Stop, Look, Listen: Nakamura at Corus 2010

I agree with D_Tal. Mig's blog has an understandable
leaning towards US events and players but in world terms I think US championship is no big deal. I've no special interest in Nakamura. If it greatly increases interest in Chess then great.

To assess the chances of Nakamura vs. Caruana, maybe it helps to have a look at their recent performances against (sub-)top players. My "database" stems from the FIDE rating site and includes everything after January 2008 (hence starting with the April 2008 list and including what's already rated for the upcoming July 2009 list). Here we go:

Nakamura
- against 2650-2700 3/5 (+1 =4)
- against >2700 2/7 (=4 -3)

Caruana
- against 2650-2700 7/15 (+3 =8 -4)
- against >2700 3/7 (+3 -4, no draws!)
Caruana won his last five games against such opposition (Sasikiran, Short, Rublevsky, Tiviakov, Ni Hua), showing that he is rapidly progressing and considerably improving what had been a fairly poor statistic before ... .

For what it's worth ... in both cases, a lot will depend on how they deal with the pressure in their first super-events (where everyone may want to beat them).

LOL
Its funny cause quite the opposite will be true.
Caruana didn't even earn his spot he got a lucky last round self struction from a Nigel Short.

One would hope Nigel Short is invited anyways as he had earned his spot (and he's more interesting than Adams anyhow).

One can be almost assured of a return by Smeets and Van Wely.

Maybe we have different opinion about what earning means , Favio won Corus B and not just because Short blundered.

chesshire cat:
You know what i meant , i just said that it is easy to understand why some people may not like him.

Perhaps you need to watch the video interview to understand what Manu meant. It difficult to describe Nakamura's attitude, you have to watch the video to see his body language and tone while responding to the questions by Jennifer Shahade and another interviewer. This is nothing to take away from his fantastic achievements in the recent few weeks. I have nothing but admiration about his chess results.

In fact lets make this interesting , I say Caruana (italian champ) will crush Nakamura (USA champ).
Wanna bet?

Absolutely , me too .

Yes you can : Shirov , Topalov , Chucky (in no particular order).

Lol , good one.
In the meantime im preparing my trip to Antartida in case he wins the event .

Thomas pls don´t flatter your self , 4 cents is a rip-off.

Manu,

With all due respect, you are letting your own bias cloud your reasoning here. You say after he won the U.S. Championship, he "seemed" like world champion. That was your own perception and you were looking for it.

In terms of Caruana and Nakamura, well... we'll see. Remember what people said in the Karjakin-Nakamura matchup? Remember also that people on this blog swore Nakamura would NEVER make 2700. Ratings aside, I personally believe Nakamura is stronger than Caruana. However, that doesn't always translate into a win over a particular player.

I remember both players when they were both pre-teens and it was obvious that their personalities had developed early. Both are talented players and I'm glad I was able to see them both develop into fine players and accomplished young men. I like them both and look forward to seeing them upset some of the more established players.

I might be wrong , but there is no bias against Nakamura from my part .
Like other poster pointed his attitude gave that kind of impression , and there is nothing wrong with that anyway , people are different.
Nakamura is stronger than Favio and has a lot more experience , but i´ll stick to my bet .
Go Caruana , go.

Do you know the numbers? , because if not it is very difficult to understand why it was an insult.
Maybe it was less than what he expected , but why would they want to agraviate him?
And how much would be an insult?
A 3 dollar bill with the portrait of Bush?

Yes, ok, you CAN. It's just that I don't REQUIRE it. Do you? If only all the talented people were lovely people. Oh, the only problem would be that all the stupid people would have to be thoroughly unpleasant, poor things.

Nakamura will undoubtedly attract attention, whether he wins or loses. Good for chess, whether you want to make him godfather to your children or not.

I am not sure if Nakamura really called or considered the proposed Corus (B) appearance fee "an insult", but there are at least two other reasons to prefer Gibraltar over Corus B:
1) The weather tends to be nicer in January (that's what Nakamura actually told Macauley Peterson over the phone, see Chess FM blog)
2) In Gibraltar, he can be in the spotlight fighting for tournament victory, whereas Corus B will always be in the shadow of Corus A. The former is more satisfying to his ego - yes, he has one ... .
BTW, I guess appearance fees are always kept secret, so there is no way to answer Manu's question. And, as Nigel Short was also mentioned: he may actually decline a Corus A invitation, but gladly accept to play Corus B - and to provide interesting quotes ... on his reasons and other things in chess and life.

Yep , but (like d.tal said) those guys were absolutely top of the top which doesnt seem to be the case here.
Don´t forget that the ¨media reality¨ is based on results too , Chucky would be only a very peculiar player if not for his outstanding chess and results.

Sorry, just assumed you are a native speaker, and at an earlier occasion you had stated that you are not British (either) ... . But my 'cold war argument' still holds, and here Fischer, Kasparov, (plus Karpov and Korchnoi) are/were the only ones benefitting [or suffering?] from related extra media attention.

"He's crossed 2700 without having the benefit of playing almost exclusively against other players with similarly high ratings; I'm not sure if people realize what an accomplishment this is."

Here I disagree - it is an accomplishment, that's for sure, but not anything exceptional or unique. I would say it is rather normal procedure: first you have to cross 2700, then (only then) you get supertournament invitations. The only exceptions are local hero wildcards.

I still hesitate between three islands - one west of Britain, two (far) southeast ... .

If the retiring demeanor of the true elite after their successes may not bring wonderful publicity to chess, Nakamura's supreme snottiness is hardly the solution. They all need to go to charm school.

Fischer's public prominence is utterly unrelated to the issue -- when have large historical forces ever before been compressed into a chess match as it was in '72? To suggest that Fischer proves that being a social misfit is a formula for chess related public popularity is absurd. Fischer's notoriety was achieved despite, rather than because, of the fact that he was a social misfit. Plainly his boost to chess would have been far more significant and lasting if he was capable of being an appealing public ambassador for the game after his over-the-board successes.

Kasparov is sui generis for other reasons and he frankly was never as insufferable as Nakamura.

I'm happy if Nakamura makes the most of this and other invitations to the elite stage. Making the most of these opportunities, however, simply does require that he spend as much time at charm school as he does on opening preparation. That's the way the world works.

Case in point: I was amused by Nakamura's excuses on his blog as to why an TV interview with a NY network affiliate got spiked. He seems not to accept the distict possibility that the segment was viewed as unappealing by the station. Was it unappealing because it dealt with chess? Obviously not, as they set up the interview in the first place.

You dont get it. They know about Fischer's phenomenal results. These results were achieved because of his chess ability; i.e. Fischer was famous because he won. A lot. Spectacularly. No pedestal except that of results. As in victories over opponents. In tournaments and matches. Without that, snotty (or snooty) behaviour wont redeem you.

Karpov was phenomenal too, who knows his name?? You can't argue that only two players in chess history were strong enough to be remembered by the public. Their results were outstanding, sure. But many others were hugely gifted- where is the cut-off point?

"He's crossed 2700 without having the benefit of playing almost exclusively against other players with similarly high ratings; I'm not sure if people realize what an accomplishment this is."

I'm not sure if people realize that 98% of players crossing 2700 do that WITHOUT "the benefit of playing almost exclusively against other players with similarly high ratings".

--- START: MYTHBUSTING MYTHBUSTING MYTHBUSTING ---

2700-players are 2700-players due to beating lower-rated players, not by drawing or beating 2700s. 2700s REMAIN 2700-players as much by beating lower-rated players as by drawing fellow 2700s.

ALL 2700-players (as a group, on average) play sub-2700s in MORE than 50% of their games.

If you think otherwise, you believe in a MYTH.

--- STOP: MYTHBUSTING MYTHBUSTING MYTHBUSTING ---

It would be interesting to learn how many of the 30 other players rated 2700+ in the live ratings Matan thinks got to 2700 by playing "almost exclusively against other players with similarly high ratings".

Let's start with some of the younger players:

Carlsen
Vachier-Lagrave
Karjakin
Radjabov
Wang Yue
Aronian
Alekseev
Mamedyarov
Gashimov
Ni
Dominguez

Matan, how many of these players went from 2600 to 2700 (2695, 2700, 2705, there's no difference) by playing a majority of their games against 2700s? Or even 15-20 games against 2700s?

Most players need 100+ games to go from being 2600 to 2700 - so how many games do "almost exclusively" mean in this context? Or which percentage of their games?

"I'm not sure if people realize what an accomplishment this is."

With the sole exception of Radjabov (who started playing top events with a rather low rating), none of the above players reached 2700 in a notably different way than Nakamura. But several of them did it at a notably younger age.

Hence, regarding the big majority of players born in the 80s and later that have reached 2700, Naka's accomplishment is nothing special - it's quite comparable. Since he took so many years to go from being 2600 to 2700, he got fewer 2nd layer invitations than some of the faster improvers - plus of course - Nakamura has by his own choice stayed away from the strongest European opens (Aeroflot, Moscow) and even declined Corus B once.

Again, I'm very curious to learn which of the above players reached 2700 by playing mostly strong players - I hope Matan will give it a shot...

"I would prefer to see somebody who was head and shoulders above his peers, who would disdainfully reject draws in any but the most sterile positions because of his belief in his own ability and fighting spirit, whose achievements would beggar belief and appear almost mystical, whose knowledge in the opening was encyclopaedic, whose play in the middlegame was magical, and whose endgame was machine-like in its precision."

I NEED A HERO!
I need a hero
I’m holding out for a hero ‘til the end of the night
He’s gotta be strong
And he’s gotta be fast
And he’s gotta be fresh from the fight

Well, that _strengthens_ rather than weakens my argument that Nakamura hasn't done too much himself to maximize his chances for good, useful learning opportunities. And stronger opposition, of course.

Calvin - very well said. A silver lining is that Nakamura is still very young, and has time to mature. I daresay several us of were comparably snotty back in our high school chess days. Without the attitude, Nakamura may be a more dynamic ambassador for chess than some of the other less outspoken grandmasters.

Shabbaz you forget the difference in age between Caruana ( 16 ) and Nakamura ( 21 ) , which is important , since at 16 Caruana is almost at Nakamura's (21 ) elo level , having won some important Tournamnet like Corus B last year. Caruana has still a lot of potential , we will see if he'll be able to develop it...

"There is no virtue in natural-born talent, but squandering a natural gift through laziness is a shameful."
What if you are natural-born lazy?

Actually revise my earlier opinion and the level of comment stirred up by Nakamura's participation suprises me but it's great ......

Hey Nakamura is playing in the London tournament with Carlsen and Kramnik among others , he will have great chances this year.
http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/complete-field-super-tournament-in-london-announced/

But seriously, don't you think Uff Da has _any_ good points in his observations?

Nobody says Nakamura hasn't achieved anything - obviously he's achieved a lot, by any standard. Most chessplayers can't get anywhere near his achievements, no matter how much work they put into it.

On the other hand, I'm convinced Nakamura could've been an established top player already (cause he is NOT there yet), probably a couple of years ago, if he'd made the choices to support such a development. He could've chosen to seek the strongest possible opponents, not to gain rating points, but to become a better chess player.

And it is quite telling that we repeatedly hear US chess fans make statements as if Nakamura's achievements are something special compared to those of other players ranked between say 15 and 40 in the world at the moment. (The reality here is that Nakamura has little to show for himself compared to the big majority of these players - how many US chess fans know that Motylev is a former Russian champion do you think?)

I've also heard people go on and on about 4-5 "consecutive tournament victories" - ignoring both the level of the event (opponents of Naka equal to cat 10 to 14-15) and multiply shared 1st places. And then there used to be Naka's own complaints about not being invited to top events, seemingly thinking he'd delivered the goods (already) to having earned such an invitation.

Now Nakamura has shown that he can keep a 2700-ish rating for some time, and combined with a very fine showing in the French League and another US championship (although not comparable to a Russian championship of course) it makes sense to give him an invitation. He sparks some interest (in my case, probably just as much due to the great belief US fans and he himself seem to have in him, as due to his results so far) and is still a relatively young player. That we also observed the typical "ketchup effect" is only a bonus for Naka, of course - all of San Sebastian, London and Corus A are events clearly stronger than anything he's played before.

The question is - why does Nakamura insist on that "slacker attitude", as Uff Da put it? Observing his opening play in the last year, it's obvious that he's been working quite a lot on opening theory recently - for instance the gambit in the rapid game Nakamura-Carlsen (which the latter eventually won) was seemingly a line Nakamura KNEW better than Carlsen; i.e. Naka was more booked up on theory. (I have that impression confirmed from Nakamura himself.)

Hence, he isn't so "lazy" as he might want us to believe - so why that image? One possible theory is that it's some kind of "self disabling" - he tries to give himself a superficial "handicap" so as to have an excuse if he "fails". Obviously, "fails" here only means "does not reach the high goals he might secretly have for himself". But he also provides his fans with the eternally returning "he could have, he would have, if he simply ..." (qoute) "explanation" (unquote) - or dumb excuse, if you like.

If such a hypothesis would hold some truth, what would that indirectly imply about Nakamura's own self confidence and belief in his talent and abilities? And is it an offensive or a defensive attitude?

I have my opinion about it, it doesn't need to be correct. I do however wish Nakamura luck in his 3 big tests ahead of him. I still might think that he isn't quite ready (in the maturity department) to experience a big success at this level, so for his own personal development as well as for his development as a chess player, he MIGHT possibly be better served by a "decent" rather than an "excellent" result at this point.

Again, I might be wrong. And obviously, I don't know Nakamura anywhere close to well enough to claim this is more than mere speculations based on superficial observations. Still, I'd be surprised if chesshire cat and others aren't able to even get the drift of what Uff Da and myself are saying.

I m glad to agree with your comment this time.
And i´d like to use the ocasion to suggest you something:
What if you create a paralel site to the live rating but with rapid chess?
I think it would be of great interest of fans and chess players , it would be nice to know the who is who in rapid .

Sure people have different approaches. The way Carlsen and Karjakin have approached chess from their early years are worlds apart, for instance. And I agree it's no point in looking back.

However, at some point becoming and staying a leading elite chess player starts to imply a great amount of work - for anyone. Also for Nakamura. Going around, seemingly pretending that isn't the case (for him), will only look stupid. He can't fool his fellow super-gms, he hopefully can't fool himself (as he knows what he does and what he doesn't), so he shouldn't try to fool US chess fans either - in particular not young, developing US chess players.

If that's what he's up to, of course. And for him, I'd wish his attitude was less defensive. Cause that's what I consider it to be.

@ra: internet blitz is well and fine, but it's not a "serious" competition: There is little or no money, little prestige, cheating is almost impossible to guard against, and for the majority of the classical elite it's mostly entertainment - like a computer game. Nothing wrong about computer games of course - I've been a fan for 25+ years - and it can be great entertainment.

But make no mistake about it: Nakamura _wants_ to be (really) successful at the real deal, where the real prestige is, and where the best players pocket big bucks, from $200-300,000 a year and upwards. If you think Naka says to himself "hey, I'm just as happy, playing bullet throughout the night, for the pleasure of John Doe in NYC and Wang Who in China", then I think you're wrong.

Of course, with the right mindset one _could_ be happy doing that, and there's absolutely nothing wrong in it; I certainly don't think happiness is a matter of money, fame and prestige. But I think Naka's real ambition and desire is somewhere else. So why not be offensive about it?

How impressive that is depends on your level of opposition doesnt it? Fischer used to give pawn and move to Addison at 5 minute Chess, play blindfold, and still get an even score.

Really! I thought Addison was a strong IM.

@frogbert:
"internet blitz is not a serious competition": as far as chess is a sport, "serious" is what grabs the fans imagination, what is viewed and discussed and raises passions, what's state of the art and the world's best of its kind (preferably in a measurable way). Internet chess is all that.

"There is little or no money"? I'm not so sure. Chessbase makes $$$ from people whose one key motivation to subscribe is to be able to see the best online gladiators, and I would not be surprised if they paid Nigel Short and Nakamura just to regularly play there. "Little prestige"? come on, have you ever followed the comments when the best are playing? Of course, cheating is quite possible but not too practical at 3+0 or shorter, and at the "prestigious" level you would be reported soon anyway.

"For the majority of the classical elite it's mostly entertainment" -- yes, but somehow they would still shy away from disclosing their identity, which indicates that prestige works here as well. Yes, this is top entertainment, and therefore serious business, and also good serious chess with some special characteristics.

And although Internet blitz does not help to gain classical success (well, some GMs might do some opening experiments or improve their feel in certain setups), I don't think it hurts either (other than the time invested, which is not too much even for Naka). So it's quite alright for Naka to try hard for success at the "real deal" while at the same time further nourishing the unique fame and well-appreciated sporting success he had achieved online. And actually yes, I do hope that Naka says to himself "hey, let's kick some butt online, regain No 1, [make some cash] and also give some pleasure to John Doe and Wang Who". That should be the sporting attitude of a champion. And of course, I also wish him to reach classical world fame as well.

Yep. when he faced addison in tournament game in the US championship for example, he was so confident he played an awful variation of the Ruy as black, the Taimanov with a6, b5 and Na5, got a pretty poor position out of the opening, and proceeded to destroy addison in the next 10 or so moves

this is incredibly misleading as corus is round robin while the us championship was swiss. Since Nakamura never played any of the weak players that were in the 2200-2300 range bringing the rating average down... the actual average of his opponents was: 2649 remember his lowest rated opponent was Michael Brooks (2419) an IM who used to have a rating over 2600 himself. After that Nakamura didn't even play a person rated below 2591 (Friedel)

You are wrong - the average I quoted stems from the FIDE calculations for the upcoming July list and includes only those opponents which Nakamura actually played:
http://ratings.fide.com/individual_calculations.phtml?idnumber=2016192&rating_period=2009-07-01

Your higher average probably occurs because you use USCF rather than FIDE ratings - for whichever reason, the former seem to be almost systemically ~50 points higher.
And your closing statement is a bit bizarre: he played Brooks (2463 FIDE, exception to the overall pattern) in round 8, followed by Friedel (2516 FIDE) in the 9th and final round ... .

Like Thomas pointed out, comparing USCF ratings and FIDE ratings is like adding apples and ... tractors.

And USCF ratings aren't ~50 points higher than FIDE ratings - they seem to be 50-150 points higher, depending on your level and your mix of USCF and FIDE events. At the moment, Kamsky's USCF rating is nearly 100 points higher than his (unofficial) FIDE rating.

In summary: Thomas was quite right that all the 3 latest Corus B events have been as strong or stronger than "Nakamura's US championship" - only the players he actually faced are counted and relevant.

Corus B 2009 was clearly stronger and a much tougher event than it would've been to face Nakamura's US Championship opponents. The podium players of Aeroflot Open A also usually end up having played a higher or an equally high average as Naka faced when winning the US championship this year - and that even if Naka faced almost all the top players in a relatively tough US championship. It still was a great performance by Nakamura, in every way, but players rated 2670-2700 do similar things several times every year, without ending up in a top category tournament.

Btw, I saw that the London organizers preferred giving all their top 4 players a spot in the event, instead of making sure it becomes a category 19 event (as previously announced). It will still be good training for Nakamura, prior to being "fed to the wolves" in Corus A. And I doubt Nakamura will go win-less through Corus A, like Carlsen did in his Corus A debut in 2007 (the latter happened more despite his play than because of his play and chances there - he fumbled clear wins in at least 2 games).

@ra: Your definition of "serious competition" is probably viable in some context, but it's clearly different from mine. And if Playchess and ICC would offer a few "online stars" some money for playing on their site, it would still have to be change compared to the money elite players pick up for playing OTB blitz events - not to mention OTB classical events. At any rate, I think you understand my points, and I acknowledge yours.

You didnt answer my suggestion about keeping a paralell rapid rating for the +2700 guys .
I hope that you or some other person do that.

You should learn to put your resentment aside ,frogbert.
:)

Well, it was short and concise, and with the minor correction of substituting "i" with "ha" in his text (s/i/ha/ for nerds), it would also become arguably true, while still somewhat vulgar. Other than that, it's the kind of post that I wouldn't mind if Mig simply deleted - but in the name of free speech i guess "opinions" also in the form of naked insults are given (too much) protection here.

I'm not sure what exactly you're thinking of, but I'm not one of those who will conclude about Naka's future in elite events depending on his result in his first cat. 19 event (Corus A).

If we can agree that neither of

1) a "failure"
2) a big "success"
3) a decent, "expected" result

says anything definitive about his future and potential, then we're fine. I expect hardcore fans to gloat and become ugly if 2) happens, I expect the "detractors" to do the same in case of 1), and both "extreme camps" will interprete 3) as supporting their view. :o) At any rate, I'll disagree with both extreme viewpoints.

However, Nakamura in reality has got 3 chances now to show something: two strong cat. 18 events and one estimated cat. 19 event. If he on average can keep his own in those 3 events, I think he's made a statement. That is, if he roughly breaks even in the rating gain/loss department in those 3 events seen together, then he's defended his current rating against players on average rated the same as he is. That would be good.

Nakamura's problem compared to Carlsen, is that he's less outstanding and less unique (from several perspectives). After all Carlsen made his cat. 19 debut rated 2698 before his 16th birthday (Nakamura will be 22 - 6 years older). There are many more players that can be considered equivalent to Nakamura, so it's less obvious that Naka should and will get many chances to prove himself. It's a tough world. (It should be mentioned that Carlsen overall held his own in his first 3 top events, played within an even shorter time frame than Naka's 3 upcoming events. After two luke-warm results, the 16-year old school boy came 2nd in Linares, in an awesome field.)

Is this difference fair? I think so, more or less. There are limited spots in these events, and your opportunities are typically a reflection of what you have promised - through results and otherwise. The exception might be local invites (Naidtisch, Vallejo, Van Wely, Smeets, etc.) But that's an all different ballgame.

I hope this answers your question, which was rather vague. :o)

"Love him or hate him (there seems to be little in between)"

I'm a long way from both loving and hating Nakamura. I find it interesting following his progress and I'll watch San Sebastian and the other events closely. As for his personality, he gave a much better (more sympathetic) impression when I met him in person, compared to the kind of impression people (at least some) seem to get from the "internet version" of Naka.

"he has done all of them"

I think you need to consider the _timing_ of the criticism compared to Naka's actual results and the hype of the fans. Both Nakamura AND his fans have often seemed to think Naka has been entitled to much more exposure, credit and invitations than he's actually experienced. People with (I dare to say) better overview over all European players with equivalent (or better) achievements compared to Naka have typically reacted accordingly.

"So now the argument is what"

The argument used to be that we haven't seen him do well against strong (as in 2700+) players yet, or in high-category events. Now Nakamura gets 3 chances to do well in that kind of setting. After those events, our accumulated knowledge will be greater.

"he's not in the World's Top 10? He's not a "True 2700"? Is Eljanov, Motylev, Vachier-Lagrave?"

And what kind of invitations have these players received, that Nakamura didn't? Unlike Nakamura, both Eljanov and Motylev have WON Corus B to qualify for Corus A. What kind of invitations has Vachier-Lagrave received?

The young french-man is 2-3 years younger than Nakamura and is at roughly the same level. Only now is he starting to get some interesting invitations - he's going to play Biel in July. Nakamura already played Biel several years ago, although this year's edition of Biel is very strong - cat. 19 in fact.

"As much as I like Fabiano, there's a pretty big difference between being #25 or so at 2710 and #78 at 2650. "

And that's a pretty misleading comparison, too. Caruana is 4-5 years younger for one. Even more important - 2710 is Naka's July rating, 2649 is Caruana's April rating. For July, he gains 21 points and ends up at 2670. Nakamura first reached 2670 in January 2008, at 20, while Caruana turns 17 this year. Unless Caruana makes no rating progress for 2,5 years - like Nakamura who didn't go anywhere between April 2005 and October 2007 - Caruana so far looks more promising than Nakamura - going by the numbers, which was what you referred to above.

Finally, I find the recurring use of the term "detractor" about (seemingly) anyone who tries to maintain a balanced view on Nakamura's accomplishments a bit annoying. Let's discuss the facts - those that are available. And agree that people might interprete things differently without being ridden by "hate" or other negative feelings. Ok? :o)

"Lov him or hate him (there seems to be little in between ..."
Along with frogbert, I would say there is a lot in between, unless everyone who does not love or adore him, everyone who is just a bit skeptical, everyone saying that he still has things to prove, must hate Nakamura ... .
"Nakamura makes for really interesting chess."
Agreed upon, but part of what makes his chess interesting may not be suitable at the very highest level. I am rather skeptical about 1.e4 c5 2.Qh5 - unless all opening books have to be rewritten. To be fair, he used it as a one-time surprise weapon at sub-top level .... .

"I've felt Nakamura's participation in European events (especially team events) have helped stop that. "

I think that was a very wise move from Nakamura - and something I have kept suggesting over at chessgames.com for several years already, at least since 2006-2007 - and I'm not surprised that his increased willingness to play European events (participating in the French and Austrian league, for instance) have helped him on several levels.

I wish him the best of luck, and I hope that US fans will acknowledge the presence and strength of partly "unknown" (but strong!) players like Motylev and Eljanov. As long as patriotism doesn't get the better of people, it's only good that people are dedicated fans of their idols. :o)

"Now, he's just your average 2710 guy. :)"

Well, I'd say less experience, fewer results in top events, more talent, more potential. However, I think invitations should be based mostly on accomplishments, with some weight put on talent/potential too (age is a factor in the latter, of course).

I think Nakamura deserves his current invitations, but I hope that people would keep in mind how good results by players like Motylev and Eljanov haven't automatically parachuted them into _more_ top events. And at the moment Nakamura has received more "good invitations" than the younger and comparably strong Vachier-Lagrave.

Bottom line, despite the increase in top tournaments of later years, there has been an even bigger increase (IMHO) in strong players, capable of battling it out with the best. Hence, there's a shortage of spots and lots of talent to fight for them. And the established elite gets to pick first - anything else would be rather strange, I think.

Funny how some threads (this one and the Aronian interview) suddenly come alive again. By now prugno's comment - the last one before almost six months of silence - turns out to be quite prophetic.
We now know how Nakamura's and Gashimov's ratings have further evolved. Gashimov _finally_ got ONE supertournament invitation to Linares, and even this one was (sort of) questioned by some people on this blog - including Mig. Paraphrasing his words as I don't feel like looking up the original comment: "certainly many people would prefer Kramnik over Gashimov in Linares".