Nakamura Wins National Open

Ehlvest won the game/10 tournament.

It seems there's no clear cut number 1 player in the United States. Nakamura, Shabalov, Kamsky - it could be anyone on a given day. I kind of prefer that to someone who just wins all the time - each tournament can be a suprise.

Irina Krush had a great performance rating - close to 2620.

Did Renier get a GM norm from his great performance despite his last round loss?

Only the tournaments with at least 9 games are norm eligible.

@superfreaky: don't forget Onischuk.

Peace...

Superfreaky, there is, in fact, a clear-cut #1 in the U.S. right now, and this is Gata Kamsky. Nakamura has tremendous potential, and Shabalov is a dangerous opponent for anybody on a given day because of his style and his attitude about competing, but Kamsky is defeating Mamedyarov, Anand, dominating Bacrot, etc. Surely, this is cause to say that a man has accomplished more than his contemporaries since his return! Now, with regard to swiss events, it is true that any of the top players in the U.S. is a threat to take the whip to the competition in a given tournament, but this is not the same as saying that there is no player in the U.S. who has established himself as being at a higher overall level than the others at present.

Hotep,

Maliq

Maliq,

I agree with you mostly, but still, I wonder how far ahead of Onischuk and Nakamura he really is. He dominated Bacrot in a match- but remember what Nakamura did to Karjakin? And he has an impressive international record- but Onischuk put in a stellar performance at the Olympiad as well.

I think Kamsky is the strongest, but again, it probably depends on the event, which means in practice, they're about even.

To be honest, it is absurd to compare Nakamura/Onischuk to Kamsky. Look at the history, look at what all of them have accomplished. Take into consideration Kamsky's performance at the last couple of MTels, and consider Kamsky's performance at the World Cup.

Now, after doing so, how can you even come close to thinking that Nakamura/Onischuk are comparable to Kamsky? They are pathetic in comparison. Yea, Nakamura was supposed to be this big prodigy, but look at the last couple of years - it's quite obvious he has topped out his level and he's pretty much a mid-stream 2600'er - Nakamura will never hit 2700.

Another great performance from Enrico Sevillano, an IM who is rated 2571. I believe he has earned one GM norm, and he really should get serious about becoming a GM.

Well in the first place I don't think anyone would dispute that Kamsky has by far the largest stature of all of them- he played a world championship match after all.

But we are talking about current playing strength, and I see no reason we shouldn't compare them- in any case, your reasoning certainly doesn't convince:

"Take into consideration Kamsky's performance at the last couple of MTel's"

Well he played briliantly in 2006, but that was the only one he played in. If we are to take in all results at supertournaments (not just good ones) he played in another supertournament shortly before that, Corus and got crushed:

http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2893

"...and consider Kamsky's performance at the World Cup"

He finished in 9th place after the qualifying rounds, but was knocked out in the round of 16. This is the same result that Nakamura had in the 2004 world cup. There was no qualifying round to sort out places 9-16 in that tournament.

"They are pathetic in comparison"

Please recheck your facts before posting anymore nonsense.

I beg your pardon, I forgot that Kamsky did play in the 2007 version of Mtel, where he finished at 50%.

I beg your pardon, I forgot that Kamsky did play in the 2007 version of Mtel, where he finished at 50%. Not bad, but not good enough to make comparisons to Nakamura "ridiculous".

"Nakamura will never hit 2700."

Well, if Nakamura learns to play a bit more like Petrosian, like he did in his game against Gonzales, and tempers his amazing fire with a bit of cold Kramnik-Karpov steel, Nakamura certainly WILL hit 2700.

Remember, the kid is still only 20, and he has several years before he hits his max.

I love rhetorical and ignorant comments that include "it's quite obvious that".

Indeed, there is a strong amount of data to support your claim - especially at his advanced age. /eyeroll

If you compare their relative backgrounds, Nakamura is the outlier and has likely achieved already far beyond what most figured him capable of. In my most humble opinion, unless he decides to persue other things, I don't belive he's quite done yet.

Yeah, but it's surely long been obvious that Nakamura intends to pursue other things. Absent a radical shift of priorities it's hard to seem to him getting into the superelite.

But that's the point, isn't it? It has long been clear that Nakamura's priorities do lie elsewhere, at least to an extent that will preclude him joining the top ten without a radical shift in priorities. I don't see that happening.

Nakamura seems to have hit his max two years ago or so with his performance in Libya. He seems to have stopped studying openings (Taking into account his choices for them at the recent US Championship) and while he still has good results, he doesn't seem to be improving.

And in other news, Bluffmagazine.com today indicates Jennifer Shahade finished in 17th place and won $ 8,426 in the WSOP ($1k buy-in)ladies event !

So 17th place in the ladies WSOP (1k buy-in) beats 1st place in the Las Vegas International Chess Festival? Assuming they were both in Sin City, travel costs ought to be the same, so the question when comparing is what is the buy-in for the WSOP?

Actually shorter tournaments can count towards norms as long as the three counting towards titel together is at least 27 games.

Q

Kamsky certainly has the pedigree but right now I don't think it's just opening erudition but confidence. It seems Kamsky prefers cramped positions whereas looking at some of Kamsky's past games (admittedly only a few), he had some nice attacking games which require spacious positions. I believe this can be attributed to confidence, as you risk more with spacious positions and therefore have to calculate more in spacious positions, but if you're confident in your calculation skills then you will attack the king. Nakamura might also lack opening erudition but one gets the sense that Nakamura is confident in his calculation and will eschew cramped positions. I think this is why Kamsky sometimes gives up draws in U.S. Swisses (chess is chess no matter the format) - a younger Kamsky would be fearless bordering on arrogant and would not play cramped positions against anyone let alone someone rated a hundred points below him. I think the best strategy given Kamsky's confidence to only play cramped positions would have been as white to play 1. e3 against Gelfand and if 1...e5 then 2. e4, or if 1...d5 then maybe 2.f4 and 3. b3.

Sorry - fairly off topic

A lot of posts recently mention Bacrot, Grishuk et al playing poker as if it was a given that being good at chess makes you good at poker !!!!

I don't see the parallel at all. I don't even see much skill in poker at all. Saying there's a lot of bluffing going on in chess opening prep and baloney like that doesn't impress.

When Ivanchuk wins some big poker open i'll be convinced :-)

quely: Wrong. A norm needs to be based on at least 9 rounds, the exception is European Club Cup, which is 7 rounds. But yes, 27 games total.

quely: Wrong. A norm needs to be based on at least 9 rounds, the exception is European Club Cup, which is 7 rounds. But yes, 27 games total.

Good for Jennifer! A good background in chess can be helpful to a poker player.
- Poker is a game of skill .. assessing odds, exercising good money management, being attuned to tells, etc. Chess players understand the need to develop mental skills.
- Poker tournaments are a grind ... but chessplayers who have experience with big swiss 2 a-days have the needed stamina.
- Many people don't understand the difference between a game where chance plays a prominent role (poker) and a game of pure luck (lottery, slots). SO they believe its just a matter of the cards falling their way.
- There is a much bigger fool factor in poker, vs. chess. In chess, a Class C player would never dream of competing with a bunch of GM's & IM's. But since poker has no rating system, thousands of Class C poker players will pay $10,000 each to compete in the WSOP, not realizing that they have no chance to get in the money vs. the poker GMs.

Yeah rp good points all but it would still surprise me if there is much correlation between chess GMs and their ability at poker.......

Actually it isnt clear at all that there are poker "GM's"... Poker has seen a huge boom of new players arriving, and the final tables of the last few WSOP main events have been unrecognizable. Why? Because poker is a random game where your relative skill is diminished with larger fields of players. The fact is that the so called 'C-players' can, and do compete with (and beat) the poker 'GMs', or rather the television stars of poker.

There is no argument that poker has a random element, like backgammon. However, your point, parsnips is not very solid. After all, poker is enjoying a booming popularity that is bringing tons of new players to the game. So, of course new talent is being discovered. Every player has his/her "bad beat" stories, but statistically there are players who are more skilled than others. If skill can be measured by overall success, then you can't label a game's outcome as random.

As for correlations between chess talent and poker talent, rp makes a few good points about common skill sets, but the actual knowledge needed to be successful at each is unrecognizably different. I saw an interview of Howard Ledherer (I forget where all the h's and r's go in his name...) who apparently took a year off from poker to become, in his words, a chess master. Somehow I doubt that. If it's true, then I hate him.

stendec and rp: I once emailed Lederer about chess v poker and he responded (in part):

"Chess offers very good crossover skills in study and concentration. And of
course properly analyzing the possible consequences of various lines of play
also crosses over well. But there have not been any really good chess
players that made the crossover. This is in stark contrast to the multitude
of backgammon players that have made the switch from world class BG player
to world class poker player. I think this is because a truly accomplished
chess player has a really tough time dealing with the luck/skill issues that
a WC BG player has already conquered. I feel like I would have had trouble
with that if I had gotten really good at chess."

Stendec, my argument is not only solid, but backed up by probability (probablility of a specific event occuring ie. A particular poker player winning a tournament, in the set of random events decreases as the set size increases ie the number of players increase.) My point is that skill level has diminishing returns as the set size of poker players increases. This isnt a question of the solidity of my point, because my point is well backed up by probability theory, and the actual statistical results of open poker tournaments.

To quote one of my favorite posters here:

"Please recheck your facts before posting anymore nonsense."

parsnips:
Ok, I think we are all pretty dizzy with your circular writing style... In any case, you "point" that C-class poker players are playing with and beating GM poker players just because there are more people playing is not really backed up by any theory of statistics that this statistician knows. But, what do I know; you are the one that is always right. In fact, you probably know as much about statistics as I do just because more and more people are reading this blog and my knowledge and skills are getting diminishing returns. I suppose if we get the whole world to read this blog, none of us will be good at anything. Mig, stop this madness! How could you undermine all of our hard work and make us all...average?!

Stendec, this is very basic probability and set theory, that any college graduate can grasp. If if the Probability of Event E occurs in a set of events N can be measured (1 person winning WSOP, in 300 entrants for example), that probability will decrease merely by increasing N to some new level (like 600 entrants).

This is the very basic tenets of probability in non-deterministic game situations (ie where the player doesnt have real control of the outcome of the game, an example of this is poker where the player has little control over the outcome of the game.)

Contrast that with chess which has a high degree of self-determination (that is your actions correlate to whether or not you win the game) we can see the example in full effect. If a GM is the only participant in a swiss event, does his chance of winning the tournament go down by adding thousands of C players? Yes, but by a very small percentage. In Poker it goes down by a very large percentage, almost proportional to the increase in set size.

"Please recheck your facts before posting anymore nonsense."

Walter Brown(e) bags another $ 132 K in Event # 20 of the WSOP !

No doubt Hikaru can reach 2700. He didn't reach 2660+ by playing 2.Qh5. At his level, he has played many Petrosian-style games. All GMs can play all styles. Hikaru merely has a provactive style that most of us don't understand. His win against Gonzalez showed patience and long-term strategy, but of course he knew he had to play on if he wanted a chance to win the tournament. I really wanted to see him play Korchnoi.

Nice tournament Hikaru!

I wonder what Walter Browne's Poker earnings are for 2007 vs his Chess earnings. Or, for that matter, any US Top 10-player's earnings from Chess Tournaments.

parsnips:
If you bothered to read a primer on probability, you would understand that the laws only hold in a random set. If you want someone to check facts, why don't you lead the way and check the consistency of wins by skilled poker players versus a person who plays completely randomly. You argument still make no sense to anyone who can think. Seriously, get over yourself.

Stendec,

Poker is a random game. Here's a great example:

You're the best poker player in the world. You are at the final table facing an average joe. You have good cards. You bet 'correctly', flop comes and you continue to play 'correctly' throughout the hand. When it comes time to see the cards, it turns out that your correct play led you to a lost hand, because your opponent 'got lucky' (LUCKY == RANDOM). You continue playing, and it's back and forth, with your 'perfect play' until finally another lucky moment occurs and your opponent eliminates you.

What does this situation teach us? That poker is a game where you have little to no control over the outcome of the hands. The classical question of 'why do the same people end up in the final tables every year?' has been answered in the last 5 years. Almost no one at the final tables (of the WSOP) have been regular professional players at the top of poker, and the winners have been unknowns. The answer to that classical question is that the number of players was small, and if you simply increased the players those 'dominant' players disappear. This isnt an argument against people being 'skilled' in poker, I hold that there is some skill. But the game is largely randomness tempered by discipline rather than some inordinate amount of brilliant mastery over the rules and structure. This very concept is backed not only by the theory, but also by the practical results. So finally please heed my good advise and...

"Please recheck your facts before posting anymore nonsense."

parsnips:
I'm glad that you have finally admitted that there is skill involved in poker play--which completely destroys your earlier arguments about probability models based on random sets. You are a good man for admitting your mistake, even if accidentally. Now that we are on the same page, I'm sure you will remember those troublesome published lists of top earners for poker. In your earlier model of randomness, there would, in theory likely be no outstanding players and the money would be somewhat evenly distributed. However, I'm sure you see your elementary error now. Bad beats have an equal chance of happening to all players, not just the best in the world, so your starting argument is meaningless cherry-picking statistics.

Btw, I assume that your blind assault against games that require mathematical calculation of probability means that they have not treated you well. I find it funny that you likely blame your being beat consistently on the random elements of the games, when, in fact, your losing all the time proves the non-random outcome. But, this is just my assumption which I'm sure you will now refute with some outlandish story of how you are the former world champion of backgammon or bridge. So, let your expert diatribe continue...

parsnips:
I'm glad that you have finally admitted that there is skill involved in poker play--which completely destroys your earlier arguments about probability models based on random sets. You are a good man for admitting your mistake, even if accidentally. Now that we are on the same page, I'm sure you will remember those troublesome published lists of top earners for poker. In your earlier model of randomness, there would, in theory likely be no outstanding players and the money would be somewhat evenly distributed. However, I'm sure you see your elementary error now. Bad beats have an equal chance of happening to all players, not just the best in the world, so your starting argument is meaningless cherry-picking statistics.

Btw, I assume that your blind assault against games that require mathematical calculation of probability means that they have not treated you well. I find it funny that you likely blame your being beat consistently on the random elements of the games, when, in fact, your losing all the time proves the non-random outcome. But, this is just my assumption which I'm sure you will now refute with some outlandish story of how you are the former world champion of backgammon or bridge. So, let your expert diatribe continue...

Here is a fun video of Nakamura at the 2007 National Open. This was in round 5 of the blitz tournament on the Thursday evening before the main event. He is playing GM Varuzhan Akobian. Lightning stuff!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZo8O-p9qy4

The top earners list is an absurd way of "measuring" skill, since only famous players are invited. I look at only the open results, because this is where the 'top' players compete with the average joes.

You have made no point that refutes mine. I have not 'admitted' anything (I've said from the beginning that poker involves some small amount of skill, namely not to be an idiot)...

I won some cash at a cash games last weekend in vegas ($100 buy in, cashed out with $401) not through any skill but just waiting for the right cards to show up and betting those cards. You're wrong. Please follow the advise:

"Please recheck your facts before posting anymore nonsense."

parsnips:

Thanks for proving my previous prediction right: you would brag about some made-up accomplishment that makes you a self-proclaimed expert.

"Some clever tag line that shows how intellectually tired and childish I am"

Standec -

No cigar this time either.

for the record, stendec, you wrote:

"there is no argument that poker has a random element, like backgammon".

it's not surprising that you would want to twist this into parsnips arguing that poker ONLY has random elements, but that wasn't the argument.

first rule of holes: when you're in one, stop digging.

ok, I misconstrued that quote badly. My apologies. I'm an idiot.

shams:

I guess I made the mistake of using logic. He was quoting probability laws that ONLY apply to completely random systems. I assumed he knew what he was talking about. Will you accept my humble apologies?

Tarjei:

Since there are more of us that have to be right:

From the Fide handbook:

1.50 Requirements for award of the title, having achieved norms
1.50a Two or more norms in events covering at least 27 games

Which means that if you can actualy find the tournaments with 13 and 14 rounds that qualify, two norms are enough! (or 20 and 7...)

Q

These posts are too funny....but Nakamura being in the same league as Kamsky LOL. At THIS point in time he is not in his league, are u kidding?? Kamsky is a super GM, he loses a match to Gelfand and now is only as good as Nakamura?

I used to play poker with Howard in the early 1980s. He got part of the story right in the quote below, but the real gist of it is the backgammon doubling cube. Backgammon pros can make quick equity calculations when doubled (pass, accept, redouble) and that is exactly what a poker pro needs to do in a tough decision spot. So the doubling cube, a backgammon innovation, is the critical crossover component.

Here is the prior post:

"
stendec and rp: I once emailed Lederer about chess v poker and he responded (in part):

"Chess offers very good crossover skills in study and concentration. And of
course properly analyzing the possible consequences of various lines of play
also crosses over well. But there have not been any really good chess
players that made the crossover. This is in stark contrast to the multitude
of backgammon players that have made the switch from world class BG player
to world class poker player. I think this is because a truly accomplished
chess player has a really tough time dealing with the luck/skill issues that
a WC BG player has already conquered. I feel like I would have had trouble
with that if I had gotten really good at chess."

Posted by: Tom O'Donnell at June 12, 2007 15:16 "

In unrelated news, I've started to write up pre-chessbase (pre database) games from the 70s and 80s vs, e.g, Bent Larsen et al., and you can read my newly hatched writings at:

http://nezhmet.wordpress.com/

-IM Mark Ginsburg