Talk:Nigel Short

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

old talk[edit]

Who is the strongest British chess player of the 20th century? Unquestionably Michael Adams is the strongest British player of the 21st century and indeed he had eclipsed myself already by the late 1990s. However, I would argue that my achievement in reaching the 1993 World Championship is the single greatest achievement by a British player during the 20th century. I have been ranked third in the world, for a period of 18 months, Michael has never been higher than fourth. Others doubtless beg to differ with what is, after all, a subjective opinion, but that is why the opening sentence says "widely regarded" and not "is". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nigel Short (talkcontribs)

Egads this fellow takes himself seriously, doesn't he?  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 10:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


Short is universally known as 'Nosher' amongst other chess players. This is because 'Nigel Short' is an anagram of 'Nosher L. Git' Apparently he's not so keen on this but hey that's life Nosher. SmokeyTheCat 15:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he's not keen on the name at all. He became furious at being called that during an online discussion, at which I was present. I'm not sure but I think the late Tony Miles gave him that nickname. Pericles899 18:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Smokey, please stop this repeated vandalism of this page. Your edits have been reverted repeatedly, yet you refuse to stop. Quale 02:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
It's not vandalism. It's a piece of interesting trivia. SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 08:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC) Nigel "Nosher" Short is as much as part of this subject as Alex "Hurricane" Higgins or Jimmy "Whirlwind" White. I really cannot see why anyone objects to this.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 08:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC) I have re-inserted the line with 4 links to prove that it is not vandalism. Jim Plaskett, the late Tony Miles and almost every other British chessplayer of note refers to Short as Nosher. Maybe Americans don't 'get' the British sense of humour but Short is British after all. SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 10:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Can somebody provide sources for this nickname business? tia, --Tom 17:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I gave four links but Skarioffszky deleted them all.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 08:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The links did not back up the info you added to the article; a webpage somewhere on which someone calls him "Nosher" is not proof that he is "universally" or "affectionately" known by that name. Stop trolling. Skarioffszky 11:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I am not trolling. Everyone on the British chess scene calls Short Nosher and I gave several links showing this to be so. SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 09:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC) Here are the links again:-] [1][2][3] but just Googling 'Nosher' + 'Short' will give loads more.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 09:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Googling '"Nigel Short" + Nosher' gives me no more than 27 unique results (including several wikipedia mirrors). Not exactly widespread. And nothing about your sausages. In fact, one of your own links refutes you - in the review of Tony Miles: It’s Only Me, Don Aldrich writes: "Later he refers to Nigel Short as ‘Nosher.’ We are finally let in on the joke — his anagram of Short’s name is Nosher L. Git." So apparently he had never heard of the nickname before. But you want to use this article to support the claim that Short is "universally" known as Nosher. Skarioffszky 10:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
That's an old article by Aldrich. Everyone in British chess knows Short as Nosher now.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 10:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Nosher is only one of the nasty names Short is referred to by. The chess magazine Kingpin have used it for example. Is it worth mentioning on wikipedia? Probably not. Smokey the Cat is certainly not trolling by mentioning it though.--ZincBelief 21:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Smokey is trolling, given the number of times he's added it to the article after being asked to stop. Every edit he's made to a chess article that I've seen has had WP:NOR or WP:NPOV problems. See Talk:Vladimir Kramnik#Only the human world champion for a good example of Smokey's "helpful edits" on chess biographies. Quale 15:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Depends on your definition of trolling I suppose. Nosher is an offensive pseudonym that is out there, so he's right on that (not trolling). Trying to place it the article when asked not to(trolling, yes as it's offensive, no as it's not made up)
I am not trolling. Quale just seems to lack a sense of humour is all.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 09:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


This section looks a little feeble to me, snide remarks made by Nigel are not really controversy are they? Possibly his withdrawal from the Isle of Man tournament could be called contravertial, but I really think you need a little more to create this section Smokey. Otherwise I would have to agree, you appear to just be trolling.--ZincBelief 10:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I see we have somebody else now adding copious amounts of spurious material to Nigel's homepage. This Dyfed Open tale seems like sloblock to me.--ZincBelief (talk) 13:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

This material has been inserted a number of times, but as it fails WP:V I've removed it once again. Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The reference to the Tony Miles obituary seems like rubbish. A search of the Telegraph archives show no such article. Plus it is inconceivable that Short would write it or the Telegraph publish it. I think it should be deleted. Timotek (talk) 06:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

It is entirely true actually. You can find a reference in the Kingpin chess magazine if you look there. A mere google would suffice. I will re-instate the matter.--ZincBelief (talk) 14:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Kingpin Issue 37 by the way. Sunday Telegraph appears to have deleted the original obituary online, but it will still be available in hardcopy in some archive somewhere if you care to look for it.--ZincBelief (talk) 15:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Lead sentence[edit]

As it reads now..."is often regarded as the strongest British chess player of the 20th century." Is this sourcable and do folks agree with this? This seems like a pretty lofty claim, not that I am denying it. Anyways, --Tom 15:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to me. Nigel Short is the only player to have challenged for the World Championship (well reached the final). Michael Adams has also reached World Number 3 ranking. Who else would one regard as strongest?--ZincBelief 16:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem, even though it's been toned down now with "often regarded as", is that it's a subjective claim. Better to put what he's actually done, e.g. "first British player to qualify for a world championship match" (I'd put "only" except that Michael Adams reached the final of the FIDE World Chess Championship 2004 during the days of the split title). Or "Only British player to qualify for a Classical World Chess Championship match" with a footnote on Adams 2004. Or describe 1993 as "the best world championship result by any British player since Howard Staunton". Peter Ballard (talk) 01:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't think there's much wrong with it as it stands; it doesn't purport to be a fact just a widely held opinion. If you really want to change it, Nigel himself describes very ably the juxtaposition with Adams in 'Old Talk' above. Brittle heaven (talk) 01:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm also uneasy because the sentence appears to have been edited in by Short himself. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I removed it. I know this goes against the Brittle's objection, but I think it's a pretty clear cut case of unsourced weasel words. Adpete (talk) 03:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Death threat and cheating in match against Kamski?[edit]

He makes such claims in an interview.? Happily ever after 11:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

dunderhead and BCM derision[edit]

Is there a source for this update? I can't find much, perhaps reference should be made to the english chess federation's letter of support for Nigel available at [4]. Also, there is a interview with John Watson where Nigel discusses the issue, but I don't believe any new facts were brought to light in it. -- (talk) 10:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Second Youngest?[edit]

Mecking didn't become an IM until he was aged 19. Nigel Short became one when he was aged 14/15, so I don't see how Mecking was the youngest grandmaster - anyway, Peter Leko became an International Master at a slight younger age of 14(?) - a record which has since been broken.

Somebody needs to do some research and make some changes to this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whipster (talkcontribs) 09:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Your comment is somehat confusing. The article says Mecking was the youngest International Master, not Grandmaster. Mecking became a GM at the age of 19. It's therefore conceivable that he became an IM at 13 or 14 (as he was a prodigy), younger than Short. Do you have a source that states he did not become an IM until 1971, the same year that he was awarded the GM title?--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
According to Jeremy Gaige's Chess Personalia, Henrique Mecking (born 1952) became an IM in 1967 and a GM in 1972. This makes the claim in the article plausible, but it doesn't verify it. We really need a source, but I don't know of any suitable references off hand. Keene wrote a book on Short—I could look there. Quale (talk) 01:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

England's number one[edit]

I think the fact that Short has regained the position as number one from Michael Adams in the September 2009 rating list is notable and should perhaps be expanded a little. How long has it been since he was no 1? I'm guessing around 15 years. (Perhaps you can tell us exactly, Nigel...) --Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Their ratings were very closely matched 1994-1997. Mickey's moved ahead in July 1998 (and over 2700). Brittle heaven (talk) 17:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

defeated world champions[edit]

The lead says "He has defeated 12 of the 19 officially recognised World Champions since 1886." This may be correct (I don't know), but he never had a chance to play some of them. This needs to be restated as "defeated all 13 of the world champions since (year) except Fischer" or something like that. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 13:30, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

A bigger problem, in my opinion, is inconsistency from one article to another. Compare the lead here and in the article Judit Polgár with that of the page Paul Keres. Toccata quarta (talk) 15:30, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
You're right. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 15:54, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
If for no other reason than consistency, I think we need to distinguish undisputed and FIDE champions. I'm guessing he's defeated the 4 FIDE-only champions (Khalifman, Ponomoriov, Kasimzhanov, Topalov) and 8 undisputed champions (Anand, Kramnik, Kasparov, Karpov, Spassky, Tal, Smyslov, Petrosian). But the Petrosian win was in 1978 and was apparently a simul: (see comment of Mar-12-09). So I'm going to rephrase it as 7 undisputed and 4 FIDE. Adpete (talk) 03:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
According to, Short has no classical wins against Spassky[5] and none at all against Ponomariov[6]. The other 9 check out. So I'll revise that again to 6 against undisputed champions, 3 against FIDE-only champions. Adpete (talk) 08:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I have removed this whole section :- "Short has defeated twelve World Champions (Smyslov, Tal, Karpov, Kasparov, Kramnik, Anand, Khalifman, Ponomariov, Kasimdzhanov, Topalov in classical chess; Spassky in rapid and Petrosian in a simultaneous exhibition)" Khalifman, Ponomariov, Kasimdzhanov and Topalov were never world champions. If some editor wants to create a 'Notable Games' section, as exists for several players, and give links to Short's victories over these that would be most welcome but for now this unreferenced section is not required in the article IMHO. SmokeyTheCat 13:42, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

the Twitter nontroversy[edit]

To be honest I'm in favour of deleting this altogether. This is hardly the most outrageous thing Short has ever said or written. He is known to be an atheist, and a shit-stirrer, so this tweet is just par for the course for him. I actually suspect the Daily Telegraph picked up on the non-story after finding it in the wikipedia article (it was sourced only to Twitter) and asked a junior writer (one who doesn't even know the difference between a "game" and a "match") to make a story about a stupid Twitter thread. Any publicity for their chess columnist is good publicity as far as they're concerned. Then picked up on the same non-story and added nothing of any substance to it. Meantime, in the real world, nobody really gives a shit. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:17, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I share your frustration. Wikipedia was originally built on sound encyclopedic principles, but is increasingly turning into a gossip-laden newspaper. Someone did however manage to rid the Danny Gormally page of it's 'sensationalist incident' (for passage of time, if not storm in a teacup reasons, I imagine), so maybe Short's entire 'Incidents' section could be removed once the current furore has died down. It could be replaced by one short comment in the main body text, along the lines of: 'Short is known for his outspoken views on a range of topics, some of which have been condemned by sections of the community, or have aroused media interest'. And then simply affix the various sources to the end of the sentence. This might be one way to downplay the importance of these outpourings. We could argue a case and seek consensus at the project page. Brittle heaven (talk) 04:43, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree it's trivial in the grand scheme of things and will soon be forgotten. This is definitely WP:UNDUE. I tried to remove it but was reverted.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:30, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
The concerning thing for me is that wikipedia may well have been responsible for creating these manufactured faux outrage stories in the Telegraph and Christian Today, i.e. a citogenesis incident. Wikipedia should not report people's Tweets unless they have already received significant coverage in mainstream sources. WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTSCANDAL. MaxBrowne (talk) 17:04, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
I guess it's possible but there's no way of knowing. Short has tweeted about getting a death threat "after an Internet article of manufactured faux outrage from an entirely predictable source" but I don't think he's referring to Wikipedia. I agree with you about waiting for significant coverage though - secondary sources are always preferable.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:07, 13 March 2018 (UTC)