Bobby Fischer’s Secret Online Match vs Nigel Short in 2000

Bobby Fischer’s Secret Online Match vs Nigel Short in 2000

Hello everyone, there are countless amazing stories about Bobby Fischer, but as it seems there are even more mysteries about him. It was somewhat of a legend that Bobby Fischer often logged into ICC-the internet chess club, and played numerous Blitz games and also some bullet games and well that he demolished anyone he came across and there were even stories that Fischer had some very secret matches against very strong chess players and well, like I said this was all considered to be a legend and until one day Nigel Short went public with it. He said that over the past year he played over 50 games against Bobby Fischer and that he had some evidence to support his claim. And well, evidence number one and obviously the strongest evidence is that the first match they played it was a match of eight games and Nigel Short lost with zero to eight result. And this was, well, this was amazing because Nigel Short was actually one of the strongest Blitz players in the world and he said that he doesn’t really know if the person who played against him was Bobby Fischer but that he was definitely a better Blitz player than Garry Kasparov, the current World Chess Champion, and in addition to this he also provides one irrefutable irrefutable evidence and as they play the games after one game he asked this person who may or may not be Bobby Fischer one question he asked him about one name, do you know a Mexican player? Armando Acevedo and in an instant this person replied 1970 and In fact Bobby fischer did play one game against Mr.. Armando in 1970 and well as Nigel says this was instant. It was an instant reply and even if he was to check the Database and well come up with an answer It would still take him about 20 seconds so when Nigel Short said that he was like 99% sure that he was actually playing against the (incorrect english) Bobby Fischer himself and I will show you one game of this famous match that well Bobby fischer won 8 to 0 this is game six of their match and you’ll see that well this is also one of the evidences that Nigel provides As you’ll see in the first couple moves in the opening we had f4 by Bobby Fischer d5 by Nigel Short and now Fischer plays king to f2 and Nigel explains this and OK this is a blitz game, but Nigel says that well after 1975 after I mean, after Fisher went rogue Fischer only played about 30 public games and most of them were in in his 1992 World Championship Match against Boris Spassky and well, let’s just see the rest. We have knight to c6 by Short and now Fischer plays Something very rarely seen (with) he plays king to f3 and this is avoiding completely the entire Modern chess history we have E5 and Fischer plays c3 and this is practically inviting black to push the pawn on e4 and check out the white King But this isn’t this isn’t a very good move so we have knight to f6 by Short we have d3 Bishop to e7, we have g3, castles and now king to g2 and now like I said this doesn’t have to be Fischer playing with the white pieces but if you look at this position black is much better here and well Fischer used the unorthodox openings (in alt), in all eight games and whoever this person was actually managed to defeat Nigel short with a result of 8 to 0. So, well, let’s see the rest. We have e4 we have d4 h5 and the short has the right idea here since White moves with the king he already played the three moves with the king are somewhat questionable It’s time to attack on the king-side. We have e3 g6, we have h3, king to g7, c4 rook to g8 and now c5. Fischer completely blocks the queen side and now Short gets another idea since the queen-side probably won’t open up he will well, he will continue with his attack on the king-side, so rook to h8 we have knight to c3, bishop to e6, a3 queen to d7, bishop to b5, we have rook-eight to g8 b4 and now king to f8 and now this both of these rooks are now ready to push the pawns. we have bishop to a4 g5 f captures on g5 and rook captures on g5, and b5 attacking the knight we have knight to d8 and now Fischer is preparing this b6 thrust but first he plays knight g to e2 to defend this g3 pawn so we have rook h to g8 now doubling up and adding more pressure to this g3 square. We have b6, now opening up the attack on black’s queen, so c6 is played and now b. captures on a7 and this is a very dangerous passed-pawn Fischer has created We have queen to c8 blocking. Bishop to b3. Queen to a8 preparing to capture the pawn. Rook to b1 and now queen captures on a7 and rook to f1 we have queen back to a8, queen to e1. Queen to c8 now attacking this h3 pawn and well, it’s not it’s not an easy task to defend this h3 pawn, so Fischer plays a brilliant move I mean whoever is playing with the white pieces plays a brilliant move. He plays knight to f4 and he defends h3 but is inviting black to capture on g3 and is preparing to part with his queen? So Nigel complies he plays rook captures on g3 with check and Fischer sacrifices the queen. Queen captures on g3 and we have rook captures on g3 with check. King captures on g3 and now bishop to f5 So bishop to d1, we have knight to e6 knight captures on h5, knight captures on h5 and now bishop captures on h5, and the knight to g7 attacking that bishop and the bishop back to g4. We have bishop captures on g4, h captures on g4 and now queen to c7 and king to g2 and as you can see this position is, well, black might be better here, but it’s a bit easier to play this with white but that’s that’s just the thing even if black is better here, which which he kind of is if he is playing against Fischer, Fischer’s playing the strongest moves, so we have knight to e6. Bishop to d2, knight g5, , bishop to e1, we have knight to f3 and now rook to h1 and now Fischer is ready to infiltrate the last rank with rook to h8. So we have queen to d7 attacking the g4 pawn now king to g3 defending and bishop to d8. We have knight to e2 we have bishop checks on c7, knight to f4 and queen to e7 we have bishop to c3, and now this bishop to c3 move is, well, guarding against the ideas like knight captures on d4 and pushing on e3 but also it completely well paralyzes this knight on f3 and well black could play something like knight to g5 but this would allow rook to h8 with check and then rook b to h1, and this will be extremely good for white Although this is probably a wrong position, but white makes better moves so black plays bishop captures on f4 with check, we have e captures on f4, and now king to g7 Short doesn’t allow Fischer to play rook on h8 check so we have a4. Fischer now completely transfers the the play on the queen-side. we have queen to c7, now rook to b6, we have f6, rook h to b1 and black couldn’t defend this pawn. It was simply undefendable, So king to g6 we have rook captures on b7 now attacking the queen and here well white is definitely winning here and Short plays queen to d queen to d8 and here, Fischer actually has a forced checkmate in five moves. So feel free to checkout the position, feel free to find checkmate on your own. It’s a It’s a very nice checkmate Y’know, pause the video and such So those of you who were able to find the checkmate I congratulate you and those of you who are just here to enjoy, this is the sequence where f5 with check king to g5, we have rook to g7 with check, king has to go to h6 Now rook to g6 with check, the king is forced to h7 and now we have rook to h1 and this is checkmate So this is…only one of the games, this is game six of their secret match on the internet chess club, and I chose it because I checked all of the games. I thought this one was the most appropriate and yeah, I’m interested in, to hear your opinion on this. Do you think this is sufficient evidence? I mean you have one Nigel Short who is, was probably one of the strongest player(s) in the world, considering Blitz and also the classical chess because. well, he did challenge Garry Kasparov for the title and the, next you have the weird choice of openings by white I mean e4, I mean f4, king to f2, king to f3 and that Nigel says that this is to avoid modern opening theory entirely and the next we have that that thing that well, Nigel asked if he knew the Mexican chess player, Mr Armando, and the person on the other side instantly replied 1970 so yeah I’m interested to hear your opinion. Is this sufficient evidence for you? and well the mere fact that someone was actually able to defeat Nigel short with a result of eight to zero So yeah, that’s it for this video. I do hope you enjoyed it and as usual you can check two of my previous videos here and yeah, thank you all for watching, and I will see you soon. oh, and, before, I wouldn’t want to forget. Thank you Mark Fontormant for your contribution to my channel and also thank you Olive Hamilton for your contribution as well. I really appreciate it, thank you guys and yeah. Thanks for watching and I will see you soon.

100 thoughts on “Bobby Fischer’s Secret Online Match vs Nigel Short in 2000

  1. This is a perfect example of Fischer’s genius if it was in fact him. I like to think he was improvising, using his creative ability at peak performance.

  2. 40:00 around that time he states that this is nonsense and it isn't him.

  3. Well let's approach this rationally. Who could it have been? The list of people who could just about beat Short 8-0 at speed chess at that time should not be long. We could ask the players. Though no one has owned up. There is the possibility of computers also.

    I guess people have analysed what computers would have done. It's hard to analyse what Fischer's style would have been. I'd imagine he'd like internet chess – fewer social & other distractions.

    It would probably take a team of Grandmasters to analyse the moves and see who they looked like. Has this been done?

  4. Which engines would have been good enough to beat Nigel short in 2007 in a blitz game ? and what PC (computing power) would they have needed. Im curious

  5. In around 2002-2003 I used to frequent ICC often…one day I was approached by a 'guest' who told me to tell Nigel Short (his actual handle was NDShort) that the 'meeting at the hotel' was still on…I then followed this guest who told me he was Fischer and it was my job to check out his opponents ratings and stuff and report it to him…I guess I was naive and did what he told me…after contacting Nigel about this player Nigel told me to send the games he had played to a chessbase email account…I then meticulously saved one by one each game this 'guest' had played and duly sent them to the chessbase email…it was years later I saw these games analyzed in a chessbase article I recognized them but nowhere was I credited with sending them in, ok no big deal. While talking to 'Fischer' he explained he moved so fast because he used a touchscreen interface…I can't believe I was so foolish as to believe this person was Fischer it was clearly Fritz the go to engine of the time…I even emailed my brother and told him I had met Fischer…'Fischer' contacted me once again with the opening line 'Hello son..' but I just told him I have been a complete fool and to leave me alone his reply was 'ok' and I never heard from him again

  6. Really fascinating, I'm not fully certain it's Fischer but the mystery player plays like someone tired of the formalities of openings and middle games and seeking to cut to the chase and solve the end game puzzles.

  7. It does rather suggest a dopey stupid rule of thumb: when Bobby Fisher offers you his Queen it's a good idea not to take it maybe?

  8. It could of been Fischer. Unorthodox yet creative.

    I remember around this time period, I cheated on ICC. Yes, its a dirty move, but I like sharing this story…

    I was using an electronic chess computer on a high setting, coordinating the matches on the tabletop to the computer. And this chess computer was brutal. It tormented people – until I played somebody who beat it. Couldn't believe it. The player was very cordial in communication, which was unlike others I played online. It was just really unusual to me.

    To this day I wonder who the hell it was. I'm NOT trying to suggest it was Fischer but I figured if it wasn't another person doing the same thing (cheating!), then it might have been a known player. They complimented me on my "ability" from what I can recall…oh man.

    I still have that chess set because of that. And yes it still rips me up in play. I pitted it against the "Chessmaster 9000" computer game years ago (which boasted an authentic 2600 rating, take that for what its worth) and it went down to a pawn. So that little computer was no pushover.

  9. 150% him. The reply of "1970" is simple, quick, and a typical Fischer answer. 1000% him or my mom's a whore.

  10. It’s truly tragic that Bobby Fischer was mentally ill. If only he had gotten treatment. But it didn’t happen.

  11. The paradox about Fischer is this: his mental illness both made him a chess prodigy AND destroyed him.
    First thing is: his obsession with chess early was in fact. An obsession which is a symptom of mental illness.
    So Fischer became a chess champion and destroyed his life because he was in fact. Mentally ill.
    MD, psychiatrist.

  12. Love this game. I can't imagine who else it could've been. I don't think anyone but Fischer could open like that and win against such a strong player.

  13. What a strange idea that in 2000's engines was weak at blitz ?? Engines were always more powerful playing blitz, and if Kasparov lose to DeepBlue in 1997 playing classic time control, than anyone will lose to almost any strong engine for instance Fritz 6 running on conventional (not super) hardware playing blitz.
    Of course I don't know if it was Bobby or not, my objection is only about this strange 'anti-2000-engine'-bias.

  14. Nigel Short is a notorious liar. I'm not talking about the storyteller type of liar like Yasser Seirawan, just a flat-out liar. Fischer would NEVER play this crap, even in a blitz game. Short was fooled by a chess engine.

  15. 'advanced chess' cheaters abound. I think there's a significant chance that this is a troll toggling between his human moves and computer moves when the computer finds major tactical opportunities. That's my first guess, but I do hope that it's actually Fischer.

  16. It was me. Had no idea it was Nigel. Small world. I played a Spanish guy in 1970, couldn’t remember his name actually.

  17. Well, maybe it was somebody with an engine?! Why is it so hard to believe?
    And to beat a strong GM like Nigel Short is probably easier without theory lines… what do you think=?

  18. It's a human making a few silly moves, then turning over the play to a computer. Everything after the first three moves is what a computer would play.

  19. The idea of Bobby Fischer playing 1.f4, 2.Kf2, and 3.Kf3 is utterly absurd: there is no way that this game could be genuine.

  20. Nigel Short has already admitted he was hoaxed years ago. He genuinely thought at the time it was Fischer but it was just pranksters who played the opening moves then switched to the engine. From memory a program called "Blitz Tiger" was found to match "Fischer's" moves.

  21. One theory suggests that the game is actually played by an engine provided with database and that's how it replied for Short's question.. However there only 2 logical solutions to this mystery.. Either the above or if the game was played by any human being it could only be Bobby

  22. Would love to see the other games with the non-standard openings – curious what other non-standard openings were used

  23. Of course Fischer in his prime was a better player than Carlsen!…he can play against the top 10 players now at the same time and beat of all them

  24. Wait a moment.
    I'm seeing all that people so certain that was a computer play. But how likely it is that some person or team put that many effort, with great programming and a top computer, just to get no credits when at the time, each game format dominated by a computer was such a big news, even something worth rewarding when beating such a strong GM?
    And most of all, go beyond all that trouble, plus search deep into bobby fisher history – because it seems he/they were a big fan- just to mimic somewhat the way he would play and even imply in the chat that it is him playing?
    That seems to be such as likely as being Bobby Fisher himself playing.

  25. On top of all the dumb things gullible people believe about the guest71 hoax, why is there a pervasive myth that engines weren't strong enough to crush a super GM in blitz in 2000?

    You really have to connect ignorance across a lot of domains to buy into this nonsense. Computer advances, chess theory, Fischer's actual record in public games in the 1990s and his actual intellect on display in interviews at that time…

  26. It was Fisher 101 percent. Only Fisher opens game like this and no one else on planet Earth ever did this opening . I saw 4 or 5 games where Fisher opens up just like in this game.

  27. Whoever this guy is if magnus Carlsen was playing against him no doubt magnus would have defeated him

  28. 8:55 Am I stupid or can he block with the knight? I mean its checkmate anyway after the rook takes it but still…

  29. Agadmator, can you please post more of these "secret" matches?? Could be interesting. Also, have you posted any of the 1992 Fischer-Spassky matches??

  30. I can't believe Fischer wouldn't enjoy playing anonymously online, so this is very easy to believe.

    Long live the king!

  31. I got another one: 1. f5 check!, king-g5 (king wont go to h6. That would be mate in three unless of course he throws away the horsie before he is mate.. that would be mate in four!)
    2. Rook-h1! .. threatening with mate on h5! And from there black is toast! Sure he can postpone the mate by throwing away the queen or the horsie.. but basicly from there on the game is lost for black: the mate is coming in just 2-3 moves..
    This sure looks like a bobby fischer game.. the guy was a genius.. (RIP!!!) He was the guy that added all the colour in the rainbow to the black and white checkerboard!!!
    Rest In Peace (RIP!) ..

  32. kasparov,bobby or magnus wen he was 8 years old
    nobody oder can't becaus the way this guy play it can only be one of this thre players and all of them was in 2000 alife
    bobby was wery old
    kasparov in midle age
    and magnus very young

  33. I was lucky enough to witness these and other games. It was most definitely Fischer. The moves followed and built on his theory of chess, and Short wasn't the only world class GM to get a spanking

  34. I want to believe it was, when he played in the candidates tournament he beat every single player every game if I'm not mistaken so the reputation precedes, but still it's all circumstantial no hard evidence its him

  35. So if Fisher hates chess, why not take up all the variants, such as crazy house, random piece placement, hoard, etc. Seems like the best possible way to play chess and avoid memorized theory.

  36. Bobby Fischer is the "rain man" of chess; so much of his brain is devoted to it that he comes off as a nut doing anything else (i.e., classic idiot-savant). From his perspective, he's playing children when he's playing grandmasters, and the only way to make the game interesting is to make some ridiculous opening that's like the equivalent of Paul Morphy giving a rook odds.

  37. 👋🏻🎱👄🎱🤚🏻 efren reyes played chess to prepare for pool tournaments in the later years of his 'official' career 🙂

  38. The playing style is Fisher. He lures you into his garden by making wild, unpredictable moves. He offers up his queen for two rooms. Then he snares you in a five move mating net. It was as if his opponent was not even playing, defending, or even there. Given the time, date, and style of play, I have little doubt it was Fisher, one of the greatest chess masters of all time. I heaven, I just hope Fisher gets to play Paul Morphy, Capablanca, and Emanuel Lasker, my other chess favorites.

  39. Can you grab the IP address and the history of all games played from that address? If he was on dial-up, you can grab whatever address that closely resembled? The IP address would show where he was playing from unless he was using a VPN….but I doubt he would have been doing that in 2000. Post all games from that address.

  40. Beautiful game! Truly a pleasure to watch. But it is not mate at the position you mention after rook to h1, knight can still block the rook at h2

  41. No one chess player who break whats Bobby contibute in a world of chess he is a true and the one in olny crazy legend, 11-0 score perfect score in his prime world tournament

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *