Does anyone know what is Nigel Short's style of play ?
Nigel Short, age 44, and back to the top !
Sort:
Aug 30, 2009
0
#103
Nigel's style of play is best described as classical and tactical. Not hypermodern, not particularly strategic. As white he opens 1. e4 (all the time), and plays QGD, French as black. As white normally spanish (ruy lopez - famous for his worall attack -Qe2 instead of Re1) but has played petroff, italian/ four knights and even king's gambit.
i think that one of the reasons chess can be so intriguing is that in one of Nigel Shorts books he describes the nizmo indian defence as bad or indifferent. Yet other people talk of Aaron Nizmowich with such reverence they object to his name being abbreviated.
Aug 30, 2009
0
#107
stanhope13 wrote:
i think that one of the reasons chess can be so intriguing is that in one of Nigel Shorts books he describes the nizmo indian defence as bad or indifferent. Yet other people talk of Aaron Nizmowich with such reverence they object to his name being abbreviated.
Yes, that book is called 'Nigel Short on chess' and it is a great little book. He describes the Nimzowiitch defence (e4 Nc6) as bad/indifferent for black (not the nimzo indian).
oh that 28 move win was the one where karpov missed bxd2 after queen x rook.
tonydal wrote:
Actually, it was a FIDE list (the one from 1962). Of current ratings, not an average or something like that.
The problem with this five-year average bit is that people tend to take that for actual ratings. Botvinnik et al had actual ratings much higher than any five-year average would be. And after all, when somebody asks you your rating, do you give them your five-year average? Probably not. You say whatever it is at the time; because (by common understanding) that is what your rating is...not some hypothetical amalgam.
The first FIDE list was 1970. I'm not sure what the 1962 list could be, apart from an effort by Elo to provide some numbers for Chess Life. My old chess mags from that period are mostly Chess Reviews but if I find something like an international list in them I'll get back to you if they cite a source.
It's been many years since I leafed through a copy of Elo's book on historical ratings. If 5-year averages is as precise a window as he provides, well it makes sense anyway.
If I wanted to compare "greatness" I'd want to not just find a peak year (or month) but also how much they dominated over a longer period of time. Such as comparing some local master who peaked briefly at 2300 but spends most of his time near 2200 to another group of masters who didn't make 2300 but are always above 2250.
The 5-year window is reasonable, and looking at the kind of historical activity from the chess luminaries, I can see why Elo went this way. Like I said above, providing 1-2 year averages makes for interesting reading too.
Aug 30, 2009
0
#111
For tonyal to describe the playing style of Short an e4 player who thrives on tactics as the dullest of the gms is ...
>:)
Aug 31, 2009
0
#112
Playing over many of his games you will have witnessed open game play at the highest level. Maybe having most of the top US players with Eastern European names is tempering the chess view of Uncle Sam.
>:)
Aug 31, 2009
0
#113
Short is avery exciting player.
ulf anderssen, Robert hubner - now they are dull players!
mkirk wrote:
Short is avery exciting player.
ulf anderssen, Robert hubner - now they are dull players!
Dont forget Kramnik ! ( drawnik fits him well )
Aug 31, 2009
0
#116
Kasparov 93 was a tougher deal than Spassky 72.
No Uncle Sam finalist for a litle while, apart from two second string affairs Karpov 95, Topalov 09. & the US Nr 1 competing sounds a bit Rusky. I can't help but think that this lack of local interest is causing resentment for some towards Short.
A great pity though that Karpov & Robert J 75 didn't happen.
>:)
tonydal wrote:
I've played over many of his games, and I've never seen an interesting one yet. He also participated in one of the all-time dullest matches (against Kasp).
I don't want to appear rude, but I hope you play over this game and eat your words.
heyy....!! he is in kolkata, INDIA, right now..!!
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1070668
Short wins in under 20 as white in a kings bishop's gambit against Kasparov....
My argument is that Short ( at his peak ) was no ordinary GM and anyone who thinks he was is being dishonest with themselves. When Kasparov left FIDE and formed the PCA FIDE held a match between Karpov and Timman to determine the FIDE world champion while Short played against Kasparov for the WC and lost. Short had beaten both Timman and Karpov in matches so clearly he had a better shot at being WC if he had not left and joined PCA. On the strength of this I dont see how anyone could honestly consider Short as an " ordinary GM". Shirov was screwed out of a match against Kasparov as he had crushed Kramnik in a match to determine Kasparov's challenger. Kramnik didnt manage to win even one game in his match with Shirov. Then, Kramnik beats Kasparov ( whom Shirov has NEVER won against ) in a match in which Kasparov cannot win a single game and gives several short draws with white when trailing in the match. This is all VERY fishy imo.