Fascinating to watch this game back now with the advantage of Stockfish which wasn’t around at the time. And to see how wrong the commentators were about Short deciding to castle and a number of his other moves. Did it all right up until he missed Bd4
Short's play is very sharp. Real pity one of these games he had in this style did not convert into a full point. I have not seen anyone else attack Kasparov like this.
What a game! I've been watching Short more as commentator these days and I love this style of commentary. I'm now also in love with his style as a chess player. Too bad he couldn't win in the end!
Really good to see new Kasparov-Short world championship games from you! Thanks very much. It's cool to see the various British GMs/IMs giving commentary too.
I can't play chess very well but I like to watch the legendary Kasparov. Back in the eighties the English thought Nigel short would be world champion but it never happened. But he's still one of the greatest chess players ever. I think he's probably the greatest British player.
Kasparov had 10 (TEN !) people working for him. No wonder he was so hard to beat ! Nigel should be proud of himself for knocking out Karpov and Timman and he did manage one win in this match.
Great that this has been documented on TH-cam. A superb attacking game. One gets the feeling that Short was very unlucky not to win. Or was this whole libe in Kasparov's preparation?
What an inventive and brilliant game by Nigel Short! Pity if he missed the final stroke to win. This is the original TV series, but after game analysis. How sad no one anywhere seems to have the narration by Short himself, that was aired at the time in a lot of the games.
@@kevinfacts5200 I recorded a lot of the live TV programmes on Channel 4 onto VHS video at the time when I was 14 years old. Sadly I don't think I have it now, but I will check.
Such a shame Nigel didn't do better in this match. In fact he challenged Kasparov on a number of occasions and could have won several games. The tournament was hyped up so he was under tremendous pressure and nerves forced him into time trouble so he wasn't able to play properly in the end game. Kasparov is so arrogant in his book when he talks about this, he doesn't acknowledge how much difficulty Short caused him.
Nigel did get himself needlessly in time trouble in several promising positions, leading to errors. The match score should have been closer, although I do think that Garry would have still won with the approach Nigel took to the match as a whole. A marathon not a sprint as they say.
It's amazing years later, people actually think Nigel Short was anywhere NEAR the class, talent and skill of Garry Kasparov..its laughable but the match was a total squash...you can try to explain it away by time trouble, bad luck, etc etc BUT bottom line as we all say now in a match, the better player won...period! It just amazes me that people TRIED to make Short seem like a world-beater but he wasn't...even at his best he wasn't...Dominic Larsen... what a...nevermind lol
I speak fluent Russian and Ukrainian. If you claim to be an academic prepare to be criticized, especially when you post generic statements like "coming from an academic". Welcome to youtube. We don't care: we are all keyboard intellectuals here. Your opinion is fine. I tolerate opinion, but not laboured one like yours. Also, Mr. Academic, consider different culture, different times and a need for diverse commentators. I happen to be a subscriber of yours, by the way.
Lets analyse. You said "creepy" twice and commented on their manner as false. You should have used the word "speak" instead of "talk". One does not have to be an academic to distinguish another's demeanor. This is for television, so considering the audience, it has to have formalities and account for an amateur audience. What exactly are you an academic in? The sciences? Humanities? I am a history graduate. I feel I am qualified comment and analyse an event. You just sound pretentious.
and concerning your tv-argument. If I commentate a chess event on TV for a big audience, I don't do it much different as if I made it for a beginners class or a advanced class. I would just leave the variations out and explain it easier. But with a freaking normal voice and not as if I wouldn't want to wake my grandma in the room next to mine. These guys who are like ,,Kasparov places the pieces like Bach placed his notes, it is almost like a Fugue". I hate such expressions, even as a musician.
Let's analyse right back at you. English is my third language, not my mother-tongue. And I may apologize a hundred times that I have not expressed myself accurately in terms of lemma at 3 a.m.. I am a classical music graduate, specialized in teaching it. Also, I'm studying english. And having a chess channel myself, in english btw., I think I can comment what the fuck I want to. No offense ;)
I don't notice anything artificial about it, and I have no idea what being an academic has to do with it. Your comment is pretentious and I sense a lack of intelligence and lapse of judgement on your part.
Fascinating to watch this game back now with the advantage of Stockfish which wasn’t around at the time. And to see how wrong the commentators were about Short deciding to castle and a number of his other moves. Did it all right up until he missed Bd4
Even worse they already knew the moves as the match had already finished. They were doing it re-live or fake.
Not so, since Stockfish-level analysis didn't exist, all Short needed to do was to play the moves that out-foxed his opponent.
Short's play is very sharp. Real pity one of these games he had in this style did not convert into a full point. I have not seen anyone else attack Kasparov like this.
What a game! I've been watching Short more as commentator these days and I love this style of commentary. I'm now also in love with his style as a chess player. Too bad he couldn't win in the end!
I'm reading the book Endgame which is all about the this 1993 match. It's nice to have some video images to go along with the story. Thank you!
Really good to see new Kasparov-Short world championship games from you! Thanks very much. It's cool to see the various British GMs/IMs giving commentary too.
I can't play chess very well but I like to watch the legendary Kasparov. Back in the eighties the English thought Nigel short would be world champion but it never happened. But he's still one of the greatest chess players ever. I think he's probably the greatest British player.
I wish Francine Stock had hosted more of these chess games, she was a refreshing change to Carol Vorderman.
Kasparov had 10 (TEN !) people working for him. No wonder he was so hard to beat ! Nigel should be proud of himself for knocking out Karpov and Timman and he did manage one win in this match.
The stunning draw in the history of the world championship.
Great that this has been documented on TH-cam. A superb attacking game. One gets the feeling that Short was very unlucky not to win. Or was this whole libe in Kasparov's preparation?
Bd4 would probably won, not Be5. Amazing game.
Francine Stock has such class. Does not try to be the centre of attention.
What an inventive and brilliant game by Nigel Short! Pity if he missed the final stroke to win. This is the original TV series, but after game analysis. How sad no one anywhere seems to have the narration by Short himself, that was aired at the time in a lot of the games.
No one has even the match itself. Just a few of youtube. Where's the rest?
@@kevinfacts5200 I recorded a lot of the live TV programmes on Channel 4 onto VHS video at the time when I was 14 years old. Sadly I don't think I have it now, but I will check.
@@ajs41 thanks man. Be good if you found it. Will request a copy if so 😃. K
Thank you for continuing to upload these :)
Such a shame Nigel didn't do better in this match. In fact he challenged Kasparov on a number of occasions and could have won several games. The tournament was hyped up so he was under tremendous pressure and nerves forced him into time trouble so he wasn't able to play properly in the end game. Kasparov is so arrogant in his book when he talks about this, he doesn't acknowledge how much difficulty Short caused him.
Nigel did get himself needlessly in time trouble in several promising positions, leading to errors. The match score should have been closer, although I do think that Garry would have still won with the approach Nigel took to the match as a whole. A marathon not a sprint as they say.
Anyone got the full match
Nigel had 3 winnable game continuations in games 1,8 & 10. He lost on time in 1 and drew 8 & 10. It was more competetive than first thought
And won 16
Also had a very good chance in game 2 at move 37. He should have played g3 instead of g4 in order to create a passed pawn in the h file.
14:06 Short could have played: Bd4!! instead of Be5? and win the game!!
well if u don't get it, that speaks volumes for YOUR intelligence.
if nigel's h pawn had been on h3 he could have forced checkmate.
Dean have you got the whole videos of this World Championship
Anyone got the full match?
There was really a way to win for short?
Yeah,sure Kasparov new what he was gonna move and took thirty minutes to do so
It's amazing years later, people actually think Nigel Short was anywhere NEAR the class, talent and skill of Garry Kasparov..its laughable but the match was a total squash...you can try to explain it away by time trouble, bad luck, etc etc BUT bottom line as we all say now in a match, the better player won...period! It just amazes me that people TRIED to make Short seem like a world-beater but he wasn't...even at his best he wasn't...Dominic Larsen... what a...nevermind lol
So complicated.
who's the woman presenter?
I speak fluent Russian and Ukrainian. If you claim to be an academic prepare to be criticized, especially when you post generic statements like "coming from an academic".
Welcome to youtube. We don't care: we are all keyboard intellectuals here. Your opinion is fine. I tolerate opinion, but not laboured one like yours.
Also, Mr. Academic, consider different culture, different times and a need for diverse commentators.
I happen to be a subscriber of yours, by the way.
Excellent Sir.
Lets analyse.
You said "creepy" twice and commented on their manner as false.
You should have used the word "speak" instead of "talk".
One does not have to be an academic to distinguish another's demeanor.
This is for television, so considering the audience, it has to have formalities and account for an amateur audience.
What exactly are you an academic in? The sciences? Humanities? I am a history graduate. I feel I am qualified comment and analyse an event. You just sound pretentious.
and concerning your tv-argument. If I commentate a chess event on TV for a big audience, I don't do it much different as if I made it for a beginners class or a advanced class. I would just leave the variations out and explain it easier. But with a freaking normal voice and not as if I wouldn't want to wake my grandma in the room next to mine. These guys who are like ,,Kasparov places the pieces like Bach placed his notes, it is almost like a Fugue". I hate such expressions, even as a musician.
commentators seem to be on about 20 levels below the level of play going on, their constant state of baffle is boring to listen to
+PIEBEAR these were all extraordinary moves.. the people analyzing are grandmasters
Their commentary was not in the least bit boring.
I hate how creepy and artificial these guys talk, especially the one with the blue tie. Really creepy. And I say that as an academic.
What ??
Be5? Lost a tempo. Then draw.
Let's analyse right back at you. English is my third language, not my mother-tongue. And I may apologize a hundred times that I have not expressed myself accurately in terms of lemma at 3 a.m.. I am a classical music graduate, specialized in teaching it. Also, I'm studying english. And having a chess channel myself, in english btw., I think I can comment what the fuck I want to. No offense ;)
I don't notice anything artificial about it, and I have no idea what being an academic has to do with it. Your comment is pretentious and I sense a lack of intelligence and lapse of judgement on your part.