Wow. Even when he was in clear first with two rounds to go you didn't want to say it out loud and jinx it, the way none of the other players will talk about a no-hitter in progress in baseball. But now it's over! Hikaru Nakamura, the 23-year-old from White Plains, NY and two-time US champion, just achieved the biggest victory of his career at the Tata Steel Chess tournament in Wijk aan Zee, the Netherlands. He finished in clear first place with six wins, one loss, and six draws. Trailing him were world champion Viswanathan Anand, world #1 Magnus Carlsen, #3 Levon Aronian, and former world champion Vladimir Kramnik. Nakamura's +5 score was the highest in the Wijk aan Zee A Group since 2002 2006 and was good for a incredible performance rating of 2879. The result will push the American into the top seven in the world with the top five in reach. Congratulations!
[It was just a guess the first time, but then, despite looking for it specifically in Anand's results for the past 10 years and in the Wijk site history page, I still managed to overlook that Anand and Topalov tied for first at Wijk aan Zee in 2006 with +5. Inexcusable blindness. Usually this sort of thing is cleared up quickly thanks to the fact-checking department, aka the comments, but I haven't had time to read them lately.]
The final round was a bit of a piffle otherwise, as final rounds often are. Every game was drawn in the A Group for the first time this tournament. The two key games, Nakamura-Wang Hao and Nepomniachtchi-Anand were actually interesting, however. Nakamura surprised his opponent with a shift into a Benoni structure, probably a smart decision to go for more forcing play and avoid a long grinding game in which nerves might become an issue. He swapped pieces, offered an exchange sac on b4, and invited Wang Hao to take on considerable risk to play for a win. The Chinese declined and took the draw on move 22. Nakamura then had to sweat out whether or not Nepomniachtchi's exchange sac for a blockade was going to be enough to hold Anand. After 38 moves it was and Nakamura became the clear Tata Steel champion. An amazing tournament for him, especially with two wins coming after a rough loss to Carlsen that might have derailed him.
Aronian tried to move up to reach Anand against Smeets but couldn't make it happen. Shirov and l'Ami also showed up for work. Grischuk-Carlsen was admirably sharp, if mostly played before, but they fizzled out before move 20. Carlsen ended on +3, which was quite an good score considering the number of lapses he had. Only Nakamura had more wins than his five and of the only three decisive games between the six plus-score players, two were Carlsen wins. The other was Nakamura's win over Vachier-Lagrave. Speaking of, in the final round Vachier-Lagrave moved his queen four times in a row against Kramnik early in a Grunfeld and lived. A very strong performance from the Frenchman, who finished on +2 with Kramnik and lost only that one game.
In the middle on down, really only Giri's even score stands out due to his youth. He only won two games, but one was against Carlsen and he was pressing against Anand and Nakamura. The 16-year-old is clearly ready to handle the A Group and will likely be a fixture for the next dozen years at least. Grischuk was unrecognizable, losing five games. Shirov, who started with five wins last year and finished =2-3, came in dead last. But with him we're used to the highs and lows. At least he helped out the locals by keeping Smeets and l'Ami out of the cellar. Smeets started strong but just couldn't keep his head above water. l'Ami was the only winless player. Nepomniachtchi and Wang Hao both played some interesting chess and were welcome additions. Ponomariov showed his solidity for an even score, but he seemed to go into a shell for a while in the middle.
It will take some research, and of course it will be subject to debate, but this is a strong contender for the best individual American tournament result since Fischer. Kamsky's match run to the FIDE world championship in 94-95 deserves mention, as does his victory at the FIDE KO in 2007. But you can count the number of times an American has finished ahead of a reigning world champion, let alone a field like this year's Wijk aan Zee. And by "you can count" I mean "You'd better do the counting because I'm too lazy/busy to look through that much data right now and off the top of my head I've got nothing." Kamsky at Las Palmas 94 and Seirawan at Haninge in 1990 are about it for big round-robin wins, and both were ahead of Karpov, not Kasparov. Both were Candidates and Kamsky a FIDE title challenger. Or am I forgetting a big one? Is there a Browne or Kavalek or Christiansen result that should be in there? Probably.
Of course this isn't just a great result "for an American." +5 is rarefied territory in super-tournaments. Making a list with Topalov, Carlsen, and Ivanchuk as the few to do it recently shows how hard it is. It's also great because with Nakamura playing rabbit, the other contenders were forced to push. That is, just because Anand and Kramnik haven't put up +5 in over a decade doesn't mean they haven't won plenty of tournaments. [As corrected above, Anand did it in 2006, sorry for the error.] They just haven't had to put up big scores to win them. +3 is great if it wins the event, but if it's only good for fourth place you'd better raise your game and stop taking days off. This is why nobody is asking why Peter Leko hasn't played in so long. Fresh blood!
So, what's up with Linares? All I remember hearing is that they were considering a Bilbao-style outdoor element and that Carlsen would be there, but that was a while ago.
first!
when as the last time an american won an elite tournament?
I think it's just smashing that you're first, lefthandsketch, but it would have been even better if you had the answer to your question.
Uhhhh.
"with six wins, one loss, and seven draws"
There were 13 rounds, right?
It's nice to see Nakamura win a tournament.
My only fear is how this is going to affect his ego. I kind of thought it was at max throttle already... so a win like this I suspect will move it into overdrive territory.
it's obvious beating the tail makes the difference.. in group A: Naka had 4/4; group B: 4.5/5; group C: Vocaturo scored 5/5 against the bottom 5
Naka played extremely well but winning tournaments is harder when u r an Anand or Carlsen (or even Kramnik) and lesser mortals play for a draw even when they have white...
"Of course this isn't just a great result "for an American." +5 is rarefied territory in super-tournaments. Making a list with Topalov, Carlsen, and Ivanchuk as the few to do it recently shows how hard it is. It's also great because with Nakamura playing rabbit, the other contenders were forced to push. That is, just because Anand and Kramnik haven't put up +5 in over a decade doesn't mean they haven't won plenty of tournaments. They just haven't had to put up big scores to win them. +3 is great if it wins the event, but if it's only good for fourth place you'd better raise your game and stop taking days off."
Well said, Mig. It was interesting to see GM Shipov refer to Naka's performance as "a Kasparov-like achievement".
Does anyone know the last time the top four players in the world competed in the same tournament? I'm sure its even rarer that under such conditions none of them even shared first!
btw, rating inflation has been very conspicuous in the last year or two.. Anand was stuck around the 2785 mark for several years.. now he is 2810 or something.. its quite obvious that rating inflation is happening not so much due to any widening of the base of the pyramid as Mig once suggested but more so because of new stars appearing on the horizon.. first Topalov (with his San Luis performance) and then Carlsen reached unsustainable ratings then played against other top players and distributing the points...
It is good to see that the hater party line is pointing out that Hikaru "only won because he beat up on bottom-feeders". Amazing.
That being said, I'm shocked they came out of their caves so soon. This is a black day in haterland.
btw, rating inflation has been very conspicuous in the last year or two.. Anand was stuck around the 2785 mark for several years.. now he is 2810 or something.. its quite obvious that rating inflation is happening not so much due to any widening of the base of the pyramid as Mig once suggested but more so because of new stars appearing on the horizon.. first Topalov (with his San Luis performance) and then Carlsen reached unsustainable ratings then played against other top players distributing the points...
not just hikaru.. all the winners (A, B & C group)
u always see/understand what u want to.
If you're going to win a tournament trophy, this is a fabulous one to have. It's got some classy names on it.
Vocaturo went +3 -3 =2 against the top 8 players.. he reached clear first thanks to 5/5 against the rest.. are u still shocked I came out of my cave so soon or would you like to get your head out of the sand?
As a tennis fan, this reminds me of people who have been hating on Rafael Nadal for so many years. Examples:
1. He's a pusher
2. Another clay-court specialist
3. He'll never win Wimbledon
4. He'll never become world #1
5. He'll never win the Australian
6. He'll never win the Olympics on hardcourt
7. Winning WImbledon in 2008 was a fluke
8. He'll never, ever win on a FAST hardcourt major like the U.S. Open
and so on, and so on.....
Likewise, the haters are already starting to backtrack on Naka. I don't hear anymore about how he "doesn't belong in the top-tier" of super-GMs anymore, or how he "doesn't deserve invites to serious superGM tournaments".
Some examples of hating on Naka over the past 4+ years:
1. He'll never break 2650
2. He'll never break 2700
3. He'll never become a top-20 player
4. He'll never become a top-10 player
5. He'll never break 2750
6. He'll never beat Kramnik with black
7. He'll never, ever win a tournament if Anand, Carlsen, Aronian and Kramnik are competing
There are plenty more examples, of course...
Its the same kind of moronic hating that Anand had to deal with 4 years ago:
1. He only wins tournaments, not matches
2. He'll never win in Mexico
3. Ok, he won Mexico, but he's not the real world champion because he'll never beat Kramnik in a match
By the way, the floor is open to add any Naka hating statements I have left out.
Tournament star: Hikaru Nakamura
Tournament revelations: Maxime Vachier-Lagrave, Ilya Nyznyk
Tournament positive surprise: Luke McShane, Katherina Lahno
Tournament negative surprise: A. Grischuk, R. Wojtaszek
Tournament puzzle (continuing): Alexei Shirov, Wesley So
Tournament most solid player: Vishy Anand
"Nakamura's +5 score was the highest in the Wijk aan Zee A Group since 2002" WRONG
"Anand and Kramnik haven't put up +5 in over a decade" WRONG, as far as Anand is concerned
http://www.tatasteelchess.com/history/recent/year/2006/standings/1
I don't expect Mig to read all recent comments (I had mentioned this before), but I would expect that facts in his report are correct. Am I a Naka hater if I mention such facts??
It is a simple statistical fact that Nakamura performed well against the bottom of the table. But that is exactly what a winner of a tournament is supposed to do.
It is not Nakamuras fault that the others did not perform that well against the bottom of the table.
The fact that Nak beat so many players of the bottom does not make his achievement smaller or bigger. What counts is that he was able to finish clear first in a field that included the 4 best chess players of the world.
I guess a non-american can't really understand why americans go wild about this result. I don't remember any Germans going wild after Naiditsch won Dortmund, or Norwegians after Carlsen won Corus the first time.
Maybe americans still think in cold-war categorys.
Anyways: congratulations to Nakamura.
FYI: "have been hating on" is a seriously bad English sentence fragment to start your diatribe.
just for the record.. i am not a naka hater but a fan.. i'm the one who even praised him for his "refreshing" tweet about beating Grischuk "like a baby"... and was ridiculed for the same on this very website... if anyone, it is John Fernandez i hate right now :P
"Am I a Naka hater if I mention such facts??"
Just by mentioning those facts, no you are not. Thank you for correcting Mig and educating us. However, when you make statements questioning the legitimacy of a top-10 player before the first super-GM tournament of the year, and then he wins the tournament outright over the top four players in the world and a field including a total of three world champions, and you refuse to acknowledge how dramatically wrong you were about his ability, then that brings you very close to hater territory. Especially since you were questioning whether he even deserved an invitation to the Tal Memorial last year -- which BTW he almost won.
The difference in the Group A tournament was Vachier-Lagrave...no one in the field could beat him except Naka, which provided his final margin of victory.
"Does anyone know the last time the top four players in the world competed in the same tournament?"
Tal Memorial 2009 doesn't qualify because Topalov didn't participate, but it had #s2-5, 7-10, 12 and 13 - Smeets and l'Ami (or Kurnosov and Sakaev to name Russian players with comparable ratings) weren't invited.
Tata 2011 just qualifies because Topalov lost some ground on the rating list.
Well, people who root for Naka aren't just Americans. For those who are fans of his, the amount of vitriol that has been spewed in his direction over the past 3+ years contributes to the amount of excitement at seeing him win a big-time event.
I know the 2009 Tal Memorial didn't qualify....the #1 player in the world (Topalov) wasn't there, even though by rating strength it is still the second strongest tournament in chess history...btw the 2010 Tal Memorial (2757 average rating) is #3 all-time, even though it didn't have the world #1, 2 or 5.
I still can't think of the last tournament to have the official top 4 players in the world in the field. Nanjing last year had Carlsen, Anand, and Topalov but no Aronian. Bilbao last year had no Aronian either.
"Tata 2011 just qualifies because Topalov lost some ground on the rating list."
Well, Kramnik has been higher than Topalov for a few months now, ever since winning the strongest tournament in chess history (Bilbao last year).
The most interesting move now would be for Rex Sinquefield to bid for a 2011 offyear world title challenge match in Saint Louis.
Agreed...the US needs to step up. They no longer have any excuses now that Naka and Kamsky are top-tier GMs.
I wonder if it is possible that Grischuk had such a bad tournament coz he was too conscious of hiding all his prep for the candidates match the same way that Anand had one of the worst tournaments of his life before beating Kramnik... after all Grischuk was a late addition.. or maybe it is just poker to blame
It's not just about "correcting Mig and educating", but about correcting exaggerated claims regarding Nakamura. While I am at it: his TPR of 2879 may be incredible, exceptional it isn't. Not just Carlsen and - when in form - Ivanchuk had better results, for example Kramnik finished Tal Memorial 2009 with a TPR of 2888. And IMO the stronger the field, the more relevant such a number becomes.
"statements questioning the legitimacy of a top-10 player before the first super-GM tournament of the year ... [and] whether he even deserved an invitation to the Tal Memorial last year"
No idea what you are referring to. I did question that he should have absolutely been invited to the blitz event the year before, which was reserved for Tal Memorial participants (all top 15 players, Nakamura wasn't at the time), qualifiers and a few wildcards.
It's probably better to leave Nakamura's nationality out of it unless you want to talk about what his victory at Tata Steel might do for American chessplayers (hopefully positive), as otherwise it has little to do with his play that I can see.
Besides, to be honest, his American 'baggage' is only just now balanced, given some poor sportsmanship in the past. Americans are actually not "go(ing) wild about this result." There won't be a ticker-tape parade in St. Louis.
But I'm bouyed by the hope that his new found confidence and future competitive assuredness might steer him toward the role of national game statesman, even role model. R. Fischer was a great player, but a very limited role model. It can be better.
If Fischer, even in the era of cold war, couldn't produce/inspire a wave of super strong American GMs is it fair to expect Nakamura to do the same? But at least it would sure be be nice to see some super-tournaments in the US
"It's not just about "correcting Mig and educating", but about correcting exaggerated claims regarding Nakamura. While I am at it: his TPR of 2879 may be incredible, exceptional it isn't. Not just Carlsen and - when in form - Ivanchuk had better results, for example Kramnik finished Tal Memorial 2009 with a TPR of 2888. And IMO the stronger the field, the more relevant such a number becomes."
I hope you continue to correct exaggerated claims about any player, as long as you are as vocal to admit when you are off the mark about a player as you are vocal about criticizing their playing level.
Kramnik's performance at 2009 Tal was IMO legendary...however, I think Naka's at Tata Steel 2011 was even more so because:
a) the tournament was four more rounds (2879 TPR over 13 rounds is much more impressive than 2888 over 9 rounds),
b) the Tata tournament had the top four players in the world including the world #1 and 3 2800+ players compared with no 2800+ players at the 2009 Tal Memorial, and
c) A field of 14 players with avg ELO 2740 (Tata Steel 2011) is stronger IMO than a field of 10 players with average ELO of 2763 (2009 Tal Memorial)
Not saying I agree or disagree with you but aren't you discounting rating inflation? For example Anand was 'just' 2783 in Oct 2008 (and exactly the same in Apr 2009!)
With regard to American results, Christiansen's shared first with Karpov at Linares in 1981 is noteworthy, but still not as impressive as Naka's win.
I don't think its rating inflation for ratings to be going up over such a short timespan. The addition of Carlsen to the world #1 debate has IMO sparked more global interest in the game, and therefore fewer boring draws among top-GMs, so you're getting more really good and really bad scores in big events. I think you have to give Carlsen, Anand and Aronian credit for raising their levels of play, rather than simply attributing their 2800+ ratings to inflation.
Giri was also one of the biggest revelations with all he achieved in this very strong tournament. A 16 year old at that.Something even Carlsen could not do. According to Shipov 'he is the future of world chess'.
I asked the question because I sincerely didn't know the answer and was hoping one of you knowledgeable chess historians might.
Generally speaking, I don't ask rhetorical questions for the sake of demonstrating what I already know- Naturally, I also don't win many blog battles in the comment sections either.
I also think its smashing that I was first!
I seriously don't believe that Anand has become a stronger player between Apr 2009 (2783) and Jan 2011 (2810).. he might have added another feather or two to his cap but it is just rating inflation thanks mainly to Carlsen reaching 2826 and then distributing the points..
Did you read the article? Did you read the headline?
I did not bring the nationality into this, Mig did. Migs very emotional reaction to Nakamuras victory surely did not went unnoticed with you either, right?
Anyways, for all who care:
LONDON SCORING SYSTEM
1. Nakamura 24 (1)
2. Anand 21 (2)
Carlsen 21 (3)
4. Aronian 19 (3)
5. Kramnik 18 (5)
Vachier. 18 (5)
7. Nepomn. 16 (9)
8. Ponomar. 15 (7)
Giri 15 (7)
Wang 15 (9)
11.Smeets 11 (11)
12.Grischuk 10 (11)
13.L'Ami 9 (11)
Shirov 9 (14)
Pretty much the same as the traditional table.
It's true that Nakamura won by beating the bottom half of the table...
But, look back to London Classic 2010, and you'll see that Carlsen did the exact same thing:
http://chessok.com/?p=24399
And as far as I remember, he received no particular bashing for it. So, I think it's only fair that Nakamura should reveive none either.
What is Mr. Nakamura giving you for all your effort to defend his record? I hope something, because the amount of effort is great.
well from me at least it wasnt supposed to be a bashing; it was an observation
as the joker did not saa: why so defensive??
Not a lot of effort is needed actually. His play speaks for itself...as you have seen over the past two weeks.
"No idea what you are referring to. I did question that he should have absolutely been invited to the blitz event the year before, which was reserved for Tal Memorial participants (all top 15 players, Nakamura wasn't at the time), qualifiers and a few wildcards."
You are right; I was just looking back at the archives. Although you have regularly badmouthed Naka to the level of a borderline "hater", you were not among those who (openly on this forum) questioned his Tal Memorial invitation. For erroneously including you among those people, I apologize.
Congratulations also to Luke McShane and David Navarro for their co-win of the Tata Steel Chess B Group.
And in a sporting gesture by the tournament organizers, both Luke and David have been invited to play in the A Group next year. Bravo!
Well, his results say differently. I would speculate the biggest reason behind his improvement is all the prep he had to do for the world title match with Topalov (and also remnants from his prep against Kramnik) and how it has spilled over into subsequent events -- for example the piece sac in this tournament in his win over Wang Hao was leftover from the Kramnik match, and I believe there are several other examples of old prep aiding him as well. Plus, he hasn't played many events since the Topalov match (Bilbao, Nanjing, London, Tata Steel) and he has scored well in each event.
"a field including a total of three world champions"
Haha! Brilliant! At first, I thought it was a typo, but after a while, I realized that you might actually consider Ponomariov here! Well played... Surely, he belongs in a line with Steinitz, Lasker, Capa,.... Kasparov, Kramnik, and Anand. Yes, surely he does... :-)
World champion is world champion, disputed or not. If Ivanchuk had beaten him in the final (as he was supposed to), it would have been a much bigger deal.
Please, how can I possibly hate Topalov and Danailov as much as I am required if now I'm also required to hate Nakamura? I only have so much hate to give.
You guys are gonna push me so far some day...I'm telling you I'm gonna end up LOVING everybody just because I have no more hate to give. And you'll be sorry.
Can we agree that the two events - Tal Memorial 2009 and Tata 2011 - aren't exactly comparable, hence results and TPRs aren't either? The difference is that Tal Memorial didn't have any "clear favorites for last place". Tata would be comparable to Tal Memorial if we drop the four Elo tailenders l'Ami, Smeets, Giri and Vachier-Lagrave who, at this stage, won't be invited to _pure_ elite events. (I think VL should now get such invitations, and for Giri it may be a matter of one or two more years).
It's a fact, not a hater's statement, that Nakamura won Tata because he beat nearly all of the tailenders (plus Shirov and Grischuk who were out of form). Nothing wrong with that, he did what was needed, and what worked best to win the event. So yes, I do recognize it as a fine performance - the reason I am less 'vocal' on it is because quite a few other people are IMO a bit overly enthusiastic.
If we now subtract Naka's results against the four above-mentioned players, we are left with 5.5/9 compared to Kramnik's 6/9. Granted, this is hypothetical: Nakamura might have pushed harder against Kramnik (with three possible results) if (his interpretation of) the tournament situation had required it.
We will soon see how Nakamura does in super-elite events. For a start, his result at Tal Memorial 2010 was great - but not great enough for Mig to write "NakaMUUUUUURA!" and put a USA!USA! tag ... .
I would like to congratulate Nakamura on his victory, and hope it will be only a step in his career (we'll see). A bit of a strange tournament with the very top not really at their best, but guess this can happen more easily in mixed fields. Next for him could be maybe a good performance in a smaller and thougher field, à la Linares. I'm also very impressed with Giri, he certainly can be happy about his tournament and the level of his play against such a strong opposition. I hope it can bring more money for chess in the USA, it would be nice to see a strong event there again.
They're not exactly comparable, but they are close. Remember that Carlsen was sick for most of the 2009 Tal Memorial (including his game against Kramnik), so that could have been different as well.
I think that the bottom line is that both were extremely strong tournaments won with outstanding performances. I prefer Naka's, you prefer Kramnik's. But to say that one is outstanding while the other isn't is wrong IMO.
BTW, to drop Vachier-Lagrave is an error, because he basically was the difference in this tourney as I stated earlier -- he was undefeated except his game against Naka; that was the difference in him edging Vishy for clear 1st.
We have already seen Naka in one "super-elite" event (i.e. no one below 2720) --- the 2010 Tal Memorial, which he almost won. I am looking forward to seeing him at Bilbao in September against Carlsen and whoever wins the other qualifying supertournaments.
Greatest heartfelt congratulations to GM Nakamura.
To be clear, I am not the sort to be glad if any one team wins the superbowl or the NBA. But having at one time--very long ago--doubted his character only to see him grow into a fine person of great learning and come to fully believe in his talent, destiny, and certain future well beyond chess, it is so wonderful to see his great accomplishment. Good for him.
To win against no less than Carlsen, Kramnik, Aaronian, Anand--and the list goes on, will be a lifetime memory for him, and hopefully leads to more. I have seen the doubts here, and there is not much else to say now. He already arrived, and now he is seated.
Gasho, dk
Of course, Nakamura HELPED those players to the cellar by beating them.
Don't get carried away, David. He's not the Chess statesman you fancy him just yet. Witness his losses in the very recent Tal Memorial Blitz this year. Watch the end of his game with VachierLagrave for one. If Max hadn't reached a little further for his hand, the handshake wouldn't have happened. But as I said earlier today, I do have some hope around that.
Max will get his revenge from Hikaru. You'll see. Several losses to his elder are too much to take. I do not believe that Hikaru is the better player regardless of the Tata Steel 2011 result, and I'm pretty sure V-L doesn't think so either. In a match, it could go either way right now. Later? Who knows?
For once ,:) I think we don't disagree with each other. I find it a tiny bit odd that you mention Carlsen being sick, because Kramnik himself was also sick during Tal Memorial 2009.
I also find it a bit odd that you reduce things to one game (Nakamura-VL): Ponomariov was also solid throughout most of the event, lost to Anand in the first round and - irrelevant for the top standings - against Wang Hao later on.
As to Tal Memorial 2010, in case you missed it I mentioned it myself ... technically, Nakamura could have joined a four-way tie for first place (maybe tiebreaks would have favored him, but this hardly counts in my book).
I only reduce things to Vachier-Lagrave, because he was the only player who gave Naka a clear advantage over the rest of the field (because no one else could beat him).
This isn't the first time Naka has beaten Vachier-Lagrave in classic time controls -- San Sebastian 2009 comes to mind as well. But here, Naka smoked MVL, an impressive feat.
Unfortunately for chess, there are so many opportunities, many of which are much more lucrative than chess, for talented kids in this country.
As far as I remember, Vachier-Lagrave was also sick in San Sebastian. At least his overall result (50%) was in sharp contrast to winning Biel immediately afterwards - ahead of Morozevich, Ivanchuk, Alekseev, Caruana and Gelfand, probably his best career result so far.
At Tata, Vachier-Lagrave gave Nakamura a clear advantage over the entire field. Ponomariov gave Anand an advantage over everyone else in contention for first place. And if Nepomniachtchi hadn't participated, Naka, Anand and Carlsen would have tied for first place ... ,:)
I looked around on Chessmetrics a bit although there is no easy way to find all Americans. As far as I can see, by the Chessmetrics measurement the best post-Fischer tournament performance by an American would indeed be Seirawan at Haninge 1990. This is what I found:
Gata Kamsky:
Discounting match performances (he did beat #5 Salov in 1995, #5 Kramnik in 1994, and #10 Short in 1995), Kamsky's three best tournament performances through 2005 (according to Chessmetrics) were:
(2771 Chessmetrics performance) +3 shared first at Tilburg 1990, at age 16, in a tournament including five of the top 14 in the world
(2771 Chessmetrics performance) +4 first at Las Palmas 1994, ahead of Karpov and Shirov
(2754 Chessmetrics performance) +4 second at Biel Interzonal 1993, in a tournament including seven of the top ten in the world
Yasser Seirawan:
Three best tournament performances were:
(2790 Chessmetrics performance) +6 first at Haninge 1990, ahead of Karpov, Ehlvest, and Andersson
(2751 Chessmetrics performance) +2 shared third at Skelleftea 1989, behind Karpov/Kasparov and ahead of Salov, Short, Korchnoi, and Ehlvest
(2746 Chessmetrics performance) +7 shared first at Wijk aan Zee 1980, ahead of Korchnoi and Timman
Larry Christiansen:
Three best tournament performances were:
(2779 Chessmetrics performance) +6 first at Munich 1991, ahead of Gelfand, Belivasky, Yudasin, and Anand
(2762 Chessmetrics performance) +5 shared first with Karpov at Linares 1981, ahead of Spassky, Portisch, and Larsen
(2749 Chessmetrics performance) +6 first at Vienna 1991
Walter Browne:
Two best tournament performances were:
(2743 Chessmetrics performance) +7 shared first at Wijk aan Zee 1980, ahead of Korchnoi and Timman
(2720 Chessmetrics performance) +7 first at Wijk aan Zee 1974, ahead of Korchnoi and Timman
I also see Yermolinsky and Shabalov sharing career best performances (2734/2733) when also sharing first place with +5 at the US Championships in 1993.
As always, these are Chessmetrics rating performances, which are different from traditional performances that show ridiculous numbers across small games. The Chessmetrics rating performance indicates our best guess at the player's true skill, using only the games from the tournament as evidence. The more games, the stronger the evidence.
"The most interesting move now would be for Rex Sinquefield to bid for a 2011 offyear world title challenge match in Saint Louis.
Has anyone pointed out that right now, we are in the period of the 125th anniversary of the first official World Championship match - played January through March, 1886, in New York, St. Louis, and New Orleans.
I'm curious as to who will likely win the Chess Oscar for 2011. Will it be the winner at the Bilbao Grand Slam Tournament final, or the winner of the Candidates Tournament? Of course potentially Kramnik or Aronian could win both, but they'd each have to qualify for Bilbao first.
It's like Argentina beating USA in basketball, let us have our freaking moment people don't worry a nonAmerican will be on top of the next big one. Let's enjoy this.
I can't believe nobody has figured out the *real* reason Nakamura did so well at the tournament: the presence of Tania Sachdev. Naka's performance was the chess equivalent of a "most muscular" pose.
:-)
If chess was all about linkage, RuralRob would be a GM. Good thinking, my man!
Good also to see Hal's name in print here. An interesting note that is.
Note to billionaires who live in the Bay area and have played a lot of chess in their relatively young lifetime (Hal already knows exactly who I mean...hint: Paypal): Put the U.S. firmly back on the chess map. Honor the 125th anniversary with a series of showcase tournaments featuring the strongest players in the world, Amber-style.
Endow it to make it last at least as long as the original Amber tournament, which will end this year.
Peter? Are you there?
See my last note.
Didn't the other top players have the same opportunity to beat on the ones in the lower half?
This is a great victory for fat people everywhere!
Now we now we can eat hamburgers daily and still succeed!
Congratulations Hikaru!
I have found myself compelled to point out a serious flaw in one of the threads in this conversation.
You younger folks simply don't have the memory, and us older folks may have failing memories, but ...
The whole crux about the 'bottom half of the crosstable' doesn't have a THING to do with the RESULTS of the tournament. It goes without saying (even though I'm saying it now, because it seems to have been overlooked!) that the top half of a crosstable will have a winning record against the bottom half. The winner will probably have done better than the others. But it's irrelevant!
Now before you go flaming me for being too simplistic, let me elucidate on what the controversy REALLY is supposed to be. And that is that it has to do with PRE-tournament ratings, i.e., seedings.
The whole contoversy there is that historically there have been charges of (whether inadvertent or purposeful) collusion among top players to draw against themselves (effectively taking rest days), and find them all near the top of the results table because they have more energy to try harder against the LOWER-RATED players. Then the one who has the best results against the lower half of the (PRE-tournament) crosstable manages to win the tournament. All of them keep their stature.
This is not the case in this tournament. There was significant aggression to keep things exciting among the elite. And THAT is what keeps things moving in today's chess world.
CO
Ya know, HN may have been a chubby child, but he is certainly not fat now, nor has he been for some time. Get a life ya losers.
Are you not a native english speaker? "Have been hating on" is pretty idiomatic
Yeah, sure, but it does not sound good. We, nns, like to rite good in english.
Tal Memorial 2009?
@ Lefthandsketch - Nakamura won San Sebastian in 2009 and Chess 960 WC and World Open. Kamsky won an event this year too.
Kasparov: Nakamura's tournament performance was maybe the best in 100 years
http://gambit.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/30/nakamura-wins-tata-steel-chess-tournament/
Just wow! This certainly has made some people angry. Frogbert spewing his usual bile on Naka's chessgames page.
By the way any truth to the rumours that the relationship between Magnus and Garry has become strained and Garry and Naka are now planning to work together?
It would be interesting. And did Magnus "buy" Garry's opening database as part of their deal, or can Kasparov now offer it to others too?
Interesting times ahead for the chess fans.
pretty idiomatic or idiomatically not pretty?
Actually that phrase is about as ugly as one can get within the apparent context of the English language.
Not that I'm above butchering German, French, Flemish, Dutch, Celtic, Spanish, or any other language out there if given half a chance. ;)
When Karpov said something complementary about Nakamura about a year back, that got a lot of people angry as well. There was even considerable debate when Kramnik said a year ago that, "Nakamura will be a top ten player within a year". I wonder what world champions know that "patzers" don't.
Jeez Louise. And what rock did you just crawl out from under? About 99% of us are DONE with the 'oh poor, slandered and underappreciated Hikaru Nakamura' jingo. It's really tired. Just go away.
USA! USA! is about the most stupid tag I've come across in a long! long! time!
"Kasparov: Nakamura's tournament performance was maybe the best in 100 years"
"Huh?" rather than "wow!". He must have forgotten many results, not just by himself and his former student Carlsen. Of course for many years Garry didn't win a tournament ahead of the world champion, simply because he was the world champion. Did he want to pay back Mig for all his support over the past decade or so? ,:)
Tata 2011 was also rather unique because four players finished with -4 or worse, clearly facilitating big plus scores by others. This included two players who might have been pre-tournament co-favorites: Grischuk was world #7 before the event, Shirov almost won last year. For comparison: In 2009 Ivanchuk and Morozevich finished shared last but still scored 5.5/13. True, Nakamura contributed to bad scores by the tailenders, but - obviously - he wasn't the only one.
If we go back to recent Corus history (I start with 2003 because these results are most easily available on the Tata homepage):
2003 Anand +4
2004 Anand +4
2005 Leko(!) +4
2006 Anand, Topalov +5
2007 Aronian, Radjabov, Topalov +4
2008 and 2009 +3 was enough to win, 2010 Carlsen again scored +4
So Nakamura's result is VERY unique only if +5 is considered MUCH better than +4, and +5 is worth less if another player had the same result.
@Mig: What about correcting factual errors in you write-up?
Kasparov's comment,
"Kasparov: Nakamura's tournament performance was maybe the best in 100 years"
was meant to be a comment about tournament performances by Americans in world chess, not in general. This is clear if you read the NY Times blog article. Kasparov mentions that Fischer never got a result like this in his whole career (as a tournament player) and you must go back to Hastings 1895 to see a great achievement like this one.
Congratulations to Nakamura! Does anyone else also think that having 7 whites as compared to 6 for Anand is also a contributing factor? Resulted in 4 out of his 6 wins in this case.
Nakamura is a true fighter and thats what I like in top chess. There's none of that, "I don't win much but I certainly do not lose" attitude.
Carlsen has the same. When he loses he usually comes out swinging in the next game.
They both had non-games in this tourney, Carlsen-Anand and Nakamura-Kramnik. Nakamura to almost secure (shared) tournament victory, Carlsen to save his Najdorf stuff for Nakamura. Is what I think.
I think more important than having seven whites is who you have them against. If you "like white" you will want them vs the weakies to get the maximum. Look at e.g. Smeets-Kramnik wasnt it? Draw after 20 moves in a Petroff. Revert the colours and bet on the result.
I disagree...its better to have white against the top players, because you're more likely to score points with black against the lowest rated players.
I would say, and said so before that it might be best to have white against the midfielders: Yes, you can (also) score with black against the lowest-rated players. But between players of near equal strength a draw is - at least empirically/statistically - the most likely result with either color.
It is sometimes suggested that the advantage of the white pieces corresponds to about 50 Elo points. So Smeets playing white against Kramnik is still the underdog (another story is that he 'shamelessly' and successfully played for a draw, BTW in a Berlin rather than a Petroff). The Elo gap between the top players remains small enough to make a draw a likely result, but "widens" enough to give them decent winning chances against, say, Wang Hao, Nepo or Vachier-Lagrave. In that respect (as I also wrote before) Aronian may have had the most favorable draw, despite an extra black over all 13 games.
All that being said, there was no such thing as advantage of the white pieces in the A group: 14 wins with white vs. 15 with black (and not just games such as Smeets-Anand, Smeets-Carlsen and l'Ami-Nakamura). Interestingly, not just overall winning probability but also advantage of the white pieces seemed higher in the other groups: 31-20 for white in the B group, 41-22 in the C group.
I may be wrong by one or two games (but probably not more) in all cases, and I don't feel like checking for several earlier editions of Corus - which would probably be needed to make my observations statistically significant.
"Nakamura is a true fighter and thats what I like in top chess. There's none of that, "I don't win much but I certainly do not lose" attitude."
Definitely true...one of the many things to like about Naka's style. You could see that Anand in the last 2 rounds was pressed to play for a win when he otherwise wouldn't have; almost like "hey, with +4 I should be able to coast to at least shared first, but with Naka winning so many games I need to press".
Both Naka and Carlsen bring this element of fighting into top-level chess (Aronian as well), which IMO has improved the overall fighting spirit in top-level events immensely within the past 2-3 years. Vishy can do it all (conservative, swashbucking), but you get the sense that in an ideal world for him, he would be happy with +2 and +3 without the desire to press for more.
It’s noteworthy that the Young Guns of this decade has such a wide national spread, reducing the traditional East Europe dominance of the past:
Carlsen – NORWAY
Nakamura – USA
Wang & Wang – CHINA
Vachier-Lagrave - FRANCE
Caruana – ITALY
Giri – THE NETHERLANDS
McShane – ENGLAND
So – PHILLIPINES
@pioneer
I think it depends on your style, and therefore the question cannot be answered in a general way.
Some players bank next to everything on the white pieces. To be frank, I don't like that much. The key to success is black wins. Topalov, Carlsen, Nakamura stand out in this respect. Shirov perhaps too, if he won more games.
I confess to having had my doubts about Nakamura, but I don't think that being a doubter should equate to being a "Hater". Nakamura has certainly done an admirable job of answering my doubts with his performances. In the end, you can't really quarrel with success, demonstrated on repeated occasions. Those who had faith in Nakamura, and from an early time were touting his prospects truly deserve praise for their foresight and their insight.
While I am not a fan of Nakamura's--based on various anecdotes about his behavior, comments, and personality--it must be admitted that he is backing up his words with accomplishments over the Chessboard. For the same reason, one might have had cause to root against Fischer, Karpov, Kasparov....but hoping for failure was almost always a futile wish.
In the same vein, it is clear that Nakamura will remain at the highest echelons of the chess world for years to come, and that he will win his share of Elite events. Like it or not.
Still, as to the big questions about whether Nakamura will ever attain the status of #1 ranking, or win the World Championship, you can call me a Hater, but I won't be convinced that he can do that, until he actually does it.
While I expect a plataeu after this leap in rating (he may even give back some ELO points in the short term), I think that it is quite probable that he cracks the Top 5, and it is almost inevitable that he breaks 2800. The next big question is if he can supplant Aronian (or Anand) to make it into the Top 3 (anytime soon...)
"You could see that Anand in the last 2 rounds was pressed to play for a win when he otherwise wouldn't have"
I didn't see it ... . Seriously, I think many players adapt their strategy, ambition in single games, amount of risk taken to the tournament situation - Anand and Nakamura are no exceptions.
Regarding Anand, he wasn't coasting at Corus 2006 because he couldn't: same story as this time, the lead went back and forth between Vishy and Topalov with the difference that neither player could be all happy or all unhappy - shared first with 9/13.
Regarding Nakamura, he was sort of coasting in San Sebastian after an early +4 score, Ponomariov eventually caught him in the final standings and lost only in the blitz tiebreak. A few days ago, he was happy with a quick draw with white against Kramnik. You can consider this sensible, understandable or even "a very professional decision" (TWIC) - but don't give praise to Nakamura while criticizing (e.g.) Anand for doing about the same in a similar situation.
Carlsen may be an exception, striving to improve his Nanjing result when it was no longer needed to win the event. Even Kramnik was an exception in Dortmund 2009: successfully playing for a win against Naiditsch in the last round when a draw would have meant shared first with a superior tiebreak. Granted, other considerations may have played a role: Naiditsch was clear underdog, and Kramnik's Elo gain helped secure the rating spot into the candidates event.
I think you got most of them, but you forgot about this one... "He's just a blitz player."
And you could see that Western Europe attracted young stars from both directions: Giri from Russia to the Netherlands, Caruana from the USA to Italy, so probably it is the best place for young chess stars now.
Even though - as far as I understand - Giri didn't move to the Netherlands for chessic reasons. The family moved because his father found a job as an engineer.
True, Giri had Dutch opportunities to advance his career, but it's at least unclear if the Netherlands are a better place than Russia (with respect to young chess stars' wishes and needs).
Greetings from the Netherlands!
Nakamuraaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!
Tremendous! Nakamura will be World Champion if he wants to.
Just poking my head up for a moment to apologize for missing Anand and Topalov on +5 in 2006. It's particularly annoying since it was one of the few things I actually bothered to look up and I still missed it twice! Once, going through the last 10 years of standings on the Wijk site and then glancing over Anand's last decade of results looking for better than +4. But it's there in both places in black and white. Oh well.
Right...I forgot about that one. Especially when Carlsen in his blog from late 2009 referred to Hikaru at the London Chess Classic as a "blitz specialist". LOL!
I like that question :"When was the last time an american won an elite tournament".
First at all, what does it mean to be "an american".Sometimes I play at the Dallas Chess Club, and I can see (or read) that more than 90% of chess players are from India or China heritage (I wish this is the correct word).Now let's check the last Olympiads, The US squad looks like the Soviet Union squad. Me, myself, I am from Peru and I am planning to become a US citizen and play chess. So when I read that someone who was born in New York won the Wijk Aan Zee tournament I said :"Finally an american won the tournament !".
I know that to be an american you can born here or you can naturalized.....but it makes so much difference that someone who really was born here achieve something in chess !!!
I hope this result bring more chess in the US media. All I hear now is the Super Bowl in Arlinton, Texas.(It is not Dallas, it is Arlington)and all I know about football is that a touchdown is 6 points....
Rafael Llanos.
Sherman, Texas
Rafael, Nakamura was born in Osaka, Japan. But he moved to New York before he was out of diapers.
Oh oh you see? Nakamura was born in Osaka Japan !! sorry I didn't know that and thanks for the information....like Seirawan was born in Siria and Kamsmy in Siberia (I guess)...where are the chessplayers born in the USA?
Hess was invited to play in Spain and he came last !
The new kid Ray Robson....he is lucky he was born in the US, because there is a kid the same age in Peru (Jorge Cori) that play the same or better than Ray but do not have the opportunities Ray has.
Am I the only person who watches chess (or anything) without thinking or caring about the players' countries of origin? Among all my favourite boxers, tennis players, and chess players, nationality had no bearing whatsoever when I chose to favour them. I don't know, maybe I'm just weird that way. For example, my favourite World Champion is Smyslov, and there are many reasons for that; however, nationality is never on my list of things that bounce around in my head when latching onto someone, though.
That said, some people may just be remarking (and/or excited by) how it is a tad odd to have players from nations where chess is not so huge reach big highs; ie. Carlsen from Norway, Nakamura raised in the US, Anand from India (back in his younger days India didn't seem like a hotbed of strong GMs!), and so on. I don't think it's wrong for people to find that noteworthy. It IS outside the norm, after all, and things outside the norm catch people's attention.
Some of the tension here may be people talking past each other while focusing on different facets, or misunderstanding one another's intentions. Don't we all like chess?
Agreed, Joshua - especially about the nationality focus. I am a native-born American, but my favorite players are not American. I don't know why, but I also don't know why not!
Success should not be the deciding factor for people, really. U.S. football star Michael Vick is a good example. Folks everywhere were quite upset after learning about his involvement in dog fighting arenas. And they would still want nothing to do with Vick if he wasn't recently successful on the football field. All of a sudden, it's 'What dog fighting? Go Michael.'
And there are many other such examples out there. Where's the sense in that?
On the question of nationality in becoming a fan of someone, I am sure it has an influence as long as the person is in amongst the top elite in that field. Someone from Bulgaria here who is not a fan of Topalov?, or someone from Russia who is not a fan of Kramnik. It will be very rare. You become a fan of someone other than your nationality only when there is none in the top cream from your nation. eg. If there was no Vishy Anand, my fav player would then have been Aronian but not Sasikiran or Harikrishna although I would still always root for them in the tournaments that they play in.
Interesting ...can you tell me please why Smyslow?
Probably I am the same way....because for me one of the best chess palyers in the world is (was) the armenian GM Lputian....why? well? simply because one day I took a chess informant book and watched some games (openings) I play and mr.Lputian also play the lines I play...of course un a master manner.
Chess is always a game that I am fascinated by - and reading all of the input here is giving me a much better understanding still. http://www.outdoorlightsgalore.com | http://www.outdoorlightsgalore.com/landscape-lighting-ideas/outdoor-party-lights | http://bestpelletstoves.blogspot.com/2009/08/used-pellet-stoves.html
That's a goos idea. Thanks for sharing to us. i enjoyed and the discussion.
http://holidaybooking.co/