In my teens much if not most of the chess world was polarized over the K-K matches. I never did side with Kasparov back then, mainly because I found his chess to be too tactical and hard to calculate, whereas Karpov had a tendency to opt for quieter moves and quieter positions. They were not as hard to get your head round as the positional elements of his play were easier to appreciate than solid, hard calculations involving powerful tactical threats. In the game below, Kasparov defeats his first challenger after Karpov, GM Nigel Short. In the press conference to that match he said ‘My opponent for this match is short and it will be short. This game partially explains why he might have thought that I think. The way he plays the Botvinnik set up in the English is quite something, then he sacs a pawn, then a knight to seize the initiative. In the position below, GM Kasparov plays 28. Nxb6. I could not play this move as I could only sac for an immediate and obvious win, which clearly isn’t coming.
I ran this through the engines but what they show doesn’t help much as they cannot tell what impact the sac had a GM Short and the demands it placed -quite huge I would imagine. It’s clearly not a winnning move, so they engines show, but it required very accurate play by GM Short to avoid defeat, which he could not maintain.
Some analysis of this game came be found here. To me this game shows a noticeable difference in strength between GM Kasparov and GM Short.
The game can be found here: https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1070502
M J M
Leave a Reply