The Shortest G.M. Game Ever!!!!

what a game

For the main topic, I don't understand how 6...Qe7 7.Nd5 wins. Why not 7...Qd7, protecting the pawn on c7 and the knigh fork on that square. Then, only the queen attacks the black knight and white is free, no?

As for Leko v. Gelfland: Yea, that was silly... After 85.Qh1+, why didn't white try to advance his pawns. The black queen is required to protect the pawn (else the white queen will take and can help advance pawns), thereby limiting the black queen's movement as well. It would've made for an interesting endgame.

As a sidenote, I always hate how grandmasters resign so early many times... I guess I understand the premise of "save your energy," but in no other game that I can think of is it ok to agree to a draw. It especially upset me in the Anand v Kasparov match, where Kasparov agreed to a draw the last game when he needed a win... I'd understand if it were a stalemate or perpetual check or not enough material, but simply agree to it? Agree to losing? It just doesn't make any sense to me...

6...Qe7 7.Nd5 Qd7 d3 wins there, I think.

 Some people have suggested that Anand was copying the Miles-Christiansen draw from the year before in San Francisco. Miles saw that Qe2 wins and indicated so by polishing the e2 square with his fingers. Miles played Nxe4 to keep the game even. Anand said nothing about that game. He did say he decided to resign instead of trying to play another 20 moves in order to not lose a miniature and to avoid hearing for the rest of his life that he lost in six moves. He did not want the other players see him playing a piece down. According to Anand, it worked for a few days during which the other players thought he had taken a quick draw.

wow, a really old thread.  I'm sure I've made this mistake before, but I thought this thread was going to be about the shortest game ever, which was of course the short variation of the sicilian

Gibaud-Lazard is often given as the shortest game in chess history between masters. But beware, many historians are casting grave doubts on its authenticity. The feeling is that it may have been a game between Gibaud and an amateur that has erroneously been attributed, or even an attempt by Gibaud to give a pretty game more creditability by substituting a class opponent.

Sorry, but can you explain what you mean by "1-0 The handshake gambit / declined"?

The reference must be to what is in the article at this link:

 http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4402

However, humor seems to have overcome the facts in the comment here. A handshake before a game is required. A handshake refusal resulted in a forfeit which was appealed, so a game took place.

those were some interesting games,thanx 4 sharing them,guys and,or gals.

yes, a second game took place, incorrectly imo since short was surely at a bit of a disadvantage due to the incident, but it was a new game.  I still think this counts as a game, even if the result was not allowed to stand.  Fortunately justice was done and short had a high quality win in the rematch converting what looked to me like a very difficult endgame.  "There is a God, and he's not Bulgarian."