From the press conference in Montreal:
Q for Nigel Short:
You played a bitter match against Gata Kamsky in the early 90s. You are due to play him (Gata) on Thursday. What are your feelings about this?
Nigel Short:
What can I say? I have been playing chess for a very long time. My match against Gata Kamsky was by far the most unpleasant experience I ever had in my career. In essence Gata Kamsky won this match by cheating. His father threatened to kill me during the match. It was a very ugly incident. It had to be reported to the police. He (Rustam Kamsky) had to be pulled off me actually. So, quite frankly, I would rather not see him (Gata) But its not up to me, the organizers decide who is to participate. This is not my business. Gata Kamsky, if you talk to him now, I am sure you will find him to be a polite person. But its like someone who was part of a gangster group, and he would very much like to forget about these unpleasant parts of his past when he went everywhere with his father – who is nothing more than a thug. In other sports if you had a situation where a member of a delegation threatened to kill one of the players, and don’t forget Rustam Kamsky was a boxer, and, as far as I understand, had been in prison for such offenses, you would have an automatic disqualification, but for various reasons that didn’t happen. I am sure Gata Kamsky would like to forget about the influences of his father, but he benefited from it at the time. If I win this game it will give me more satisfaction than anything else.
The full interview can be read here. What is your take on this interview?
It’s quite hard to believe that GM Short would accuse GM Kamsky of cheating. Here we go again….
Another egotistical “Super-GM” saying things publically that, ultimately, brings embarrassment to our sport.
If Mr. Short has a problem with Gata Kamsky, then why doesn’t he speak with him in private?
Anyway, Kamsky is a better player than Short. A hint of jealosy is obvious in his remarks. If what Mr. Short says is true, then why wasn’t the “threats” reported to the police?
Such comments from a top GM are a disgrace. It’s OK to think what you wish or to share your thoughts with those closest to you. However, to tell the world in an interview things that will damage the image of chess and chess players, is a tragedy.
Alas, certain “super-GM’s” need some lessons on sportsmanship from the elite Checker GM’s….and the GM’s of other intellectual games.
>>Such comments from a top GM are a disgrace. It’s OK to think what you wish or to share your thoughts with those closest to you. However, to tell the world in an interview things that will damage the image of chess and chess players, is a tragedy.
>>
Yeah, but if Vince McMahon ever buys FIDE, Short will be in position for a major push.
Feeeew.
I think Nigel Short has just said too much.
I don’t deny that Gata Kamsky’s father could have been rude and no player ought to stand that.
But I think Gata’s was his main victim and I don’t think Nigel Short should say that to a person who’s surely much more conscious of the evil that his father may have done.
It would be wise of Short to forget about that, handshake Kamsky and let the board be the main star.
Here’s a fairly even-handed account of what happened then:
http://www.chessninja.com/dailydirt/2006/10/kamskyshort_19942006.htm
>>
A mercifully brief recap of the 1994 match: After winning the first three games Kamsky caught a cold and was sniffling and hacking at the board. An annoyed Short suggested – during the game, a violation of PCA rules – that Kamsky drink some water. Kamsky lost the game. An engraged Rustam Kamsky accosted Short in the restaurant after game 4 and said “If you keep breaking the rules I will kill you!” (Now that’s a provocation, Danailov you piker.) Short even filed a police report, though no charges were filed. Kamsky went on to win the next two and then draw to win the match 5.5-1.5. There were various protests from the Kamsky side during the match, including, I believe, about trips to the bathroom (!) and making eye contact with another player (Anand) during the games. I’m not sure if any of these protests came before the game 4 incident.
>>
If Short was down 3-zip when the incident occurred, it seems a bit outrageous to say that Kamsky won the match by cheating. Short tried to start a fight with Kamsky over this recently when they were both doing commentary together. According to the same page:
>>
[Kamsky]’s been such a charmer since returning to the scene a few years ago that digging up all these things from what was practically a former life isn’t really fair. Not that Short should sympathize similarly, of course, but if 1994 reflected poorly on the Kamskys, today’s online aggression reflects poorly on Short in 2006.
>>
I disagree, in spirit and in detail, with the above comments. There is nothing egotistical in Short’s remarks. I don’t think his account brings embarrassment to chess. If what Short says is true – and I know of no reason to doubt it – then it should be stated publicly. Short suffered from the experience, and making what happened public is the best way for him to deal with the incident. I see no point in Short’s talking to Gata Kamsky privately. I see no disgrace in Short’s account of the matter, or lack of sportsmanship.
I like to read interviews given by Short. He’s much less boring than others. Some of them are so “professional”, you can’t distinguish their interviews from those of a football player or a politician.
As to Kamsky, I have no special feelings for him. I’m sure he can stand it. He could also stand the slaps from his father back then.
I agree with lambent
Xargon, the true one …
It’s hard to beleive, but if it is true why shouldn’t we know about it? If someone treatened to kill you don’t try to have a privite talk with him, you try to keep as far away as possible from him. Again all these comments that Short is egotistical and an embarrasment don’t make sense. These are made by people who are obviously biased. And if Short’s accusations are false then we need to know that too.
Many people today have no memory of what a lunatic Rustam Kamsky was. Comments by GM John Fedorowicz (he was Gata’s second) confirm that Rustam was unscrupulous. Nigel Short has good reason to call it out.
I don’t see any damage to chess. The incident happened, and Rustam Kamsky ought to have been barred permanently immediately when he threatened a GM’s life.
Kamsky has taken the tack that it was between Short and his father, but the peace offering should come from Gata, who should have no trouble doing so if he is the polite and changed individual that he appears to be.
Nigel Short has a gift with words, no doubt. Unfortunately, he has never said anything impartial that I know of.
All I know him for is for being that opinionated English “super GM” who shoots his mouth whenever he can.
Mr. Short, there are finer things in life than making lousy excuses for losing to a gifted child, and leaving England to live in Greece with your wife just to avoid taxes.
Hi All,
I posted the first message on this topic. Let me clarify something as I think I can be misinterpreted.
First, what I firmly believe is damaging to chess is Mr. Short stating that GM Kamsky won their match by “cheating.” This accusation was never, not a single time, proven nor is there a shred of empirical evidence to support it today. It is such an accusation that damages the reputation of both chess and chess professionals.
Does Mr. Short ever say precisely HOW Kamsky “cheated” to win? There were no pocket size Rybka’s during the early ’90’s. So, it’s this regurgitation of baseless allegations of cheating that damages our game. In fact, bringing this up after more than a decade is quite childish.
Did Short file an official request for an investigation into this alleged “cheating?”
Now, as for Mr. Short being threatened, such actions, if true, should never have occurred. He certainly deserved justice for such behavior toward him.
But, it’s over. I see no reason to bring up any of this now other than to hurt Kamsky’s image and possibly use it as a psychological “game” before their upcoming match.
Even if what Mr. Short says about Kamsky’s father is true, Kamsky is not his father and should not be held accountable for the actions of him. The “sins of the father” should not be passed on to his son and the son shouldn’t be judged on the actions of a parent.
So, what you have here is an angry little man, namely, Mr. Short who has in this interview publicly alleged that GM Kamsky cheated to win a match.
It is the cheating allegation that people should pay attention to. If Professional chess players make cheating allegations which are, upon investigation, found to be completely without merit, they should face penalties (just as one would if you file a false police report) such as being banned from tournaments for a certain length of time or having their GM title stripped away and fined.
We saw it in Elista, in other tournaments within the past two years, and now I think accusations of cheating are being used to undermine an opponent’s morale and an attempt to hurt their public image.
And yes, it is egotistical for Mr. Short to infer that Kamsky could only win by cheating. He is, in essence, saying “I would have won if he wouldn’t have cheated.”
This is a childish mentality and has no purpose in the arena of adult professional chess.
Huh? He isn’t talking about computer cheating… he is talking about the brutal harrassment from Kamsky and his delegation, which included accusing HIM of cheating, but culminated in assaulting him physically and threatening to kill him.
Yes, this is truly a trifle. Get over it, Nigel. What is a little death threat from a member of your opponent’s delegation? What does it matter that the opponent in question to this day refuses to acknowledge any guilt or responsibility? How childish to still be stuck up on some little detail like being physically attacked during a Candidates Match.
Or not.
I think GM Short is an innocent victim of undue threats.
1994? This is far too long time to be carrying this baggage around without achieving some sort of conclusion then moving on. And if the conclusion reached is not satisfactory to you, and redress is not an option, remember that sometimes life is a beach, and get over it. You will feel better, and people will think better of you for it, as well.
In 1994 Gata Kamsky was 19-20 yo. which in most respects is old enough to form your own independence.
However, I truly believe that he suffered quite a lot under his aggressive father. If Short was man-handled like that from Rustam Kamsky, how do you imagine Gata’s life was from chess-boy-prodigy until adulthood? The fact that he virtually left chess for five years should be evidence enough.
That he has returned, without his father, with a completely different attitude towards the sport than what he was “brought up to” should be applauded. I, for one, enjoy his games – his lack of opening preparations, balanced by a deep and entertaining understanding of the middle- / end-game.
That said, I usually enjoy Short’s shoot-from-the-hip rants, but I think he’s mistaken this time. A boy (ok, young man) should not be accountable for his fathers actions.
-Steinar
Go for it Nigel, win that game! 🙂
goodluck
To Mr. “Uh”
“…brutal harrassment from Kamsky and his delegation, which included accusing HIM of cheating, but culminated in assaulting him physically and threatening to kill him.”
You know…you must have a degree in “creative writing” for your use of adjectives is quite amusing.
First, if Mr. Short was, as you say, “physically assaulted,” did he have to receive medical treatment? Or, was the “brutal” harrassment merely emotional and a slap at Mr. Short’s pride? I suspect his pride was what was injured…not his physical self.
Words such as “brutal,” “physical harassment” and such would certainly entail immediate medical treatment. However, I remember the match and Mr. Short was never wounded or treated with “brutality.”
Do you even have a concept of what such a word actually means? If you want to use the word “brutality” think of those who died during the Bataan Death March during WWII or something. Not a chess match.
Mr. Short is a gifted chess player. He is not on par with Kamsky. He wasn’t then. He isn’t now. I do not recall a fist fight or brawl breaking out during a chess match.
If verbal threats were thrown at Mr. Short, that is a terrible thing. But, it’s time to stop whining and making our sport look bad.
Do you think it is a mere coincidence that Mr. Short is saying these things publicly right before having to play Kamsky again?
I think not. It’s a tactic to anger Kamsky and, possibly, make him not play at his best. It doesn’t take a genious to see through this scheme of Short’s.
He will lose again. What excuse shall he say at that point when Kamsky defeats him again? Oh, I suppose he could say that Kamsky has a pocket Fritz in his shoe or something but I doubt it will go over very well.
Again, if a GM publicly makes an accusation of cheating against an opponent and, upon investigation, it is found to be without any merit, that person should be punished just as someone would for filing a false police report. As I said earlier, a person who does that should be banned from tournament chess for an appropriate time, fined, or have their GM title stripped for life. If FIDE can grant them, then they should be able to take them away for severe cases of “unsportsman like conduct.”
Chess is struggling as a sport as it is. We don’t need a whiny GM crying about the past embarrassing both himself and the game.
Mr. Nigel Short,
WIN WITH GRACE, LOSE WITH DIGNITY
>>
Even if what Mr. Short says about Kamsky’s father is true, Kamsky is not his father and should not be held accountable for the actions of him. The “sins of the father” should not be passed on to his son and the son shouldn’t be judged on the actions of a parent.
>>
Not sure if the FIDE Ethics Rules are biblically based or not. They DO hold a player responsible for the actions of his entourage, but it’s not clear from the account exactly what official position Rustam Kamsky held. He should certainly have been ejected from the playing hall for the duration of the event, certainly. It’s not clear why that didn’t happen.
Rustam Kamsky was the bad boy of chess in those days. The ultimate Little League Father, in the worst sense of the word. Short has every right to be upset about that, but his real beef is against Rustam and the FIDE Officials that didn’t take whatever action he thinks should have been taken, rather than against Gata.
Nigel obviously had to contend with unreasonable behaviour from Rustam Kamsky, and – as a son of Bolton – tends to call a spade a spade rather than a digging implement.
While the memory still rankles, I’m not sure what is being achieved by going back to the event, especially when Nigel and Gata can quietly agree that Larkin has it right in ‘This Be the Verse’.
“A boy (ok, young man) should not be accountable for his fathers actions.”
Yes, he should if his father is part of his delegation and if he does nothing against it.
If Carsten Hensel had attacked Topalov physically and threatened him with death during the World Championship match, and Kramnik had simply stood and watched, doing nothing but reaping the benefits….would you seriously say Kramnik does not share any guilt?
Go Kamsky! Shut Nigel up again!
Well let’s see….
GM Short has accused
1) GM Topalov of cheating to win the 2005 World Championship tournament in San Luis.
2) GM Azmaiparashvili of cheating to win the 4th European Individual Championships in Silivri.
3) GM Kamsky of cheating to win the match against him in 1994.
If anyone is to be hauled to the FIDE Ethics Committee for bringing disrepute to the game it should be GM Short.
We are not judging Rustam Kamsky.
We are talking about Gata Kamsky. Who of us would like to be blamed for our parents faults? Who would as a teenager leave his father aside?
If I am not mistaken, Short had to deal only once with Rustam Kamsky’s behaviour.
How can he be so egotistical to forget that Gata Kamsky had to deal for some 20 years with what he had only to face once?
“Ok, his father hit you, but how many more times was he hit? And you are angry at him?”
“GM Short has accused
1) GM Topalov of cheating to win the 2005 World Championship tournament in San Luis.”
No, he definitely hasn’t. This is a lie.
2) GM Azmaiparashvili of cheating to win the 4th European Individual Championships in Silivri.
Azmaiparashvili played a losing move in a key game, took it back and played another move. Apart from how the pieces move, the rule that says you can’t take moves back is one of the most basic rules in chess.
3) GM Kamsky of cheating to win the match against him in 1994.
Do you think the Kamsky delegation used legal means? That’s the first time I hear someone say that. Most people just say it was 12 years ago and he shouldn’t dwell on it, not that it was all OK to begin with.
Mr. “Uh”
Your use of such words as “brutal” in a previous post is distorting the truth. Mr. Short was never “brutalized.” Humiliated, maybe. His pride hurt. Certainly. But “brutalized????” No. That is a patent absurdity.
If, as you claim, Mr. Short was “brutalized” due to “physical harassment,” then where were the cuts and bruises? What hospital did he have to recover in?
There were many photos of him both during and after the tournament and none show bruises that would indicate “brutal” treatment nor any type of “physical harassment” beyond possible emotional disturbances.
Choose your words wisely to reflect reality. No one is saying that it’s OK to be threatened.
He did not fight in combat during a war. So, if he’s having some PTSD from the 1994 match, his problems are psychiatric/pshychological and was never physical.
You must realize that there is another side to this story. We’ve heard Mr. Short’s version. What about Kamsky’s? I doubt he’s going to go on the record and call Mr. Short a spoiled, whiney, egotistical, rumor mongering, brat.
Why? Because Kamsky is a professional and he’s a better chess player than Short. It is this that hurts Short’s pride and is fueling this little scheme of his to distract Kamsky when they play.
It will not work. Kamsky will defeat him. What excuse will Short use this time? I’m sure after 4 straight losses, he can say that he’s got PTSD due to the 1994 match.
The guy needs a serious break and return when he has his emotions in check and is willing to act professionally like an adult.
I’m not sure what you mean by “brutalized”. One of the definitions of brutalize is “treat brutally”. Brutal according to freedictionary.com means
1. Extremely ruthless or cruel.
2. Crude or unfeeling in manner or speech.
3. Harsh; unrelenting: a brutal winter in the Arctic.
4. Disagreeably precise or penetrating: spoke with brutal honesty.
Now in my opinion 1 and 2 very well describes the behaviour of the Kamsky delegation. You’re free to disagree.
As for physical harrassment, surely you realize it doesn’t have to imply cuts, bruises and hospitalization. I never said he was actually beaten. Rustam Kamsky “only” grabbed him and threatened to kill him. Seeing how it took two people – John Fedorowicz and Roman Dzindzichashvili – to pull him off, one can begin to get an idea of the severity of the little ‘accident’.
Why do I get the feeling that people who are defending Kamsky in this are mostly Americans? Surely it would be hard for most unbiased persons to downplay such behaviour.
I’m confused. Why is this 1994 squabble still on-going? If one had something to demand of the other, why hasn’t he brought his grievance to him before now and ended it? Why must we be drug through the mud over and over and over and over? Jeez, be men about this and get it done.
Yes, the Americans are all to blame! It all started in the 1700s and their illegal so-called “Revolutionary War” from his majesty. Little do they know, there are many in Bristol that still consider the Americas little more than British colonies.
hahaha…how funny! With no other argument you must bring up the American Revolution? It is to laugh.
Well, if there are people in Bristol who “still regard America as” mere colonies of Britain (but, I think those fine folk are a bit more intelligent than this for it would border on a serious psychotic delusional disorder to not understand the realities of the past two centuries of Anglo-American history…and I don’t think Brits think this way).
They do, though, remember that if it weren’t for President Roosevelt and the United States…those same citizens of Bristol might very well have grown up speaking German if it hadn’t been for the U.S.
Keep the topic to chess. No one is taking up for Kamsky because he’s an American citizen. From what I’ve read on all the posts, he’s done nothing to have to have people “take up for him.”
He’s not said anything publicly to embarass the chess world.
However, your complete ignorance of history and, since you infer you know what every person in Bristol thinks about America (which makes you the world’s first known “mind reader”) you should capitalize on your apparent telepathic gift to read others minds and make some money!
It’s not Kamsky’s fault that Britain is not a world power any longer. However, Brits also dislike the French and have for over 1000 years….what? Do you consider France a “colony” too?
Oh, and since you can read minds and know what every person in Bristol “thinks” why not expand your horizons and play in some chess tournaments, use those mind reading gifts, and become the WCC?
A fine fellow with your ability and keen historical sense surely could take the world by storm.
What a clown!
You’re the clown, Anonymous @ 2:44:00 PM. Can’t you see the humour in the previous poster’s remark?
“They do, though, remember that if it weren’t for President Roosevelt and the United States…those same citizens of Bristol might very well have grown up speaking German if it hadn’t been for the U.S.”
Puleeze. Take your US centered blinkers off.
Britain saved herself for the short term in the ‘Battle of Britain’ air fight (Sept 1940), with bugger all help from the US.
In the longer term, Britain was mainly saved by the failure of the German invasion of the USSR. By the time the US came into the war (7 December 1941), the Germans had already fundamentally lost it in Russia.
The US only came into the war because they were attacked by Japan and then had Germany declare war on them as Japan’s ally. They did not proactively enter the war; if it hadn’t been for these two events, they might never have entered the war at all!
So much for looking out for Britain; they were only looking out for themselves!
You are the one who shows ignorance of history.
Back to chess, Short’s claim that the incident essentially cost him the match is pushing it. At 3-1 down when it happened, he was already well on the way to losing it. I agree with the fourth poster on this thread in saying this.
If only Napoleon hadn’t marched on Russia you all would still be French subjects!
23, 57, 11342, and 1100110101001
still don’t think that I can read minds? Well, I know how the actual, unaltered vote turns out tomorrow when they count the ballots in the USCF elections before the ballots are opened.
BTW, this tip will make you a millionaire if you time your investment wisely: Computer storage will go to [back] solid state in a big way (no spinning platters in hard drives).
Ha ha ha ha
Weird…
It was necessary for both Hitler and Napoleon to first subdue a dangerous Russia at their back if they were serious about invading Britain. For invading Britain required a different type of build-up – Navy/Airforce and they needed to be free to do this.
That both badly bungled their invasion is another story. Both could have won, and if this had happened, Britain would have been in extreme danger.
If Hitler had beaten Russia in 1941, and the US had not been attacked, it is not at all clear that the US would have come to Britain’s aid. Thus Hitler’s failure in 1941 may well have been the crucial factor in Britain’s survival.
In contrast to her highly questionable attitude from 1914 to 1941, the responsibility that the US has shown since 1945 is deserving of high praise.
I am not a citizen of either Britain or the US. I have no great investment in either Kamsky or Short.
Well, Mr mindreader, please do tell us, right now, before the ballots are counted, what the result is going to be. You have to show some credibility.
Of course Nigel is right and Kamsky was wrong. The guy who wrote the first comment is ignorant and shows poor analytical skills.
Of course Kamsky senior is more to blame than his son, but junior should apologise.
It annoys me to hear Americans biasedly supporting thuggary, just because he currently has U.S. nationality. It wasn’t that long ago, either.
Mark
Bauer, Berry, Jones, Polgar
To “Anon” 2:52pm
You state, “Of course Kamsky senior is more to blame than his son, but junior should apologise.
It annoys me to hear Americans biasedly supporting thuggary, just because he currently has U.S. nationality. It wasn’t that long ago, either.”
To soothe your “annoying” emotions, I recommend reading classical works on Stoicism by Epictetus, Seneca, or Marcus Aurelius. Hopefully, this will assist you in overcoming emotions that you have the power to control.
Now, to chess. I agree with you that Kamsky Sr. cause problems and these reflect badly upon chess in general, his son Gata, and it wasn’t proper. But, I have a huge “however…” to get your response to.
To say that it is only Americans who are “supporting” GM Kamsky is a complete absurdity. Do you really think that Americans care what you think of us and whether an insignificant, insecure little person as yourself thinks of us?
Gata came to America on his own free will. He came here because it is the greatest nation on Earth. It hurts the pride of many other nations that their intellectuals are increasingly coming to the U.S. to live and NOT Britain, France, Germany, or other European nations.
Nigel Short is a whiny, crybaby and is a complete embarrassment to our sport.
No one is supporting “thuggary.” In my posts I clearly stated that if Mr. Short was treated in such a terrible manner, then it should have been dealt with and dealt with severly.
But, the facts are there and as our 2nd president John Adams once said, “Facts can be the most stubborn things…” Why? because they show the truth.
Short was never physically beaten. He never appeared in photographs after the 1994 match with bruises and cuts. He required no medical attention. His pride was hurt. His aristrocratic, arrogant, little English pride was hurt. If the likes of Short is all England has to offer the world…well, it’s no surprise they lost an empire and are now a mere insignificant island that bows to the real and only superpower left…the U.S.A!
At least we had Morphy and Fischer. When was the last time England had World Chess Champion?
You want to bring nationalism into this? That’s fine.
And if you’re annoyed…ask anyone who cares? Britain is nothing more than a present-day colony of the great United States.
I love it. You hate the French and you invent ways to hate America. Where is your “mighty” and great “british empire” today?
Oh, there is no “empire.”
But to stick to chess…we have GM Kamsky, GM Kaidanov, and several others that are now American citizens and have our flag beside their name at the tournament table.
Tell me…if England is such a garden of Eden…why didn’t they all go there?
England is pretty much the “51st” state in the U.S.
I love it!
Seems to me that the English are supporting Nigel…a whiney, egotistical, spoiled, inferior GM, sore loser!
GM Kansky has said absolutely NOTHING publicly against Short. So, it is GM Kamsky that is acting as a true professional by ignoring the whining tantrums of a child-like Mr. Short.
This is NOT an America vs England issue. It’s about one childish chess GM (i.e. Short) making public statements that defame another well-known GM.
Why bring up nationality? If GM Kamsky wanted to be a Brit he would’ve went there.
For some reason, though, he chose America…the “Stars and Stripes.”
We’re even getting your soccer players, now! Geez, why not just ask the U.S. Congress if England can become a state within the U.S.?
Might as well….seems the best and brightest from around the world are coming here, to the good ol’ US A and NOT England.
Tell me…if England is such a paradise…why do all the intellectuals and chess GM’s tend to come to the USA?
England is a joke. Not a superpower…not even “power.” America, though, is the strongest nation on Earth and, moreover, the strongest nation in the history of mankind…even moreso than the Roman or Mongal Empires (in perspective) at their heights of power.
Sorry…but “old Europe” (i.e. western europe) is forever a mere shadow of former glory.
The “new” Europe, the future of Europe, lies in those nations such as: Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Hungary…and Eastern Europe.
And that is just the way it is. I know it hurts your pride…but don’t worry…the U.S. will always come to rescue the Brits just as we did in two World Wars and even now.
I think George III would not like to know that his “empire” has become nothing more than another state within the U.S.
AGain…I love it!
It will be:
Bauer, Berry, Polgar, and Truong
Recently I was discussing the Kamsky-Short match with other players on ICC, in a very civil manner. Then out of the blue, Nigel Short messaged me directly (the “say” command on ICC). We then proceeded to have an online discussion that consisted of [1] my comments, which were entirely civil and respectful; and [2] GM Short’s comments, which were extremely rude, belligerent, and insulting.
I copied-and-pasted that online discussion into a text document and saved it for future reference.
I’m not sure about Nigel’s decision to speak so candidly about this. However I don’t think for a minute that it’s some kind of pre-meditated attempt to rattle Kamsky and gain an advantage for their match, as has been suggested. It’s simply Short – love him or loathe him – being his usual outspoken self. Personally I think chess is a much more colourful world for having personalities such as his.
As for the US – England debate, I think it’s a shame how that’s descended into insult. The US is indeed currently the most powerful nation on earth, and in history. But to say that England (read Britain) isn’t even a world power is plainly ridiculous, given that London has now overtaken New York as the financial capital of the world, and that any country with nuclear capability has to be taken seriously in a military sense.
Further, while the US did indeed play a decisive role in the first two world wars, to claim that the US is “rescuing” Britain even now leaves me rather bemused. But this is a chess blog rather than a politics one.
I’m more interested in whether Mr Short is about to set some sort of modern day record for the worst super-GM tournament performance in history ….
Interview with arbiter Andrzej Filipowicz (Poland) by Vladimir BARSKY :
Q: Can you recall any complicated situations?
A: Yes, there were many! Semifinal candidates matches of the PCA were the most difficult for an arbiter. Kamsky played against Short, and Anand played against Adams . As you remember, Kamsky and Anand proceeded to the final, the Indian won and advanced to the match against Kasparov.
There were many difficult issues! Kamsky’s father Rustam suspected Anand and Adams in helping Short, and bombarded us with protests. For example, he wanted to install a wall between the tables of the candidates. However, I knew how to respond to it. I took the scheme of the scene as it was prepared for the matches, and asked Rustam: ‘Where is the wall? Do you see it ? No. So, we are not going to install it!’ After all, we put flowers between the tables to divide them somehow.
At some point we had to bad Kamsky Sr. from going to the playing hall. He protested, and I said that according to the PCA rules the protest will be reviewed in 24 hours. But Rustam did not want to wait that long. He approached Short and said that he will murder him. Rustam is a former boxer; I had to grab his hands with help of John Fedorowicz, a member of Kamky’s team. I don’t believe Rustam would implement his threat, but the situation was very unpleasant. Short contacted local police and said that he is being threatened.
I want to stress that there were absolutely no problems with Gata. Only his father and accompanying persons were completely unpredictable. Without those accompanying people chess life could become much easier!
http://globalchess.eu/main.php?id=33
There can be no doubt that Short was seriously wronged in this incident. But that it was Gata’s father that did this wrong, not Gata.
However, it would be good if Gata could offer an olive branch by acknowledging that Short was wronged. In return, however, Short should apologise for interrupting Gata’s concentration in Game 4. If Short was bothered by Gata’s coughing, he should have gone to the arbiter.
Short’s claim that this cost him the match is not credible. He was already 3-1 down at the time.
In his strident demand for an apology, however, Short forgets there are many ugly things he has done that he should apologise for. eg, his reprehensible conduct in withdrawing from an Isle of Man tournament a few years ago; his ridiculous antics regarding selection for the English team for the 1994 Olympiad; and his crowing, in his obituary on Tony Miles, about sleeping with Miles’ girlfriend. How about being a bit less hypocritical, Nigel?
Short is an arrogant and sarcastic individual (computojon is right) and needs to learn a few lessons.
I see ‘Mr Mindreader’ got his prediction wrong. Jones was not elected. Of course, he just read the results off Goichberg’s poll.
As for the US – England debate…
Top GM’s do not emigrate to England probably because of the lousy climate there. But not many really top ones go to the US either. They instead go to a part of ‘old Europe’ where they can sun themselves – Spain. Anand, Topalov, Shirov, etc.
Britain has one-fifth of the population of the US, and perhaps one hundredth of its land area. So it can hardly be expected to be a Superpower on the scale of the US.
Also Britain lost most of its power and wealth fighting Germany in two World Wars, while for much of these conflicts, the US sat back and reaped all the economic benefits of being a neutral.
Again I see the claim that the US played a decisive role in supporting Britain in World War Two. People who make this claim are clearly brainwashed by US Government bs propaganda.
Let’s get the facts straight:
On 5th December 1941, two days before the US was even in the war, the Russians launched their massive winter counterattack against the Germans before Moscow. In retrospect, it is clear that at this point Germany was never going to knock Russia out of the war. A temporary advance to Stalingrad the next year was not going to do it (even if the Germans had captured the place). With Russia surviving in 1941, Germany was doomed, because Russia’s greater resources would eventually grind Germany down without any help at all from the US. US help merely sped up the process. Even right to the end of the war the Russians were engaging more than two-thirds of the German army. In other words US participation was not decisive, ie GERMANY HAD ALREADY LOST WORLD WAR TWO BEFORE THE US HAD EVEN ENTERED IT. Got it?
The US did not ‘rescue Britain’. It already did not need rescuing any more. When Britain did have its crisis in 1940, and could easily have been overwhelmed, the US did next to nothing. They should be ashamed of this.
The US did defeat Japan well, virtually on its own, and for this it is to be congratulated. Though of course, it had the superior resources to do so.
As regards World War One, the sides were evenly balanced and the US was in the fortunate position of its entry being the factor that tipped the scales. The US had to do relatively very little fighting in this war (just look at the casualty lists).
It should be stated that in both Wars, the US did very little to deter aggression against other countries (Britain or otherwise). It just sat back and let others do all the fighting. Only when it was itself directly attacked did the US enter these wars, and may well not have done so otherwise.
It also refused to join the League of Nations between the wars. Had it done so, this organisation might have had the strength to deter German and Japanese aggression while still in its infancy. So the US must accept considerable blame for the situation having arisen in the first place.
Only since 1945 has the US shown a responsible attitude towards aggression against other countries. Since then, the world should be very grateful to it for having done so and the tremendous, truly decisive, contribution it has made.
The key issue here i believe is that Mr Short unfairly accused Kamsky of cheating, producing no evidence whatsoever to establish his claims. How long are we going to stand for these types of allegations in professional chess? To accuse an opponent publicly of cheating is a serious issue, and damaging to their reputation. If Mr Short is going to accuse, he should darn well have some evidence or be dealt with accordingly. Rustam Kamsky’s harassment is a separate issue here and should be handled by the police and does not constitute “cheating” on the part of Kamsky. Come on folks, the match wasnt even close! It’s obvious Nigel harbors some bitterness still.