Here is a little more on the Nakamura Kasparov situation.
http://main.uschess.org/content/view/11573/654/
Would it be reasonable to assume Kasparov cannot accept his role as a "second", not a "first"?
Given the pretty tasteless comments Nak made at the LCC, I'd say 6 of one and half a dozen of the other.
I guess Kaspi knows what he is doing so I think Nakamura should have followed everything he said. But if Nakamura didn't feel good that way, he made the right decision to stop it.
Here is a little more on the Nakamura Kasparov situation.
http://main.uschess.org/content/view/11573/654/
Would it be reasonable to assume Kasparov cannot accept his role as a "second", not a "first"?