just two camps: One that says ratings are inflated and those who say the higher ratings reflect increased strength and the development of chess over time.

I'd be in the third, rarely heard camp that says both are true. I have no idea how to weight the two though.

edit: This accepts that ratings are measuring strength. Actually they strictly  measure relative chances of one rating vs. another, but I know that in the past the formulae have been tweaked to correct for inflation. I don't think the current system has been declared inflation-free--at least the ratings have been creeping up a few points a year as is. Some call it inflation but I don't know if it strictly can be called that.

None of the world champions before Fischer broke 2700 and I just don't believe that every player today that is over 2700 are stronger than all of the world champions before Fischer, do you ?