It might have been envisioned as a triumphant homecoming event for newly crowned world blitz champion Magnus Carlsen. A blitz tournament, with qualifier events in a half-dozen cities on Carlsen's native Norwegian soil, called the BNbank Blitz 2009. The qualifiers met a set of invited stars in the Oslo final on Saturday, with Carlsen the hometown hero. With no disrespect intended toward the rest of the field, which included Peter Heine Nielsen and Jon Ludvig Hammer, the only potential threat to Carlsen was the man who came the greatest distance, US champion Hikaru Nakamura. The American online blitz legend hasn't had many opportunities to prove his mettle face-to-face against the elite at his favored speed, so getting a shot at the unofficial world #1 and newly minted world blitz champion was a special opportunity.
Yes, there were preliminary rounds to get through, and those do have a way of crossing up our expectations. Just in Nakamura's case, for example, he was the big favorite to make it through to the Melody Amber rapid in 2010 from the NH tournament when he was felled by the flu and a solid Smeets. He did have a brief shot at Carlsen earlier this year, also in Norway, at the Aker Chess Club event that also included Svidler and Lie, but in a tiebreak he lost that game and another to his bete noir, Svidler. In Oslo Nakamura was all business, going 6-0 in the group phase, then taking out Lie and Nielsen 3-0 in the KO phase to enter the final. Carlsen was nearly as merciless, giving up draws to Cmilyte and Hammer before dispatching Berg to join Nakamura in the predestined final match. Unfortunately, the final was also only four games. Necessary for a one-day event, alas, but I'm sure I'm not the only one who would love to see 10, 20, or 50 games between these two young fireballs, even if they are only blitz.
So after a long day, the finalists settled down to play some predictably spotty blitz. Carlsen dominated the first two games, winning the first with black and reaching an "easily" won position in the second. But for a bullet player like Nakamura, things only get interesting when he's down to a few seconds. The less time there was, the better he played relative to Carlsen. Even that shouldn't have been enough in game two, but Carlsen missed win after win and Nakamura kept banging out complicating moves. Finally White played the horrible 62.Kf6?? to turn an endgame win by several tempi into a loss by one. Of course you can hardly criticize the qualify of such games and moves, but you rarely see such a dominating position blown at this level. Well, Carlsen did it against Karpov in Moscow just a few weeks ago, so I guess "blitz is blitz" is a better way to put it. These games are for thrills and spills and that's what we got.
Amazingly, the third game was a high-class affair. Maybe both players settled down, or were just too tired to have nerves. It was a sharp, blunder-free battle out of a Grunfeld, Nakamura playing a sharp gambit line and then innovating with 13.e5. Nakamura won a pawn but it was going to be a difficult conversion until Carlsen slipped with the only obvious mistake of the game. Nakamura pounced instantly with 40.Rxf8! to go up 2-1. Carlsen got a plus in another steady effort from both players in game four. Nakamura held on and grabbed his chance to equalize with 28..Nd4. Things should have settled down to a draw but Carlsen was in a must-win situation and he was forced to decline several repetitions with losing moves. Nakamura had no choice but to execute his opponent, which he did with his customary elan to take the game, match, and tournament.
Only four games, but the US champ just beat the world blitz champion in a set match. Congrats to Hikaru, and let's hope his VIP pass to next year's world blitz championship is already in the mail. Exciting stuff, and thanks to Chessdom for the coverage and for having the games up.
excellent post and write up Mig. However, I thought Carlsen was the official number 1 now the unofficial.
I agree with #caleague regarding 'excellent post', with one exception:
"Nakamura ... was felled by the flu and a solid Stellwagen."
I think you got only the first letter right, and rather mean Smeets!? ,:) Dutch names can be difficult ... .
BTW, while this event was certainly interesting (at least for Americans and Naka fans), I hope you are also still following the World Cup!?
Yah, figured I'd wait until today's tiebreaks were over instead of rushing something up. Not much time these days. Fixed the Stellwagen confusion; it's late...
Seems that the 2 Chinese got forfeited in the second round of the Tie-breaks. There are rumors they were late for the round.
"hex" posted the following in the Chessdom live chat: "I am present at the cup. It's true that both were late because they were smoking. They went to appeals."
It shouldn't come as a surprise to the Chinese players, zero (=0.0000) tolerance rules also applied at Chinese events.
I've got zero tolerance for FIDE's stupid rules. The rules should leave some room for the arbiter to use his best judgment, to avoid this kind of nonsense.
Wonder what the basis for the Chinese appeal is. Did the round start at the announced time? IS there even an announced time? With increments, it's impossible to know exactly when game one will be over, so it would be difficult to announce in advance when game two is going to start.
Again from the Chessdom chat: "Each round ends with the announcement of next round start time, then 2 announcements 3 and 1 minute before"
Well, I guess we will hear or read more on this in due course ... .
Ok, that sounds at least like a reasonable implementation of the zero tolerance rule. I guess the only chance for a succesful appeal would be if they didn't follow those rules. Thanks for the update!
Dutch is tricky for Americans, so is French. The proper spelling is bête noire.
With the circonflex indicating an "s" lost from "be(a)st".
I was joking, I think Stellwagen and Smeets are rather easy names. But what about Friso Nijboer? If English speakers hear the name, they might spell it out as "Nighboor" - if they read it, how would it be pronounced?
That's easy, we pronounce it "Nijboer"
My English isn't good enough ... : which English words contain the latter combinations "ij" and/or "oe"?
latter = letter
Fiji, Boer.
I guess ij depends on yoer point of view.
Congratulations to Nakamura on his excellent result in Norway.
Here's wishing him a successful tournament in London next week. I'd also like to see Nigel Short perform well. Either one of them winning would be very nice indeed.
Nigel Short lol , hes waisting too much time blitzing on the Internet ^^ .
More than Nakamura?
Thomas I had been saying Knee-boor but you say it is more like nigh-boor, thanks. I have much more trouble with Victoria's last name, how do you say it?
Someone needs to make a webpage with chessplayer names pronounced in audio files, like the online dictionaries that now have short recorded pronunciation audio files. But who would be the expert who pronounces them? When I hear Robert Fontaine, he sounds far different from Mig, who then sounds different from Sierewan, etc.
I could make a joke but maybe not. Any way I can not watch the fast games becuase the moves come all so fast and jumbly I can not understand.
Magnus is not happy: 9:46 in youtube video of Game 2. The frustration of blowing a well played won game...
would have been so much more fun if you could see the clocks more clearly
In a blitz game, when the opponent is making his moves on "your" time, I wonder if this strategy would work: Just wave your hand quickly over a piece, and wave over the clock, but touch neither. Then the opponent, not paying enough attention, moves a piece, and you claim the forfeit because he made 2 moves in a row (the second being an illegal move). In the hurry and haste, I bet it would work.
BTW, the videos are @
http://www.youtube.com/user/MrGaarder#p/u/3/fZhc9ORNkFo
Regarding possible incorrect behavior of Nakamura, I am not sure (things went too fast ...), the time trouble phase in game 2 starts around 8:00 in the video. Much earlier, he was castling with two hands ... .
Haha, then "Wijk" (as in the Dutch seaside village) would be "weak"!? No, the Dutch "ij" is generally (there may be exceptions) pronounced as in "I" or "eye" ... .
BTW, Nijboer/Nighboor has nothing to do with "neighbor" - the corresponding Dutch word is one of the few that doesn't have a close counterpart in either German or English. It may rather mean "new farmer" (nieuw boer).
Can't help regarding Cmilyte or Nepomniachtchi ,:) .
These blitz results should hardly mean anything chess-wise. Nakamura probably has the fastest hands in chess but his chess skills will be known only in London. Also, I've heard he made several moves on Carlsen's time. Its not easy for an arbiter either. I think they should just play blitz on a computer (too bad if they make mouse slips)..
nice tip!
"Much earlier, he was castling with two hands ... ."
Yes, I noted that too. What's up with that? Is it allowed for some reason to do so in the US?
I also say use mouse but some people laugh and make jokes. Who can say why.
Now now, Thomas, don't go laughing at us generally uni-lingual Americans - we have trouble with even British (clearly a foreign language), much less the 20-some languages and more dialects of Europe. You should hear when we travel west in the US, and cannot deal with our own Hispanic-influenced names in the Southwest, like ll=y and the n with the wave over it! :-)
Yes, the 'ij' combo is unknown to us, as is 'cm' in Victoria's name. I had students from asia whose names I never got right, like Ngo and Nguyen - the students told us that Americans never get their names right.
Being from the American's Old South, I can't even understand Boston or New Jersey!
If they are in the same room it does not make sense to ask them to use mouse. It would be like asking Nadal and Federer to play a tennis match using a computer instead of doing the real thing. Congrats to Naka, I wish he is able to play the World Blitz Championship next year. Let's see how he performs in London. Presumably Carlsen will seek revenge.
It did "appear" that Nakamura was castling with two hands. Two handed castling is definitely allowed in USCF rules. Is two handed castling allowed in this tournament?
For those that think Nakamura moved on Carlsen's clock, I've found the videos of the first three games on Youtube. Perhaps someone with good eyes can point out those moments to us:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rK57zdKuyA
Lame attempt , if there are irregularities you could claim them ( im sure Arbiters are present ) , if you dont claim them there are none .
Ok, not much familiar at all with the idiosyncrasies of US chess culture, but I suspected that.
Edit :
The Orange Juice of Carlsen is more empty , then filled !
Naka's escape in game two against the world's number one player (according to live ratings) is dully registered for posterity at youtube. To survive that position - played with time increment - against a player of Calrsen's caliber is a testament of Naka's amazing fighting spirit at the board. Blitz at its best!
sit on one hand, make your move with the other
I wish for the clock to be bigger for people to see. Maybe 10 time bigger or maybe hang down in front of tabel so all can see not just 2 players. Pieces and board shuold be bigger also maybe 2 time bigger.
dutch ij is like english ei like in Reigate, Moçambique
Nepomniachtchi, if I remember correctly the lecture I was given by a Russian speaker, means "one who does not remember". This name was given to people who refused to say what their name was, claiming they had forgotten it.
I am not sure why Nakamura did not play in Moscow. Some say he was not invited, others say he was invited in short notice and thus could not make it. Regardless of the reason it has been a risky but in hindsight astute gambit for Naka. Having won this four game blitz match against Carlsen yesterday Naka is now the unofficial best blitz player in the world without playing those gruesome 42 blitz games in Moscow! As for Carlsen this match with Naka was a loose-loose proposition: if he won it would just confirm his status from Moscow; if he lost (which in fact he did) it would taint his performance in Moscow and further promote Naka's reputation as a fabulous blitz player.
I wonder how many people would pay to watch over the internet say a 16 game blitz match between the two of them with live audio and video commentary. One day event. My guess is 5,000 people at US$20.00 per person = US$100,000.00 + some sponsorship money. Is there a business model in here?!
Chessbase should listen to you!
hardly a comparison..tennis is definitely a physical sport, etc..
also, being in the same room makes it actually better because they will be virtually zero transmission lag..
He told me he wasn't invited.
So after a long day, the finalists settled down to play some predictably spotty blitz. Carlsen dominated the first two games, winning the first with black and reaching an "easily" won position in the second.
Amazingly, the third game was a high-class affair. Maybe both players settled down, or were just too tired to have nerves. It was a sharp, blunder-free battle out of a Grunfeld, Nakamura playing a sharp gambit line and then innovating with 13.e5. Nakamura won a pawn but it was going to be a difficult conversion until Carlsen slipped with the only obvious mistake of the game. Nakamura pounced instantly with 40.Rxf8! to go up 2-1. Carlsen got a plus in another steady effort from both players in game four
****
Sounds to me like Mig's recap shows the score should have been 3-1 the other way -- as playing over the games would confirm.
Blitz is blitz.
So much for the Chinese taking over, they’re all gone. There’s much talk about So being Top 10 someday. It’s more likely that the Top 10 will consist of young top rated players such as Carlsen, Aronian, Gashimov, Radjabov, Ponomariov, Grischuk, Jakovenko, Yue Wang, Eljanov, Karjakin, Mamedyarov, Dominguez Perez, Vachier-lagrave, Nakamura, Alekseev, Vallejo Pons, Tomashevsky, Hao Wang, Navara, Malakhov, and Bacrot. If So becomes #11 in the world with a rating of 2749, will he be a failure and am I anti-So for even suggesting the possibility? Obviously not.
Sorry. Thought I was in the other topic.
This short blitz result calls to mind an episode between world champion Alekhine and US GM Dake in the 30s (as related in a long-ago issue of Chess Life).
They were playing a form of blitz for small stakes, and GM Dake won a game or two from Alekhine, who was getting a little testy about it.
Dake said something to the effect "Don't worry about it Alexander, I know you are by far the stronger player."
Alekhine replied "Yes, yes, you know it. But THESE PEOPLE don't know it!"
Sort of the same situation here, I think.
Also instead of banging on clock with hand why not make automacic connect with board and clock so clock move when piece land on electic squares. Also make square light up when piece land on. I have many ideas all for free.
Daaim, did he also tell you why he didn't try to qualify for the Tal Memorial blitz AKA world championship? I mean, if he is so eager to prove that he is (one of) the world's strongest players in OTB, and not only Internet blitz .... .
He's not eager to prove anything. He already has. According to Chessbase
"We have to recognize: Hikaru is one of the all-time great blitz players, something he has proved on the Playchess server, where he reached top rankings at 3542 in blitz. And now has beaten the inofficial number one player in the world, who is just back from Moscow, where he won one of the strongest blitz tournaments in history, three points ahead of World Champion Vishy Anand, who was himself three points ahead of the rest of the world elite field."
Thomas, I find it hard to believe Naka would not do well in Moscow with 42 games to play. Correlation between internet and OTB blitz strength must be very strong. He has played thousands of blitz games on the internet and is consistently among the top rated players. I can see why Naka would feel insecure about playing a short OTB blitz championship, after all anything can happen when the sample size is too small (as we saw yesterday in his four game match against Carlsen). However, with 42 games I'd put my money he would finish close to the top in Moscow.
Agreed.
I spoke to Nakamura, and he did in fact not receive an invitation to Tal Blitz or the qualifier. He didn't even know about it before it was too late. Also note that Tal Blitz didn't get official WC status before on the last congress a month before the event. He made it clear he wants to play the blitz WC next year.
Did you read and understand my last sentence? I DO make a distinction between online and over-the-board blitz, basically for two reasons:
1) Not everyone might take online blitz equally serious, and as serious as a tournament with considerable prize money at stake.
2) A 3542 online rating looks impressive, to the point of being unreasonable (for comparison, Carlsen's TPR in Moscow was 2894). So there must be quite some "rating inflation" on the Playchess server, and I would like to see some statistics/documentation regarding what kind of opposition Nakamura faced.
Of course Chessbase grabbed the opportunity to mention and promote the Playchess server, why not? It is a commercial site (with lots of free stuff) ... .
I agree with ed (and you) that Nakamura would "probably" finish "close to the top". Not completely sure about it, though, and even less sure that he would win as Carlsen _demonstrably_ did. There is probably a correlation between Internet and OTB strength, but how tight or perfect??
And I cannot agree with 3) in the following chain of statements:
1) Carlsen convincingly won a 42-game event ahead of many other top players
2) Nakamura beat Carlsen in a four-game match, hence
3) Nakamura is stronger than Carlsen (Anand, Kramnik, .....)
And once again, Nakamura could have qualified for the Moscow event. BTW the same holds for Corus: Others from his generation (Karjakin, Carlsen, Caruana, maybe So is next) _earned_ their first spot in the A group by winning the B event, Nakamura had declined several Corus B invitations waiting until he would be _offered_ a spot in the crown group ... .
Let`s see how strong Nakamura will be in the London Classics , im looking forward to some inventive games from him ;).
You are lucky (or maybe not) that you get a long way with English ... . Recently it was an issue - in the British and German press - that Germany's new foreign minister doesn't speak English well, and refused to answer an English question by a BBC reporter. Who cares how many (if any) foreign languages Hillary Clinton or her predecessors are speaking?
Of course it is not 'mandatory' to learn Dutch, except if one moves to the Netherlands as I did 10 years ago - and even then it is not absolutely necessary. The Corus organizers are probably used to the fact that hardly any foreigner knows how to pronounce "Wijk aan Zee". And I didn't even get to the really tricky part such as (another chess term) "Scheveningen":
http://forvo.com/word/Scheveningen/
Personally I have problems with the Southern European (Italian and Portuguese) r, as in "Barbara" or "Catarina" ... I was lucky that some girls patiently tried to teach me, eventually gave up and didn't take it personally ,:)
"ll=y": As in "Dallas"? ,:)
Thomas - You remind me of the classic story "The Emperor Has No Clothes".
"... I cannot agree with 3) in the following chain of statements: 1) Carlsen convincingly won a 42-game event ahead of many other top players 2) Nakamura beat Carlsen in a four-game match, hence 3) Nakamura is stronger than Carlsen (Anand, Kramnik, .....)"
Exactly how badly does Nakamura have to beat Carlsen before you cry "Uncle"? I take it you expect something higher than 75% (3-1). How realistic...
Congratulations on a very sensible and true-to-the-fact report from the BNBank Blitz final, Mig. I'm impressed!
Interestingly, for a Nakamura fan to make such a sober account of the event appears to have been almost as difficult as beating Carlsen in Oslo, judging from the the number of "totally crushed", "annihilated", "dominated", "whipped", "taught him a lesson" and similar nonsensical claims I've read during the last 24 hours.
Congratulations also to Nakamura for winning a close final after a terrible start, lasting nearly two full games. The end of game 2 must have been a huge up/down for Nakamura/Carlsen respectively.
I was lucky to observe the final on-site, and after the match I was able to shake Nakamura's hand, congratulate him on his win, and wish him good luck in London!
And yeah, it was a real pity that he wasn't among the 22 participants in Moscow...
Oh hum we should know who is the best but lot of people just go on and talk any way. Time to sleep.
"Congratulations on a very sensible and true-to-the-fact report from the BNBank Blitz final, Mig. I'm impressed!
Interestingly, for a Nakamura fan to make such a sober account of the event appears to have been almost as difficult as beating Carlsen in Oslo, judging from the the number of "totally crushed", "annihilated", "dominated", "whipped", "taught him a lesson" and similar nonsensical claims I've read during the last 24 hours."
Exactly. Wish the Nakamura fanatics and the anti-Carlsen bozos took the opportunity to learn something here, but I'm not holding my breath.
I am forced to repeat myself, in different words: First, 42 games are more meaningful than 4 games, would you disagree? Second, maybe I ask too much from blitz, but I would like to see convincing games, not just a convincing (looking) score.
Addressing ed's earlier comment on game 2:
"To survive that position - played with time increment - against a player of Calrsen's caliber is a testament of Naka's amazing fighting spirit at the board. Blitz at its best!"
Blitz at its worst?! What exactly was Naka's achievement here? Playing on when he might have resigned at a slower time control? Playing fast (maybe partly on the opponent's time)? Or did he hypnotize his opponent? He didn't even pose practical problems, but just said "thank you" when Carlsen blundered several times ... .
I also play blitz, obviously at a lower level. While I hate losing in such a way (though the reaction may be a shoulder-shrugging "that's blitz"), I am also not particularly proud of winning in such a way. Don't get me wrong - I also did such things or worse(?): flagging the opponent in a completely lost position, at least when prize money is at stake.
For the rest, I can recommmend frogbert's long comment in the other thread.
jsy, in game 2, look about 8:45 till the end, Naka is definitely moving in Carlsen's time in several occasions.
With some capital at his disposal Naka should hire immediately a decent top coach like Bareev, unless he discovers a new way to develop more autism traits to improve himself a la Fischer, which ,by the way, does not make sense in a world populated by Carlsens, Karjekins and others prodigies.
"Exactly how badly does Nakamura have to beat Carlsen"
Citing 75% and appearing to believe that Nakamura beat Carlsen "badly" in Oslo, makes it look like I shouldn't bother to respond, but here goes:
Nakamura won, realistically by the smallest possible margin. Carlsen was simply better in game 4, but didn't find a way to improve his position, and then he declined the repetition that would mean a 2,5-1,5 loss - but the alternative was unfortunately a losing position. He didn't care a thing whether he lost 2,5-1,5 or 3-1 - and neither should you.
The reason why the score was 2-1 after 3 games is spelled C-A-R-L-S-E-N. *NOT* winning game 2 still appears impossible for someone like Carlsen, after picking apart the black position according to every rule in the book. Even the fancy (but not best) sacrifice Qxd8 could be and was played, and he was still winning by miles.
At the time Carlsen super-fumbled with Kf6?? in the pawn ending, ANY GM in the world would win the resulting position for black with 2 seconds increment.
In short: First Nakamura needs to beat Carlsen "badly" once - THEN we can start talking about "how badly" it must be done to prove anything about a completely different type of event (42 game double round robin against 20-ish elite players). The simple solution is that we get to see Nakamura in a similar event as soon as possible. Drawing any strong conclusions from a 4 game mini-match obviously is nonsense.
The premium argument is the previous edition of BNBank Blitz (called Glitnir Blitz then) where Carlsen lost 3-1 (or 2,5-1,5 depending on who you ask) against Grischuk after being in a must-win situation before game 4. Now, how did Grischuk and Carlsen do in the following event similar to the blitz wc 2009 - that is, Tal Memorial Blitz 2008?
Carlsen placed 3rd, with a +8 result.
Grischuk placed 7th, with a +2 result.
The differences between a short 4-game head-to-head and a gruelling 34 or 42 game double round robin are huge and many. I really don't understand what's so hard to grasp about that.
"Nakamura won, realistically by the smallest possible margin."
I don't give a flying f* about who trashed who but that is simple false and sounds too much like sour grapes to me.
Nakamura continues to surprise and amuse people (like me ) who didn't believe much in him ,IMO he is just one step away from becoming the next big promise after Carlsen .
I wish him the best in London , if he wins there (or at least have a good result) he will make a lot of people shut up , which would be nice.
Amen brother! Well said Manu :) dk
Why someone considers "naming a shovel a shovel" for "sour grapes", doesn't interest me much either.
I've already congratulated Hikaru with his win and wished him good luck in London. Face to face, smiling, with no bad feelings inside.
Carlsen was probably 10 times more unhappy and annoyed about this loss than I was - personally I wasn't even very surprised; in fact I saw it coming when Carlsen lost game 2 and made the angry gesture towards the table when he realized what he'd done.
The notable number of people that seem to think that a Carlsen fan isn't allowed to give his honest view on this match, not surrending to senseless worshipping of Nakamura, is quite annoying, though. And even more the still huge group of people that are trying to tell me how I feel and why I've described and analyzed the match the way I've done, here and on cg.com.
I critise stuff about Carlsen's games, even when he wins, like in the game Carlsen - Ponomariov in Tal Memorial. When I do that for my own personal favourite, it becomes quite ridiculous when people think that I need to behave in a completely different way regarding Nakamura, who I consider to be a much more sensible person then a good many of his online "fans".
Facts, nuances, integrity, sincerity. Why so many need everything to be black OR white is simply sad, IMHO.
"Carlsen was probably 10 times more unhappy and annoyed about this loss than I was"
Em, well, I should certainly hope so.
"I've already congratulated Hikaru with his win and wished him good luck in London. Face to face, smiling, with no bad feelings inside."
We know ,you told us , like 3 or 4 times, on both threads ... Who cares.
Sure. The point is simple and valid, though: I sleep well whatever results Carlsen has. I have no urge or need to prove he's the best now or ever - in whichever discipline of chess.
When I describe things the way I see it and people react by attacking motives and attitudes that don't exist, I become a bit annoyed. I'm fine with people disagreeing, but all the personally oriented remarks is something I could do well without. It's tedious, repetitive and futile.
[If you don't understand what I'm referring to, you can visit the last 10 pages of kibitzing on Carlsen's page on cg.com.]
"Who cares."
People who label other people's posts for "sour grapes" should.
Thomas, here is a true "naive American" story you might like: When I went to Germany in the 1980s and we were driving on the autobahn, I was convinced that we were traveling in a big circle, because every exit to the right seemed to have a sign indicating the town of Ausfahrt...
:-)
In a way it is Carlsen, not Nakamura, who has to prove to the world he is the best blitz player. As I mentioned before Naka has played thousands of blitz games on the internet and is consistently rated at the top of any internet blitz rating list. Carlsen only played 42 games in Moscow! May be his result there was just a fluke; remember that last year GM Dominguez from Cuba won the blitz WC but this year finished miserably (same for Ivanchuck, who won two years ago). Sorry but sample size is on Naka's side, not on Carlsen's.
"Carlsen only played 42 games in Moscow! May be his result there was just a fluke;"
Which followed the 3rd place "fluke" in Tal Memorial Blitz 2008, where he scored +8. What's a series of "flukes"? Flux?
"Sorry but sample size is on Naka's side, not on Carlsen's."
Rightio. A blitz game is a blitz game is a blitz game, I take it. Disregarding time controls, opponents or other irrelevant factors.
"every exit to the right seemed to have a sign indicating the town of Ausfahrt..."
tjallen, we can blame that on the Germans, I think. Insisting on keeping the old tradition of writing every noun with a capital letter is kind of ancient and barbaric... ;o)
You should visit the city of Abfahrt, it's nice too, I've heard.
Sure a blitz game is a blitz game, we are trying to determine here who is the best blitz player not the best player under classical time controls. All statistical evidence so far indicates Naka is stronger than Carlsen in blitz. He has played thousands of games on line and as far as I know is rated higher than Carlsen at both ICC and playchess.com in blitz. Yesterday he won a short match (3 to 1) against Carlsen. Admittedly a very small sample size, which statistically does not mean much but he won anyway. What other evidence do you need in order to conclude he is stronger than Carlsen in blitz? Frankly your fight against the laws of statistics does not look promising.
I love how Nakamura can't win an event without people whining about him being "lucky" and "cheating". Je-sus Christ.
Nakamura went +15 =0 -1 over 16 Blitz Games vs. 2560 opposition. That's a performance of 3004!
Magnus went +11 =2 -3 over 16 Blitz Games vs. 2527 opposition. That's a performance of 2720.
Hikaru had the better tournament. Magnus is one of the best blitz players in the world. Hikaru is one of the best blitz players in the world. On any given day, either can win.
Also, Hikaru flew to Magnus' backyard. Not the other way around.
And no, he didn't get a Tal Blitz invite. If he did, he'd have played, obviously. Yeesh.
"All statistical evidence so far indicates Naka is stronger than Carlsen in blitz."
Let's go along with that for now then, ed.
Now, hypothetically, how many points do you think Nakamura would've collected if he'd replaced say Kosteniuk in Tal Memorial Blitz 2009 (a.k.a. the blitz wc)? Assume that Nakamura would be as healthy and fit as he was yesterday in Oslo.
Carlsen scored 31 points. Here are some point ranges, and I would be interested to see you assign probabilities to each of them:
1) less than 20
2) 20 - 23
3) 24 - 26
4) 27 - 29
5) 30 - 32
6) 33 - 35
7) 36 - 42
Hence, the format of your response, ed, should be the numbers 1 to 7, each followed by a probability assigned by you by your best judgement, and the sum of the probabilities should sum up to 1 (or 100% if you like).
That would give me a much better picture of what you mean when you say that the stats tell us that Nakamura is the better blitz player.
For the record, the time control in Moscow was the same as in Oslo, 3 mins plus 2 secs added per move (unlike the big bulk of internet blitz played at 3 0).
Thanks.
[One "law" of statistics is to compare similar things, btw. Comparing number of cows in one country with number of mice in another doesn't tell much about which country's got the biggest meat supply, for instance.]
I don't understand all the hype around this. For sure, Nakamura is a great talent ... but he wasn't in the World Blitz Championship. Consequently, to win this tournament means a lot more to him than to Carlsen, who just had fun in a weekend (even if he is always competitive and doesn't like to lose).
All Nakamura fans want to speculate if he is the best blitz player in the world (despite the fact Nakamura hasn't faced most of the best blitz players OTB) ... just because he hasn't done anything great in chess yet. For Carlsen, to lose this will be anecdotical in the future after winning so many titles and championships, just as Anand being placed in last place in a supertournament once, or Kramnik losing a match.
For Nakamura fans instead, this will mean a world, just because they are unsure whether Nakamura will be a top chess player (top 10, to 5 or No. 1) someday. And Nakamura likes to hear and read on the internet how a great talent he is, just because he is insecure about his future too.
I don't know if this is exclusive from American People, but they seem to have a great fascination with underperformers and stories of people who supposedly has the talent to be the best in the world, but didn't proved it. So, they like to create fantasies filled with a lot of "ifs": "if Nakamura would have participated in the World Blitz Championship ..., if Fischer would have defended his title against Karpov ... if X wouldn't have retired ... if X would have trained harder ... he would have won...". But at the end, this is just a consolation prize.
So, just let's wait what happens in the future.
Of course, just in case (before Naka fans start criticizing me), when I say "Nakamura hasn't done anything great in chess yet", is not compared to me, who will never be in that league (and any of Naka's achievements is something most of us would envy), but in the context of something comparable with the best players in the world (lets say, the top 10).
"Hikaru had the better tournament. Magnus is one of the best blitz players in the world. Hikaru is one of the best blitz players in the world. On any given day, either can win."
I agree with this part of your post. The rest was just another meaningless rant. Sorry.
Have you seen the number of way-out, out-of-this-world meaningless Carlsen-trashing and Naka-worshipping due to the result of this final? That is 10 times as ugly and pointless as someone trying to give a fairly neutral description of what happened.
And btw, since you use TPRs to prove your point and compare Carlsen and Nakamura: That approach is simply completely flawed, for the following good reason:
It's based on CLASSICAL ratings, not blitz ratings. Hence, a 2-2 result in the final (before play-offs) would've meant that Nakamura did a "2801 performance" while Carlsen only did a "2715 performance" in the final. That's nearly 100 points already, advantage Nakamura - for a drawn result.
When you artificially use the score of the entire event (pushing up the score percentage), with a difference of 86 points added four times to the rating sums simply because Carlsen has the higher classical rating of the two, you've already burried yourself deeply in methodological nonsense.
I (think I) hope you understood that in the first place, before I told you.
I love this 'yeesh' remark of yours. I think I shall start attaching it to all of my posts from now on.
Yeesh...
I suppose Carlsen also plays blitz on the internet from time to time and is subject to the same "time controls, opponents and other irrelevant factors" that you mentioned in a previous post. Those factors, over a large sample size, should roughly cancel each other as far as both players are concerned. And yet Naka's on line blitz rating - based on a very large sample size - is higher than Carlsen's as far as I know. On top of that he won a short match yesterday against Magnus, therefore he is the stronger blitz player of the two period. As for Moscow I would expect him to finish in the top 4, so I would expect him to score at least 24.5 points. This event is starting to become a tradition so I sincerely hope Naka is invited and plays the OTB blitz WC next year.
Carlsen and Nakamura have played plenty on ICC. I imagine anyone who cared (not me) could look out their head to head record thereon.
Didn't C beat N in some equally meaningless blitz event a year or so ago?
Anyone who shouts about how player X is better than player Y at blitz based on an admittedly sweet swindle like game 2 in this event, by the way, is merely proclaiming to the world that they're an idiot.
Among the many reasons why online blitz is not particularly interesting in this context, is that blitz on internet is not even competitive chess, with few exceptions it is simply offhand games for fun. (Of course most blitz games played OTB are, too, but OTB is where the big majority of "serious" games take place.) I find it interesting that so few people mention this simple truth. It makes it even more meaningless than blitz in general.
Now anyone who _does_ take it fully seriously is of course going to score better than those who don't. But if there's ever been a blitz tournament worth taking seriously, surely it has to be the World Championship.
Even the insignificant little tournament in Oslo meant more than the overwhelming majority of blitz games on ICC and Playchess, even though it hardly meant anything at all.
The Nakamura - Carlsen match was played at 3/0, correct? What was the Moscow blitz time control? 3/0 or 5/0? The extra 2 minutes would make it a different game, so to speak...
Nope.
Both events were played at 3/2 - 3 mins plus 2 secs per move.
"Anyone who shouts about how player X is better than player Y at blitz based on an admittedly sweet swindle like game 2 in this event, by the way, is merely proclaiming to the world that they're an idiot."
precisely. and with that, can we close the thread?
"therefore he is the stronger blitz player of the two period. As for Moscow I would expect him to finish in the top 4, so I would expect him to score at least 24.5 points."
You're avoiding my question here, ed.
I gave you 7 score ranges and wondered if you could place probabilities on them. "at least 24,5 points" doesn't say much, and it certainly doesn't make it any clearer how it should materialize that Nakamura is the stronger blitz player of him and Carlsen.
Obviously, a similar score percentage chart can be constructed for Carlsen - and he wasn't bound to score "30 - 32 points". However, we do know his actual score.
Therefore I ask you again to explain how Nakamura, a "better blitz player than Carlsen", would've scored, the way you see it.
I'm not sure if I should interpret your reply above as
1) 0%
2) 0%
3) X%
4) ...
and so on. Therefore it would be much better if you simply answered the question the way I asked you to - with any additional comments you like, of course.
Here are the ranges, one more time:
1) less than 20
2) 20 - 23
3) 24 - 26
4) 27 - 29
5) 30 - 32
6) 33 - 35
7) 36 - 42
Everybody understands that this is just hypothetically, but it's still a very good way to learn how good you consider Nakamura to be, compared to Carlsen.
[Prior to the blitz event in Moscow, I would've said it was unlikely that Carlsen would win with a 3 point margin or score +20. I also told the Norwegian journalists that called me and wondered about Carlsen and the live rating list before round 9 of Tal Memorial that it was quite unlikely that he would beat Leko with black and pass Topalov. But unlikely stuff happens...]
Sandorchess,
Some of your post has slithers of truth, but much of it is riddled with so many errors. I will not list them, but you say Nakamura likes to read about himself on how good he is. How do you know that? I doubt seriously if he cares. He already knows about these debates, but why should he be concerned about these issues?
The conversation has changed about Nakamura over time. Many said he'd never be elite, never make 2700, never make the top 20, never beat elite players. You even said he has not played top players OTB. Now you are implying that he won't make top 10.
You seem to believe that only Americans speak highly of Nakamura. People can think beyond flimsy nationalistic loyalties.
No rant, frogbert. Magnus and Hikaru are two of the best blitz players in the world. This time, Hikaru came out on top.
It just so happens that Magnus is one of the best blitz players (and current world champion), while also being the #1 rated player on the planet at classical time controls. Hikaru deserves to be in the discussion for world's best at blitz. Currently, he's only in the discussion for top 20 or top 25 at classical.
That's my entire point. There are a handful of people who *can* win a tournament like this in dominant fashion. Magnus and Hikaru are on that list. I can't think of very many people more.
All I can say is that Hikaru should have gotten invited to Tal. It was a massive oversight that he didn't yet again. Does Magnus still win? Very likely. But I think everyone would expect Hikaru to be up there contending for first.
"All I can say is that Hikaru should have gotten invited to Tal."
Well, there sure is no disagreement between us on that issue. :o)
Vitiugov, Nikita (RUS) is #36 and 2700.5 in the live ratings.
Do I think Nakamura is 1 of the top 20 players in the world? No, but I think he's top 25. Do I think he's as good as any of the top 5 in blitz? No, they're too strong in any format. I think he MAY be #6 in the world at blitz. He MAY have a 50% chance of winning at blitz against Gashimov.
Nakamura fan,
You do not know what you're talking about. He is already top five in blitz (at least) and a top 20 player. He has been as high as 2735. The key is momentum and there are many players who are one the way down. Nakamura is going up. Are you really what your name suggests?
@airce & frogbert
Yea I wholeheartedly agree with you both. No wonder you are my favorite posters. I truly hope Nakamura will be invited to the next WC blitz / Tal Memorial blitz next year. It will be interesting to see Naka blog about this one though. Congrats to him and bring on London!
Thomas - You remind me of the classic story "The Emperor Has No Clothes".
"... I cannot agree with 3) in the following chain of statements: 1) Carlsen convincingly won a 42-game event ahead of many other top players 2) Nakamura beat Carlsen in a four-game match, hence 3) Nakamura is stronger than Carlsen (Anand, Kramnik, .....)"
Exactly how badly does Nakamura have to beat Carlsen before you cry "Uncle"? I take it you expect something higher than 75% (3-1). How realistic...
********
I would be impressed if he won 3-1 by winning on the board.
I am not very impressed if he wins 3-1 by (essentially) being outplayed.
QED
"You do not know what you're talking about. He is already top five in blitz (at least) and a top 20 player."
His guess is as good as yours.
"Are you really what your name suggests?"
No, because to be a TRUE fan of somebody, you MUST make him out to be as good as possible - no independent and honest thinking allowed. Can you really like a player and still not consider him for sure to be better than he has actually PROVEN himself to be? And even if you don't, can't you at least pretend, you know, for the Cause?
God. I myself don't like the word "fan" too much: a bit unpleasant associations to "fanatic" and extreme partisanship. Maybe I'm actually right?
Thanks and agreed!
@frogbert:
To make things simple I will revise Naka's expected performance in Moscow to 26 points with standard deviation of 3. Assuming a normal distribution I am sure you realize what that means. That is how strong I think he is in blitz.
Methinks the Chinese were forfeited simply because they were Chinese. Had they been of Nordic origin the arbiters would have bent the rules and allowed them to finish their cigarettes.
Congratulations Magnus -- now 19!
Yeah, just like they bent the rules in order not to penalize Ponomariov when his mobile phone rang. Oh no, wait, they didn't.
"blitz on internet is not even competitive chess, with few exceptions it is simply offhand games for fun. ... I find it interesting that so few people mention this simple truth."
I did ,:) but several Nakamura fan(atic)s seem to ignore it, so the discussion seems to reach a dead end - where is the "Ausfahrt" (exit)?
Regarding whether Nakamura should have been invited to the Tal Memorial blitz - there are good reasons for this, but there were also reasons for the six wildcards which were given:
- strong female players (Kosteniuk, Polgar)
- former or defending world champions in various time controls (Karpov, Grischuk, Dominguez)
- [can't come up with a _specific_ reason why Jakovenko was invited, is he a local guy from Moscow?]
16 other players qualified, either by rating (Tal Memorial participants) or in a formal qualifier open to everyone [above a certain rating?]
So Tarjei's comment "Nakamura wasn't invited to the qualifier" is as odd as it gets: to my knowledge, it was open to everyone, noone was specifically invited. It was an advantage for Russian (and European) players that the qualifier took place in Moscow, yet several US-Americans and Canadians did play - both in the blitz and before that in the Aeroflot open.
But there seems to be a pattern regarding Nakamura: "Why (try to) qualify if I and/or my fans can argue that I should be invited in any case?" As I said before, same story for Corus A.
Regarding "Ausfahrt", isn't the "Exit" sign on American highways also starting with a capital letter (or even all-capitals)? And "Ausfahrt" would be a big city indeed, with suburbs such as Munich, Frankfurt and Hamburg ... .
But there is a related joke about Dutch people and a very powerful and wealthy man called "Kannietverstaan". A tourist asks numerous questions, and all the time the answer is "kan niet verstaan" (I don't understand).
The Hungarian version has Replay scoring a hat tick in a football match.
At least Mig gives some credit to Nakamura in game two:
"But for a bullet player like Nakamura, things only get interesting when he's down to a few seconds. The less time there was, the better he played relative to Carlsen. Even that shouldn't have been enough in game two, but Carlsen missed win after win and Nakamura kept banging out complicating moves."
rather than put it down to simple luck.
The frogbert piece referred to above is a good account of how well Carlsen played until he inexplicably fell victim to blunders.
acirce has a fair point; some of Nakamura fans go stark raving mad in their enthusiasm, but I think some of these madmen are just a little frustrated at the dismissive attitude of people who are only interested in elite credentials. acirce himself, not long ago stated here that he saw no reason to include Nakamura's name in any discussion of the world's best blitz players. Maybe he can supply the quote. It's time to revise that statement.
Sure it's just blitz, but Nakamura accomplished in Carlsen's own backyard what elite chess gods Anand, Kramnik, Aronian, Ivanchuk, Karjakin et al. could not even come close to in Moscow. As another poster commented: "ICC has created a blitz monster and FIDE doesn't know what to do with him." Well, a start would be inviting him to the world blitz championship.
The other knock on Nakamura is that he is rude and arrogant. I think that view is a little out of date. Having watched the youtube video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rK57zdKuyA of the Carlsen-Nakamura blitz match I would say he showed remarkable poise and maturity in contrast to that of his elite opponent.
Maybe you agree with him acirce, but Nakamura has been as high as #16. He didn't even know this.
It means if you are "Nakamura fan" you should at least know some of his basic accomplishments. Saying folks in the top 20 are too strong for Nakamura is foolish. He mentions that Nakamura is #6 at blitz. How does he draw these conclusions?
His guess is as good as anyone according to you. However, no one is guessing about his strength in blitz.
chess pride,
This is blitz. You can get worse positions and still beat your opponent... especially if they get into time pressure. How many games have you won this way? Probably lots. Carlsen even won his share of games this way at the Tal Memorial and no one mentioned this. There is no point in minimizing a win by Nakamura despite being outplayed in the first couple of games. We saw Carlsen meltdown at 9:30 in game 2... he saw he'd lose by a tempo. We all have been winning games only to fritter them away or get swindled. We all have experienced this.
Alexandra Kosteniuk beat Carlsen in a two game match scoring 75% (the same as Nakamura).
Does that make Kosteniuk the best blitz player in the World ?
No.
I tough so.
chess pride,
This is blitz. You can get worse positions and still beat your opponent... especially if they get into time pressure. How many games have you won this way? Probably lots. Carlsen even won his share of games this way at the Tal Memorial and no one mentioned this. There is no point in minimizing a win by Nakamura despite being outplayed in the first couple of games. We saw Carlsen meltdown at 9:30 in game 2... he saw he'd lose by a tempo. We all have been winning games only to fritter them away or get swindled. We all have experienced this.
****
Yes, but we don't usually go around bragging about winning losing positions. We usually a feel sheepish (at best) or ashamed (at worst).
On the chess content -- Magnus played better.
On the scoring front -- Nakamura scored better.
There is no "minimizing" here -- I'd simply prefer if posts recognized that the winner of the match played worse chess.
I begun to think maybe you make some sense but it does not happen that way. The whole world must know by now that who ever wins is the better.
Where did Kosteinuk beat Carlsen 75% in blitz? You surely don't mean the Tal Memorial where they were 50% 1-1.
http://www.chessvibes.com/tabellen/worldblitz09_cross_r42.jpg
Good thing for all of us that Carlsen is not going to face defeat very often in his career , the excuses of his fans are sickening.
The funny thing is, when I think of the two most "slippery" players (in all time controls), Nakamura and Carlsen are the two. Probably the only person other than Nakamura who could have saved and even won that Game 2 position was Magnus.
I lose won positions like Game 2 all the time, and I don't play against neither Carlsen nor Nakamura, so there must exist more persons who can save and even win them.
Carlsen got beaten up boom boom. Maybe revenge in London soon but even next time blitz boom boom. Some body must allways be better. If space monster chalenges earth to blitz or blow up earth then who play for earth against spcae monster. Nakamura or Carlsen.
IM Stoopid wrote: "If space monster chalenges earth to blitz or blow up earth then who play for earth against spcae monster. Nakamura or Carlsen."
That is the most cogent analysis of any topic ever in ChessNinja. IM Stoopid is like Socrates or something, arriving at the very pith of the question. I think Mig should post a poll so Daily Dirters can choose who goes up against the space monster to save the earth.
Fortunately for me, I'm a fan of both Naka and Carlsen. I hope they have many more battles, both in blitz and classical chess.
"The other knock on Nakamura is that he is rude and arrogant. (...) I would say he showed remarkable poise and maturity in contrast to that of his elite opponent."
In my opinion, Carlsen ought to change his way of leaving the board (also game one vs kosteniuk), and Nakamura ought to stop his clock banging (game two video).
On the severeness of these shortcomings: Carlsen's display takes place when the game is over, Nakamura's when the game is underway.
Nakamura posted a long comment on his blog today. Read his interesting and balanced thoughts here:
http://www.hikarunakamura.com/main/Blog/tabid/57/EntryId/96/BN-Bank-Blitz-Recap.aspx
Hey, Chesspride, what in the world is wrong with you?
Don't you tire of the never ending refrain of "my man played better even if he lost" routine?
I doubt if Carlsen himself finds too much consolation in that! In fact, there is more to be disappointed about when someone is said to play better but loses! Something is clearly wrong.
Please, no more "but he made a little mistake, just a little blunder."
And don't criticize with "he won but played worse chess." Nonsense. He played good enough chess to win!
First, we all can have the utmost respect to Carlsen at Tal but can fully admire Nakamura's speed, whether it be at ICC or most recently versus Carlsen. How fortunate we ALL are to have one Mozart and one chess Peregrine Falcon.
*
I have been an ICC member for eight+ years and I've seen all of em. I have many, many a time checked Naka's history, and not just that, but the history of those he is or was playing in his last 20 visible games, and these are not jokers. its game after game of mostly wins against 3100' 3200's, and 3300's in blitz, not proxy/stand-in players at 2400 blitz.
*
similarly, you all know how competitive 1 0 is at ICC. few at the top if any give that stuff away. whether you are anyone think its 'real chess' or not real chess is besides the point. he's wicked fast, and he is beating many 2400/2500 at bullet and all those boys and girls thirst to win at all times in all instances.
*
Please let me change the link at my name, and try clicking the youTube video of Naka vs. Rabajov. Amazing stuff.
*
and since i can only put one URL there, perchance this will go through when i submit:
*
naka versus AndrinoGiardo (sp? Very small lettering visible, but many you know him) :http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-R-VWtdf_g
*
with no offense to Ubiyca who is among the best ever at this sort of chess, this second video is even more stunning.
*
take care, dk
The question is if it was Hikaru instead of Magnus the one who spoiled his chances and left the board in anger ...
What kind of comments would be hearing (reading)?
I would absolutely disagree. Not one of those 42 games was vs. Nakamura.
As for those 42 games, Carlsen repeatedly missed mating opportunities (even as bad a player as myself was screaming at his game vs. Karpov!).
Simply put, Nakamura is the best blitz player in the world right now and he proved it heads-up. 'Nuff Said.
One four game match proves his supremacy. I've a lot of repect for the guy, my congratulations to him, but maybe this ONE time people could wait a little before drawing conclusions. I'd consider it a personal favour :)
Or if not for chesshire cat, do it for Nakamura, who wrote, reasonably enough: "Objectively, I think the score should have been 2-2".
Is it just me or if Nakamura finishes 5th (1/2 point behind home court advantaged Short and Adams who he's only slightly higher ranked than) at the London Chess Classic, will all the Nakamura haters say he had a bad tournament? I hope I'm wrong, because it would be a respectable performance to me, but I don't think I am.
"Nakamura haters"? If such fools exist as "hate" a chess player for bizarre reasons of their own, why would give a flying monkey for what they opine?
I just hope Short does badly, man, I hate his guts.
"Maybe you agree with him acirce, but Nakamura has been as high as #16. He didn't even know this.
It means if you are "Nakamura fan" you should at least know some of his basic accomplishments."
How on earth can you tell if he knew that or not?
Mamedyarov has been #4 on the rating list. Does that mean a real Mamedyarov fan must consider him as at least a top-5 player? It's nonsense, of course.
That would be a Mamedyarov _fanatic_ talking, and I would still like to think that there is a difference.
Is one of the online sports betting sites taking bets on the London Chess Classic?
"'Nuff said."
The invariable badge of the halfwit.
"Realizing how lucky I had been to not lose, let alone win, I took a deep breath and slowed everything down in the third game."
"Objectively, I think the score should have been 2-2"
Wow. I get so tired of Nakamura haters such as the guy who wrote that. Why is is that every time Nakamura wins something, he is "lucky" and shouldn't "objectively" have won.
"That would be a Mamedyarov _fanatic_ talking, and I would still like to think that there is a difference."
Clarifying, analogous to the Nakamura case I commented on I mean anyone who says that a real Mamedyarov fan must think that would be a fanatic.
"...home court advantaged Short and Adams..."
You've evidently neglected to read Silvio's explanation of why playing at home is a significant disadvantage. I suspect that Silvio and the Bulgarian president desperately hoped for a match in India before throwing up their hands and arranging for a Sofia bid.
"acirce himself, not long ago stated here that he saw no reason to include Nakamura's name in any discussion of the world's best blitz players. Maybe he can supply the quote. It's time to revise that statement."
I don't remember: I've probably said various things. I find a quote from January saying something different: "Anyone who thinks he/she "knows" that Nakamura "is one of the best blitz players in the world" is simply wrong. (There might be a chance that he is, but nobody can know it until he proves it.)" http://www.chessninja.com/dailydirt/2009/01/aker-chess-challenge-in-norway.htm#comment-195830
Still holds true almost a year later, I think, of course depending on what counts as "one of the best".
Hi. It is me. Not Socratese. Any way you maybe are joking but thats not making me feel bad. In fact I am fine and maybe you are also but why do you have a small name. I see many people takling about Nakamura and some Carlsen and I think I count most on Nakamura side for being better. Let us hope a real space monster does not come and threten us but only we survive if some one from earth beats up the monster in blitz. Who should play blitz for earth.
"Wow. I get so tired of Nakamura haters such as the guy who wrote that. Why is is that every time Nakamura wins something, he is "lucky" and shouldn't "objectively" have won."
You see, acirce, Nakamura is humble and polite, while we are the raving lunatics that only want to belittle Nakamura.
Besides, according to a couple of Naka-heads on cg.com, I get paid by Carlsen for making excuses for him all over the place. Nakamura OWNS Carlsen at blitz and is clearly the better blitz player. Carlsen was demolished, whipped, spanked, had to bend over Naka's knee, and so on.
I do not get why boz or John Fernandez ignore this highly visible bunch of completely uncritical Nakamura-fans (worshippers?) and instead complain about those who prefer to take a nearly objective approach, where both pluses and minuses of both players' play/effort are taken into account.
I also find it a little peculiar not knowing the time and place of the Blitz WC qualification event, or the chanpionship itself, before it's too late. First, if Nakamura really wanted to become official WC of blitz, there have been openly announced qualifiers for the championship of both 2006, 2007 and 2009. If he isn't able to do the little research needed about the potentially most rewarding event of the year (for him), then he either doesn't care enough, or gambles too hard that he'll simply be invited (3rd place finisher Karjakin qualified the hard way), or he needs to get himself some kind of manager (not necessarily full time or someone who's strong at chess) that can keep track of important events for him. If you're a "professional" but unable to track down the qualification event for the World Championship of your favourite chess discipline, there's something about the professionality that seems odd to me.
Now, I would certainly have wanted to see Nakamura in the WC blitz championship, but arguing that he's been denied any opportunity to participate is just dumb.
But hey, I'm just one of the silly Carlsen fans who tried to give a balanced description of the match - and hence I should be condemned. Unlike the many Nakamura fans that have been gloating and putting down Carlsen for two straight days now. Those who enjoy big dozes of Naka-hype and equally outlandish ridicule of Carlsen should try Nakamura's page on cg.com (flip back to satursday and enjoy). Obviously such one-sided vulgarisms are fine and don't represent anything out of the ordinary. But a few Carlsen fans who try to say that the match in fact was very close and not at all one-sided, they are "bad losers", belittle Nakamura and are hopelessly subjective.
If you want to study the concept of "bad winner", then a number of Naka fans would make great examples. Of something.
It's fair to say the match should have been 2-2. But to suggest as frogbert did in his piece that the match could easily have been 3-0 in Carlsen's favor reeks of bias.
acire: Thanks for checking. I don't think that was it but I appreciate your honesty. And of course it's not really important.
Like Carlsen, like Naka, but who is better at blitz is as about as important to me as who is better at miniature golf - Tiger Woods or Vijay Singh.
When London comes around I'll entertain arguments about relative chess playing skills.
"Besides, according to a couple of Naka-heads on cg.com, I get paid by Carlsen for making excuses for him all over the place. "
I hope you get paid a regular salary and not on a commission basis.
Yo Frogbert, relax. You're just some guy who learned to play with HTML, do a little database work, and maybe punch in a few numbers in a calculator. Big deal. Now you're Einstein?
Personally, I like Nakamura because he's American. Last time I checked, Norwegians were the ones who collaborated with the Nazis. Sure, they don't look and sound gay like the French, but I wouldn't go around gloating, either.
Good thing Naka wasn't an American during WWII; he would have been forcibly relocated to an internment camp.
Let's just erase the difference between reasons and excuses. That seems to happen when the rabid fans get involved. I don't know how many of you read Track & Field boards, but it has gotton so bad that when a second-place finisher or his fans say true things like, recovering from hamstring pull, jet lag, or slipped out of the blocks, the fans of the winner all yell, excuses! They are not "excuses" they are reasons, and may be true explanations of the result. When reasons are misinterpreted as unacceptable excuses, all sobriety disappears, and the rabid fans ruin the discussions. Let's hope that doesn't set a pattern here.
Randy wrote:
Hey, Chesspride, what in the world is wrong with you?
Don't you tire of the never ending refrain of "my man played better even if he lost" routine?
I doubt if Carlsen himself finds too much consolation in that! In fact, there is more to be disappointed about when someone is said to play better but loses! Something is clearly wrong.
Please, no more "but he made a little mistake, just a little blunder."
And don't criticize with "he won but played worse chess." Nonsense. He played good enough chess to win!
****
What do you mean by "my man"? My comments are more about the absurd glorification of the result than of the identities of the two players.
To trumpet a result where the winner was worse in 3 of the 4 games (losing game 1, should have lost game 2, worse in game 4) is going overboard.
Indeed, in "regular chess" if such a result occurred it would be a source of embarrassment.
If being the "best blitz player in the world" means things like that -- winning from losing positions -- then maybe blitz is much less important, less interesting than some think it is.
The clock is part of the game -- in regular chess, it is there to induce a certain flow of errors.
And I'll go so far as to say it is the error rate -- rate of bad moves (rather than rate of good moves) -- that determines ranking at the top.
But clock issues should not be more important than the moves -- or the positions gained.
One of the criticisms of the faster FIDE time control is that it induces too high an error rate. People can hold different opinions on this, to be sure, but it is clear that good positions prevail a high percentage of the time.
Yes, everyone has tossed away a fine position due to the clock -- whether in 40/2 hrs, or 30/90 with 30 sec increment, or G/60 or G/30.
Nobody is saying that frittering away a winning position isn't a loss -- it is a loss.
But usually the side that gets the freebie is a little sheepish about it (i.e. "sorry about that -- you were winning"). There is a recognition that it is an unusual result. There is a recognition that one was outplayed but escaped.
And usually the moves that led up to the winning position are valued more highly than the string of errors that led to the turnaround.
Any "sport" that considers them to be equal -- or god forbid favors the fast hands at the end -- is pretty lame IMHO.
Making legal moves faster than your opponent -- or on the opponent's time -- isn't something to crow about. The US Women's Chp playoff debacle isn't something to be repeated.
And if that is what this "best blitz player in the world" thing is about...moving on the opponent's time, gamesmanship, winning from lost positions...
...then this blitz match and all related commentary are more meaningless than ever.
Carlsen played better chess in the match.
Nakamura won 3 of the 4 games.
Both statements are true.
I think if Nakamura (with a different last name) was a non-Asian non-American he would not be so disliked here. Carlsen, Karjakin, and Vachier-Lagrave are all younger and more highly rated, so jealousy of success at a young age cannot be used as an excuse. Name one other 22 (or under) year old chess player who has ever had so many negative posts here. You can't, because there has never been one.
I think if Nakamura (with a different last name) was a non-Asian non-American he would not be so disliked here. Carlsen, Karjakin, and Vachier-Lagrave are all younger and more highly rated, so jealousy of success at a young age cannot be used as an excuse. Name one other 22 (or under) year old chess player who has ever had so many negative posts here. You can't, because there has never been one.
***
Absurd statement. Chinese players routinely get praise on Mig's blog. Last I checked, China was part of Asia. Anand gets high praise -- last I checked, India was part of Asia. Robson gets praise.
Players get praise or scorn based on their individual actions (e.g. think back to the PCA attempt to take the world title -- that was scorn-worthy).
Occam's Razor comes to mind -- don't make the situation more complicated than it needs to be.
actually that statement does have a gem of truth.
"But to suggest as frogbert did in his piece that the match could easily have been 3-0 in Carlsen's favor reeks of bias."
boz, are you dumb? Or are you unable to read?
On cg.com you have demonstrated that you don't know the difference between "should" and "could", here you're again twisting my statement according to some weird agenda you seem to have:
Several people were going on about how Nakamura had CRUSHED Carlsen 3-1. On THAT backdrop I said that
1) If anyone was closer to winning 3-0 ("crush"), it was Carlsen, not Nakamura. The latter was just a hair's breadth away from trailing 0-2.
2) It was a CLOSE match, much decided by the turn-around in game 2.
I seriously wonder what I did to you to make you go on and on with unsubstansiated rubbish like the above. Nowhere did I say that Carlsen easily could've won 3-0. Go to my player page on cg.com and reread my two initial posts. While thinking. Or just forget about it and keep drowning yourself in your prejudice.
I'm mostly on your side on this issue. But I don't see the problem with interpreting your "with a normal, good technical finish of game two for carlsen, the most likely match result would have been 3-0 for carlsen, imho" as suggesting that "the match could easily have been 3-0 in Carlsen's favor". In fact it seems to me that is pretty much exactly what you say. If you meant something different - fine.
"Yo Frogbert, relax. You're just some guy who learned to play with HTML, do a little database work, and maybe punch in a few numbers in a calculator. Big deal. Now you're Einstein?"
You're so immenesely ridiculous, Chess Auditor - did you know that?
The idea that I'm justifying my opinions or pretending that I'm in any way is important due to the minor and insignificant live ratings and the amateurish site I threw together in a couple of days, simply shows that you're completely and utterly clueless about me.
The only "hard" thing about the Live Top List is bothering to collect the data and do the updates, with morons like you running around, thinking I'm proud of some hundred lines of html and PHP.
I'll let you in on a secret: I didn't even bother to set up a proper "database" for my site - flat files with separators were more than sufficient for the amount of data we're talking here.
"Personally, I like Nakamura because he's American. Last time I checked, Norwegians were the ones who collaborated with the Nazis."
Yup, we were all Nazis. Your knowledge of WW2 is as impressive as your understanding of what makes me tick.
I play great chess but I lose all the time. Don't know why. But I should win 3-0 against those patzers at the club. They all know I'm really the club champ.
Don't bother to reply to obvious trolls. CA's misogynistic ignorant ranting is well documented.
Well it appears Carlsen is no Fischer yet. But I bet he'll even and better the score soon with Nakamura. Clearly Naka is a very talented player, but its hard to judge his true capability on the basis of this kind of short blitz tournament. Wish he had played in the World Tourney.
" But I don't see the problem with interpreting your "with a normal, good technical finish of game two for carlsen, the most likely match result would have been 3-0 for carlsen, imho" as suggesting that "the match could easily have been 3-0 in Carlsen's favor". "
Like I wrote above, the problem occurs when one takes that out of context and pretends that I somehow complain about the outcome, think the end result was unfair, that Nakamura didn't deserve to win, and that I don't give Nakamura credit for the things he did well.
I can demonstrate what I mean by doing the inversed "cherry picking" compared to boz' exercise in distorting the truth about my posts. Like he did, I will paraphrase my own statements, but with a strict focus on my PRAISE for Nakamura. I can also single-mindedly pick all criticism of Carlsen and his play. You can always do that in any piece of writing containg both pros and cons.
Right now I have to go in a meeting, but I'll make that "alternative reality" post afterwards, that too based on the two posts I actually made initially, that got boz started off.
The major point is that I tried to balance the nonsensical claims that Nakamura somehow had taught Carlsen a lesson and demonstrated his superiority - "75% score! 3-1 beating! Owned!"
On Nakamura-Carlsen, I'm surprised that so many seriously see the minimatch as proof that Nakamura is the better blitz player. Earlier this year Carlsen scored 2-0 in the Gjovik tiebreak, this time Nakamura scored 3-1. Looking at the games the results could easily have been different but that wouldn't have proved much either. Carlsen's +20 in the Tal blitz showed that he is extremely strong in blitz, and so is Nakamura, otherwise he would hardly have bee able to get revenge for the Gjovik loss.
"revenge for the Gjovik loss."
Carlsen didn't beat Nakamura in their internal games at Gjøvik. Those ended 1,5 - 1,5.
True, Nakamura lost "2-0" in the play-offs for the final, but that was one loss to Carlsen and one to Svidler. However, in the rapid stage Nakamura won 1,5 - 0,5. But since Carlsen beat Svidler and Svidler beat Nakamura, they all finished equal in the rapid double round robin (all beating Kjetil Lie convincingly).
"Carlsen didn't beat Nakamura in their internal games at Gjøvik"
OK, forgot that one of the games in Nakamura's 0-2 blitz score was against Svidler.
So the head to head score in official OTB blitz is 3-2 to Nakamura at the moment, still a rather low sample to draw any decisive conclusions from.
Here's another example of paraphrasing my two initial posts, acirce.
Individually, one by one, you will hardly find a sentence here that isn't a possible or even reasonable interpretation of some phrase or fragment of my posts. But just like boz' selected cherry pickings, this version is clearly twisting what I actually wrote about the match - simply in the other extreme direction.
Now, since boz has put me down as a "Nakamura detractor", he "knows" what my business is, and hence anything I wrote was given the worst, possible interpretation. That's what I object to.
---
Cherry Picking - the other story
frogbert said that Nakamura put up a very good fight from a worse position in game 2, and when he managed to turn it around to a win, it almost decided the match. Similarly frogbert praised Nakamura for his good game 3, noting that Naka finished it off with a nice combo.
Also, according to frogbert, Nakamura played game 4 very wisely, just keeping the position safe and sound, waiting to exploit Carlsen's must win situation.
Based on the unlucky start of the match, frogbert was impressed with how Naka came back to decide matters in his favour. After seeing Nakamura live in BNBank blitz, he says the OTB blitz skills of the American are beyond any doubt, and considers him to be one of the very best blitzers in the world. He was maybe particularly impressed with the mental toughness of the tournament winner, an area in which he seemed clearly superior to Carlsen, who simply seemed to lose faith in himself after game 2. From the psychological point of view, frogbert labled it a notable victory for Naka.
Nakamura's other strengths, according to frogbert, appears to be his fighting spirit and skills, which is particularly useful in the duels of the match format. After the game, frogbert congratulated Nakamura with his win and wished him all the best for the upcoming tournament in London.
According to frogbert, it had been a joy to follow the event live, on site.
---
frogbert was not very impressed with several things Carlsen did in this match. After having a huge plus in the second game, Carlsen almost self-destructed from an easily winning position - for a player of Carlsen's calibre, frogbert thought this was a weird loss; he completely messed up the ending of that game. And as frogbert noted, it was followed up by making a huge blunder also in game 3. The uncertainty could be seen again in game 4, where Carlsen started to drift from a slightly better mid-game position - frogbert picking Carlsen's reluctancy of exchanging queens with Qxc6 as the turning point.
frogbert commented that Carlsen was visibly (and audibly?) upset by losing another blitz final on home turf - so it's clear that he didn't take lightly on the match. But he can't allow himself to lose faith like he did after game 2 - frogbert even jokingly suggested that Carlsen needed professional help from a sport psychologist.
---
Strangely, based on the above, frogbert still suggested that head to head, Nakamura and Carlsen probably are quite evenly matched in blitz, but that requires Carlsen to have a much better day on the job than he had on saturday, where he quite uncharacteristically avoided and misplayed end games - even simple ones.
"if Nakamura finishes 5th ... at the London Chess Classic, will all the Nakamura haters say he had a bad tournament?"
Naka fan(atic), hater or neutral observer doesn't matter - like the NH tournament, it could be considered bad with respect to his ambitions [self-declared, not just some or most of his fans] to be or at least become a serious WCh contender in the nearby future?
Home advantage may be an issue at the WCh match - at the London event, I think the four English players + Kramnik + Carlsen have (just) one advantage compared to the rest (Nakamura and Ni Hua): they won't suffer from jetlag. But that's an issue of proper planning, such as arriving a few days before the event!?
On the top20 debate only so much: If everyone who has been top20 at some stage recently (live list or one official list) is considered part of the club, it seems there are 25 top20 players at the moment - the ones presently there plus Karjakin, Bacrot, Dominguez, Nakamura and Movsesian [among those, Nakamura is the only one without supertournament experience, but this will change soon].
"they won't suffer from jetlag."
Neither should Nakamura. He stays in Europe until London starts - that should kill the most sticky jet lag around... :o)
Guess you know for sure as you were talking with him .... this contradicts information (speculation?) from Dennis Monokroussos that Nakamura would return to the USA in between both events.
His "failure" at the NH event may have been partly related to excessive travelling before the event - from the US East coast to the West coast, to Japan, back again and on to Amsterdam (or something like that) ... .
frogbert, if I say you're a fine man, logical, principled, sophisticated and learned who nevertheless blows a lot of hot air, I haven't realy complimented you have I?
When you manipulate the truth to turn a 3-1 defeat into a 3-0 victory, I call it bias; which you are entitled to, we're all biased in some sense, but we don't all portray ourselves as objectivity incarnate as you do.
You asked me for an example of something you said that I objected to, I provided one, and you call it cherry-picking.
I won't bore anyone further.
Wow...one thing is for sure: Both Carlsen and Nakamura have the ability to attract a crowd and increase attention to the great game of chess!
@Thomas - Thank you for your post about Kannietverstaan. I had a good hearty laugh over that!
I really don't understand such refined strategy:
[White "Jackova Jana"]
[Black "Timman Jan"]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 g6 5. Nc3 Bg7 6. Be3 Nf6 7. Qd2 O-O 8.
Nb3 d6 9. Be2 Be6 10. Nd4 (wtf??)
Okay, I see your point.
Naka-Carlsen blitz results---
Never have so many made so much of so little.
Curious that Nakamura says on his blog that he managed to find a way to trick Carlsen into a losing king and pawn ending. Maybe it's just language, but I thought the king and pawn ending was winning in several ways, and only Kf6 wasn't one of them. I don't believe Naka 'found' any kind of trick, in the sense of setting a trap. It looked more to me as though Carlsen just blundered all on his own.
Naka-Carlsen blitz results---
Never have so many made so much of so little
Ha ha. Very apt.
"Curious that Nakamura says on his blog that he managed to find a way to trick Carlsen into a losing king and pawn ending."
Unless he found a way to "trick" Carlsen to play Kf6, it doesn't make much sense. Maybe it refers to telepathic mind games?!?
Either Nakamura hadn't seen f4, g4, f5 during the game and when he wrote his comment, or he gives himself slightly too much credit for Carlsen's blunder.
Also, it was Carlsen who offered the exchange of knights, so if that was a "trick" from Nakamura, it must have been very, very subtle - even scary. ;o)
I suggest we ask boz. I saw no "trick" there, only a stubborn defence from Nakamura that still wasn't enough to avoid a dead lost (pawn) ending. But I'm a biassed Carlsen fan so I have no clue, obviously. :o)
@greg koster: I took lightly on the blitz games, but not on being condemned as a habitual Nakamura detractor by boz. For most others, that still remains quite insignificant, obviously. ;o)
"we're all biased in some sense, but we don't all portray ourselves as objectivity incarnate as you do."
That I portray myself as "objectivity incarnate" is just dead wrong. I responded with slightly more words on the Carlsen page on cg.com.
"Guess you know for sure as you were talking with him .... this contradicts information (speculation?) from Dennis Monokroussos that Nakamura would return to the USA in between both events."
He said he would go straight to London and not return to the US in the meantime. I specifically asked about that.
Yep... Dennis was wrong about Nakamura going back to the U.S.... if he actually said that. It wouldn't make sense.
Anyhow, it's good we are discussing new players and not the same ole... Anand, Ivanchuk, Svidler, Morozevich, Kramnik, Topalov. Time for the new generation.
"I do not get why boz or John Fernandez ignore this highly visible bunch of completely uncritical Nakamura-fans (worshippers?) and instead complain about those who prefer to take a nearly objective approach, where both pluses and minuses of both players' play/effort are taken into account."
I ignore mouth-breathing morons. On both sides. Just because someone is objective doesn't mean I can't disagree.
I thought my original post was very logical, clear, and fair, to both players. "Another meaningless rant" it most certainly wasn't. Unlike most people here, I am simply ignoring it.
At the end of the day, Magnus and Hikaru are basically the two most exciting players in chess. As chess (fans/players/trolls/whatever), we're better for them.
No one that thinks Radjabov should have been invited to the Tal blitz? :-) In his previous World Championships he was 0.5 from gold and 0.5 from bronze. Not to mention that his ICC blitz rating is 135 points ahead of Nakamura's :-)
"At the end of the day, Magnus and Hikaru are basically the two most exciting players in chess."
Magnus yes, but for me, Nakamura has some way to go before he becomes one of the two most exciting players in the world. He's certainly exciting, but I would prefer to watch Anand, Kramnik, Topalov, Morozevich, Svidler, Shirov, Aronian, Ivanchuk even Wesley So before him. If the London Chess Classic had Anand or Topalov or Moro instead of Nakamura for example, I would be camping out there!
"Just because someone is objective doesn't mean I can't disagree. "
Sure you're allowed to disagree. :o) And "rant" was probably a bit over the top - sorry about that.
But since your opening line didn't mention anyone in particular, the following seemed to be directed at anyone who didn't purely celebrate Nakamura's win:
"I love how Nakamura can't win an event without people whining about him being "lucky" and "cheating". Je-sus Christ."
I find "cheating" allegations pointless and unneeded, but noting that Hikaru was slightly lucky to win game 2 doesn't appear to be any huge crime - or even to be labled "whining".
NOT mentioning the turn-around in game 2 is kind of more twisting the story than mentioning it - personally I think game 2 decided the match. Objectively it probably was the worst game, measured in number of clear mistakes, by both players, but still migthy important for the duel.
Before I delve into this match I would, for the last time, like to emphatically state that I never received an invitation to play in the World Blitz Championship despite rumours that I turned down such a request. Obviously I would have played in that event had I gotten an invitation.
MIG- you said he ceded his slot. WHERE do you get your information? that sucks, telling lies.
Carlsen is destined to become classical world champion. About exciting players, I think seeing what the US newest GM, Robson, will do is also far more exciting than waiting on Nakamura.
BTW, I am neither a Nakamura hater nor detractor. I am a realist. I will cheer as much for Nakamura as I do for Carlsen if Nakamura can get into the top 10. Otherwise, let's compare apples with apples, etc., etc., and treat stuff like blitz and bullet for what it is, loike Mig stated - thrills and spills.
If a space monster wants to blow up the earth unless someone beats him at blitz I vote for Nakamura to take a crack at it. No one has a shot with him at blitz.
No question the world will revolve around this tournament http://tournaments.chessdom.com/london-chess-classic opening on the 7th. Naka will win!