Saturday, October 14, 2006

Short Upset by Malaysian

We missed this one. Quah Seng Sun, chess writer for Malaysia's The Star Online, appears to have upset one of the world's most prominent grandmasters. Last week, Quah wrote in his column:

THIRTEEN years ago, the chess crime of the century was committed. Gary Kasparov and Nigel Short committed an unthinkable crime when they hijacked the world championship match and took it outside of the World Chess Federation (Fide).

Bad move! Nigel Short wasn't very happy and rapidly sent in a demanding missive. You can read Mr Short's reply here in Quah's follow-up piece this week. But what's this? No apology from the Malaysian writer?

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

It is no secret that Quah Seng Sun is a Campomanes lackey.

That is why he offered no apologies to his inappropriate and out of line "chess crime of the century" allegedly committed by Kasparov and Short.

His use of the words "unthinkable and waterhed" events allegedly committed by Kasparov and Short are obviously pure B.S. not realizing the dastardly deeds and the chess crimes and thievery committed by Campomanes.

If Quah Seng Sun has any balls, which we do not think he's got, he will publicly apologize to Grandmaster Short.

His half hearted publication of Short's letter and subsequent failure to respond shows his poor class of journalism.

Remis Aman said...

"Quah Seng Sun" is a Campomanes lackey?? Never heard that secret before.

Did anyone watch Short-Kamsky dialogue @ Playchess during WCC Game 11? The chat text did appeared in Susan Polgar blog comments but it has subsequently been removed.

It's still available here: http://crelel.forumactif.com/viewtopic.forum?p=766#766

Other read:-
http://www.chessninja.com/dailydirt/2006/10/kamskyshort_19942006.htm

Remis Aman said...

Continued:-

Nigel Short wrote:
"Glad you enjoyed the verbal jousting. Gata seemed to be a short on specific answers apart from accusing me of "psychological tricks" and challenging me to coats off outside. The only "psychological trick" that he named was that I spoke to him during one game. Quite right: during my thinking time, I suggested to him that he might like to drink some water as he was coughing incessantly. He stopped coughing and the game continued without further interruptions.

Immediately afterwards the Russian-speaking arbiter overheard him saying to his mouth-foaming Daddy that there was nothing to complain about. And yet within the hour there was (yet another) written protest accusing me of cheating - one of about half a dozen that the organisers had to deal with. By itself, the very public death threat by his father should have been sufficient to merit Gata's disqualification, never mind all his other dirty accusations. Had I been playing under FIDE, or in a private match I would have refused to continue.

Unfortunately I was in the invidious position of also being a Director of the PCA. Asking for my opponent's disqualification from the rest of my Board (I am not sure that death threats from delegation members is covered in the rules) would have looked very bad from a PR perspective, even though it was entirely justified"

Source: David J Robertson's
http://www.atticuschess.org.uk/forum/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=115&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=16

Anonymous said...

You are barking up the wrong tree remis anan. The issue is between quah seng sun, not between short and kamsky. Capiz?

When you, as a journalist, make a libelous statement, you better issue a logical statement and appropriate retraction, not hogwash and hyperboles (or hyper B.S.), to convince the juror readers.

"Chess crime of the century" ??

Jezzz.