< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·
|Feb-20-14|| ||perfidious: <Shams> My recollection is on similar lines to yours. If someone pulled a stunt like that with me, they would get the bum's rush.|
|Feb-20-14|| ||Shams: <JB><Kavalek wrote a long two-part article in Inside Chess, claiming that it became impossible to work with Short as he refused to listen to him any more.>|
If this is the best he can come up with in defending his conduct, I think it's pretty telling. It wasn't Short's job to listen to Kavalek; it was Kavalek's job to listen to Short.
|Feb-20-14|| ||Jim Bartle: I don't remember the details. But Kavalek definitely thought he should have the biggest voice in what openings were chosen.|
|Feb-20-14|| ||Shams: <JB> Well, that's not entirely unreasonable but of course that should have been discussed prior to his being hired. |
Did he respond at all to the charge that he stopped working? Because if he just glossed over that, I'm ready to call the fight right now.
|Feb-20-14|| ||Jim Bartle: No, he certainly said he kept working.
Here's a nasty back-and-forth between the two from 2005:
|Feb-20-14|| ||Shams: <JB> I'm keen to read that, but your link isn't happening for me.|
|Feb-20-14|| ||Jim Bartle: Try "short kavalek "inside chess"" in Google, it was the first one for me: "Short : I am not dead."|
|Feb-20-14|| ||Shams: Thanks. Adding a hyphen to the end of the URL you link to repairs it.|
|Feb-20-14|| ||RedShield: <Kavalek had a streak of genius s bit like Bronstein's.>|
Neither was bald, either. They both just had one hell of a parting.
|Feb-21-14|| ||offramp: It was Short and Kavalek that had the parting.|
|Feb-21-14|| ||RookFile: <Kavalek: His recent claim that I did not contribute any original ideas sounds strange; he certainly did not tell me that at the time. Moreover, it now seems like the fewer ideas I had, the more money he wanted to pay me. >|
End of story, as far as I'm concerned. Anybody who has spent 5 minutes with Short knows that he wouldn't agree to pay money unless it was worthwhile to him.
|Feb-21-14|| ||Shams: <RookFile> <Anybody who has spent 5 minutes with Short knows that he wouldn't agree to pay money unless it was worthwhile to him.>|
As opposed to other GMs who would happily flush money down the drain?
|Feb-21-14|| ||RedShield: As far as opening preparation went, it's hard to see that Nigel had any cause for complaint; this was the one area in which he was more than a match for Garry.|
|Feb-21-14|| ||Benzol: I can remember playing through most of the games in the 1993 match and Nigel certainly obtained a number of excellent positions. I'm not sure why but somehow he just wasn't able to capitalize on many of them.|
|Feb-21-14|| ||RedShield: After the openings, the gods have placed the middle game.|
|May-07-15|| ||TheFocus: <I met with similar fate (as Martina Navritalova) after I left Czechoslovakia in 1968. Chess tournaments in which I participated were not reported or appeared without my name. The same year Martina left, a book of chess puzzles by two Czech grandmasters, Vlastimil Hort and Vlastimil Jansa, was published in Prague. The publisher Olympia printed 18,000 copies and when it was done, some censors discovered my name attached to one of the games. They did something unbelievable: they cut out the page with my name, printed a new one without my name and glued it back in the book. They did it page by page, book by book – 18,000 times> - Lubosh Kavalek.|
|May-07-15|| ||RookFile: <Shams: As opposed to other GMs who would happily flush money down the drain? >|
Illogical, grasshopper. You overlook the possibility of simply not paying money, and doing the work yourself.
|May-10-15|| ||TheFocus: <There is no physical punishment in chess; suffering goes on inside the mind. You defend a bad position for hours, you suffer. You lose, you suffer like in any other sport. Suffering euphoria comes when the opponent blunders in a winning position, but it is undeserved> - Lubomir Kavalek.|
|Aug-09-16|| ||PawnSac: < Jim Bartle: I don't remember the details. But Kavalek definitely thought he should have the biggest voice in what openings were chosen.|
Shams: <JB> Well, that's not entirely unreasonable but of course that should have been discussed prior to his being hired. >
When you choose a second for a major match like that, its too late to build a new opening repertoire. A player chooses openings that produce positions that result in the type of positions he handles well. The idea is to strengthen one's handling of the openings he already has experience with, searching for nuances and refinements deeper in his existing opening knowledge. You can't just jump into all new lines in which you have had no practical OTB experience, because when you are out of book or facing unclear positions, instinct supports analysis. The last thing you would want is to be in completely uncharted waters solving problems for which your opponent is prepared. That would put you in continual time trouble.
If i was selecting a 2nd it would be a player that prefers many of the openings i play, but has a different style or handling, so as to introduce new ideas or insights, or possibly find stuff that I have not considered, or overlooked in the lines i already play.
|Aug-09-16|| ||saffuna: I certainly agree with that. As I remember, Short and Kavalek prepared the Marshall as the major defense against 1. e4, then Kasparov played anti-Marshall variations.|
|Aug-09-16|| ||TheFocus: Happy birthday, Lubomir Kavalek.
Player of the Day
|Aug-09-16|| ||Howard: His birthday is the same as mine, though he's quite a bit older.|
|Dec-18-16|| ||saffuna: Kavalek discusses the beginning of his career and great games of Petrosian and Fischer: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lubom...|
|Dec-18-16|| ||MissScarlett: Respect to the guy; he's been lunching out on boring stories of glory days for forty long years.|
|Dec-19-16|| ||TheFocus: I wonder why Kavalek says that Matulovic defeated Fischer in a match? He didn't.|
Euwe was the only player to defeat Fischer in a match.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·