How is Kasparov vs Shirov 1992 a victory? There is no check.
Was it a victory on time? Or did Shirov resign?
In all the discussion over this game it's just accepted that Kasparov won, without anyone mentioning the reason for his victory.
And it is so often called a great game, whereas I don't see any great brilliance. Just 2 guys trading blows.
There's hardly a significant difference in material in the final position.
Shirov resigned: the thinking was that despite both sides left with pawns and a knight, the advantage went to Black.

Black has an extra pawn and Black's pawn chain is mutually supporting. White is down a pawn and they are split. White's king is buried too deeply in the corner to either prevent a black pawn advance to promotion or to save White's pawns.

True, White does have a pawn that is more advanced, but Black's king is already central, pretty much attacking the pawn and knight.  The white knight is insufficient to protect that pawn.  That pawn is pretty much gone, so really Black's advantage effectively becomes two pawns.

With White's advanced pawn gone, advantage becomes three black pawns and a knight against White's single king-side pawn and a knight, except even here Black's knight is already attacking that pawn so it, too, is effectively gone.

Kasparov would truly have to make some blunders to fail to promote a pawn, so pawn promotion was seen to be unavoidable given the position.  Hence White resigns.