NH 2010 r2: Dodging a Bullet

You beat me on this, Peter ,:) - BTW the majority view seems to be that "All rook endings are drawn" is from Tarrasch.

While I agree with Voor on Nakamura's positive mental attitude or fighting spirit or "never give up" approach, this game may not be the best example. Did he really do anything special, other than not resigning at an earlier stage? Would other top GMs have resigned rather than playing on? Another "Tartakowerism" comes to mind: "Resigning never won a game" (he interpreted it as always playing until mate).

Van Wely may be similar to Nakamura in some ways (not saying that Naka's career will continue as van Wely's) and IMO deserves more credit for his save against Caruana the day before from a dubious middlegame position - so altogether he can't complain about his 50% score?

Finally on Mig's football/soccer analogy in his video link: van Wely didn't miss a shot on open goal, but probably one or several penalties?!

On the rook endgame itself, Dennis Monokroussos has some analyses posted:

- probably the easiest win for white was 36.c6 Rc4 37.Rd7+ Kf6 38.c7. This may be resignable (after the time control) even for Nakamura? It was also suggested during the ICC live coverage. Maybe van Wely didn't have enough time to calculate this, or he (in the given case, wrongly!) thought that two extra pawns is better than one.

- he also gives acirce's line as "must be winning, mustn't it?" but I am not that sure. What about 45.h3 Ra5: 46.Rh7 Ra1+ 47. Kh2 f4! 48.Rh5:+ Kf6 and e.g. 49.h4 Ra2 ? Can white push his h-pawn without losing it, or else avoid simplifying into the (often) theoretically drawn ending with rook and bishop pawn?

- van Wely's last chance seemed to be 48.Kf2 [rather than 48.Kh2] heading for the queenside. DM gives several long winning lines which (his words) "don't purport to represent perfect play". To me it looks as if van Wely could have returned to this plan later on, starting with 51.Kh2.

Svidler is crushing Nakamura, squishing him just like stepping on a grape.

Three? I'm impressed. Which one do you prefer?

Hag

In 2009 and 2010, Caruana and Svidler played four times (FIDE rated time control).

Svidler never beat Caruana. He lost twice and drew twice.

These statistics also imply the following: If the idea of the event is to provide opportunities for young players which they do not get elsewhere (yet), Nakamura and Caruana don't belong there?! Should they be replaced by less established and/or even younger rising stars as Ilya Nhyzhnyk, Richard Rapport and Dariusz Swiercz? I am (only half) kidding ... .

For any aspiring players who wish to include the Caro-Kann Defense in their repertoires, they are advised to pass on Naka's horrible treatment of it today vs. Svidler. For example, instead of 12...Nd5?, Naka should have taken on e4 with 12...Bxe4 13.Nxe4 Nd5 and, if 14.Rh3, his Queen has the a4 square to go to (which is not possible after the 13...Nd5?). And after his 19...Qd8? (instead of 19...Qf5 which keeps him in the game) 20.Qf4, Naka's game was busted.

I think the main message of the game has little to do with the opening (or at least also applies to other openings) - it is simply dangerous to waste soooo much time with the queen while other pieces remain undeveloped, and the king is stuck in the center. 19.-Qd8 is a strange continuation of the queen maneouvre Qd8-b6-b4-b3-b6-a5 ... .

Yes, your lines look better but 19.-Qf5 might appear very dangerous over the board - Dennis Monokroussos notes that "of course, the computer isn't scared" and gives a long engine line finishing with a dead-drawn opposite-colored bishopss endgame!!?

BTW, the game had been played before until 19.-Qb3 (Adams-Karpov, Tilburg 1996) - Svidler (video on the tournament website) actually knew and remembered the game and only got the year wrong (94 rather than 96). Karpov got away with all of it and even had the somewhat better half of the draw in the end.

Yea, kudos to Gelfand. Impressive. He was conducting an endgame clinic. Nakamura moves too fast for his own good somtimes. And obviously (his favorite word), you can't get away with that sort of thing against the elite crew.

wtp? naka didn't get away with playing too fast against gelfand, and if naka is in the elite crew, then gelfand wouldn't have gotten away with it against naka. the last proposition wasnt tested in today's game :)

Again I have to agree w/Mr. Sudbury. Nakamura is close, but I think his high minus score against Svidler is telling, and in a match with Gelfand, I would put the euros on Gelfand, who is just more solid, like Kramnick, Carlsen, Topolov, Anand, Svidler, Grishuk, Aronian, and maybe even the younger player, Caruana - despite Fabiano's poor effort today. There will be no answer to that at the NH.
Nakamura probably needs to get batted around for a bit to appreciate his weaknesses, but it must be difficult to have the ability to play as creatively as he does so quickly, and then put intuition on just a parallel track against the better players. Andy Soltis writes about that sort of thing in How To Choose A Chess Move. I heard that Hikaru played a number of bullet games before one of the early rounds. I could see positive and negative outcomes of that.

While I'm sympathetic to Nakamura, I'm not so sanguine about him ever making the top 10. He's shown no inclination to stop his "speculative" nature and that just won't pay dividends at this "altitude". It is exciting to watch though, one has to admit.

"I am not in the least worried about Grandmaster Nakamura's progress."

+1

And you can ad a high degree of selfconfidence to his list of merits. Strong will is important in this game.

-He is only 22 and still rising. (Gelfand is old enough to be his father, to put it in perspective). The best is yet to come!

"The best is yet to come! [for Nakamura]"

Looking at the last two rounds, there is certainly room for improvement or even "it can hardly get worse" against 2700+ players. Maybe Amsterdam simply isn't his event - will they invite him again next year if he needs another chance to qualify for Amber?

The way Nakamura lost against Gelfand, some people might quickly suggest cheating if circumstances were different and a less popular player (Mamedyarov?) was involved!? And "actively losing" a drawn position seems worse than carelessly drawing a won position (van Wely-Nakamura, Caruana-Ljubo) - any precedents for the former at this high level??

On bullet chess:
- Just how much has it to do with 'real' chess? I mean, if one starts assessing that five or ten seconds on the clock compensate for a piece on the board .... .
- How many other strong (2600+) players do such a thing? And how many of those want to win big time, rather than simply having fun?
- Is there anything remotely resembling a world championship in bullet, or is this just based on ICC ratings? Or is Naka world champion in bullet because he wrote a book about it?

“Gelfand is old enough to be his father”

Exactly what age is old enough to be a father?

The artist formally known as the artist formally known as.

“Gelfand is old enough to be his father”

Exactly what age is old enough to be a father?

14 years older than....

“Gelfand is old enough to be his father

Exactly what age is old enough to be a father?

14 years older than...."

Legally!? If there can be such a thing as the minimum legal age to be a father ...

It may be that Hikaru works as much at the game as anyone else, but the 'masterful classical pianist' analogy is apt because it implies refinement, which is technique with creativity and mindfulness. In comparison to former Soviet block players, American players are generally a little short in technique. Hikaru is not an exception.

Right. A hell of a lot of work, for sure, but a)the kind of foundation that Gelfand, for one, had? No. And b) when you're playing gazillions of speed chess games, you're not studying endgames.

Tell me, are you able to tell the difference between 2700 chess and 2750 chess? Really and truly?
Cos I can't.

No, I don't have to. The results speak for themselves.

"That's about the stupidest thing I've read in a long time."
How does it compare to that one (which you may have missed) and the follow-up four comments down the thread?
http://www.chessninja.com/dailydirt/2010/07/airport-delay-dortmund-blogging.htm#comment-224217
"That loss by Mam [against Kramnik] smacks of a "deal" to me..."
"If you have to ask... $$$"

The other games I had in mind were
Kramnik-Mamedyarov 1-0, Dortmund 2010 (Mamedyarov repeated Kramnik-Ponomariov 1-0 from Tal Memorial 2009, Vlad was the first one to deviate and improve on his own play)
Radjabov-Mamedyarov 1-0, Astrakhan GP (Mamedyarov played some strange moves and lost on time)
Now we have Nakamura-Gelfand 0-1 (Nakamura finds what may be the only move to lose a drawn endgame), which is at least comparable ...

If that game had decided the outcome of a team match (Gelfand and Nakamura both play in the Austrian league?), Nakamura at least would have to pay a beer to his teammates. Well, in the given situation, Naka's "teammates" Giri and Caruana may even be happy, because their chances for the Amber spot have improved ... .

Aronian-Nakamura 1-0 (World Team Championship) and Kramnik-Nakamura 1-0 (Corus 2010) may be examples for the difference between 2780 positional chess understanding and 2730 advanced coffehouse chess:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1567921
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1569961

But Nakamura doesn't have to be ashamed of these losses (they merely indicate what he's still missing), nor does he have to be ashamed of his losses against Svidler and Gelfand. The discussion here hinges on HOW he lost the last two games.

I think it's not about hard work or lack thereof, but about his attitude to chess. He said the already much-discussed "playing US Swisses made me tougher" (because one has to win many games with either color, and the result is all that matters) - now that he claims to be part of the world elite (objectively he is) he still has to learn that a draw is no bad result against a fellow elite player. His provocative play against Svidler may be at, but not beyond the limit (after all he copied noone else than Karpov); his endgame suicide against Gelfand is unworthy of an elite player by any means.

You're right, my mistake. Your "Carlsen hype seems (for the time being) a bit exaggerated" was worse.

Anyway, we know Mamedyarov doesn't cheat. On the contrary, he was cheated against (ask Mamedyarov) ;)

I'll second that idea in a heartbeat. Shaq won't know what hit him... lol.

"Kamsky ... has done more in his career than Nakamura will ever accomplish."

Jury's going to be out on that one for the next 50 years, friend. I think you might wanna wait at least the next 25 years or so before pronouncing judgement...

I think Shaq would get so defensive as to make the ridiculous claim that chess wasn't a sport. Of course its not his type of PHYSICAL sport.

chesshire cat, you are of course correct. People are thinking with their heart and draws absolute conclusions which doesn’t hold water. But, HEY, that’s 90% of the internet blogging. -Home of the besserwissers!

Yours truly
(Besserwisser)

Comparing Anand and Nakamura is a bit unfair to both of them. Anand is an established world-top player who already beat many of his colleagues. He has a (psychological?) problem with Aronian - it doesn't matter too much unless he ends up playing a match against him!?

Nakamura still wants to get to the very top. He may well have the potential but my part of the discussion is trying to find out what he's still missing at the moment. So far, he only beat Shirov and Gelfand from the very top. To become a top 10 player, at least a stable one, methinks he needs to learn from his losses against Aronian, Kramnik, Gelfand, Svidler, Svidler, Svidler and Svidler. Of course, he will still lose the occasional game - and at some stage he might have the right to say [shoulder shrug] "well, for some reason I always lose against Svidler".

From the video after NH round 1, I get the impression that Nakamura didn't really enjoy the "marathon analysis" Ljubojevic forced upon him - almost like "it's a waste of time, I would rather play some bullet on the Internet". I consider this both impolite to his opponent, and a bad sign for himself ... .

@arna: It doesn't help to single out Nakamura's successes (2009 US Championship, San Sebastian, World Team Championship, Corus) while neglecting or ignoring his less successful events (NH 2009 and 2010, London, US Championship 2010). Both are part of his career ... .

"I think Shaq would get so defensive as to make the ridiculous claim that chess wasn't a sport. Of course its not his type of PHYSICAL sport."

But in the segments I saw tonight, one included a burger cookoff against Rachael Ray.

And in the other he sprinted against Tyson Gay. Shaq got a handicap in his race - why wouldn't he get 5:00 in his game against Nakamura's 1:00, for example?

He's willing to cook burgers, so why wouldn't he go for chess?

I agree, that is a bad sign for Nakamura. As Capablanca once said, you can learn far more from your losses than from you wins. Besides, analyzing with an old warrior like Ljubojevic does not happen every day.
As far as bullet chess is concerned, Botvinnik was convinced that speed chess hurts your chess playing technique in that it promotes superficial decision-making because of the rapidity of play. Do it enough and it is sure to spill over into your play in classical-type chess games.

Thomas, I saw nothing wrong with either player's demeanor and attitude in the Nakamura - Ljubojevic postgame analysis. You are too sensitive and see things that aren't really there.

Hag

It could be that Thomas was misinterpreting Nakamura's usual demeanor, which has a somewhat hunched over negative appearance.

I checked the video again, actually I referred to the "Live: Nakamura" one. No need to interpret Nakamura's body language or tone of voice, IMO his very words support my point:

Macauley: "You look tired, marathon analysis with Ljubo ..." [to me this is also a bit odd, as if the analysis was more tiring than the prior complicated game with mutual time trouble?]

Nakamura: "Yeah I mean, haha, I was pretty much used to that after last year, having to analyse games very long. But at the end of the day I won that game, that's really all that matters"

So Nakamura HAD TO analyse, he neither enjoyed it nor did he think he could learn something from his opponent?

Ljubo really bungled his game with Nakamura. Starting with 30.Bxd5? Rd8, his game looked suspect. Now, after 46...e5, it's looking a bit desperate for poor Ljubo.

wow, my comment went to moderation and never came back..
Anyway, mr coaster : basically what it said was that i dont need to use other handles than this one and that lately i find the comments section too boring to comment , at least until something more interesting happens in the chess world .
I also recommended the site chesscube for playing chess (really cool place , nice interface and you can keep your handle and games history for free) , and made some derogatory comments about Disney , because im just too tired to work for them .
Cheers to all.

Thomas, your last post only confirmed that you are going to extremes to try to make Nakamura sound impolite.

Hag

"you are going to extremes to try to make Nakamura sound impolite"

by quoting him?? Don't blame the messenger ... .

Oh come on, Thomas. You are making yourself look very petty and childish by trying to twist Nakamura's inoffensive comments into something impolite just to satisfy your agenda. So, you don't care for Nakamura. Big deal. Lots of people don't like his attitude. Wait for something really outrageous that he'll say (he will) rather than trying to score a pathetic, miserablely minor point with your absurd view.

Hag

Not Howell, but Giri...

Inky is a devoted follower of Ljubo. Inky has many stories about Ljubo. For Inky, Ljubo is simply the best.

Much too risky, that's why. The knight gets pinned on the e-file and bad things happen.

Hag

Earlier, Gelfand made a statement to Howell that black can win with the Petroff ... . According to live commentary by IM Ligterink at the venue (I travelled to Amsterdam today), one reason against the Petroff today may have been that Giri plays it himself with black.

Ligterink also suggested that replacing the Najdorf with the Petroff was helping Gelfand's "second career" as he loses less often with black against world-top players (but I couldn't find much support for this in chessgames.com statistics). He added that van Wely doesn't have a safe opening with black - not referring to his game today but to a last-round Najdorf loss in a recent open when a draw would have meant first place.

Another van Wely anecdote: At one occasion, King Loek followed one of his earlier games. Asked about it after the game, he said "No I didn't remember at all, though the position looked strangely familiar to me ...". Today he followed a game Smith-Laznicka which he annotated for NewinChess (forthcoming issue), explaining that 12.-Ng4 is forced while 12.-Nd7 is a losing blunder - at the board he played ... 12.-Nd7?

Watching the games and players themselves, the funniest thing was that several players kept walking around the stage in opposite directions, more than once almost bumping into each other. Maybe it was good that to games finished early, less traffic jams and near-accidents ... .

Thanks for your comments. Good to have someone actually there at the site to capture some of the more interesting tidbits those of us far away and without the aid of cameras totally miss. Interesting aside about van Wely's blunder -- a case of confusion and/or too much to remember?

Maybe it was all Ljubo's fault? ,:) I arrived about ten minutes before the start of the round, Ljubo was already there (all the others entered only around 1:28PM) spending the remaining time arranging his pieces and chatting with the arbiters. When van Wely sat down at his board, Ljubo approached him saying something like "good luck, continue where you left off yesterday (when he had won his first of 16 NH games)". Not completely sure about this, but I was within hearing distance, just five or ten meters away.

During the game, van Wely played quickly and confidently - much faster than Nakamura who took his time on 8.Qd2 and even 9.Rb1. According to the report by Ian Rogers at USCF, Loek was really confused: "[after 15.-Qc5] "I had analyzed the game Smith-Laznicka for New in Chess," explained van Wely, "and I remembered that White had played Na5-c4-b6. So I started to think - "How is this possible when Black has a knight on d7 covering b6?" But I still didn't remember that the Black knight was on g4, not d7."

Unfortunately I left the playing hall for the commentary room just one move before van Wely resigned. While it was clear that black's position is dangerous, I somehow trusted him that he would still have a resource at least to keep the game going for a while.

Also from Ian Rogers' report: "Van Wely has been faithful to the Sicilian Najdorf throughout his career despite many set-backs. For example in Wijk aan Zee this year he lost three games with the Najdorf; according to his second of the time Vladimir Chuchelov, all three games featured van Wely playing a line they had analyzed and rejected as bad for Black!"
Must be a bit frustrating for Chuchelov - currently helping Giri, but at the Olympiad he will be coaching the entire Dutch team: van Wely, Smeets, l'Ami, Stellwagen, Giri [ordered by age - if board order will be strictly by rating, van Wely might have to surrender first board to Giri, and second to Smeets, after the NH event?]

"all three games featured van Wely playing a line they had analyzed and rejected as bad for Black!"

He remembers the lines but not their evaluations? That's priceless! I've seen him play a lot of shoddy-looking lines lately, and this little nugget of information might explain at least a few of them :)

Again Ian Rogers near the end of his report: "Never would a player have received less satisfaction from having their analysis proved correct."

who is inky ? i have always wondered :)

Juvenile, snarky, a manic poster, and Thomas drives him nuts. Do we have a confirmed match?

Why was Lubejob invited? What does he offer? What is Greg Koster talking about in his reply to chesshire cat? I miss I M Stoopid; he would have an answer to these questions.

Hag

Hag, I'm surprised that you must ask. Are you that stupid? Lube is invited because he is a charity case. Koster is just sloppy and dumb. You are stupid and so is your friend Stoopid. Now, shut your pie hole. Oh, and since you mentioned him, chesshire cat is a moron also. Any more questions?

Two more games and then nobody will hear about Ljubojevic again for another year. Meanwhile, Nakamura once again embarrassed himself by declining a draw offer from Nielsen the nothing in a dead draw position that had just been repeated for the second time (after 46.Qc7) only to play two more repetitions for a total of four. Such a little kid.

Hag

Nakamura is maybe just 20-25 ELO points from cracking the Top 10. I think that it is very likely that there will be a rating list in the next few years, where he will edge into the Top 10. Question is how long will he manage to stay in the Top 10? Of course, doing so is a wonderful career feat, even if for only one rating list. However, I would tend to discount the significance of a brief time in Top 10. If it is a short duration, I would be inclined to dismiss it as. an aberration. If Nakamura can both manage to reach the Top 10, and stay there consistently (say, 2 consecutive years--12 rating lists, or 80 % of the time over 5 years), then I'd say he's fully earned the mantle of Top 10 player. If he can crack the Top 5 (even if briefly) it would go a long way towards fulfilling his Top 10 "Norms". A caveat is that there have been a couple of players who have made it to the Top 3, if briefly, and quickly dropped out of the Top 10, even the Top 100.

But Nakamura is still young, still improving (albeit more gradually. The problem for him is that with globalization, there are more emerging "Chess Markets", each producing prodigies. Nakamura has dozens of rivals, each who are ambitious, and who aim for a spot among the Top 10, if not higher. Nakamura is not among the youngest of the young stars, nor has his gains in rating and ranking been as swift of late. A possible scenario is that Hikaru might make it to the Top 10, only to be leapfrogged by players just coming out of their teens.

"Just 20-25 Elo points" sounds easy or at least doable - but the closer you get to the top, the harder it is to make the next step. Looking at Nakamura's rating evolution:
- he stagnated at 2650-2660 for 2 1/2 years (Apr 2005 - Oct 2007)
- then he took one year to cross 2700
- it took one more year to cross 2730
- since then, he is somewhat struggling to maintain his current level
Where is the evidence that the next step is only a matter of time? It _might_ happen within one year, within two years, or maybe never ... .

Several players were accused that their rating is mostly based on beating weaker players - I never heard such a thing about Nakamura, but it's just as true in his case: At Corus, he scored 3.5/8 against the 2700+ players (not bad, but not spectacular either) and 4/5 against the Elo (and tournament table) tailenders. After the current NH event, he might keep or even slightly improve his rating due to 5/6 against Ljubojevic, van Wely and Nielsen, and despite 0/2 so far against Gelfand and Svidler.

If we compare Nakamura with two other rising stars:
- Vachier-Lagrave stagnates around 2720 for roughly the last two years
- Karjakin was stuck at 2730 since Jan 2008, only in the last six months he made further progress and is now knocking at the door of the top10.
What's the main difference between Vachier-Lagrave, Karjakin and Nakamura? Nakamura has more fans and gets more media attention!?

"New material, please." (pioneer)

Go ahead and give us something. Don't hold back. Let's see what you've got.

Hag

Yes, it looks like Giri will be going to the Amber tournament while Nakamura will miss it again.

Except Giri doesn't seem to know how to win this. I see a draw coming up. Meanwhile, Svidler took pity on his punching bag Nakamura and gave him a half point.

In this event, Gelfand seems to be in form (or ambitious) particularly with the black pieces where he scored 4/5 - So took a Petroff repetition, and Giri stood his ground, maybe a bit more than that, in a Najdorf.
With white he has 2.5/4 including three draws in 22-25 moves. Today Caruana offered a draw on move 16, but it was too late already!?

For perspective: Vachier-Legrave and Sergey Karjakin are both five years younger than Hikaru, so they have more time to improve on their play. Although Maxime draws early and often (to my chagrin), only rarely does he give up the full point. Sergey is dangerous, something like Ivanchuk - he is capable of beating nearly anyone at any time. And he plays fast. Both are vicious calculators.

My dream scenario for Biel '11 would include Karjakin and Le standing in for the weaker players from this year.

Yes, Gelfand can play beautiful chess, and his chess play is very similar to that of Kramnik. These guys are deadly when in form, so positionally sound and ready to exploit the slightest error -- losing a tempo against them makes for a miserable and tortuous chess experience. I'm very happy Gelfand is doing so well. Truly a great series of aesthetic and educational games by him. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same about Naka's games...

Maybe it was sportsmanship from Gelfand; in any case I won't blame him - for the reason you gave, he is already happy with his tournament. But Nakamura and his fans probably would have been furious if he suffered rather than benefitted from the turn of events - say, Nielsen offering a draw to Giri ... . And Hikaru owes a bigger thank you to Nielsen - a bit ironic if ICC commentators yesterday told the truth: he considers Nielsen a relatively weak player, not worth his 2700 rating?

Now it would be ironic if Giri ends up winning the blitz tiebreak against the supposed odds - but the best solution might be to invite both to Amber. There was at least one precedent: Carlsen got his first Corus A invitation despite finishing shared first but second on tiebreak behind Motylev the year before in Corus B.

Referring to your previous comment: It may be a bit unfair to compare Nakamura's and Gelfand's overall level of play, given the differences in both style and level of experience. But how would you (and others) compare Nakamura's and Giri's play at the event?

Initially, I thought the draw was wimpish, but Gelfand just wants to finish on top, so then I understood. Maybe I would do the same thing.

Hag

I stand corrected. Hikaru is three, not five years older than both Sergey and Maxime. Obviously(as he would say) still a gap at that age.

Anyway, your initial point is also mine ("between the lines"). But I don't think it's about "how much time they have (remaining)" to further improve their play, results or rating. If there is an age limit (25 years? 30?), it's not the same for everyone ... for example, Aronian and Eljanov first crossed 2700 at the age of 23 and 24, respectively. The point might rather be that Karjakin and Vachier-Lagrave took less time to reach their current level than Nakamura.

For Karjakin, another point is that he made special efforts and possibly sacrifices to reach his goals - getting the best coach he could find, even if it involved a controversial federation change. Which efforts does Nakamura make?

Thomas wants to know if he always finds ways to snipe at Nakamura.

The answer is YES.

Even Fide doesn't consider Nakamura in its youth rankings. You must be joking.

There is also the intermediate guard (Aronian, Eljanov, Grischuk, Ponomariov) - and from the young guard everyone looks pale compared to Carlsen.

But regarding Nakamura-Gelfand comparisons, noone compared their career records or chess CVs - yet it's possible to compare their level of play in a given event.

I think that all things being equal, as a player gets older, he will have less opportunity/chance to improve his rating, ranking, and results. Of course, all things are never quite equal....
As you noted, there are relative "late bloomers"--Kortchnoi, who arguably peaked in his mid 40s, comes to mind. We focus on age because it is an easy metric to access. However, other factors are probably more imortant. It is usually the case that gifted chessplayers reach their absolute peak after about 10-12 years of intensive training and singular focus. Of course, there is a variance: some players may reach their peak after only, say, 8 years, while others might have trained intensively for 15 or more years, and not quite peaked (although the curve of improvement is surely flattening).

Unfortunately, we don't have much data on how long various players have trained at top intensity (i.e. being professionally trained, and approaching chess as a full-time job, 8 hours a day 300+ days per year, often being home schooled)

We can assume that if Karjakin, Bu, etc. earns the GM title at age 12 or 13, then they will have had to be trained since early childhood. If so, "the meter is running" from an earlier age, and it would not be surprising if in such an instance, a player would actually peak before he/she is age 20. It would be interesting to find out if Aronian or Eljanov committed to a Chess career later than usual, or if they lacked the resources/opportunities to be trained at full intensity. This would indicate that even in their mid-20s, they might have real scope for improvement.

With respect to Nakamura, part of his appeal is that he seems to have an exceptional narrative. Thus, "Nakamurology" simply reflects, in a way that is akin to a Rorschach test, the assumptions and predispositions of those who would judge him. One can pick and choose from facts (or even myth) surrounding Nakamura, and then tailor a narrative that fits one's agenda.

Surely, Nakamura has trained for a long time, for most of his life, really. Has he begun to reach his peak? Or, has he trained haphazardly, which might, rather perversely, suggest that he has a higher upside than most of his peers on the chess circuit.

Hikaru has spent many hours playing chess online--probably more than most of his peers. This has yielded tangible results: he is among the world's top online Blitz players, and better yet at faster lightning and 1 Minute Chess games. Some folks would deem this tobe the Touchstone of pure chess talent, while others view this as a prodigal wasting of such talents; a sort of diet of junk food, at the necessary expense of serious chess training that nourishes the skills that lead to excellence at the elite level. And so on....

* Nakamura is self-confident
Or * Nakamura is over-confident

* Nakamura excels at dynamic play, taking calculated risks to win

Or * Nakamura is a mere opportunist, playing for tricks which are not likely to succeed agaisnt the World's Elite

With other players, there is less room to interpret the narrative, I suppose.

All one can do is read the Tea Leaves. My best guest is that Nakamura will visit the Top 10, but not reside there for long.

Given the sheer number of talented up and coming young chessplayers, the odds are against any one of them taking a long lasting station among the Top 10. With each year that progresses, it becomes less likely that Nakamura has it within him to make one more Quantum Leap that will enable him to do so...

Of course, that was the rub with Topalov, who had stagnated for a full 10 years, before 2005...

Use your real handle for your insults, there's a nice boy. You can hide your name but not your writing style. If it can be called a "style", of course.

Yes, it's possible that Giri will be invited to Amber anyway - after all, the organizers also kept inviting van Wely until 2008. It is also possible, even likely that he will cross 2700 in the meantime and won't be completely out of place Elo-wise. BTW, it seems that Amber became a "very exclusive" event only recently - some earlier editions also had Vallejo Pons and Nielsen (respectable players, but not exactly world top).

No, Nakamura won't be invited to NH 2011, neither will anyone else: Peter Doggers from Chessvibes reported from the closing ceremony that "rumours were confirmed that this 5th edition was the last NH Chess Tournament".

To answer your questions:
1) Probably Smeets was the oldest young player ever taking place in the event, he was 24 last year. He was joking about this and realizing that it was his last chance (which he grabbed) - similarly Svidler was joking that he was (considered) old at the age of 33.
2) Wikipedia does a better job than FIDE:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIDE_Womens_Grand_Prix_2009/2010
Nana Dzagnidze and Humpy Koneru could still overtake Hou Yifan - but not Tatiana Kosintseva who skipped Nanjing and was replace by Ju Wenjun (does anyone know the story or reason behind this?).

Oh pussy, you are so clever. You always tell us what to do. Like a pussy.

Thomas, Thanks. I should have thought to do a search on Wikipedia itself; I wasn't getting relevant hits. Still, FIDE ought to be doing a better job; what a surprise that they are not.

Nana Dzagnidze seems to have decent chances, as she only needs a good, but not a superb, performance. It looks like she is a spot of poor form: her rating has dropped from a high of 2547 in November 2009 to just 2478 in May 2010. It has since rebounded to 2498 in July. Humpy can win the Grand Prix with a result Clear First, but that is a bit much to expect. I must confess that I am not all that familiar with Nana Dzagnidze, but from the looks of it, she is rapidly improving. Kosteniuk will have her hands full in warding off any of the potential challengers.

"Nana Dzagnidze and Humpy Koneru could still overtake Hou Yifan - but not Tatiana Kosintseva who skipped Nanjing and was replace by Ju Wenjun (does anyone know the story or reason behind this?)."

I believe that Tatiana Kosintseva was playing in the 14th European Club Cup for Women, held in Macedonia, which conflicted with part of the Nanjing 2009 tournament. Humpy Koneru, Antoaneta Stefanova, Maia Chiburdanidze, Pia Cramling, and Elina Danielan all played ther too, but apparently none of them were assigned to play in Nanjing. Maybe T. Kosintseva had a contractual commitment to play for her Club team, or maybe it was too lucrative an opportunity to pass up. Perhaps she was optimistic that she would excel in the 3 (remaining) Grand Prix events in which she participated? She garned Clear 1st, and then Clear 2nd, in her first two events...

It will be interesting to see how Nakamura fares in the Blindfold portion at the Amber. Skill in Blindfold chess is probably a better indicator of raw talent than is skill in Blitz. In any case, the results are usually a bit surprising.

" I remember not long ago when people here said Nakamura would never make 2700. Then they said he would never make top 20."

You're creating your own story to fit your own agenda, Daaim. Just like DOug said people do regarding Nakamura.

Which people? When? Do you mind finding quotes from "serious" posters here, saying Naka would never make 2700? I'm curious about who said that.

Btw, there are about 10 players within 10 points (downwards) of Naka at the moment. 7 of them have been top 10 for shorter or longer periods in the past, and most of them have more to show for themselves (so far) than Naka - in particular with respect to producing good results against other top players (2700+).

If Naka's games against 2700+ over the past 3 years would've been everything he'd played during those years, his rating would've been well below 2700 still. Of course, he's got that in common with some players hovering just around 2700 - but of the current top 30 I can think of maybe only one or two others for which the same might be hold true.

Nakamura has improved his 2700+ record notably in the past (1) year, but relative to his own rating he still underperforms quite clearly against other top 30 players. Of course, beating "weaker" players is an important skill too, but in terms of ability to be competitive with the rest of the very elite, the real difference between Nakamura and say Gelfand, Karjakin, Ponomariov and Radjabov is notably bigger than what the few ratings points dividing them make (some) people think. And that difference won't change even if Naka gains another 20 points mainly from beating sub-2700 players to grab the current top 10 postion (held by Gelfand with 2751 rounded).

Heck, even a player well over the top - Nigel Short (rated 2690 atm)- has performed better than Naka against 2700+ over the last couple of years.

Would Nakamura be top 20 if he only played top 20 players? Maybe, due to possibly learning enough that way to close some or most of the gap. But not based on his current record against elite players.

I'm sure you'll think I'm bashing Nakamura by writing this. I disagree. Sure, the angle is different than yours, and I'm telling _my_ story while you told yours. But while your story had more "drama" than precision, my "story" is precise, documentable and more sobering than exciting.

I congratulate Naka on qualifying for Amber - I think it'll be very interesting both for him and for us. I also think Nakamura still is learning to play against the elite - and he's improving. Possibly most clearly seen during London, WTC and Corus some 8-9 months ago - where he basically defended his rating over 14 "consecutive" 2700+ games. 1/4 against Svidler and Gelfand here was a slight setback in this respect, but he'll adapt if he keeps trying.

Korchnoi came the closest to becoming world champion when he was in his 40s. In that sense perhaps he is a late bloomer. But this doesn't imply he is a "late bloomer" in a more general sense.

Korchnoi was already a candidate since the early 1960s, when he was in his early 30s. According to chessmetrics he was already top 5 in 1960, before reaching the age of 30. And already top 10 when he was in his early 20s.

I think it is more accurate to see Korchnoi as a survivor among the top players. He got there early enough, but his peers were equally strong.
But when his peers (Petrosian, Spassky, Tal, etc) started to fade away, he was still there. Furthermore, the younger generation (Karpov's generation, besides Karpov himself) was not that as strong as the previous one. Hence Korchnoi, the survivor, got his chance to almost reach the peak of the World Championship.

Thanks, frogbert. Nice to see some actual FACTS as opposed to all this drivel on this site by 1800 ELO players about Naka.

Basically it looks like Svidler owns Naka, but otherwise he is 50% against 2700+ players since the beginning of 2009 -- impressive that he was even against 2750-2820 ratings despite having 6 blacks in the 8 games!

In 2010 so far, Naka did well at the World Team Championiship, did well at Corus, had a good salvage at NH, but underperformed at the US championship. He will get his chance at the London Classic in December to prove his mettle -- the field will have Anand, Carlsen, Kramnik in addition to the 4 Brits (he didn't win a game at that tourney last year).

I doubt that's true about Wang Yue...he's gotten invited to virtually every supertournament for the past 2 years, yet still has lost more than 30 ELO points...if his score was so great against non top-10 players, he would have qualified for the Candidates matches -- in the final Grand Prix tournament he was the 2nd seed and yet was -1 in 11 rounds against players > 2700.

Wang Yue's rating has been stable around 2730, for most of 2009 and 2010. The 30 point he lost recently is just from 2 events: Bazna where he lost 4 games (including 2 losses against Carlsen, which can happen to anybody) and Chinese league (lost one game against a much lower rated opponent). However, he regained about 15 points recently and in the next rating list will be expected to be back to around 2730, in the top 20.

Overall since January 2009 until September 2010 (expected rating) his rating stays around 2730, except right after the 2 events mentioned above.

I didn't say Wang Yue score is "great" against non top 10. But it is not negative - in contrast to Nakamura's score which is negative against the same group of opponents. For example, against rank 11-20 (approximately rated 2725 - 2750), Wang Yue's score is 2-2=25 since 2009. Not "great" but he has proven he belongs there.

As for the Grand Prix, notice that his total Grand Prix score puts him 5th, higher than Gelfand, Mamedyarov, Ivanchuk and many others, including many who are established as top players.

"Basically it looks like Svidler owns Naka, but otherwise he is 50% against 2700+ players since the beginning of 2009"

Now you're misinterpreting the facts I provided you. The thing is that you don't know how _other_ individual records would've been if Naka would've played as many games against say Aronian, Kramnik, Gelfand OR (even) Carlsen as he's actually played against Svidler. Maybe his record against Kramnik would've been even worse! [But we don't know. See?]

Although you obviously can't disregard the player he happens to have the worst results against (Svidler), let's still consider the rating range 2700 to 2750 without Svidler's games included.

2702 2733 0.5 -0.4 Kamsky, Gata b
2702 2733 0.5 -0.4 Kamsky, Gata w
2703 2710 1.0 4.9 Vachier-Lagrave, Maxime w
2707 2715 0.5 -0.1 Short, Nigel D w
2712 2708 0.5 0.1 Dominguez Perez, Leinier b
2716 2710 0.5 0.1 Movsesian, Sergei w
2719 2704 0.0 -4.8 Gelfand, Boris w
2719 2704 0.0 -4.8 Grischuk, Alexander b
2720 2708 0.0 -4.8 Karjakin, Sergey w
2720 2701 0.5 0.3 Kamsky, Gata w
2723 2699 0.5 0.3 Gashimov, Vugar w
2723 2708 1.0 5.2 Shirov, Alexei w
2727 2710 0.5 0.2 Ponomariov, Ruslan w
2730 2704 0.5 0.4 Karjakin, Sergey b
2731 2704 0.0 -4.6 Mamedyarov, Shakhriyar w
2733 2735 0.5 0.0 Grischuk, Alexander w
2736 2708 0.5 0.4 Grischuk, Alexander b
2739 2708 0.5 0.4 Leko, Peter w
2749 2708 0.5 0.6 Ivanchuk, Vassily b

Based on officially rated games in lists 2009-1 to 2010-7 - excluding the most significant record (meaning, the one with the most games) - we get this:

Nakamura was on average rated 2711.
His opponents was on average rated 2722.

Naka scored +2 -4 =13 in 19 games, or 8.5/19.
That's equivalent to a TPR of 2683 - with 2 wins in 19 games against players he's supposed to be equally strong as. But I think he isn't yet - in direct encounters.

Adding Svidler back in, Nakamura's record in "his own rating range" in my stats, 2700-2749, shows an even clearer underperformance (despite including the "good" series at the end of last year/beginning of this year).

Naka scores +2 -7 =14 in 23 games, or 9/23, for a performance of 2647.4 - some 60+ points below his own 2712 average (and nearly 90 points below his current 2735-ish rating).

So far it looks notably better against 2750+ players, but that number of games is less than 1/3 of the number of games he's got against 2700 to 2750 players in the same period and we should probably not draw strong conclusions based on only 7 games. For instance the single win against Gelfand does quite much to change the picture - simply because there are so few games to base a judgement on. There isn't enough data to claim that he does (notably) better against 2750+ players than against 2700-2750 players, for instance.

But by all means, +1 -2 =4 looks rather nice against

2x Carlsen, Kramnik
1x Anand, Aronian, Gelfand

Again, though - the Anand that Naka faced in Corus was probably the most peaceful and toothless "tiger" I've seen in a long time, drawing east and west with everyone. Point is - over a bigger number of games such things even out and can be disregarded. In a 7 game sample it suddenly becomes significant.

Of course, we can't exclude the possibility that Nakamura brings a better game to his encounters with the very best, possibly due to being more inspired by the (tough) opposition. But there is certainly no reason for him to take lightly on 2700 to 2750 players, thinking that he's better than most of them. Right now rather the opposite seems to be true (again, in direct encounters).

[I'm not claiming that Naka really takes lightly on games against 2700-2750 players. But most of them might be stronger than what several Naka-fans possibly realize. That's pure speculation, though... :o)]

"Now you're misinterpreting the facts I provided you. The thing is that you don't know how _other_ individual records would've been if Naka would've played as many games against say Aronian, Kramnik, Gelfand OR (even) Carlsen as he's actually played against Svidler. Maybe his record against Kramnik would've been even worse! [But we don't know. See?]"

Interesting points...of course we don't know, but its likely that since Naka had BLACK in virtually all of those games (Aronian, Kramnik, Gelfand, Carlsen, Anand) that his score would be better than the 50% that it currrently is...time will tell, as Naka will get his chance to play multiple games against the super-elite.

Head-to-head is important (i.e. Svidler vs. Naka), but its not everything -- otherwise we'd all be talking about how Aronian is the "real" world champion b/c of how he has owned Anand since 2007.

BTW, thanks for supplying facts to support your opinions -- they are very appreciated.

On an unrelated note, I wonder if Naka has a shot to get an invite to the Tal Memorial in November...he's currently world #15 and since the world blitz title is right after, he'd be a decent choice (although admittedly a long shot) -- particularly others ahead of him (i.e. Topalov) may turn down the invitation like they did last year.

My point isn't that Wang Yue doesn't belong in the top 20 or top 30...its that despite his getting many more supertournament invites than Naka, his rating is still lower than Naka's.

Yue has had MANY more opportunities against the world's elite than Naka to this point, so to say that Yue compares favorable to Naka at this point in their careers is premature.

Since early 2009, Yue has basically been a drawing machine against 2700-2730 players, and has a minus score against top-10 players. His total GP score includes the first tournaments (in 08) where he was very impressive (sharing first with Carlsen and Gashimov in Baku; sharing 3rd with Kamsky in Sochi) -- he did virtually nothing else since.

I was closely following his games at Astrakhan, b/c I wanted him to qualify for the candidates. I think that he's just in a rut that he'll eventually get out of, but we'll see. It is my opinion that a Chinese GM (i.e. Yue, Bu, Hao) consistently doing well at supertournaments is good for the game.

"On an un-unrelated note , there is no Tal Memorial this year. I don't know about the World Blitz. "

That's news to me. Could you provide the website where you got that from? Thanks.

The Answer: http://lookitupforyourself.com

What sounds premature to me is saying that Nakamura is "higher rated" than Wang Yue (or Svidler, for that matter) based on one single rating list, and a 1 point difference. We should wait and see several rating lists.

The reason I'm using Wang Yue as a comparison is partly because he is also relatively young, and seems to show the right stability, already being in that class for about 2 years (at some points even in the top 10). Notice that after the recent losses, Wang Yue jumped back quickly, again proving his stability. This is what we should be looking for (but haven't seen yet) in Nakamura.

Yes, Wang Yue had more chances to play the top. So what? It doesn't imply Nakamura, if he gets the same chances, will do better, or even equally good. From what we've seen so far, Nakamura's performance against 2700 players is negative. If he gets more chances against 2700 players, he might just continue his negative score against that group. Or he might not. We just don't know yet.

The point I am making is just that Wang Yue has proven his place at least among top 20, while Nakamura's status is not clear yet.

The Answer: Just say that you're too lazy or undisciplined to post the link instead of giving garbage responses. Its not on the internet.

The FACT is that Naka is higher rated than Yue right now. Everything else that you and I have stated is merely opinion as to why that may be. Time will tell which player is ultimately better. Despite Yue's "jumping back", he is still lower rated than Naka.

Yue is going through a tough stretch, but "other top 20 players" aren't losing 35 rating points during a rating list when facing predominantly 2700+ competition...not even Naka.

Name one tournament performance of Yue's during the past 18 months that is comparable to Naka's 2010 Corus. That should dispel any "superiority" of Yue vs. Naka for the time being.

Both are playing in supertournaments over the next 3-4 months, so we'll see...I'm actually rooting for both to do well.

BTW, Gelfand won a pretty big tournament...the Chess World Cup.

Good points, Henry. My response to each point is below:

"* Play impressively in a couple of big tournaments. Not yet. He might be able to, but that remains to be seen. Saying that he hasn't got enough chance, while true, does not imply when he gets the chance he will make it. It just remains to be seen."

Corus was impressive, given the field. Very few top-10 players have had a performance superior to Naka's at 2010 Corus -- equal 4th with Anand, with an even total score against the top 3 finishers (Carlsen, Kramnik, Shirov). I agree with you that Naka needs another supertournament performance like this...he'll get his chance later this year.

"* Get equal score against other top 20. Not yet. In fact so far his score is negative against that group."

So far, but other than Carlsen, Kramnik, Topalov and Anand, please name another top-20 player with a plus score against that group.

"* Beating 2600 players. I haven't checked his score, but probably he is already doing this - otherwise where does he get his 2700 rating from."

Exactly. You don't stay at 2730 level without doing this. Plus Naka has shown thus far that he holds his own with Black against 2750-2810 players (Gelfand, Anand, Kramnik, Carlsen, Aronian = +1-2=2 with black).

Is Nakamura's negative score against 2700 players not considered a fact as well? And a very relevant fact if in the near future he is supposed to play more opponents from this group.

Ivanchuk once lost more than 40 rating points. Among others it includes his loss against ... Wang Yue :-).

Why should the Nakamura - Wang Yue comparison limited to the last 18 months? :-) :-). Anyway, I think Wang Yue's rating performance in the recent China - Russia match is better than Nakamura's at Corus.

BTW, even Wang Yue's negative score in Linares translates to around 2730 rating performance - because of the exceptionally strong opposition.

Are you counting Gelfand's win in the KO event? A win in that event might come mostly through rapid games. In fact, that's what Gelfand did. It's not impressive from the rating performance point of view. Against all the stronger players, except Karjakin, he played equal in the classical part, although he was higher rated than all of them. His total Elo gain for that event is only 2.6. In fact, his rating performance in this event is less than Wang Yue's.

On Nakamura's Corus performance:

"Very few top-10 players have had a performance superior to Naka's at 2010 Corus"

Are you talking about top 10 players?
I think every one of them has produced a rating performance better than Nakamura's at Corus 2010.

I don't need to mention the obvious top 5, but here are performances from the next 6-10 ranked. Each case is better than Nakamura's at Corus. And this is just from my memory from recent events. I'm sure there are more cases.

Mamedyarov - World Cup
Grischuk - Linares
Eljanov - Astrakhan Grand Prix
Radjabov - Elista Grand Prix
Shirov - Corus

Even if we go down the list, lower than top 10, there are better examples. (again these are just from memory; I'm sure there are more).

Karjakin - Corus 2009
Ivanchuk - Bazna 2009
Ponomariov - Dortmund 2010

@Pioneer:

"So far, but other than Carlsen, Kramnik, Topalov and Anand, please name another top-20 player with a plus score against that group."

I didn't say plus score, but equal score against top 20. Don't change my words :-).

Also, when I say top 20, I am excluding top 10. So it is rank 11 - 20.

Examples (period spanning 2009 - 2010) :
Wang Yue has 2-2=25 against top 20. :-)

Actually, almost every one of the top 20 has more or less equal score against other top 20s (rank 11 - 20).

However, Nakamura has (so far) a negative score against that group. Not only is he negative against top 10, but also negative against the next group, rank 11 - 20. The other top 20 players also have negative score against Anand and Carlsen, but they are about equal against rank 11 - 20. That's the difference.

@Pioneer:

"Why should the Nakamura - Wang Yue comparison limited to the last 18 months? :-) :-)."

Because that's the timespan since which Yue has gotten invitations to all the supertournaments, while Naka didn't until 12 months ago. Its an arbitrary number...if we limited the comparison to the past 6 months or past 12 months, it would hurt Yue even more.

--------------

Well, if it is arbitary, why not start in 2008. Then it is easier to find a Wang Yue result better than Nakamura's Corus. :-)

Wang Yue's rating performance at the China vs Russia match is better than Nakamura's at Corus.
Although it is less than Bu's rating performance, Wang Yue's performance is still above 2800 (it's around 2830). Nakamura's rating performance at Corus is below 2800.

Corus has strong opposition, but Nakamura's performance there against 2700 players was actually negative at 1-2=5. He compensated by winning 3 games against 2600 players. This actually confirms the pattern that (so far) he is only good against under 2700.

More recently at NH it is the same. Overall good at 4-2=4. But against 2700 it is negative 1-2=3.

The recent loss against Svidler at NH was with White. And the loss against Gashimov just today was also with white :-).

BTW, if the loss against Gashimov today is counted in the liverating, the "fact" of Nakamura's rating and rank will change :-). Perhaps we don't need to compare him with Wang Yue anymore. More appropriate to compare him with Wang Hao. :-)

The Answer: Still can't find it? Try searching under "stupid chess players".

The Answer: Sorry to have neglected you little Hag, but you are so insignificant that you are easy to overlook or ignore. To answer your pathetic wail, no I will not shut up. Now, go kick the wall in your dirty little basement room.

"its likely that since Naka had BLACK in virtually all of those games (Aronian, Kramnik, Gelfand, Carlsen, Anand) that his score would be better than the 50% that it currrently is"

First, in those 7 games he didn't score 50% - he scored 3/7 or 43%. Secondly, he was black in 5 of 7 games (not "all") - another white, and the colour split would've been the most balanced one theoretically possible. (Do you start sensing how little meaning "statistical" analysis of 7 games really make?) Thirdly, his _only_ win actually came with black, against Gelfand. (And his only loss in London 2009 was with white...) And finally, remember the stats over the other 23 games?

"2700-2749 summary:
ro = 2712.0
score = 9/23 (+2 -7 =14)"

In those 7 losses, 4 of them were with white. Given Nakamura's completely harmless white repertoir, there's very little reason to assume that he would perform any better with white than with black against top players.

But my major point is: you can't draw strong conclusions based on 7 games. 23 (or 30) games may start to show a pattern.

"its that despite his getting many more supertournament invites than Naka, his rating is still lower than Naka's."

That's not really a "despite" - it may very well be a "because":

Both Wang Yue and Nakamura perform _relatively better_ against sub-top opposition statistically speaking. Or have done so this far.

Broadly speaking they have _gained_ rating from sub-2700 players and _lost_ rating to 2700+ players. Of course, in order to improve it's advantageous to play the strongest opposition, but in terms of short term rating development, playing up is _seldom_ a good way to gain rating points. Despite what people seem to believe. Most 2700+ players have their best rating performances against players _lower_ rated than themselves (with individual variations and a few exeptions). Wang Yue and Nakamura certainly have belonged to those who gain rating by playing _down_.

Another illustration: If a player like Leko in fact had played Nakamura's type of opposition on average over the last 12-15 months (instead of exclusively in top events), he would've been rated well above 2750 (and well ahead of Nakamura): Leko is simply RUTHLESS towards sub-2700 players, performing consistently at around 2800 in his games against sub-2700 opposition. But instead Leko is roughly 10 points _below_ Nakamura.

I bet not too many people are aware of this statistical fact, but when I shortly (and finally!) start publishing performance profiles on my site, it'll be rather easily available for those who are interested. At least personally I find these profiles enlightening in many cases.

"BTW, thanks for supplying facts to support your opinions -- they are very appreciated. "

Thanks! I'm glad there still are people who think that facts and knowledge are appropriate ingredients in a debate. :o)

"other than Carlsen, Kramnik, Topalov and Anand, please name another top-20 player with a plus score against [other top 20]."

I'll give you one example of a player who does worse against sub-2700 than 2700+ in terms of rating gain and TPRs: Radjabov. In the games rated for the official lists 2009-1 to 2010-7 he also has a plus score against top-20 strength players (remember that with the small differences there are from around place 15 to 25, exactly who happens to be "top-20" atm changes all the time).

Here are similar stats as those given for Naka:

2700 2740 0.5 -0.6 Alekseev, Evgeny b
2703 2752 0.5 -0.7 Gashimov, Vugar w
2703 2752 0.5 -0.7 Gashimov, Vugar w
2705 2752 0.5 -0.7 Bacrot, Etienne b
2705 2752 1.0 4.3 Bacrot, Etienne b
2706 2761 0.5 -0.8 Karjakin, Sergey w
2712 2761 0.5 -0.7 Adams, Michael b
2715 2752 1.0 4.5 Alekseev, Evgeny w
2716 2752 0.5 -0.5 Vachier-Lagrave, Maxime w
2717 2761 0.5 -0.6 Dominguez Perez, Leinier b
2717 2761 0.5 -0.6 Dominguez Perez, Leinier w
2717 2761 0.5 -0.6 Dominguez Perez, Leinier w
2719 2752 0.5 -0.5 Grischuk, Alexander b
2720 2756 0.5 -0.5 Kamsky, Gata b
2720 2756 1.0 4.5 Kamsky, Gata w
2720 2752 1.0 4.6 Eljanov, Pavel b
2725 2740 0.5 -0.2 Jakovenko, Dmitry w
2725 2761 1.0 4.5 Kamsky, Gata w
2729 2752 1.0 4.7 Kamsky, Gata w
2730 2733 0.5 0.0 Jakovenko, Dmitry b
2731 2752 0.5 -0.3 Mamedjarov, Shakhriyar w
2732 2752 0.5 -0.3 Movsesian, Sergei w
2733 2761 0.0 -5.4 Grischuk, Alexander w
2733 2740 0.5 -0.1 Ponomariov, Ruslan b
2733 2740 0.5 -0.1 Ponomariov, Ruslan w
2733 2756 0.5 -0.3 Gelfand, Boris b
2733 2756 0.5 -0.3 Gelfand, Boris w
2733 2761 0.5 -0.4 Grischuk, Alexander b
2733 2740 1.0 4.9 Ponomariov, Ruslan b
2734 2740 0.5 -0.1 Gashimov, Vugar b
2734 2752 0.5 -0.3 Adams, Michael b
2735 2740 0.5 -0.1 Leko, Peter w
2735 2740 0.5 -0.1 Svidler, Peter b
2736 2752 0.5 -0.2 Wang, Yue b
2736 2757 0.5 -0.3 Wang, Yue b
2736 2757 0.5 -0.3 Wang, Yue w
2737 2752 0.5 -0.2 Jakovenko, Dmitry w
2739 2761 0.5 -0.3 Wang, Yue b
2739 2761 0.5 -0.3 Wang, Yue w
2739 2761 1.0 4.7 Wang, Yue b
2741 2757 0.5 -0.2 Svidler, Peter w
2741 2740 0.5 0.0 Gelfand, Boris b
2741 2740 0.5 0.0 Ivanchuk, Vassily b
2741 2740 1.0 5.0 Gelfand, Boris b
2741 2740 1.0 5.0 Gelfand, Boris w
2742 2757 0.0 -5.2 Jakovenko, Dmitry b
2742 2757 0.5 -0.2 Jakovenko, Dmitry w
2745 2756 0.5 -0.2 Shirov, Alexei b
2745 2756 0.5 -0.2 Shirov, Alexei w
2746 2756 0.5 -0.1 Ivanchuk, Vassily b
2746 2756 0.5 -0.1 Ivanchuk, Vassily w
2747 2752 0.5 -0.1 Leko, Peter b

2700-2749:
ro = 2751.9
score = 30/52 (+10 -2 =40)
gain = 23.3
rc = 2729.2

2750 2761 0.5 -0.2 Aronian, Levon b
2750 2761 0.5 -0.2 Aronian, Levon w
2750 2761 1.0 4.8 Aronian, Levon w
2751 2740 0.0 -4.8 Eljanov, Pavel w
2751 2761 0.5 -0.1 Movsesian, Sergei b
2752 2740 0.5 0.2 Wang, Yue b
2752 2740 0.5 0.2 Wang, Yue w
2752 2740 0.5 0.2 Wang, Yue w
2757 2752 0.5 0.1 Aronian, Levon w
2762 2757 0.5 0.1 Leko, Peter b
2762 2757 0.5 0.1 Leko, Peter w
2763 2740 1.0 5.3 Mamedyarov, Shakhriyar w
2771 2761 0.5 0.1 Morozevich, Alexander b
2772 2757 0.0 -4.8 Carlsen, Magnus b
2772 2757 0.5 0.2 Carlsen, Magnus w
2773 2757 0.5 0.2 Aronian, Levon w
2776 2761 0.5 0.2 Carlsen, Magnus b
2776 2761 0.5 0.2 Carlsen, Magnus b
2776 2761 0.5 0.2 Carlsen, Magnus w
2779 2761 0.5 0.3 Ivanchuk, Vassily b
2779 2761 0.5 0.3 Ivanchuk, Vassily w
2779 2761 1.0 5.3 Ivanchuk, Vassily b
2786 2752 0.5 0.5 Carlsen, Magnus w
2791 2761 0.0 -4.6 Anand, Viswanathan b
2791 2761 0.5 0.4 Anand, Viswanathan w

2750-2799:
ro = 2755.3
score = 12.5/25 (+3 -3 =19)
gain = 4.2
rc = 2766.9

2813 2740 0.0 -4.0 Carlsen, Magnus b
2813 2757 0.5 0.8 Topalov, Veselin b
2813 2757 0.5 0.8 Topalov, Veselin w
2813 2740 0.5 1.0 Carlsen, Magnus w

2800-2849:
ro = 2748.5
score = 1.5/4 (+0 -1 =3)
gain = -1.4
rc = 2813.0

---

Nakamura and Radjabov are born the same year, but only Radjabov is an experienced player at the topmost level in chess (so far). Radjabov was the number one junior for 14 lists btw, and the main reason for him having so much more experience at the top level than Naka, is that Radjabov become "very strong" notably earlier.

Without delving further into the "controversies" of "missed chances" (for whatever reasons), let's just look at two figures here, stats against 2700-2749 and 2750-2799, the latter first:

Radjabov 2750-2799 summary:
ro = 2755.3
score = 12.5/25 (+3 -3 =19)
gain = 4.2
rc = 2766.9

Nakamura 2750-2799 summary:
ro = 2709.4
score = 2.0/5 (+1 -2 =2)
gain = -0.3
rc = 2778.4

Here, there are two notable differences: 1) Radjabov being rated nearly 40 points higher on average, and 2) the total number of games. While we certainly can claim that on the basis of 25 games, Radjabov holds his own against 2750-2799 rated players, the 5 games of Naka against similar opposition is just "a start" and the verdict is still out on how he'll do when he gets enough games.

On to the more comparable bracket...

Radjabov 2700-2749 summary:
ro = 2751.9
score = 30/52 (+10 -2 =40)
gain = 23.3
rc = 2729.2

Nakamura 2700-2749 summary:
ro = 2712.0
score = 9/23 (+2 -7 =14)
gain = -20.7
rc = 2724.7

Of course, even here Radjabov has twice the number of games and then some. And he's been rated around 40 points higher on average. The reason for that also appears quite clear:

Draws: Radja 77% - Naka 61%
Wins: Radja 19% - Naka 9%
Losses: Radja 4% - Naka 30%

---

So, to return to your challenge, pioneer, I name Radjabov.

On Nakamura's black and white story: The NH event also suggests that color doesn't really matter to him - of course it's a small sample of 10 games and 5 opponents, but let's have a look:
- against Gelfand he got equal or slightly worse endings with both colors: he managed to lose with white, and wasn't forced to prove or earn the draw with black.
- against Svidler he lost with black, but was also a bit worse with white
- against Nielsen he won with white, but also had a winning position with black
- against Ljubo he won both games, but was arguably somewhat worse after the opening in both games.
This leaves van Wely, but that's basically a story of King Loek's Najdorf addiction not backed up by sufficient prep. Here, white is an advantage for any 1.e4 player who did his homework and is willing to enter sharp lines.

"Don't you guys ever tire of all this Elo nit-picking?"

The Answer: Thomas and frogbert never get tired of it. Most everyone else just ignores them. Give it a try.

Mr. Fiske, that was a truly breathtaking statement. Carlsen is the highest-rated player in the world. How will he beat someone rated higher?! :}

Oh, and by the way, I find Frogbert's stats interesting, if you don't. To each his own.

This reminds me the well-known story about the Szach brothers. Robert lost 984 games in his life, but lived to the ripe age of 92. Adrian never lost a game, yet he died before he turned three.

One should never say never, at least with respect to prognostications about player rankings. I'll confess to being one of those who was dubious about the inevitability of Nakamura reaching a 2700 rating. Likewise, I thought that it was more likely than not that Nakamura would not establish himself in the Top 20. If Nakamura reaches the Top 10, I'll happily concede that I've underestimated him. But, if he fails to do so, perhaps I'll be vindicated a bit.

So, given that you are so Bullish on Nakamura, what do you see as Hikaru's destiny? Obviously, you think that he will make the Top 10. And go well beyond...

But, what will be the apex of his career? Top 5? Top 3? Top 2?

Will Nakamura become the highest rated player in the World? Will he become World Champion?

The grander the feats that you would have Nakamura achieve, the more the odds are stacked against him.

A lot of fairly knowledgable folks have analyzed his playing style, parsed his results, and reached certain conclusions. It is certainly possible that you are right, and all those who have been selling Nakamura short are wrong. Maybe he has not been over-achieving, and his talent is much bigger than most folks reckon. I think that Nakamura is a bit of an outlier among up and coming 2700+ players, and because of that, he may have a greater potential upside to his career than most of his rivals in his rating/age cohort. But not all potantial is realized, either.

I only hope that he gets a plethora of Super-Elite tournament invitations over the next several years. By then, whatever trends there might be will have clarified. He'll either be beating the Topalovs, Kramniks, Anands, and Carlsens (these guys play at such a high level, that even if Nakamura joins them in the Top 5, he will be suffering defeats against them with some regularity), or he won't.

Maybe you prefer statements such as "Very few top-10 players have had a performance superior to Naka's at 2010 Corus" - not bothering to do _any_ research to validate such a claim? It's beyond me why first, second or third place at Corus - or first place in an elite six player double round robin - should be equal or worse to Naka's Corus 2010 result. Apparently I forgot to order and wear some Nakamura fan sunglasses?

Seriously, I can make mistakes, I accept if I am corrected - or I need follow-up posts to explain my point. But maybe this is all a waste of time: it's futile to argue with Thomas detractors or haters ... .

Adding to DOug's post which makes a lot of sense to me: Maybe some people here actually literally wrote that Nakamura would "never" cross 2700 - but I think more people merely pointed out that he still had to do so. And you have to admit that it took him longer (four years from 2600 to 2700) than many other players, and he got there at a relatively advanced age. So for a long time it was legitimate to have and express some lingering doubts!? Same now for him reaching the top 10: Yes he can make it, he might make it (or not), I think it's still premature to claim that "of course he will make it (and become a 'fixture' there)".

It may be instructive to compare him with other rising stars: For Giri, I guess it's safe to say that he will cross 2700 - I leave it to experts like Kramnik to predict his upper limit. If Giri ever had any 'detractors', so far he proved them wrong time after time (which can't be said about Nakamura 2005-2007).
Doing some research for my post, I noticed that Vitiugov (*1987 like Nakamura) crossed 2700 this year, which makes him an even later bloomer. How many people even noticed? How many people complain that he doesn't get the invitations he deserves? For context, the "noise" around Nakamura started or intensified right after he won the US Championship last year - maybe it's tough luck for Vitiugov that his national championship is a considerably tougher event.

"Thomas detractors or haters..."

Too bad. You were doing good with your apology until you just couldn't help yourself and created a new enemy. The detractors and haters are out to get you Thomas! Call up your reinforcements and allies.

Hag

"but when I shortly (and finally!) start publishing performance profiles on my site, it'll be rather easily available for those who are interested. At least personally I find these profiles enlightening in many cases."

----------

This is great news, frogbert. -You are adding another dimesion to your Elo Live Rating List.
You will provide PERFORMANCE PROFILES for all players in your Elo live rating list. Looking forward to it. From when will it appear?

on, I did ton eciton taht. yrev doog!

"From when will it appear?"

Very, very soon. But I've said "very soon" before ... I tried to get it out before the July list, but then summer came. Then I opted for sometime during August, but then I became ill during the two weeks where I had the most time available. And so on ... :o)

My current guess is by mid-september, depending on how much finishing I put on it. Maybe it even appears earlier, but I can't promise anything.

Frogbert;
Thank you for spending so much time on your Elo live rating list. It's a great resource for many a chess fan all over the world.
With all the work involved, you should at least allow some Google ads to cover some of your time and costs.
Nobody will notice or protest against this, I guess. -It has become quite obligatory on most “free” chess sites lately.

frogbert,

Not sure how long you've been at this blog, but I've been here since the beginning... long before Nakamura was 2700. There were many conversations about his quality of play and him never making 2700. I'm not going to search for them. For what? There were long debates on this. You can find them all over the Internet.

You state that I have an agenda. Have you lost your mind? What agenda are you talking about? Chess is a hobby.

All the other stuff you mentioned... well maybe so. My point is when Nakamura crosses a line, it's moved again to discredit his accomplishments. There was one poster still criticizing him for playing 2.Qh5.

"frogbert can't even name five American chess websites (on demand)."

Utter nonsense. I visit more than 5 US sites on a weekly basis. The 3 I visit most often are

www.chessgames.com
Mig's Daily Dirt
Susan Polgar's "blog"

But of course I also visit ICC's web portal (www.chessclub.com) and the USCF site quite regularly.

How many English language sites from Ukraine do you think I and other chess fans from western countries (where knowledge of Russian is rather limited) possibly can follow? Do you know any Chinese chess sites with thousands of registered users from Europe and America?

In many ways I live in an "english speaking" (or "western language") bubble on the Internet. But so does most of the other users of these sites. Do you think Nakamura gets as much of the attention on chesspro.ru forums as he does where Russian-illiterate people like me spend our time?

"Not sure how long you've been at this blog, but I've been here since the beginning... long before Nakamura was 2700. There were many conversations about his quality of play and him never making 2700."

So this took place, when did you say, "long before Nakamura was 2700"? According to my info, Nakamura broke 2700 in the Live Top List in May 2008. ( see http://chess.liverating.org/toplist.php?id=2008053001&track=2016192 ) I'm sure nobody was saying at the time that he wouldn't make 2700, right? So, when are we talking? 2007? 2006?

In the post I first replied to, you wrote:

" I remember not long ago when people here said Nakamura would never make 2700. "

What is it with your accuracy that I have a problem with here? It's "not long ago" that most people (the way you're putting it) argued that Naka would never make 2700 - while at the same time you seem to argue that I haven't been here long enough to remember when people were saying what they said "not long ago".

I think you need to consider adjusting your use of "not long ago" and "long before" - or accept that people will find your claims about when things took place slightly confusing and unclear.

And btw, I've been reading this blog from early 2005 and started posting (without a fixed nick) some time in 2006.

PS! I'm hardly able to find any predictions about Nakamura in the comment section in pre-2005 comments. Since Mig's posts appear to have been much more frequent and even more "worked-through" back then, I might go back and actually read through a lot of that old stuff. Back then Mig actually provided the majority of the _text_ in here. :o)

"My point is when Nakamura crosses a line, it's moved again to discredit his accomplishments."

Is that "discredit"?

Let's try another reaction, then:

"Wow! Nakamura is an established 2700-player now. That's really awesome - what a remarkable accomplishment for a US-bred player. I'm really, really happy that Nakamura has shown that he can stay 2700+ for a prolonged period of time. Fantastic, simply fantastic! Ok, let's get back to the top 10 players and the upcoming candidate matches..."

Btw, where's all the praise for Vachier-Lagrave, Vitiugov or even Wang Yue (who's been 2750+ and top 10)? Last I checked, Mig was "praising" Wang Yue for his ability to becoming top 10 without beating 2700+ players ...

And - one more question - where are all the people saying that Wang Yue might become World Champion and will challenge Carlsen for the top spot in the future (in the post Anand, Kramnik, Topalov era)?

"Yes the first three are American-based blogs run by independent chess players."

www.chessgames.com is not a "blog". it's a huge online chess community with registered users from all over the world.

"However, you are saying there is disproportionate coverage of Nakamura on these American-based sites??? chessgames.com, chessclub.com, Susan's Blog? That's a stretch and you know it."

I didn't say there was anything wrong in these sites (or their users) being more interested in Nakamura than in say Ukrainian players. Not at all, it's quite natural. What I say is that for guys like me, who can only read German and English in addition to my native language, the coverage and attention given to Nakamura is bigger than it would've been if he were not from the US.

ICC is probably the longest-running chess-playing online community, and due to the kibitzing there, it is really a community, not just somewhere you play chess.

I think you misunderstand my point: US chess fans mostly live within this same "english language bubble" that I happen to be a part of. (Of course, there are spanish-speaking and russian-speaking "minorities" among US chess players and fans.) Anyway, due to the role played by sites that are US-based and mainly in english, Nakamura's share of the "public attention" has been bigger than if he were from the Ukraine or a similar country. I don't understand what's controversial about such a statement at all.

"I admire your diligent work on this blog and want to thank you for your hard work. That's a sincere comment."

Thanks... I think. ;o)

And how many stories did you have on, say, Vachier-Lagrave, Vitiugov, Naiditsch, .... ? Along with frogbert, let me stress that there is nothing wrong with such a bias - same nationality and knowing Nakamura personally - but it's odd to deny its existence.
Similarly, the tag cloud on this site has 66 entries for Nakamura, vs. 2 for Vitiugov, 6 for Vachier-Lagrave, 45 for Gelfand, 55 for Radjabov, 60 for Shirov ... only the top 5 and Ivanchuk seem to score higher. For what it's worth ... at least it's not inconsistent with frogbert's thesis!?

I "scanned" the Nakamura tag cloud - starting in November 2006 because Mig didn't have tags before. In June 2007, there was ONE comment saying "Nakamura will never hit 2700" - understandable at the time as he had been stuck at roughly 2650 for two years. The invitation issue apparently first came up in February 2008 (after Nakamura won the Gibraltar Open): people complained that he should have played Corus B, gradually it became clear that he was invited but declined, eventually confirmed by Nakamura himself.
In the same thread, Daaim wrote "Carlsen has gotten his high rating primarily by the privilege of playing in elite tournaments. ... To me, Nakamura has more talent and a stronger spirit, but Carlsen has had the benefit of a better chess environment." Enter Hans Arild Runde with some statistics, followed by some posts back and forth - some things didn't change in the last 2 1/2 years: well, Hans Arild Runde is now known (here) as frogbert, and you both were a bit more polite to each other back then ,:)

"Talk about birds,"

Why is it hard to see a crow in the dark?

Why do you want to hide in the dark, like a black crow?

"You have just stated that Nakamura is NOT getting the most attention... it is the top five."

But then we're a long way from the original claim: the attention given to Nakamura on the internet (at least the english language part of it) is somewhat "inflated", because the number of US (centric) chess sites with "a broad impact" is not in proportion to the number of US players in the world top 100 - it's higher. That's my feeling anyway.

Nobody claimed that Nakamura got THE most attention, neither from US sites or over-all. The point simply was that Nakamura's achievements and future promise are NOT the only reasons why we read and talk about him to the extent we do.

This only becomes a "problem" when (less broadly oriented) US fans start to think and argue as if the amount of "noise" surrounding Nakamura is directly translatable to his "World Rank" and chess accomplishments (with little regard for other improving players - can anyone say "Eljanov"?)

In terms of attention on the chess sites I frequent, Nakamura is surely "top 10" already. I don't mind and I probably do my share to keep it that way. But I also try to stay up to date on developing players everywhere.

"I do agree that Nakamura is getting a lot of attention, but not only because he is American"

I didn't mean to imply that it was the only reason. Certainly not. Rather that any top US player will receive some "bonus" attention simply due to nationality. But this comment was at any rate just a minor part of my original post; its importance seems to have been blown out of proportions when the "debate" took off along this tangent.

I certainly agree that Nakamura has several other attractive characteristics that contribute to the interest surrounding him. :o)

"All this talk of Naka not being world class because he enjoys speed chess "

Where did you dig up that strawman?

Daaim,
It goes without saying that no chess website can cover all events and all (potential 2700+) chess players - not even Chessbase which has some full-time employees. The reason why the top 5 get more, and Shirov gets comparable attention to Nakamura is simple: For webpages covering global chess, supertournaments will be next on the priority list behind what you mentioned (WCh, Olympiad, World Cup). It's a different story for the USCF website and, even more obviously, for Nakamura's own blog.

Further down the list, people have to be selective - that's both unavoidable and perfectly fine. In line with frogbert, I see the following pattern for US sites:
- US Swisses (with Nakamura) got more attention than the Canadian Open (with Shirov)
- Gibraltar got more attention than Aeroflot and Moscow Open [Aeroflot 2009 basically appeared here only after Mamedyarov's cheating accusations]
- Gibraltar 2008 and 2009 (with Nakamura) got more attention than Gibraltar 2010 (without Nakamura)
- San Sebastian got more attention than Poikovsky.

Nothing at all wrong with making choices, but nothing wrong either with pointing out that such choices are made and appear to be systematic.

¨I dont know if anybody noticed, but if you spell "The Answer" backwards you get "Manu".

Just a hunch...¨

I know u miss me but please stop linking my handle with every puny imaginary friend of yours , i said it many times : i dont need to use other handles than this one, ask moderator or webmaster for proof or stfu .
Just a punch...

On your second paragraph: IMO, the following two questions have or had three rather than two legitimate answers:
1) [some time ago] Will Nakamura cross 2700?
2) [currently] Will he enter the top 10 and become a fixture there?
The answers are [the fan] yes (YES!!!), [the detractor] no (never!) and [the neutral observer trying to be objective] "maybe - time will tell".

On the first question, DOug answered - at the time - "maybe" rather than no. As far as I am concerned, frankly I didn't care that much and considered it an American topic or affair, if you want to a proverbial American Dream (that may or may not come true). I was more interested in German and Dutch players - that was my own perspective.

On the second question, my answer is "maybe". Why is there a spirit of "anyone who isn't fanatically for us/our hero is against us"??

Roger!

"I know u miss me..."

-------

Yep. Thats is. Now at least I know you are still with us :-)

What happens if you say "Manu"?

The Answer: Manu tells you to stfu.

Ah ha ha I still can't get the idea of Shaq vs Kasparov at chess out of my head... so hilarious.

But for maximum made-for-TV entertainment it would have to be Shaq vs Hou Yifan with Shaq likely getting his ... repeatedly handed to him by a very small Chinese girl. I hear basketball is very big in China, so Hou might even be willing to humor such a match.

So what? People are having travel problems. Big deal. It's your report that is troubling.

Hag

Who's views are mostly negative?

Answer: The Answer's views

Good that the report troubles you. It should.

One of two things will happen:

1) Some Kremlin bigwigs will draft the Russian Army engineers into building sufficient accomodations--from the ground up, if necessary. Just barely in time to be ready for the Opening Ceremonies

2) There will indeed be a substantial shortfall in available rooms, and many of the Federations will regrettably have their invitations tacitly recinded at the last minute. Those who don't take the hint are liable to encounter great difficulty with Visa arangements, and SNAFUS, logistical difficulties, and sharp fare increases throughout various tier in their travel plans.

By sheer coincidence, those Federations most impacted will be precisely those Federations who are on record for their support of Karpov.

Maybe somebody ought to suggest to Kirasn that there is already a purpose-built, under-utilized complex which is ostensibly devoted to chess. Currently, it is lying fallow, but in the past it has hosted Chess Olympiads. It is the "Chess City" in Elista, the capital city of Kirasn's very own (Autonomous) Republic of Kalmykia...

Andrei Sokolov's decline is indeed a cautionary tale, but Nakamura has not, in any accounts that I've come across, seemed predisposed to falling into the miasma that has sucked in so many a talented Eastern European player. Given Nakamura's frequent threats to quit Chess for more lucrative pursuits, the main threat to his playing strength and ranking would be if he emulated Kamsky and quit to pursue another career, or emulated Judit Polgar, and quit to start a family. Effective comebacks are especially tough to bring about.

It would be interesting to do an analytical survey of those players who have made it into the Top 10, and subsequently dropped out. Diminishment in motivation would probably be the the biggest factor, followed by the effects of aging. There are some who have real difficulty in coping with a major setback, or in coming to terms with the fact that their ambitions to become World Champion will never be realized.

So rising stars and top GMs sometimes don't find the best moves in rapid games (Vishy missed another similar shot with 32.-Qe2), they are human after all [only mutual chess blindness of Hammer and Carlsen yesterday is still hard to explain or believe].

Something else: Carlsen opened against Polgar with 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.b3!?, and Anand did the same in the next (currently ongoing) round. Is this something they analysed together?

Thomas asks "Is this something they analysed together?

The Answer: More likely, its monkey see, monkey do.

This assumes that Anand actually noticed what happened at the other board - either during or right after the round. Even then, I would find it hard to believe that he "suddenly" plays something he hadn't even looked at before.

Something else: At the press conference, Carlsen said "I actually told him [Hammer] earlier today that later this year will be the tenth anniversary of the last time he beat me." Whether this was trash talking or - more likely - friendly kidding among friends, the anniversary won't take place ... . Maybe it was part of a master plan, making Anand feel (over)confident for tomorrow's final?

"As for the FIDE election -- pray to God that Ilyumzhinov wins. If Karpov wins, FIDE will go bankrupt."

###

Hmmm, so FIDE will go bankrupt if Karpov wins. You say that like it's a bad thing!

Of course, if Karpov loses, it might be just the thing that provides the justification for Karpov and his supporters to form a rival World Chess Federation.

It could be a loss/lose situation for FIDE--which means a win/win situation for Chess fans.

"If the Karpov team wins -- guess what? FIDE bills won't get paid.
Don't expect USCF and the other dozen or so western federations to suddenly start paying for chess events in Asia and Africa...that FIDE runs."

Those would be the small chess countries who currently often pay more in FIDE fees than they receive back from FIDE!? Yep, Karpov winning will destroy all that wonderful chess activity...

Absolutely - some comments from Kalmykians in a recent Russian article I translated: http://www.chessintranslation.com/2010/08/voices-from-kalmykia/

"Ilyumzhinov’s a blabbermouth! Something popped into his head, he crowed about it, but what’s the use? If you rattle on to the whole word that you’re a millionaire, that a rich president means a rich republic, then do something. If you do nothing you’re not worth a penny!"

"Ilyumzhinov is a generator of crazy ideas and we’re impatiently waiting for the arrival of someone competent who won’t communicate with aliens and who’ll look at Kalmykia not from Alpha Centauri but from here, from the Earth."

"Kirsan Ilyumzhinov is a wonderful PR man and a very hospitable host, but just not at his own expense, but the expense of the republic[...]It’s not chess we need to invest in, but meat processing and developing small businesses."

You could say that's all one-sided (though some of those commenting under the article thought it was too kind), but there's enough objective evidence to mean that it's hard for anyone sane to put much trust in anything Ilyumzhinov says - and no serious sponsor who's done due diligence would get involved with FIDE while he's in charge.

Could Karpov be worse? Anything's possible, but it's pretty unlikely.

That all seems a bit confused. Do the fees for ratings or titles bears the slightest resemblance to the actual administrative costs involved? Otherwise the grocery analogy looks a bit shaky.

Most likely it's just a means of getting some of the money required to run the FIDE bureaucracy, which is fine, in its way, but doesn't do much to further chess (especially in Africa etc., which was originally your point).

I really don't see why if FIDE was run as a normal organisation it couldn't find some general sponsors to cover the relatively modest amounts it takes in fees (note that's different than sponsors for particular tournaments). The problem is that it simply hasn't been tried under Ilyumzhinov, and couldn't be now, given his reputation.

"Products are not priced at cost -- they are priced at what the market will pay."

Except here you've got a pure monopoly - anyone who wants to be a grandmaster hardly has the choice of not paying to receive the title. So you can exploit that... or you can choose not to.

You can see FIDE's accounts for 2009 here in this PDF file, by the way: http://tinyurl.com/38g4q7e

They get more in title fees than membership fees, which seems a bit odd. In any case, the total fees for that year come to about 800,000 euro (they budgeted for under 700,000) - I think finding sponsorship somewhere in that region (less than e.g. the Tal Memorial costs) should be perfectly doable for the global organising body of a sport.

I'm not particularly a "Karpov supporter", but I hate this defeatism about chess when no efforts have been made to try and find normal sponsorship.

"As for defeatism about chess/Karpov slate....you do realize that there is only a limited timeframe for any "sponsorship search" to work, right? As in you don't have years to do it...only months...if his plans are going to work.
Otherwise...FIDE = broke."

Karpov and co. are claiming they have $4 million in place - do either you or I know if that's true? No. But likewise there's no reason to put any faith in Ilyumzhinov. He came up with $2 million to try and compete but couldn't decide who it was from and eventually lumped for a Lebanese businessman who claims to be a Minister in Kalmykia & e.g. took a comically absurd story about Pamela Anderson falling in love with him from his own magazine and put it on his website. http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/fide-elections-netherlands-support-karpov-and-whats-going-on-in-argentina-and-lebanon/

While Ilyumzhinov (or his "businessmen friends", as he likes to phrase it) almost certainly did put money into chess at one point it's 1) probably nothing like the $50 million he claims in interviews & 2) in the last few years for which we have FIDE accounts there's no evidence of ANY funding. All we have is a few cheap bribes in this election year (a tournament in Asian and South America).

With him now cut off from the Kalmykia funds as well there's no financial reason to choose him. And it's hard to come up with any other reasons... Karpov and Kasparov isn't a dream team, but we should at least be grateful that someone was willing to get their hands dirty in this ugly campaign. No Bessel Kok-like campaign was going to have a chance to oust someone as entrenched as Ilyumzhinov.

chesspride, there's no contradiction between what I wrote and Ilyumzhinov having been involved in the funding of some events in the (distant) past.

Is anyone considering the possibility that our dear FIDE president might actually be mentally ill?

Yep, that's a strong possibility, but on the other hand when thinking about Ilyumzhinov just now a phrase came to mind from Ben Goldacre's "Bad Science", which I was reading recently. He's talking about "nutritionalists" and other charlatans who spend their time profiting from filling the world with nonsense... and Goldacre has fun mocking them... but also says:

"If you think I have been overly critical, I would invite you to notice that they win."