<I obtained a measure of revenge not only by eclipsing Tony in terms of chess performance but also by sleeping with his girlfriend, which was definitely satisfying but perhaps not entirely gentlemanly.>

While I had little truck with the late <tpstar>'s views and conduct, at his death, there was nothing to say, and there I left it.

It is true the tradition is to drop all past grievances when commentating on the passing of someone you knew.

However most of us here do not have our every word, tweet, comment, article... scrutinised.

If Nigel had said just a few kind words someone was bound to pop up and label him a hypocrite saying that is not what you thought and said about him in the 1993 match.

page 112 'Inner Game' (Nigel Short speaking)

"So far Lubosh has done no work in London at all. If I give him the Anti-Marshall to analyse, it probably won't get done at all. Robert [Hübner] and Speely [Speelman] I can rely on."

Same page later on states Speelman and Hübner had indeed produced 'spectacular' pieces of analysis. "....Kavalek produced precisely nothing."

(which is what Nigel was hinting at.)

Pages 117-119: Covers the sacking of Kavalek.
This bit I found funny, Nigel again:

"Now he [Kavalek] says he has a cold, **** it, I've had a cold for week, and I'm playing Gary Kasparov!"

That part of the book gives a blow by blow account where the player under tremendous pressure, which Dominic Lawson captures perfectly, agues, falls out and eventually fires his coach.

See: https://en.chessbase.com/post/kaval...

Where both sides gives their respective views.

Nigel has had a lot experience of seeing his comments, tweets etc twisted and bent out of shape so 'perhaps' he added the 'lack of originality' bit to fend off the hypocrite claims.

He will roll with the punches about his ''lack of originality' comment but what you got was an honest statement not hypocritical.

Get the book 'The Inner Game' ( Geoff mention you have an autographed copy it will make you sound connected) I have an autographed copy!

One of best books I have seen written about the ongoing background to a chess match by someone who was there (Keene's book on the 1978 match is the classic by which all others should be measured by. Dominic's book is up there.) and Dominic's it's not a kiss-ass book from a friend, you get the warts and all.

<Soon [Kavalek’s] wage demands were running well into six figures… I was for sacking him on the spot. To my eternal regret I didn’t. Instead, I succumbed to the usually impeccable counsel of my wife…>

Kavalek:

<…[Short] offered a fixed fee of $125,000 if he won his Candidates final match against Timman…It was his idea, his proposal, and his amount. It became public after Short disclosed it to Dominic Lawson, who wrote about it in his book. Short also said he would double the amount if he beat Kasparov.>

Short:

<Is [Kavalek] really asking the general public to believe that I, of my own volition, without any instigation or prompting on Kavalek's part, offered to pay him a colossal $250,000, of my own money (and that over a decade ago!), in the event of me defeating Garry Kasparov??>

Kavalek has the proof:

<Nigel Short’s memory needs to be corrected by written documentation. If he has lost the letter of agreement he signed in Brussels on July 4, 1992, I would be happy to provide him with a copy to refresh his memory. "If I become World Champion, I shall pay you a bonus of another US $125,000,">

Hi Perfidious,

"... that Kasparov, given his love of the initiative..."

That was the Team Short plan, play it risky to steal the initiative, make Kasparov feel uncomfortable, That is why that match produced all those lively games. Both players refused to let other have the initiative and went toe to toe.

Kasparov due his experience and being the better player knew when to hold back the reins, Short stuck to plan A.

The deal was $125,000 to get Short to the final (paid out after the final) and double, $250,000 if Short won.

The dispute arose because after Kasparov took a good lead Kavalek seems to have settled for the $125,000 not getting involved in any analysis and, from the book 'The Inner Game' going out most nights drinking with his friends and making 'Smart-arse' comments every time Short lost a game.

It's a pity because they made a good team, Nigel acknowledges he would not have got to the final without him.

---

v 8.a4 I use to bang in 8...d5 anyway and had OK results with it. They only have one game with it here. de Firmian vs I Sokolov, 1996 a Black loss.

I liked to see Black losses in my Black rep. A few losses at the GM level and the opening gets a bad name.

The good point being the players I met who believed this were not GM's and often the positions reached were double-edged where they trusted more on the openings poor reputation expecting it to fall apart v me who had looked at the coming positions and squeezed out and knew all tricks and traps.

Put it in, it's a great story, and add he was also Fisher's second after Lombardy left - he also coined/borrowed the phrase about Carlsen being the Mozart of chess, though it had been used before it's seems to have stuck with Carlsen.