Tata 2011: Anand & Nakamura Lead after 4

Shipov, and you, must be very glad the public did not choose Carlsen - L'ami game. 90th move at this point, and
they barely start the R+N vs R endgame phase :-).

It will be very difficult for Carlsen to be back to live #1 after Tata. Beating Anand alone will not suffice. He would need some additional losses from Anand.

It required an endgame blunder from a 2620 player with black for Carlsen to win. True, he is the real #1. Just that Anand and Kramnik have owned him like forever.. lol

Draw-Draw-Win.

I'll be betting on Win, Draw, Draw.

Magnus will push too hard (his very last chance to justify his make-new-rules-for-Magnus stand) and lose, Anand will take it easy against Aronian and Naka when sitting at +4. But since Naka is just after the rest day, Anand might just play on like today and eke out a win..

Eh, that ceteris paribus line of argument isn't convincing. You can always make a list of a zillion ifs on either side of the argument. A win is a win.

ok

Yep, pretty glad! I don't think "senseless" endings after 7 hours are one of Shipov's favourite things either :) The funny thing is I watched the game until Carlsen was totally won - and it's only now that I realised that Carlsen blundered and they got to an ending that really was trivially drawn (I was wondering why some people were complaining about Carlsen playing on, as the ending when I saw it was incredibly complex!). Just watching Shipov (in Russian) talking about it now - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgAWvtdzLDo&hd=1 - it seems for some reason l'Ami thought he couldn't let his king be on the edge of the board...

Today's game is going to be the young guns: Giri - Nepo - http://www.chessintranslation.com/live-game/

Ok, Nepo's not actually that young, but he hasn't been around long at the top. Let's hope for a slightly longer game than the last time Shipov commentated on his pupil!

"Anand wins when it matters" - I would agree if you add the little word 'most'. But if supertournaments don't matter at all, why do we even discuss Anand's chances against Aronian _in Wijk aan Zee_? For example, Anand-Aronian 1-0 in the last round of Tal Memorial 2009 would have meant shared first place for Vishy, but OK it doesn't matter!?

...but the spectators (looking at engine evaluations) were mostly convinced they themselves could do it blindfolded...

Thats a funny but common phenomenon. Has nothing to do with affections to Carlsen. It's human. The less people know or understand of a subject, the more they feel in control about it. There are several scientiffic researches which proved exactly that.

Of course more self critical or mature personalities might know this from their own experience. But they are not the aggressive chatters. Nevertheless they might be the silent majority.

I guess Nepo-Shirov yesterday also would have been quite a challenge - trying to keep track while they blitz out their preparation to move 40 ... . As I type, Giri is in deep thought on whether today's game should have more than 18 moves.

The people you describe are suffering from betrayed-wife-syndrome, even the remote version, causing their love for Carlsen turning into hate.

Those people projected their own dreams (e.g. youngest ever world champion) on Carlsen, burning a candle for him every day. Now that they see their prayers (or wishes) will go unheard, they violently turn on him.

Those same people in a chess club would probably behave much better and be able to hide their acrimony, caused by feeling cheated, but the anonymity of the internet brings out the worst in their character.

That's really all there is to it.

You're entitled to your opinion ... which, by definition, cannot be "wrong". But Nakamura doesn't play the most interesting game of the ongoing round - which may be l'Ami's fault, did he know that he may have to defend the Dutch honor so far? In hindsight, maybe Giri should have taken the move repetition. Carlsen and Kramnik are busy proving that the Berlin and Scotch aren't that drawish. Overall, black is OK.

The most interesting chess player, no doubt about that. There is a lot about him that is worth being examined.

If he plays the most interesting chess of all players in group A, I do not know. But I don't think so.

Welcome to kibitzing hell. Anonymous patzers trash talkin on the internet. ;-)

Magnus played a perfect game today, BTW, with the Berlin Defense as black. -Who would have thought that? Smeets was overrun quite fast and efficient.

Yep, probably the wrong choice from Giri, but good for chess fans - and it's always nice when the game ends in a relatively quick and decisive fashion! It was funny with Gandalf today... I read it as Gelfand at first and almost included that in my translation!

"it seems for some reason l'Ami thought he couldn't let his king be on the edge of the board.."

It might be that due to exhaustion instinct kicked it. L'Ami, and us all, have all been taught to activate the king and not let it be cut off at the edge of the board.

If Shipov's assessment is right, avoiding the repetition may not have been bad by itself - but spending 20 minutes on "to repeat or not to repeat" cost Giri dearly on the clock.

It's still a bit sad that the player declining a repetition is punished for the second time in the tournament - and ironic that the first victim was Nepomniachtchi himself in his game against Wang Hao.

Well, technically spoken Kramnik also declined a repetition against Shirov - but that was rather to tease the opponent and give him a (temporary) false sense of security? Vlad needed two penalties to win the game, kudos to both players for a wild game and I also feel a bit sorry for Shirov.

It isn't all black if you include the B group: six decisive games with a 50% score for white. The most important game here may have been McShane-Wojtaszek 1-0 (mixed feelings for mishanp, an Englishman living in Poland?). The craziest one was Navara-Ganguly 1-0 in yet another Bc5 Ruy Lopez - Shirov's pet line but Anand also plays it, so does his second.

Actually Nepo beat Wang Hao that time as well, so he's been the beneficiary twice! As Shipov said, though, playing for the win as a young player does at least have the advantage that you earn a good reputation in the eyes of tournament organisers...

No mixed feelings on McShane - Wojtaszek, alas - I'm totally rooting for the Pole. He's looked very shaky with the black pieces so far, though. Revised ambition for this tournament now is just that he stays above 2700 in the ratings! (Swiercz is also struggling a bit in Group C...)

Yeah, the back end of Hikaru's draw is extremely tough. After tomorrow he still has 2 2800s and the rest well over 2700. Anand's is a little softer, with Shirov and Giri.

commonsense: "The people you describe are suffering from betrayed-wife-syndrome, even the remote version, causing their love for Carlsen turning into hate. Those people projected their own dreams (e.g. youngest ever world champion) on Carlsen, burning a candle for him every day. Now that they see their prayers (or wishes) will go unheard, they violently turn on him."

Is that right? Wow.

"commonsense"?! "Omniscient Super-Genius" would be a more fitting name to make up for yourself.

Now, after winning the last game of the entire round (his opponent missed a draw on move 45, despite thinking for about 20 minutes), Swiercz is back at 50% where he has the three highest-rated players for company. He shouldn't be too ashamed of his losses against van der Werf and Sachdev, both are still overperforming (any revised predictions for Sachdev's final score??). I checked: van der Werf is usually doing well in Wijk aan Zee, whether he plays in the C group or in the highest amateur group - the rest of the year, he basically plays only Dutch team events.

Aronian still has black against Grischuk and Anand in the next two rounds (difficult opponents at least rating-wise) but the rest is indeed relatively "easy". He may regret that he didn't try harder against Nakamura, now others have to do that job for him ... .

Not to be overlooked in the games today. A true and a well-wrought observation of mob madness. Commonsense's follow-up may also be true; I just don't like the defeatist last line. People who hide their senseless rage behind created names are, in a word, chickensh-t. And that kind of behavior needs to be called and nipped in the bud whenever possible. I don't need to back that up with any examples.

Great for Swiercz - thought he had some chances but didn't want to tempt fate...

My final (more or less - have to go out!) version of Shipov's commentary on Giri - Nepomniachtchi is here: http://bit.ly/gjHkJq

Theodulf: "People seem really mad because (a) Carlsen slipped out of the #1 rating slot, thus proving himself human and not a god, like when the princess scratched Sean Connery in 'The Man Who Would Be King' (movie version) and the people went from adoration to murderous mob in a half a second, and (b) Carlsen chose not to play in the Candidates' matches"

I find myself rooting against Carlsen now. Why? (a) I like to see champions acting like champions, not like whiny babies; (b) Carlsen wants to tarnish the WC title by "abolishing privileges," i.e., reducing its prestige.

(b) by itself wouldn't be such a big deal, but then he takes concrete steps to bring it about. And after coupling that with (a)? "Go L'Ami (or whoever else Carlsen is playing against)."

I always like Anand because he seems like a great guy. Kramnik too.

I'm rooting for [ctrl+V]. All I know about him, though, is that he plays interesting chess and has been rocketing up the Elo list. If, like Carlsen, he turns out to be lazy and whiny and wields a destructive hand, I'll turn against him too.

kenh: "People who hide their senseless rage behind created names are, in a word, chickensh-t."

Ah, yes. You must be referring to the nasty, senseless, hateful comments from commonsense ("suffering from xyz syndrome"), kenh ("chicksh_t"), and Theodulf ("animals in the wild").

Uff Da

"I always like Anand because he seems like a great guy. Kramnik too. "

Well then take notice that there wasn't vociferous crtical reaction coming from either about Carlsen's decision. Anand quietly disagreed with it, but he respected it nevertheless. The W Ch. system, as many of the GMs believe, is flawed.

"Why are you being defensive about this, Uff Da?"

Not so defensive...just pointing out the irony of exploiting the anonymity of internet posts to spew rage against those who exploit the anonymity of internet posts to spew rage.

"spew rage?"

What are you talking about?? We're bringing attention to it! Snap out of it now, or bury yourself even deeper.

"spew rage?"

Yes...or is "chickensh_t" just the calm, rational truth?

Headline:

Uff Da defends senseless and chickenshit Web vitriol directed at Magnus Carlsen.

Ha-ha!

Very eloquent and convincing, kenh. You win. Web vitriol is not commendable.

Thomas, ideally I would expect to see a comparison between 2 individuals in a match but at least the comparison Harish is making between Anand and Carlsen is somewhat meaningful. Because in a short span they've played some 6 games. But how many Anand and Aronian played in the last one year? Anand is world champion, so Aronian might be extra motivated to beat him. I don't want to go on with excuses but anyway Anand strategy might be wrong but I believe there is no psychology involved there. We'll see.

ah thanks, but that's why I said earlier that you were smarter than that.

To Thomas,
Question: To whom is attributed the quote by Giri's trainer? (Ouch)

Uff Da January 21, 2011 2:04 PM

Well, Uff Da, what can we say except making a mental note that this guy has a serious need for rooting?

Carlsen is young. Him ditching WC may be as simple as having accumulated enough of FIDE and its alien-abducted no. 1. Decisions are seldomly rational per se, but may be over all. Instead of rooting, look for the root.

Well said.

Engine junkies shoukd spare some time and put historical games of fx Tal into their engines. Perhaps they woukd understand that chess is more, and far more than applied math and that the engines do not play chess, but simulate playing chess. Have sex, then simulate sex and go tell the world about the difference.

John Nunn, a professional mathematician, had some interesting things to say on this in reference to a study that purported to rate historic players objective strength using computers. The study claimed that it was ok that the program chosen might be weaker than than some of the top historic players. Nunn noted that the study's methodology would rate a stronger program as weaker than the reference program; and the greater the stength of the stronger program, the weaker the study methodology would label it.

More to the point, he noted that a program using a 32 piece tablebase could easily play less well against top humans in a tournaement than e.g. Fischer. The reason? For most of the game, all moves by both players would be drawing moves. From a mathemetical point of view, there is no way to favor one drawing move over another. Thus, the probem would make basically random choices among drawing moves as long as no winning moves were available. Meanwhile, Fischer would understand how humans play and make moves that put maximum pressure and maximum likelihood of provoking an error. Thus Fischer would likely have more wins in the tournament; the perfect tablebase program would have no losses, but not enough wins.

There is only one other female player. Seems hard to draw any conclusions from this.

Well, since Aronian got nothing against Naka's Dutch, it was probably good for him to take the early draw and spare his energy. Plus he got a gift from Nepo, so its not as though he hasn't gotten good breaks this tournament.

To answer your question: No author is given for the round report on the tournament website. I had omitted from my quote that Chuchelov was watching the game in the press room, hence it seems likely that comment and body language (head shaking) occurred right after Giri declined the draw, not just after the game knowing the result.

On Vachier-Lagrave: Some time ago you wrote that he is also a university student. Apparently this is no longer true - from his NIC report on Hoogeveen: "The fact that I recently stopped studying made the days at home feel a bit longer." I guess he stopped studying mathematics, not chess ... ,:) .

Finally, an interesting Kramnik quote from the video on round 6 (also on the tournament webpage): His preparation went until 23.-Qb4+ when he could have given perpetual check - "when you prepare for black you're usually happy with a draw". Only over the board he realized that he could play on with winning chances (and little risk of losing)!?

Exactly! But one thing that can be said about Tani Sachdev though is that she has always won on odd days (15th, 17th, 21st) and never won on even days! ;P

"the perfect tablebase program would have no losses, but not enough wins"

Firstly, this would hold only if chess is proven to be a 'draw with perfect play' game.

Secondly, even if all moves by both players may be drawing moves for *most* of the game, its probably a stretch to imagine a human would keep finding non-losing moves when they are only-moves - move after move, late in a game.

But of course I do see your/Nunn's point in that the lack of 'bluff' will bring less wins to the program. It'll be interesting to see how AI in poker playing programs evolve.

What a pity he chose the wrong game today : (

Shipov said that he now has more time to work on his video round-up of the entire round - what a pity that mishanp can't translate that one ...

With regard to the Dutch, there is no way Aronian could have prepared for 7...Nc6, as Naka had played ...c6 in almost all the other lines.

Naka has equalized quite easily with the Dutch against super-GMs (Anand in January 2010, Grischuk in Nov 2010, Aronian here) unless he has walked right into his opponent's home prep (Kramnik in January 2010). To me, that's the sign of a good opening...of course being a world-top 10 player handling the black pieces helps ;).

It's not up to Shipov as the game's decided on a vote (I'd give a link, but you need to be logged on to the Russian forum to see it). Carlsen-Anand had 64 votes compared to Kramnik-Giri in second with 15 (including mine). To be fair, pretty much all of the Carlsen-Anand games have been exciting lately (perhaps a case where Sofia Rules would have helped).

Thomas, it was suggested at one point to try and translate and dub Shipov's videos, but it's not really practical - it's hard enough trying to follow the words on the page!

My suggestion wasn't serious - I realize it's near to impossible, and you already do enough for us! If anything, English subtitles might be worth a try (I could even turn down the volume if the, for me, incomprehensible Russian is too disturbing!) but it would also be a lot of work.

I hope and expect that the remaining "top of the top" encounters will be more interesting: Anand-Aronian tomorrow, Kramnik-Carlsen next Friday.

Hard to say who is the chicken in Anand-Carlsen.

Anand should have played on.
Come on... why not play on if you have an edge, however small? One inaccuracy by your opponent is all it takes. Carlsen played on in a theoretical draw against l'ami. Playing with an advantage should be fun. At the very least you wear down one of your chief rivals.

Anand needs to toughen up - seriously! If he had 1/2 the fighting qualities of Kasp, Carlsen, Topalov, Naka, or just about anyone else on the planet, we might be talking about him being the greatest instead of Kasparov.

After Qd2, there is no point playing on. Carlsen pretty much forced the draw here. I dont want to get too judgmental about your chess skills but what minute advantage are you talking about. Further why would Anand not take a draw when he is leading the tournament with a +3 score. Carlsen on the other hand is on +1.

And considering his two recent losses to Anand, er. this game was not really telling him 'Move over ol man, Im here to take your crown'

It was more like - I'l come back in a few years time when you've started losing your teeth.

And about the greatest ever - Kasparov is far from it. And Anand could still be it.
For now I'd still rate Fisher, Tal, Capa to be much better players.
Kasparov had nothing more than good memory - no need to read between the lines. He was all about home prep improving on past lines by the greats.

"And about the greatest ever - Kasparov is far from it. And Anand could still be it. For now I'd still rate Fisher, Tal, Capa to be much better players.
Kasparov had nothing more than good memory - no need to read between the lines. He was all about home prep improving on past lines by the greats."

-------

Complete garbage. First of all, none of those player were a great as long as Kasparov -- not even close! Even Euwe was world champion longer than Tal. Second, while Kasparov was the greatest home prep player ever, he could truly do EVERYTHING well...witness his grinding down Karpov from a completely equal position in the final game of the 87 world championship, where anything less than a win would have allowed Karpov to retake the title.

For the record, Kasparov was arrogant, classless, whiny when he lost, and did great harm to the game with his decision to try to destroy FIDE in 1993. That being said, he is clearly the greatest player of all time. Vishy would have to be world champion for another 10 years to even start to be seriously considered greater than Kasparov.

[quote]For the record, Kasparov was arrogant, classless, whiny when he lost, and did great harm to the game with his decision to try to destroy FIDE in 1993. That being said, he is clearly the greatest player of all time.[/quote]

He may be classless but Kasparov was NOT arrogant as many people think him to be. But he is NOT the greatest player ever! Not playing for title and assuming you are holding the crown for several years wouldn't make you great. When you are asked to play and you ducked for reasons unacceptable that wouldn't make you great either. He is far below many. Anand is the greatest player ever! I've said many points in support of Anand. We can have a open debate on who is the greatest Anand or your favorite Kasparov, if you would like.

Le Quang Liem lost against Li Chao (who isn't exactly weak, just relatively unknown) and blew a winning position against Elo tailender Spoelman. OK, this doesn't contradict what you wrote: he is uneven - maybe also the pressure of being co-favorite, for the first time in his career?

Today's highlight in the B group may have been the fight against last place between Ganguly and Spoelman, with a nice queen sacrifice in an uncommon delayed Poisoned Pawn Najdorf. Funny how Stockfish on Chessbomb first considers 23.Bf6:!! a blunder (only good for perpetual check) because it doesn't yet see the follow-up 25.Ng5!! - makes you wonder about how reliable these express analyses at low search depth are in general ... .

Yeah, I said relatively weak :-). Also, in my mind, given his very good performance last year, Le is a 2700-player. However, seems like he does not play so well against "relatively weaker" opponents.

He had excellent results in the first half of 2010: Moscow Open, Aeroflot (both included "relatively weak" opponents), then Dortmund. But the second half was less impressive: 50% at the Olympiad and a disastrous 0.5/5 at "2010 Asian Game Men Team" (whatever that exactly was).
Such phases are normal for a rising star - I think it may have to do with coping with all the attention he suddenly gets (don't know about the home front in Vietnam ...), and pressure that comes along with it. Even if he is already worth 2700 - I would actually agree with you - the B group has a tough field.

aww..Tani Sachdev's even day jinx continues :(

Don't bother going there, because a) you would probably have to be at least an IM to truly understand the relative strengths and weaknesses of players over the decades. You are not one of those. Neither am I, nor at least 98% of the folks visiting,
and b) you would have to nail down what you mean by the "greatest player." Do you mean the most talented player ever? Or the player who has made the most of accrued knowledge in his time?

It's a difficult and arguable enough subject as to be pretty much insolvable without even
factoring in that yesterday's players did not have access to computers, and the strange but workable moves that they sometimes come with.

Finally, you've heard the term 'standing on the shoulders of giants?'

Vachier-Lagrave, Nakamura, Nepo, and Nyzhnyk are all stars of the future -- relative strength remains to be seen.

Kenh, sorry to be a little rude but please don't degrade me to a level of an IM! Please!! ;)

It is true Anand did not have access for a while but then Kasparov had access to strong computers. But why not we discuss all of this to see who is the greatest. At least the chess public will know what you think and what I think on this subject. Or knowing the truth is the problem??

See, the comparison is between two giants, not between you or I with a giant. So I think it is irrelevant to our discussion whether you sit or stand on stay on someone else's back or shoulders.

Nyzhnyk is 14. And Aronian was already 22 or 23 when he first crossed 2700 (as I wrote before, but apparently it has to be repeated once in a while).

Even the great Bobby Fischer was 29 before becoming world champion. How old was Anand when he became champ...did I hear over 40!? So 20 is too old? Please.

Nakamura is leading in what is supposed to be the strongest ever tournament or one of the strongest ever tournament. Now you are making comparison of him with Vachier-Lagrave, Nepo, and Nyzhnyk? This is like creating hype for Kasparov and Karpov saying together dominated chess (while the truth is either one couldn't dominate the other, and what they dominated was a far weak competition in todays standards) and putting real achiever Anand in a second tier position with Kramnik, Topalov, Carlsen, Aronian as equals even after Anand thoroughly dominated Kramnik and Topalov, and after Kramnik thoroughly dominated Kasparov. Nice!

Don't forget Fabby is 18 and 2721 on the January list. Magnus is a wild card. Clearly he has other interests. I don't think anyone should be shocked if he walks away from chess within the next couple of years.

""Nakamura is leading"... only because he is yet to play Anand, Carlsen and Kramnik ... hah hah.."

I was wondering what the hater party line was right now. Got it.

KC, you must be joking when you say "Yes, Naka is leading the strongest enough tournament, but such statements should be made at the end of the tournament...".

You think I will say Naka is leading when the tournament is ended? You know noone would! ;)

Thats what i thought...i actually was pissed off....logged on a bit late and the game was over !

But then i think Anand didnt want to expend his energy as he has to play Aronian tommorrow...

No need to prove a point with Carlsen anymore.....has an edge out of the opening so basically saying go back and bring something more next time....

Case reopened - while they may have to do some catching up, I would add three more candidates:
- Wesley So: I was rather skeptical about him and consider him a bit 'hyped', but now he's doing well in Tata B (5/7, shared first)
- Le Quang Liem even if he may have a mini-crisis at the moment
- the biggest unknown is Sanan Sjugirov because he rarely played outside of Russia. But already a while ago he did well at the Russian Championship, and he (not Giri) was the first younger player to beat Magnus Carlsen ... .

Agree with you about So and Le. We tend to be Euro-centric around here; there is a reason why Naka's fans have to yell pretty loudly to get noticed
(of course they tend to go over doing it too, but that's another story).

Hm ... have not even heard of Sanan Sjugirov, will start paying attention to that name.

Absolutely agree that magnus could walk away from chess

Carlsen ended up being meeker than I thought. Anand (more than) equalized easily with black and Carlsen didn't even try to avoid complications.

Anand may have made several imprecise moves and missed a few tricks over the course of his career so far. But the one costliest trick he missed IMO wasn't even OTB. It is his not moving away from the Ruy Lopez in game 10 of his 95 match. I remember him saying once that in hindsight, upon seeing Kasparov so hyper and overexcited before game 10, he should have moved to his alternate prep - the center counter. He almost scored with it in game 14 and the surprise factor in game 10 could have been too much for Kasparov to handle in that situation. Up +2 after 10 games would have all but sealed it for him then. The world would have been so different had he won that match. The post-2007 unification matches could have started much sooner and chess could have been so much better off today. Alas..

Kinda like how Zaheer Khan is called Zak?!

I wouldn't even give too much importance to an unofficial private match. It is like conducting an unsupervised examination and then you be harsh on someone who didn't score as much as the other. Such a comparison is pointless!

Thomas, you are setting yourself up for disappointment if you think that So, Leim or Sjugirov will ever reach the level of Anand/Kramnik/Topalov/Aronian (2800+).

"He dominated one GM for 15 years - Karpov, and Im sorry but if you kept playin the same person over an over again one of them is bound to dominate the other."

Sorry, but both comments are nonsense. It might help to learn the definition of "dominate", perhaps?

Look up "ur", too, while you are at it.

I do. He's the only player in this tournament to consistently defeat the also-rans, including Grischuk, who should be doing better, but only has two points. I don't think Nakamura is necessarily playing better chess. I just think he wants it more. There have been a lot of short draws, after all. Three other guys could still win this if they really get off the schneider. I'm glad to see big Vlad get into it rolling.
One of my watched players there, Max Vachier-Lagrave, took his tentative steps and is undefeated so far, but now he'll be up against it. His second half easily rivals Hikaru's in difficulty. Nakamura v. Vachier-Lagrave will be a case of the irresistable force v. the immovable object.

>>Considering the fact that his second half of this tournament will be considerably harder than the first half- does anyone really think Naka can win this thing?

The gambling sites are putting Naka at about 2 to 1 odds to win, just behind Anand at 6 to 4. Based on that alone, I can't see how anyone would discount Nakamura winning the event.

He's actually a pretty good player too. If you followed the other elite events he has been in, you'd realize he can hold his own against these guys.

http://odds.bestbetting.com/chess/tata-steel-chess/winner-2011-winner/

Nakamura wasn't supposed to pass 2700 either... according to pundits here.

I think Nakamura can win this tournament, but so can a few others: Anand is just 1/2 point behind, Aronian (as already pointed out) has the easiest opponents remaining, Kramnik has now woken up. lefthandsketch makes a valid point endorsed by Nakamura himself ("for me the tournament starts tomorrow [now today]"): so far he did well against players who are relatively weak or (Shirov, Grischuk) out of form, he may or may not score at least 50% against his direct competitors. So far it's reminiscent of Shirov's tournament last year, which didn't have the happiest end for Alexey.

"He's the only player in this tournament to consistently defeat the also-rans" - partly because he's the only one who already played all also-rans! Aronian so far has 1/1 against the bottom four, Kramnik has 1.5/2 (even an out-of-form Grischuk isn't "routinely" beaten with black, he still faces Smeets and l'Ami), Carlsen has 2.5/3.

"There have been a lot of short draws, after all." - including Nakamura's short draw against Aronian, and his game against l'Ami also could have peacefully ended in 15 moves. Actually, the only player who didn't have any quick or premature draws is ... Shirov.

I didn't say they necessarily will cross 2800 - actually if all of them (plus the names you mentioned) will, 2800 won't mean as much any more and we need to define 2850 or 2900 as a new threshold. I merely called them 'candidates', so I won't be disappointed at all if they don't make it to the very top.

when u have a more objective point and not just rants, we may be able to have a debate

OK, I will try to debate with you:

"What is Kasparovs achievement?"
Besides winning WCh matches, he also won basically every tournament he played - to the point that shared first or second was considered surprising. (Topalov and Carlsen had or have similar stretches - if Carlsen's lasts for another 5-10 years we can start comparing him with Kasparov)

"He dominated one GM for 15 years - Karpov, and Im sorry but if you kept playin the same person over an over again one of them is bound to dominate the other."
Not Kasparov's fault that Karpov was the second-best player throughout most of his career. And your statement that "one is bound to dominate" is also wrong: A bit later, Kasparov and Kramnik played many games against each other with an even overall score (which can't be said about Anand's record against Garry)

"spoonfed by 3 generations of russian grandmasters"
Even if true (to some extent), again this isn't Kasparov's fault.

In summary, it's OK to be fan of one player, but there's no need to diminish the achievements of others. As to 'greatest player ever', I find it rather futile to compare Anand, Kasparov, Kaprov, Fischer, (Capablanca, Steinitz, .....) - all were or are great in their own way(s), and during their own time.

"wish he knew to make strategic draws when leading a supertournament, like the other top guys"

That's easier said than done. Ask Karpov :)

But ouch! What a Columbia(space shuttle)-like return to earth for Naka, Mig and other fans!

I wonder if there was any testosterone to it...maybe he was holding on to this trump for some time now, waiting for the right moment. He just phoned this one in.

I can't resist referring to Nakamura-Shirov 1-0, Corus 2010. Shirov was leading at that stage, and Hikaru criticized him for playing the Sicilian when a draw with black would have been a fine result. Maybe today Nakamura should have listened to Nakamura?

On the other hand, Carlsen may have given him a false sense of security:
- yesterday with his unambitious play against Anand's Najdorf
- even today with the solid Karpovian 6.Be2, which usually isn't followed up by opposite castling and a direct kingside attack.
I find this more remarkable than the idea Ka1 which, I think, isn't entirely new (but I don't remember when and where I saw it before).

Yes, indeed now it's easy to say Nakamura should have played something less risky; on the other hand, it is a bit to play against himself and also he may have thought that with Carlsen not seeming in top form it was a good chance to push even with black. It adds to his experience, to know yourself and find when to push and when to calm down. Of course, you must be able to do it (draw like a GM) which is, by the way, not that easy. I think that Ka1 idea is usual in some lines of the Dragon which, hint, hint, Carlsen plays himself with black, though not lately.

Shirov's ending always was a tablebase win, as soon as we entered that realm on move 45. Some positions with this material distribution are drawn or at least tough to win - here it was easy (no need for only moves), I guess because the black king is cut off on the eighth rank. I posted the tablebase link before but you may have missed it:
http://www.k4it.de/index.php?topic=egtb&lang=en

You should have been listening to ChessFM a few minutes ago. Alex Yermolinsky was conducting a mini clinic on the ending. He had personally analyzed it himself some years ago. 'Many GMs would say it's easily won. Very few could say why - and then show how you win.'

Meanwhile Tani Sachdev's amazing love-hate relationship with even and odd dates continues!

Yep, even Vachier-Lagrave could still win this thing - what are/were the betting odds on him? ,:)

@Alez: I tend to agree with you, but recently (Tal Memorial) Nakamura added the Berlin to his black repertoire ... . And I only mentioned it because he had given such advice to Shirov, also the type of player always going for the proverbial fire on the board.

On a side note: maybe not the best, but the funniest chess was played in the C group - check the mating attacks in Bok-Bluvsthein and van der Werf-Vocaturo.

I think Carlsen played the Ka1 plan against Radjabov's Chinese Dragon in 2009.

so ur saying garry was lucky he did not have big competition to face and when he did he threw in the towel so nothing to complain there

If Anand retires from chess in 2 years like garry did with his one sided domination of carlsen, you would defend that by.... (this is to counter ur anand kaspy record)
Imagine if the 95 match was only 12 games like it is today

regarding tournament domination, anand has an almost impressive record and if 'non-classical' forms of chess are considered, an insurmountable record.

finally i concur somewhat to ur point of it being a ridiculous debate about who was the greatest. but there are too many rabid 'garry is god's left testicle fans here' so i have to debate

afaiak kasparov reign as wc ended when he split from fide and hid in his closet - that was cheap, disrespectful to the game and reeked of nothin but fear. he avoided a rematch with anand, who was /is head and shoulders the best player during that time. the best part of anand's career, he had to wait for an opportunity to challenge for the crown that was legitimately his. when he finally did get his chance he demolished everyone in 2007 and then like a true gentleman defended his title agreeing to whatever rules fide threw at him including giving kramnik his 'rematch' and playing topalov on his home turf.

again dont get me wrong - i am not saying anand is the best ever. just that it is outright disrespectful to so many greats of chess to say garry was. i'd equate it to marion jones or ben johnson called the greatest sprinter ever - they are all cheats

Just to think... one player here said she would go 0/13. I doubt they would have made the comment if she were a man. Anyway, she's proven that she belongs in the group.

I don't have a strong argument against what you say, KC, but if Nakamura wins this tournament, he'll go home a happy guy. Fearful of Magnus? Yes, at least until he has a few more chances at him. Hikaru is too strong-willed to throw in the towel just yet.

Are you saying she loves odd dates? Someone please pass me her number.

Which comments do you mean? Even KC just referred to Nakamura's game (and supposed future record) against Carlsen: a player who loses against Magnus isn't automatically dead last, also because the Norwegian often wins more than one game in any given event ,:) .
And I mildly criticized Nakamura, based on his very own words (one year ago, but in a very comparable tournament situation).

[Chesshire Cat]
I note a slight difference in the pattern of play Carlsen-Anand and Carlsen-Nakamura...perhaps Magnus' testosterone boils up faster with rivals about his own age?

As the opponents of Tania Sachdev have thoroughly proved, high levels of testosterone doesn't necessarily transfer into a high level of chess.

I think the rivalry is simple:
"Everybody" agrees that Carlsen is the crown prince.
Nakamura wants it to be him.

Your anti-American crap is not welcome. Envious of a great country and people who actually believe in freedom and justice and are willing to fight for it.

I have to say that the best American hope since Fischer was Kamsky. Unfortunately at a point in his career he just stopped playing.

In the mid-1990s, Kamsky was near equal to Anand. Of course what happened 15 years ago does not guarantee that both would have developed to the same level.

you got me! I thought you were serious and fell right into your trap. Should have ignored your jokes like everyone else. Well played, Ma'm

I bet Magnus did that thing where he tucks his leg under his body. That must be incredibly annoying as he is blowing you off the board.

yes...weird, odd, pitted Medjools ;P

but it seems quite a coincidence to me that she's 4/4 playing 3000-level on odd dates and 0.5/4 2000-level on even dates..wonder if chess historians have any stats on other players with such skewed numbers..

Ah, but being in the middle of the C group rating doesn't make it as interesting anymore. It is much more fun to see the lowest player beat the top players of C-group and then lose to the middle ranking players.

Jay,

You shouldn't be too concerned on Magnus' behalf. He and Nakamura are friends and chess collegaues. The game speaks for its self. Magnus, if any, knows how bad Nakamura must have felt right after th game. Let the guys blow some steam after a bad loss.

-Asking a player to "change" personality is completely unrealistic. Besides I and many others find Nakamura to be a colourful part of the chess scene.

Some of the young super-GMs, like Nakamura and Magnus, share their thoughts and emotions through Twitter, blogs and other use of new IT. Which is fantastic. You dont have to wait 4 weeks for a magazine to arrive in your mailbox, to be updated on your favourite players.

These guys spend their best years of their lives entertaining us. Be grateful for the service!

How is Nakamura's statement "arrogant"? Do you know the definition of that word? Nakamura's statement is an example of "self-deprecation". I believe some people confuse every single statement he makes as arrogant.

I agree that Carlsen played well, but a chess player's blog is about the individual who owns it. If he said "I got crushed by Carlsen today. I'll be back." would that be any better? Maybe so, but it's his blog.

Medhjool dates are delicious!! :-)

No one's questioning his right to post whatever he wants on his blog. But you can be held accountable for your words, regardless of the forum.

It would be interesting to see if one time, just one time, Nakamura will admit to being squarely outplayed.

Daaim--
Where there's smoke there's fire. There is some truth to what Jay said. I wouldn't excoriate Nakamura for it, but he appears to be in denial. Was he physically sick? Then OK. Didn't sleep well? Alright. Even forgot his prep? Not mentioned. He just got waxed by, I think, the better player.

Crap happens, so we should give him some slack and see what happens heretofore. Maybe he'll recover and whack everyone else. Probably not. Most likely, he'll try to draw the rest; try to protect his lead. And even that won't be easy. But if he pulls that off, it would be great for him, and he'd go home very happy to have taken another step toward the elite crew.

Impossible, I assure you. But weep not.

Right. I doubt that you actually read everything written. You scanned the column, then came up with your hasty conclusion. Will we only hear from you again at the end if Hikaru finishes first?

How about putting your mouth where your money is, and leaving it there. We're not here to debate politics, mr. clueless.

Daaim needs reading comprehension classes really?
No reason to start insulting people, especially if you have no ground to stand on.

This is verbatim what you wrote:
"
HIKARU NAKAMURA:

I know you read this blog on occasion. Please do all American chess fans a favor (me included). I really, really want to like you, but your arrogance makes it hard.
On Twitter today you write "Pretty sure I could have played anyone or any opening and lost horribly today."
"

I can't really fault anyone for thinking your belief that Hikaru is arrogant is backed up in your mind by his twitter post. If those two thoughts are really not related why did you mention them together?

Interesting. Thanks for that. Kind of like firing the manager of the team even though you know it's the team's problem. That is, unless they weren't getting along, but the word was that Jan's prep for Smeets was solid, and Smeets faltered after theory. Did you or others hear that?

Yeah, don't believe everything on the Internet - at least not comments by anonymous guys using funny names ("your former boss")!

I can of course come up with a better translation than Google ,:) but it's not really worth it. Basically 'fake Smeets' accuses Gustafsson of putting too much energy into his blog and giving others a forum to write bad things about Smeets - indeed some comments were rather rude, typical stuff when players with unknown ratings comment on the play of a GM with Elo 2660. And "Maybe I'll pay you enough" should be "maybe I don't pay you enough".

"Funny all the banter about female player, Tania Sachdev, when GM Katherina Lahno, who is by the way only in the middle of the C group for rating, is kicking people from one end to the other."

Google "Tania Sachdev" and click on "Images" and you will understand...

Sorry to have discombobulated you so much that you post the same thing twice.

I can see why you are so perturbed though.
Nakamura made posted his Twitter comment around 1pm 1/23, you posted your comment quoting his twitter comment at 2:38pm, an hour and a half later. You saw Hikaru's tweet, lost control of your anger, and then proceeded to excoriate him in this forum fully expecting to get the usual peanut gallery of haters to cheer you on. When that didn't happen you immediately started backtracking on your post, even ridiculously claiming that your post didn't say anything about Hikaru's tweet being arrogant.

Nice try, pretty "cute". Everyone can see your original post at 2:38, and no one is buying it.

I'm (still) not giving up hope for you to mature a little more :)

Magnus-Hikaru reminds me of Yankees-Mets. For the Mets, it's always a big deal. For the Yankees, it's just another inferior franchise to beat.

"Proximity of two statements still doesn't, and never will, mean correlation."
- Jay

True, provided you write disjointed, non sequitur crap, which perhaps you do. But in the case of your original post, I have to concur with HC and Daaim : you plainly implied that Nakamura's tweet was arrogant, there is no other plausible explanation for your citing it in that context. Now you can try to pull a Clinton on us and split hairs about what the meaning of "is" is, but you're just emphasizing that you can't man up to what you initially wrote.

You know, there's no real shame in blurting out something stupid in the heat of the moment. But heaping fallacies upon lies in a lame attempt to save face, now that's embarrassing.

Oh, and keep the pathetic retorts coming, they're good for a laugh.

Reasonable, but note that ALL of Aronians opponents are in the bottom half of the cross table. If he gets 3 wins (plausible to me), then he is a likely winner (possible tie); if Anand gets drawish then Aronion could win outright. On the other hand, Carlsen is so streaky, it would be unsurprising if he ended up winning or tieing for the lead.

(I note that bottom half of cross table is not necessarily a good indication of form, because these players also vary in the strength of their opponents. It all looks wide open to me.)

It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future - Yogi Berra.

That being said, I predict that Carlsen & Anand will both be tied at +5, but Carlsen will win on tie-breaks.

Nak will NOT be bak.

Re: "Nak will NOT be bak."

If a post has words that rhyme
It is not worth reading time.

Anybody in the A division is capable of beating Anand if either a) he blunders, or b) one shows up with preparation surprising and good enough to back him onto his heels. Neither occur very often, as we've seen, but he's human. Do you think Nakamura will be prepared? Is there more than one view of Mount Fuji?

Vachier-Lagrave (he is playing in the A group, though you would hardly know it) is capable of beating Carlsen as well. Their blitz game record is even, I believe, for what that's worth. I'll bet Magnus takes that game very seriously.

Anyway stuff happens. I still can't understand Grischuk's record at Tata Steel so far? He's stronger than that.

Kenh wrote "Anyway stuff happens. I still can't understand Grischuk's record at Tata Steel so far? He's stronger than that."

Maybe Grischuk is thinking ahead to the candidates matches. That is to be expected.

FocusOnTheMoves,
If it is all about moves and techniques, why are you here? Why not just watch computer chess where the moves are higher quality?

Because the human stories make the whole thing much more interesting.

BTW: Nakamura is American, not Japanese. Yes, he was born in Japan and has Japanese ancestry, but he move to US when he was two, and he is distinctly American.

Does it matter where someone is from or who they are? Not really, but it certainly does add to the story.

Bodylanguage is one thing. Being outspoken and colourful another thing. Being emotional too.

But Nakamura also kibitzed and chatted a lot on ICC, at least he used to do that. And his behaviour on ICC tells a much different story than just being emotional, etc.

But Nakamura probably has a lot of potential to mature and become a man.

Dream results for Anand fans would be if current rybka eval favorites - Anand and VL - win today.. :)

Good point!

There could be two reasons for such behavior by Nakamura - either he's genuinely immature, or he just feels any publicity is good publicity, or a bit of both. I haven't been following his career a lot - so not in a position to comment on his maturity levels, but there might good reason for him to create a particular image of himself among fans and journalists. Its not cold war times anymore, but maybe he could benefit by 'west v/s rest' or 'me v/s them' talks. Perhaps get more invitations since 'diversity' seems to be catching on everywhere - not just in large corporations and ivy league schools.

Great chess players are known for playing great chess, not really for being very mature individuals. Anand and Kramnik are exceptions...

At what stage did Rybka give a clear advantage to Vachier-Lagrave (something like +0.2 doesn't count)?

And maybe Anand rather hopes for a draw in VL-Carlsen. After all, the Frenchman (though a bit overlooked *) is also in contention for first place - he could even be shared first right now if he hadn't missed a forced win against Wang Hao.

* e.g. the end of the round 8 video on the tournament homepage: "Anand and Nakamura are in the lead and favorites to win the event. Carlsen is back in the race, Aronian and Kramnik also have 5 points [so does Vachier-Lagrave, whom Bianca Muhren didn't mention]."

Sure, but fans often tend to root for the nicer guys. Also, and perhaps more importantly (from a monetary perspective), many corporates also base their endorsement decisions on the image a particular sportsperson has in the media and public - so that no harm or disrepute comes to the brand.

Yes, but VL has tougher opponents than Carlsen and unlikely to win too many games - so Anand would like VL to win.

The evals were somewhere between -0.5 to -0.8 (not sure when - am watching from work at chessok).

-0.5 to -0.8 would mean a slight advantage for Carlsen playing black? This would be more consistent with my own impression - but I am not only a weaker player, I also don't understand the Berlin (and avoid it with 4.d3 in my own white games).

I obviously agree that VL has tougher opponents in the remaining rounds - which could also mean that he has the chance to beat some of his direct competitors. But of course it would be a BIG surprise if he can actually fight for first place ... I just don't think Bianca Muhren would have forgotten to mention Giri if he had 5/8 !?

Well, this is an obvious underselling of Kasparov! He was very formidable at handling dynamic positions and just understood the game of chess much better than his contemporaries. Witness the intuitive comments he makes when observing top-level games today and how he quickly spots at a glance ideas that elite players miss entirely. Kasparov and his contemporaries could arrive at the exact same position and evaluate it differently, because he just understands chess much more than anyone else who has ever lived.

Hotep,

Maliq

Anand Nair: "There could be two reasons for such behavior by Nakamura - either he's genuinely immature, or he just feels any publicity is good publicity, or a bit of both."

Nakamura has grown up a lot in the last couple years.

I think Anand was -0.71 sometime just before the queens went off the board. It then went to 0.0 and now -0.74 thanks to 32.a3? :)

Of course all this need to be taken with a grain of salt. They're approaching zeitnot now, players are pragmatic and don't follow engine lines, etc..

I was actually asking about VL-Carlsen which by now has petered out to a draw. Yes, engine evaluations can change within a few moves (see Kramnik-l'Ami).

And now I am curious about the next tweets by Nakamura, Carlsen and Mig (who didn't comment on Naka's loss against Carlsen) ... .

If you're Maxime Vachier-Lagrave, you take it one game at a time. Otherwise it would be overwhelming. The medieval or American Indian idea of 'running the gauntlet' comes to mind. One down, four to go.

That's actually good news for Nakamura. If his main weakness is opening prep, that's probably the most fixable part of anyone's game (which is not to say it's easy, especially at the super-GM level). The fact that he managed to achieve a 2750 rating even without great prep suggests that he has the potential to climb higher. Does anyone know if he has a second?

Yea he does. He's talked about him in the past. An IM, who he gets along with real well and can bounce opening ideas off of.
Someone else here will know his name.

This tournament hasn't been the best advert for the Nakamura System. His openings failed against Giri, Ponomariov, Carlsen, and Anand. He was fortunate to scrape half points out of the first 2, the Magnus game was a disaster, and the last he had a scare with White.

I think Nakamura did quite well by his standards. To be leading the tournament at the half-way stage is quite impressive for a non-top 5 player.

Since virtuallly whatever happens, Naka's result will be a success, a gain in rating and in position in the top 10, and lead to more invites, a great many players would love to have his failure. Smeets is an opening master. Should Naka aspire to Smeets?

I like that different players have different ways of winning.

Please pardon my ignorance, but what's the Nakamura System?

I guess this is the surprisingly open account of Nakamura's approach to openings that's being referred to: http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/geekend/the-role-of-computers-in-planning-chess-strategy/4211

Actually it's not clear how much that differs from the approach of any other grandmasters. It's an open secret that they all spend mornings before games memorising lines (perhaps the degree depends on how good their memories are - I remember I think Grischuk talking about what a tedious process it was for e.g. Kramnik). Of course Kramnik probably has a more fundamental understanding of the openings he plays and is less likely to be thrown off by unprepared moves, but still - they're all in the same boat.

Agreed. And if Anand doesn't win with white against Shirov tomorrow, there's no way for him to win..

I don't think there is adequate data to answer this. No longer are there any significant human matches vs. computers, or computer participation in human tournaments. Thus, there is no reliable way to relate machine ratings to human ratings.

The only way I see to test this is if Carlsen is motivated by money and someone were willing to pay him e.g. 100,000 per draw and 250,000 per win against a top machine under tournament time controls. People definitely play differently depending on motivation.

10-0 Rybka. I would bet a large sum of money on it.
No disrespect to Magnus the Magnificent.

If things remain that close after round 12, all statistics and predictions are of limited value. It will be a matter of motivation, risk taking, nerves and a bit of luck. Does anyone remember the photo finish in 2009: six players tied for first before the final round, only Karjakin managed to win his game?

This time, five pairings could be relevant next Sunday:
I. Nepomniachtchi - V. Anand
V. Kramnik - M. Vachier-Lagrave
W. Hao - H. Nakamura
A. Grischuk - M. Carlsen
L. Aronian - J. Smeets
On paper, Aronian has the easiest task (and he plays l'Ami in the penultimate round).

Kramniks does not has to play Carlsen, because the latter is his customer these days!

Ps. What is the Guinness World record for average number of blog entry comments these days? And where is the Mig?

"I dont see any other major sport where we have a winner who has not defeated any of his three other major contenders."

Hmmm, football (soccer), or any other mainly league-based sport. It's perfectly common for the team that's better at beating the also-rans to win the league.

Whatever methods he has for preparing for his games.
In response to people saying that his tournament has been a success, you're attacking an argument I didn't make. I'm only talking about his openings, many of which have been dicey. If you are at a disadvantage of about half a pawn or more at some point during the opening (let's say before move 20) in almost half of your games, your openings are not succeeding.

funny coincidence that I just hear Federer say to Brad Gilbert on TV after his win against Warwinka - "you can't win this (Aus Open) by beating average players" (or something similar).

I, Rybka, will destroy Carlsen. Of course, you have to invoke me on a powerful computer. An Android phone just doesn't cut it.

On a serious note. Kramnik had a tough time against Deep Fritz under classical time controls in 2006.

I don't think any human has a shot against Rybka (or any other highly sophisticated, parallelizable chess program) running on a high-end compute farm.

I don't think there is any doubt Rybka or any of the modern leaders would win a tournament time control match against Carlsen. The question was whether it would be 9-1 or worse. I don't see any meaningful data to answer this question.

A more interesting question is when human knowledge (rather than frailty) is a deficit per se. What I mean by this is that at some point, in a postal type match of human+computer vs. computer, the human will be a deficit. I believe we are far from that now, and that human+computer would currently be very strongly favored against computer only in a postal match.

chesshire cat: "10-0 Rybka."

I'm dubious. Chess is supposedly a draw by a goodly margin -- a win only possible if one side messes up pretty badly. I don't think Carlsen would win a single game in 10, but he'd surely be able to draw a majority. 7-3 Rybka.

Correct, but if a match has to happen today, a more realistic matchup will perhaps be a fully loaded Rybka vs a top GM with good understanding of the nuances of the game (Anand/Kramnik/Aronian) with access to databases and an old program (say Fritz 6 - to eliminate outright blunders). Whether the human should have tablebase access is probably debatable.

And if this match ends up being close, and if FIDE can get their act together, they can have a candidates cycle and a WC match for programs along with the human WC match on even years and a man-machine match between the human-program world champions every odd year.

If anyone knows about a 960 match between a human and a computer, please let me know - I'm very interested.

I wouldn't be surprised if a strong chess program with some additional tweaks destroys the human in 960 even more easily than in regular chess.

Obviously, the biggest problem in 960 is that we don't have an opening book. However, the computer might be able to look deep enough so that the position start matching up with known opening positions or at least known opening structures which the computer can use to evaluate the current move. 960 is not that different from a computer's point of view.

In any case, if we are able to get the computer out of the opening without having major problems, it will go to town on the human after that.

That would be Bobby, of course. And what did he do? He used the creative aspects of his intelligence and created "random chess".

No, he didn't. He put his name to a small variation of shuffle chess with an electronic gadget. Shuffle chess had been around since the 18th century and Benko showed to Fischer if legend be true.

Capablanca invented his chess version because of the "draw death" that was just around the corner.
Still waiting...

I think the best example on what's wrong, or what could be better about Nakamura's opening preparation isn't any of his games in Wijk aan Zee, but his game against Howell in London 2010. He happily followed engine analysis ending in Q vs. R+N evaluated as +2 or +3, only to realize over the board that black has an impenetrable fortress. Here a human evaluation, and a second stronger than Kris Littlejohn, would have had added value with respect to brute engine force.

I am not saying that Nakamura isn't a good player, just that he, as well as anyone else rated below 5000, has room for further improvement.

And that (ladies and)gentlemen is now the official disclaimer used to prove your not a hater:

"I am not saying that [insert name] isn't a good player, just that he, as well as anyone else rated below 5000, has room for further improvement."

I am not saying all those calling people haters because you don't worship their demigods, are morons; just that they, as well as anyone else rated below 5000 (debating ELO) has room for further improvement.

Someone should write a book on the use of seconds in top level chess. The book should address the theory and history of security issues. This might be an excellent read.

If someone picks this idea up they're welcome to it. Just drop me an email so that I know I'm getting a free copy and being thanked in the acknowledgments.

Tourn, winners are worthy as long as they do not cheat...if you think beating the lower rated players is easy then let the guys you support do it otherwise it is a no-brainer to talk about worthiness.
Two, different kinds of tournaments have a right to exist...

The facts are indisputable...plus Naka has been at least tied for first the entire time I've been away.

"I think the best example on what's wrong, or what could be better about Nakamura's opening preparation isn't any of his games in Wijk aan Zee, but his game against Howell in London 2010. He happily followed engine analysis ending in Q vs. R+N evaluated as +2 or +3, only to realize over the board that black has an impenetrable fortress. Here a human evaluation, and a second stronger than Kris Littlejohn, would have had added value with respect to brute engine force."

That's a very fair point. But his opening prep is far from the weakness of his game overall.

What fact would that be? That you're a grandstander?

No, that Nakamura's opening preparation is a major STRENGTH, not a weakness. That's the fact I was referring to.

BTW, the only one grandstanding is you...when you actually support your opinions with FACTS as I have, then you won't be just full of hot air as you are now.

Before you ask that question, can I see your ID?

"Nakamura's opening preparation is a major STRENGTH, not a weakness. That's the fact"

Heh-heh.

Hey, if the shoe fits, why not wear it?

"Wow...Nepo declining the repetition and going for the win against Carlsen with black! Interesting decision..."

Of course Nepo is 20 years old, same as Carlsen, and the Russian champion.

I don't think Nepo is quite ready to fear Carlsen :)

In the first place, the grandstander failed to notice that it was Carlsen who declined the draw by repetition - not Nepo.

Uh....no. Nepo was the one who played 33...Qc8 instead of Qf3+ a second time. Nice try, patzer.

Both declined. Carlsen on move 18 and Nepo on 33.

"Of course Nepo is 20 years old, same as Carlsen, and the Russian champion.
I don't think Nepo is quite ready to fear Carlsen :)"

Good points.

It is just another way of saying Annad doesn't want to take risk even against low rated players.

Pioneer, I just remembered Nakamura having issues with the opening in the past, and recalled a couple games where he seemed to get in trouble early in the game. Looking at the first three games of this tournament though, proves you to be correct. Nakamura has benefited from better preparation against many of his opponents. The last two games he played against Anand and Carlsen stuck in my mind for some reason when I made the comment about his opening preparation. His last game against Vachier, looks like a win for his opening preparation as well! Btw, it's really handy looking at these games on ICC, where they actually have approximate times taken by the opponents for each move.

[Event "ICC"]
[Site "Internet Chess Club"]
[Date "2011.01.26"]
[Round "?"]
[White "*GM_Nakamura"]
[Black "*GM_Grischuk"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "83"]
[EventDate "2011.??.??"]
[TimeControl "6000+30"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Nf3 d5 5. cxd5 exd5 6. Bg5 Nbd7 7. e3 c5 8.
dxc5 Qa5 9. Rc1 Bxc3+ 10. bxc3 O-O 11. Nd4 Qxc5 (11... Ne4) 12. Bd3 Ne4 13. Bf4
Nb6 14. Qc2 h6 15. f3 Nf6 16. g4 Re8 17. Kf2 Nc4 18. h4 Bxg4 19. Bxc4 dxc4 20.
fxg4 Nxg4+ 21. Kf3 Ne5+ 22. Bxe5 Rxe5 23. Kf2 Rae8 24. Rh3 b5 25. Rg1 Re4 26.
Qd1 b4 27. Qf3 Rxe3 28. Rxg7+ Kxg7 29. Qg4+ Kf8 30. Rxe3 Rxe3 31. Kxe3 bxc3 32.
Ke2 Qe5+ 33. Kd1 Qh2 34. Ne2 Qd6+ 35. Qd4 Qxd4+ 36. Nxd4 Kg7 37. Nc6 a6 38. Nb8
a5 39. a4 Kf6 40. Nc6 Ke6 41. Nxa5 Kd5 42. Kc2 *

11.Nd4 looks like preparation, Nakamura played the game quickly to this point, the move was played only once before in the 2010 Russian championship. Grischuk too some time (6 minutes) on his next move, so he may have not been prepared very well for this. After Qxc5 (not played in the previous game) Nakamura also spent some time (8 minutes) on his next move. Nakamura won the opening battle in this game.

[Event "ICC"]
[Site "Internet Chess Club"]
[Date "2011.01.26"]
[Round "?"]
[White "*GM_Aronian"]
[Black "*GM_Nakamura"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "33"]
[EventDate "2011.??.??"]
[TimeControl "6000+30"]

1. d4 f5 2. g3 Nf6 3. Bg2 g6 4. Nf3 Bg7 5. O-O O-O 6. c4 d6 7. Nc3 Nc6 8. d5
Na5 9. Nd2 c5 10. Rb1 e5 11. dxe6 Bxe6 12. b3 d5 13. cxd5 Nxd5 14. Nxd5 Bxd5
15. Ba3 Bxg2 16. Kxg2 Nc6 17. Nf3 *

In this game, it looks like Aronian doesn't have anything special to play against this variation of Dutch defense. Nakamura plays quickly up to move 15, where white makes the 1st new move of the game. Aronian has already spent some time (20 minutes) getting to this position which is thought to be equal. Game drawn two moves later. I'd say bad preparation by Aronian. Nakamura is an expert on the Dutch defense, and I'd have thought Aronian would have something prepared. He probably didn't expect this variation of the Dutch, and just bailed out to the known equal line. Having to prepare something against the Dutch has got to be annoying for Aronian, when he knows Nakamura is one of the few players at this level that plays it occasionally. If Nakamura weren't in the tournament, everyone could just ignore preparing lines against the Dutch! Opening battle won by Nakamura.

[Event "ICC"]
[Site "Internet Chess Club"]
[Date "2011.01.26"]
[Round "?"]
[White "*GM_Nakamura"]
[Black "*GM_Shirov"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "185"]
[EventDate "2011.??.??"]
[TimeControl "6000+30"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O b5 6. Bb3 Bc5 7. c3 d6 8. a4
Rb8 9. d4 Bb6 10. axb5 axb5 11. Na3 O-O 12. Nxb5 Bg4 13. d5 Ne7 14. Bc2 Qd7 15.
Na3 Nexd5 16. h3 Bh5 17. exd5 e4 18. Bg5 Bxf3 19. Qd2 e3 20. Bxe3 Bxe3 21. fxe3
Be4 22. Rxf6 Bxc2 23. Rf4 Bg6 24. Nc4 Ra8 25. Na5 Rfe8 26. Ra3 Be4 27. c4 g5
28. Rf1 g4 29. h4 Qe7 30. Qf2 Bg6 31. b4 h5 32. Rc3 Qe5 33. Rb3 Qe4 34. Rc3 Qe5
35. Rfc1 Be4 36. Qf4 g3 37. Qxe5 Rxe5 38. Ra3 Kg7 39. Rf1 Ree8 40. Rfa1 Re5 41.
Nb3 Rxa3 42. Rxa3 Bxd5 43. Nd2 Be6 44. e4 Bg4 45. Rxg3 f5 46. Re3 Re8 47. Kf2
Ra8 48. exf5 Ra2 49. Rd3 Bxf5 50. Rd5 Be6 51. Rg5+ Kh6 52. Ke3 Ra3+ 53. Kd4 Ra1
54. g3 Rd1 55. Kc3 Rg1 56. b5 Rc1+ 57. Kd3 Bf7 58. Nb3 Rd1+ 59. Ke2 Rb1 60. Nd4
Bxc4+ 61. Kd2 d5 62. Nf5+ Kh7 63. Rxh5+ Kg6 64. Rg5+ Kf6 65. Ne3 Rb2+ 66. Kd1
Be2+ 67. Kc1 Rxb5 68. Kd2 Rb2+ 69. Kc3 Rb5 70. Nxd5+ Kf7 71. Re5 Bg4 72. Re7+
Kf8 73. Re4 Bf5 74. Nxc7 Rc5+ 75. Rc4 Re5 76. Rf4 Ke7 77. Kd4 Ra5 78. Nd5+ Ke6
79. Nc3 Ra8 80. g4 Bh7 81. Ke3 Rc8 82. Ne2 Ke5 83. Ra4 Rb8 84. Nd4 Rb1 85. Ra5+
Kf6 86. Kf4 Rf1+ 87. Nf3 Bc2 88. Kg3 Rb1 89. Ra6+ Kg7 90. Nd4 Bd3 91. Rd6 Kf7
92. Kf4 Ra1 93. h5 *

Shirov is an expert on this line of the Ruy. The first think comes on move 14..Qd7 by Shirov. Up to this point both players have been moving quickly. Shirov takes 20 minutes to play this move from a known position (50 games). Only two previous games had Qd7 played, and it looks like Shirov actually came up with the move over the board. Nakamura continued to play quickly up to move 17, and even there only spent 7 minutes on that reply. Opening preparation won by Nakamura in a big way on this game.

Thank you, lwolf. Thanks also for putting up the games from ICC, and using FACTS to reply to my statements about Naka's opening prep...as opposed to the hot air spewed by some on this forum.

Sometimes another way of saying "taking risk" is "being foolish" -- like Carlsen declining the repetition on move 17 and ending up in worse position.

"Good points."

Snort.

posts like this sound condescending too me.

This loss might hurt Carlsen -- as in it was not a one move blunder as against Giri. He just got outplayed after making only small inaccuracies.

"Young guns such as Giri and Nepo are going all out against Carlsen to prove that they can match him blow for blow. Carlsen's decision to skip this cycle is a mistake because not only he has to beat the veterans but also these young guns in the next cycle."

Quoted for truth. Carlsen thinks he's taking the easy way out by not competing in this cycle, but all he's doing is making it harder -- Giri, Nepo (who owned him in juniors), So, Karjakin, etc. are all his contemporaries and aren't scared of him -- even though right now they aren't as good as he is day in and day out. Plus there's no guarantee that Anand or Kramnik are going away, and certainly Aronian will be 2800+ level for several years to come.

"It is just another way of saying Annad doesn't want to take risk even against low rated players."

Which tree did you spend the last 10 years of your life under to have received such enlightenment?

kenh wrote ""Good points." Snort."

Seems like you snort when you you have nothing intelligent to say but want to say something nonetheless.

Right on. There is no reason to consider Carlsen more talented than the rest. He matured early, and with full use of Garry's opening database enjoyed a moment of raise.

Winning the opening battle does not imply winning the game. You could win the opening battle against an opponent and still lose the game. Nakamura was obviously better prepared than Shirov in this line, as can be determined by how quickly he played succeeding moves after Shirov's 14..Qd7. I think by move 17 Shirov had spent almost an hour to Nakamura's 10 minutes on the clock. Definite win for Nakamura in the opening in that game.

"It is just another way of saying Annad doesn't want to take risk even against low rated players."

Which tree did you spend the last 10 years of your life under to have received such enlightenment?

"Carlsen couldn’t play at his full strength"

Actually he didn't play that badly. Only small inaccuracies. Nothing like the game against Giri. Nepomniatchi played extremely well. It was truly impressive considering that Nepomniatchi also played very fast and all game had nearly an hour left on his clock.

Achievements are one thing. Talent is another. Naka has got the talent. Kasparov could see it many years ago and was bold enough to predict that Naka would become a candidate for the title. It's not the same as saying that he definitely will become Champion one day, but he has got that firm basis of unique talent on which to build.

So far his talent has not helped him to win even one super tournament.Kasparov always wants to please the American audience and hence makes such statements. Becoming a candidate is different from becoming a serious contender and I have no reason to believe at this moment that Nakamura has got in him to seriously mount a challenge to become world champion. I am really happy if he proves me wrong because an American champion will certainly boost Chess and its commercial prospects.

Lighten up please. How boring it would be if we didn't have our favourites when following chess and were just impartial and neutral observers. My favourite player is Naka and he was already back when he was barely 2600. It's nice to see a player you follow closely to develop and do well.

It's the same in all sports. Some root for Federer, some for Nadal, some even for Andy Murray although he is very boring and plays like a robot. :)

He has only played in a couple of them. We can agree to disagree. What I base my faith on is Naka's ability to calculate long lines and visualize variations in an instant. As anyone who follows him on the net knows, he sees more in one minute than most GMs see in 5. If he can transform that basic strenght of calculation to benefit his OTB play it will mean tremendous tactical ability. The basis of all chess strenght. Time will tell whether this prediction was reasonable or not.

Indeed, Anand is an extremely pragmatic player--for better or worse. He plays solidly, steers clear of murky lines (unless the tournament situation calls for it), and handles the clock well. Kramnik is pretty pragmatic as well.

"Right on. There is no reason to consider Carlsen more talented than the rest. He matured early, and with full use of Garry's opening database enjoyed a moment of raise."

WTF?
Carlsen loses a game, and doink! up pops someone with that comment?!
Let me explain something: Most of us actually paid attention to who's been winning what during the past two years. You haven't, and it's obvious.

Plenty of drivel coming from you and Pioneer (nothing new). I can only snort when I read something borrowed w/o attribution, stupid, or just inane, like the above.

I'm sitting here stunned at how ignorant and silly some of your comments are. Maybe tennis is your thing. Best stay with that.
Holy smokes.

I have followed the tournaments in which he did well. Maturing early does not necessarily mean better talent. And if you deny that full access to the opening database of the best ever player, and the best ever opening expert did not contribute to Magnus's success and his subsequent raise from 2760's to 2800+ then who is being biased here? Not me.

Kenh, you need to chill... yes, this is the internet like many others you may feel that it is macho to abuse... but really, the audience on this site thinks worse for you for doing so.

Seems like Naka and Nepo have only played each other twice, both blitz and both draws!

No sir. I won't. I just call 'em as I see 'em.

Swiss, the hype about Nakamura is not just that he is American (although that certainly contributes to English language hype), but also that he has rocketed to the the stratosphere without slowing down and hasn't showed any signs of slowing down yet. He also plays interesting, uncompromising, attacking chess (most of the time).

ur right kenh, u've been paying attention to who has been winning tournaments the last 2 years.
what you havent been paying attention to (or are choosing to ignore) is carlsen'd sub-par performance against the higher rated GM's.

Are you hear to start/resolve a debate or hijack the thread by making blatant racist statements?

If that is the case why is that Japan has so many masters in the game of Go which is far more complex than chess?

Senthil

Probably because Go is not popular with Caucasians and is played mainly by East Asians.

Nothing wrong with having favourites and rooting for them. But don't go crusading on their behalf on a message board, while taking any negative comment about them as a personal insult. If you do, it just means you are using some sportsman to patch up your own fragile ego and phallic insecurities.

I have not posted any personal insults. None. I have only explained why I think highly of Nakamura's ability. And I'm not crusading as generally I post very rarely here. The personal insults and childlish jibes have come mostly from, whom I assume to be Carlsen fans, that seem to be in aggressive state of mind because their idol isn't playing well lately.

These "norwegians" have been a nuisance on the internet forums and servers for years. Acting aggressively every time someone dears to think that their boy isn't the best player yet, and perhaps ever won't be. They would like to discuss whether he will reach 2950 or 3000.

Now they are screaming when reality is biting them in the backside. And it is dawning on them, that Magnus is just one talent of many talented young players, not necessarily the most talented one.

I thought she should have played ...Nd2 instead of Nd4+. That would have given her a better chance than the game continuation.

My original comment was not directed to you. (Though, come on, this last post of yours is not exactly hinged.) I am more embarrassed when people go overboard fawning over my own favourite player, Anand.

On behalf of Ptr and many others looking on, you are getting very tiresome.

Thanks, I agree.

Thx to the cat for some Irish humor, and for the game score.
Old guy beats up-and-coming young guy from the black side?!

Tee-hee!

Currently, tiebreaks favor Anand and Aronian - Nakamura's win against Vachier-Lagrave and loss against Carlsen cancel each other out, beyond that he only beat the four tailenders. So Anand's wins against Ponomariov and Wang Hao, and Aronian's win against Nepo are worth more Sonneborn-Berger points (of course I know that Aronian needs one 'extra' win in the remaining rounds to catch the current leaders).

"The Nak _will_ win on tiebreak" seems unlikely at this stage. (I am not a hater, just an observer).

However, I think in case of a tie for first those players will be declared shared winners (but only one of them gets the Bilbao invitation).

I wonder if the fact that Anand had white 6 times, and Nakamura had white 7 times, will impact the tie-break?

Oh, is "more wins" not the first criteria to decide tie-breaks? My bad if it is not. But I will be very surprised if that is the case because that is usually the rule in most tournaments.

Did you account for tie-breaks? If so, what tie-break rules did you use?

Elo takes rating differences into account. If you play against weaker players, you gain fewer points if you win, and lose more if you draw/lose. Playing against weaker players isn't inherently inflationary.

Anyhow, rating inflation has nothing to do with top players per se, or the inclusion of Dutch players. It's been observed at all levels.

I think there is a lot of truth in this post, it shows good insight about Nakamura. Except I think the reason for the hype isn't only because he's American, but also because momentum is surely swinging his way. That can be arrested anytime for sure, particularly in a young player (I didn't say Magnus Carlsen, but maybe some thought it).

But for now it's as if Nakamura's slowly revealing himself to be The Cape, or The Dark Knight, or Bobby Fisher, or whatever superhero us nerdy and boisterous Americans had hoped he would be.

As just as a point of trivia here, there is no first step to enlightenment. It happens to be wherever you are.

To beat Carlsen and Naka two days in a row. That would be a statement.

Most US top players have higher USCF ratings than FIDE ratings.

For example, from the curren USCF top list:

1 Nakamura, Hikaru (12641216) NY USA 2822
2 Kamsky, Gata (12528459) NY USA 2797
3 Onischuk, Alexander (12625186) VA USA 2753
4 Akobian, Varuzhan (12740522) CA USA 2704
5 Shulman, Yury (12741541) IL USA 2700

Compare these to the FIDE ratings:

2751, 2730, 2689, 2675, 2637.

This is the way I remember it for the USCF vs. FIDE going all the way back to the beginning (1970s ; yes, I go that far back).

I agree, Anand & Aronian will win on tie-break against The Nak. I guess The Nak is NOT bak.

http://www.tatasteelchess.com/news/view/id/585/c/Tiebreak_Corus_Chess_Tournament

Thomas, thanks for your reports... much appreciated.

traditionalist, you are right that your posts are less full of crass insults than, say, kenh or other spewers, but "I have not posted any personal insults. None" is taking it a it far, e.g. later in your post flow the personal insults:

"childish jibes have come mostly from..."

"aggressive state of mind because their idol..."

"These 'norwegians' have been a nuisance"

etc.

How about some rest day predictions -

http://www.chessbase.com/news/2011/wijk/wikja10.gif

Anand on +4 with games against VL, Nepo, Giri to come. So probably he'll finish somewhere between +5 and +6, say +5.

Naka on +4 with games against Kramnik, Nepo, Wang. Say a loss/draw either Kramnik and a win or two against the others. +5.

Aronian on +3 with games against Pono, Smeets, L'ami. Two wins. +5.

Kramnik on +3 with games against Naka, Carlsen, VL. Likely one more win. +4.

So final standings could well see a three-way tie for first between Anand, Aronian and Naka.

Yeah, I'm leaning towards 3 way tie as the most likely outcome (Anand, Naka, Aronian). But any two or one of these are almost as likely. The tiniest bit of luck, good or bad, shifts away from the 3 way tie outcome. If there is a sole winner, I would have to say Anand is the most likely; he doesn't have a Kramnik to break his momentum, like Naka; he doesn't have to come from behind like Aronian.

But rather surprisingly, Anand seems to be a much bigger favorite according to the odds at bestbetting -

http://odds.bestbetting.com/chess/tata-steel-chess/winner-2011-winner/

Anand is almost 50% more than Aronian and 300% more than Nakamura a favorite to win. I am sure they surely mean the final standings after taking the tie-breaks into consideration. They seem to be having information regarding the tie-break criteria which isn't on the official site.

I am not considering tiebreak at all. It may be significant for trophies or invites, but is so out of control of the player I reject it completely for appreciating player's achievements.

I wouldn't take the sports book odds on face value. Those odds reflect the collective attitudes of the betting public and not a panel of "experts". The bigger names will be somewhat more heavily favored (all things equal) for obvious reasons.

Although I wouldn't take sports book odds on face value, they are definitely more accurate than whatever a panel of "experts" can come up with.

Actually I shared your gut feeling about Nakamura-VL, even though I slightly disagree about the opening preparation part: Vachier-Lagrave is also strong in that respect - see his Grunfeld win with black against Shirov earlier in the event and also his anti-Moscow win with white against Gelfand at the Olympiad (where prep went all the way into a rook endgame). That, among other things, is what I meant earlier: Several players had both good and bad days regarding opening preparation, Nakamura is no exception either way.

I wonder if you also mean that with "mental thing", or if you are even aware of what's next: Vachier-Lagrave may be affected by cheating accusations/insinuations/investigations against other French players. The Tata participants (VL, Fressinet, Tkachiev) are innocent, but their Olympiad teammate Feller and coach Hauchard might be guilty. [This was just briefly mentioned here and was/is discussed elsewhere, e.g. Chessvibes - I don't mean to start a new subthread].

Related (well, not): Fressinet went for a cigarette during the game to the smoking tent outside the building and was accompanied by a tournament representative. Actually his position against Spoelman already seemed beyond repair at that moment, which might have been his reason for blowing off some steam ... .

Slight addition to my report: Giri and Aronian both thought that white was somewhat better in the final position (source: Chessvibes), hence disagreeing with Timman + Sokolov. But Giri remembered his game against Nepo and decided to play it safe this time ... .

The first barrier to fall was 2200.

If we know that Anand will be considered "winner" (even if he shares 1st place with Naka/Aronian) based on say, fewer whites as the tie-break criteria, then sure can accept the 9/10 odds. Its appalling that the official site does not have the tie-break criteria mentioned anywhere. FIDE may change their rules every few days, but at least they post those rules up on their website.

I have been following it too, but I feel this time there is no apparent change if there is an update as in --- Carlsen loss does not change the order of rankings.

Maybe Hans is a Carlsen fan..the difference has increased slightly now - Anand is at 2820.7, Aronian is 2812.8 and Carlsen at 2807.0 - the only three guys above 2800. But by the end of this decade there should be at least as many players above 2800 as there are above 2700 today.

Yes, if the bets factor in the tie-break rules. I'm guessing they do if the odds are that different.

Yes, I have noticed that live ratings are a bit slow to be updated when Carlsen loses...

Also if Anand is now at 2,821 that exceeds his previous highest on that list of 2,818. Quite an achievement for a 42 year old!

Let me qualify my previous statement about betting odds being more accurate than a panel of experts.

I believe this statement to be true if the number of people who have placed their bets is sufficiently large.

Sadly keith you cant live on past achievements so Carlsen achievements are judged by trend in recent games. All the criticism gains tremendous force due to the comments by Kasparov which simply cannot be dismissed. There is a feeling that he believes he is the best player in the world and doesnt need to be the hardest working player in the world and doesnt need the help of kasparov, doesnt need to play in the WCC cycle. Lets hope he is right but it seems unlikely. I back Kasparov on this one. I think its incredibly hard to stay at no 1 or to stay world champion for an extended period of time no matter how talented you are.

live rating: The list certainly does seem to be updated promptly after a Carlsen win and slowly after a Carlsen loss. Understandable! The author of the live rating list is an acquaintance of Magnus' and a fellow Norwegian.

"Is it just me or does the maintainer of the live rating list (http://chess.liverating.org/) always "forget" to update the list after a Carlsen loss."

It is just you. Delays in the list occurs both when Carlsen is wining, losing or even doesnt play at all.

-Sometimes there are several tournaments going on at the same time, making it a big job to do. -Sometimes he's waiting for some verification from Chinese league or some other remote place on earth. Or Mr Runde is simply bussy doing other things like work and family life.

Maintaining the Live rating list is a free service to the chess society. I dont think he has any google ads, even. He pays it from his own pocket.

I agree. News of Kasparov working with Carlsen came in September 2009. But they were already working for a while before that news. As far as I know the rumors were in right after Linares of 2009 during Amber tournament.

In that period with Kasparov until March 2010 (about 1 year) Carlsen only lost 3 games in total in classical chess (2 against kramnik and 1 against Shirov)

After the split upto now he has lost 10 in little less than year. It could be due to several factors, but one cannot rule out Kasparov. More so that he may not be putting in the same amount of hard work as he was when he was working with Kasparov.

I doubt my observation is a mere coincidence. Once or twice maybe it's a coincidence, but not almost every single time. Do you want to run an experiment?

There aren't really that many tournaments going on at the same time at this elite level (Chinese league?) Also, Mr. Runde doesn't have to wait for all results to come in before updating the list. That's why he has a column for the number of games played. So, the list can be updated whenever *any* results comes in.

He's 41

Tiebreaks are only used if necessary to determine qualifiers from the B and C groups, although I do believe the organizers have sometimes invited tied winners.

Genghis is not afraid of anything.

I visit this website only when a tournament or a world championship match is going on. Yeah, go on. Call me a troll. Like I care.

The handle acts as a subject or a funny remark that goes with the post.

Genghis Khan is supposed to be funny? Or what subject?

Sometimes the handle acts as a subject, sometimes as a funny remark, sometimes both, and sometimes neither.

Take your pick.

ceterum and delendam, my dear.

I agree - civil discourse on the internet requires a stable identity. The least you can do is use your regular alias.

I'm not so sure about that.

Civil discourse requires the participants to at least make a serious attempt at being civil, notwithstanding the stability of their "identities."

Many posters on this message board who have stable "identities" are sometimes quite uncivil. And posters, such as yours truly, who do not have a stable "identities," are sometimes quite agreeable.

"Sometimes" is weak. Intermittent trolls by definition are still trolls. Got something to contribute, great! Why not give yourself a stable identify.

Thank you! If now people could learn the difference between "troll" and "troller", all would be right with the world.

genghis khan, billy batts, whatever...it's probably time to get back to the blog subject at hand, if anyone has something interesting. And I don't mean more of who to bet on over the next three days. Aayiiiiiiii.

Thomas, if you don't have any news on Linares 2011, then there simply is no news to be found
;-(
Last year's XXVIIth Edition was staged on the cheap: No Anand, no Carlsen, no Kramnik....
It was reduced to a 6 player Double Round Robin Format. It was nominally the tournament that had the highest Average Rating (2758) in the series, though hardly can claim to be the strongest.

The Spanish economy is in horrible shape. Maybe somebody will organize a Category II event?
It would be a shame to lose another Super GM event, but...

"Number of wins is used in Linares (BTW, any news on Linares 2011?)"

I wouldn't rule anything out, at this point.
Yes, Nakamura has a Shot, but it is a "longshot".
Younger players like Nepomniatchi and Karjakin probably have brighter Championship prospects, not to mention Giri and Wesley So. Nakamura is out of this WC cycle, and it will probably be 2015 or 2016 before the next cycle gets concluded. Who knows what curently unheralded player will have a meteoric rise in the meantime?

"It is too early to tell, but apart from Topalov, Carlsen, and Aronian, Nakamura seems to be someone who has a shot at being the WC."

DOug,
Nakamura just turned 23. Over the hill? Not quite yet. It seems like he is still rising pretty fast, and there are not many players still above him.

My random thoughts (replying to you as well as DOug):

1) Linares: I read that Carlsen will participate, and that Linares will be/remain part of the Grand Slam. The latter would imply that it takes place and has several top10 or at least top30 players. Of course this may be outdated, I mainly wondered if there is any info (presumably it would be bad news) from Spanish sources. We have several Spaniards (or Spanish citizens, maybe people from the Basque country or Catalonia don't want to be referred to as 'Spaniards') following this blog ... .
I don't think last year's edition was that bad: Going to six players, they didn't set but followed a trend (Bazna, Dortmund, Nanjing). And the field wasn't bad either (Topalov, Aronian, Grischuk, Gelfand, Gashimov, Vallejo). Maybe Topalov and Aronian don't have the same standing as Carlsen, Anand and Kramnik (no longer or not yet), but they are/were the other top5 players. And the others aren't exactly random patzers either (every supertournament has a local wildcard, justifying Vallejo's participation).

"particularly if we disregard his strange win against Kramnik"

You continue to lose credibility talking about Naka, despite occasionally making some good insights. Naka tempted Kramnik to self-destruct, just as Vishy tempted Topalov to do the same in the final game of the World Championship. I suppose you would then try to justify "disregarding" Anand's win as well, right? Ridiculous.

"I do not question that Nakamura is talented and has achieved a lot"

Well, obviously you can't anymore, although you still try to demean his play. Anyone with half a brain could have told you that Naka just needed the opportunity that Wang Yue got with supertourney invites, and you'd see at least similar if not better results.

I think "edge" is a bit optimistic...looks dynamically equal to me. But once again, Naka's opening prep has given him a good chance.

Half-decent point, but I don't think one can compare the final game of a WCh match with a regular (super)tournament game. So I prefer to compare Kramnik-Nakamura with Carlsen-Giri: in both cases, the nominally stronger and more experienced player had a complete offday and lost. I would have given Nakamura full credit if he had beaten Kramnik at Tal Memorial.

Kramnik-Nakamura was special in a very special way. Would you agree that Nakamura didn't show anything special in the remaining rounds of London? He lost to Carlsen (nothing to be ashamed of), beat Short (well, almost everyone did) and drew his other games.

As to Wang Yue getting supertournament invitations earlier than Nakamura: well it's simple - first you have to cross 2700 and maintain such a rating for a while, then you get invitations. These days, with so many 2700ers around (currently 39) 2720-2730 may be required for _regular_ invitations. The only exception are local wildcards: the USA could have organised a supertournament, but plans for such an event in Seattle (where Naka lived for a while) never went past "announcement of intention".

"You continue to lose credibility talking about Naka ..." - well, for you only unconditional Naka worshippers have full credibility.

" for you only unconditional Naka worshippers have full credibility."

Not true. I have always been consistent on my view of Naka...a great talent capable of very good results against the highest competition, but not yet a WCC contender -- although his recent consistency over the past 3-4 months has caused me to potentially reconsider his candidacy to be a contender to Anand, Kramnik, Carlsen, Aronian. There are no excuses in chess...you are what you are. I have no tolerance for anyone who tries to explain away a result on the board, no matter what it was (i.e. you're belittling Naka's win over Kramnik with black). I also have no tolerance for anyone suggesting that Naka is somehow incapable of being a consistently elite player...of course, the Tal Memorial made a lot of haters show him respect, but he deserved respect even before that tourney.

"Would you agree that Nakamura didn't show anything special in the remaining rounds of London?"

Yes, I would...if he had, he would have won the tournament (remember though that he had already scored 1.5/2 with the black pieces against Anand and Kramnik). Your point about his draw against Howell was spot on, as I have said before...I really believe that game was the turning point downward for him in London -- if he wins that, he'd probably have great chances to have won the tourney outright. He also threw away a much better position against McShane as well.

Comparing Kramnik vs. Naka with Carlsen vs. Giri is laughable. Giri hasn't played Carlsen 4 additional times with three draws as Naka has with Kramnik. Plus Giri isn't even 2700 and Naka is world top-10.

I just want to see credit given where credit is due. Naka is a world top-10 player, and has had only 5 supertournament invites thus far (Netherlands 2010 and 2011, London 2009 and 2010, and Tal Memorial)...I'd like to see what he can do when he is given the opportunities players of similar age have been given (i.e. Yue, Karjakin, Carlsen, etc.) with regard to supertourney invites. Remember he also blew a winning position with black against Grishuk which would have given him shared first at the Tal Memorial.

Naka being over 2700 is not a new phenomenon...its been almost three years now (since May of 2008). Yue became 2700 only a week before Naka did (last week of April 2008). So yes, its a fair comparision regarding supertourney invites between those two players.

And the 2010 U.S. Championship?

Thomas, I like Grischuk, and I guess I'm just worried about him. I have most definately not relegated him to the rubbish heap of history! I just want to know what's going on. He's much better than that.

As to Kramnik-Nakamura and Carlsen-Giri, I just compared the games themselves: In both cases, white gave away a piece in the opening phase - the only difference is that Carlsen clearly blundered, while in Kramnik's case it was a very speculative sacrifice. Players' ratings and earlier head-to-head scores don't matter, e.g. I would say the same about Carlsen-Ivanchuk, Corus 2010 (here Magnus was on the receiving side).

As to Nakamura's invitations vs. Wang Yue, Karjakin and Carlsen, you seem to cherry-pick some live rating lists, official FIDE ratings tell a different story:
Jan 2008 Naka 2670, Wang Yue 2698 (Karjakin 2732, Carlsen 2732 - we can stop 'monitoring' them as they always stayed [well] above 2700 ever since)
Apr 2008 Naka 2686, WY 2689
Jul 2008 2697 vs. 2704
Oct 2008 2704 vs. 2736 (from that point on, Wang Yue had a consistent rating edge for a while. Nakamura was officially >2700 because organizers of the Montreal open 'forgot' to submit their rating report to FIDE)
Jan 2009 2699 vs. 2739
Apr 2009 2701 vs. 2738
Jul 2009 2710 vs. 2736
Sep 2009 2735 vs. 2736 (from that point onwards, Naka caught and overtook Wang Yue and got the same amount or more invitations).

As I said before, 2700 may no longer be enough and 2730 is required. I do not really endorse (excessive) focus on ratings, but that's the way organizers think - also to obtain the highest possible category for their event.
Karjakin and Carlsen also earned their first Corus A invitations, going through the B group (and before the C group). Nakamura declined several Corus B invitations ... .

Bad tourney. Just like Carlsen's 2010 Olympiad. Even playing poorly in nearly every game that tournament, Naka still made the semis with a chance to defend his 2009 title.

I think it more accurate to say that he was the (2009) U.S. Champion, and as such deserved to compete in the A group.

Good point that he may no longer need to be reigning US champ in order to get invites...I'm sure that's the primary reason he got his first 2 supertourney invites (2009 London, 2010 Netherlands) b/c he was the reigning US champ at that time.

However, I expect that he will play. Besides its not like he's the only super-GM there...Kamsky (who I give a good chance against Topalov in the upcoming Candidates, btw) should be there, and is the defending champion.

By now, yes - but not two, three or five years ago. Currently even some 2700+ players are "degraded" to the B group. Many rising stars do not consider it a degradation, but a career opportunity and a chance to qualify for the A group even with (for the time being) Elo <2700. The latest ones were Caruana and Giri. Currently Wojtaszek (who's already a 2700er), Wesley So and Le Quang Liem try the same.

Doesn't make sense for Nakamura to waste his time, energy and prep playing Americans. Its almost like Hu Yifan having her growth restricted by playing women-only events. He should behave well, make good friends, find a stronger second (probably a natural extension of behaving well and making friends) and maybe even move his residence to Europe (like Anand did in Spain).

No need for Naka to move to Europe...with his rating going above 2770, he can get all the supertourney invites he needs without having to move from the USA.

And I think his second is doing quite well now ;). Littlejohn is someone Naka trusts, and who is obviously very proficient at maximizing the machine potential in prepping for opponents.

In Tata 2011 alone, Naka is +5, and his opening prep has been instrumental in his wins. His games against Anand, Carlsen, Ponomariov and Giri were the only ones where he was worse out of the opening, and even in those four games, he was only -1. In his other 7 games, he is +6 (!!) with the only draw being a complete neutralization of Aronian with the black pieces in the Dutch.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it...there's no need for Naka to change his second at the moment.

Do you mix up some things? Nakamura already played Corus A last year. Actually I don't think being US champion was the main or only reason for being invited: Overall, winning the US Ch is at most comparable to winning Corus/Tata B - only Nakamura (rather recently) and Kamsky (until recently?) are typical Wijk A group players.

For example, the French champion isn't automatically invited anywhere, and there the field is at least comparable to the US Championship. (The USA are obviously bigger by surface and total population, but France is just as big as a chess country)

That is so interesting, Traditionalist. Thanks. I always wondered about Naka's second.

To all and sundry: Can Carlsen win this ending?

Agree, if Naka survives Kramnik, he will go into the last round as a clear favorite (last game is against Hao).

That link was given by Mishanp last week, my friend, and probably surfaced way before that. It's an older article. So, yes, we know about it.

I'm so excited! Snort!

Jeez. Are you a member of Hikaru's entourage?

Are you human or horse? You certainly snort often enough...

Yep, I meant August-Sept '09.

Yes. Terrible. Just terrible. I'm an American crying in my beer. Where do you come up with this stuff?

"..the fact that Naka will soon overtake Carlsen."

not a big fan of *fact* and *will* being too close together ;P

Just a neutral observation. You seem to be of the breed of internet chess fans who jump up and get agitated every time they see someone praising Nakamura. Someone says "Naka played well", can't have that must counter with "geez you part of his entourage" or another sneering comment of such variety. It is an odd breed. With its endless McDonalds "jokes" on the ICC, and it's long and bitter memory of what Naka said or kibbed on ICC that one day back in 2001. It was a very nasty kib you know.

Frogbert used to patrol Naka's chessgames.com page writing pages long essays on why it is not objective to consider Naka a top player.

An odd breed indeed.

Hmm, a traditionalist getting enthusiastic about supposedly cutting-edge computer technology!? ,:) Aside from the fact that (maybe, probably) other top GMs do rather similar things, it doesn't replace a traditional [sic] old-fashioned coach or second. No need to get rid of or "fire" Kris Littlejohn, but maybe it wouldn't hurt to add a stronger chess player to his 'entourage'? He could, for example, help with chessic and psychological insights into opponents - most relevant if Nakamura eventually ends up playing (candidates, WCh) matches. It wouldn't have to be an American-Russian GM, e.g. Anand's and Topalov's seconds come from all over the place ... .

The issue might be that Nakamura cannot handle someone who might disagree with and criticize him? Or that, given his reputation, qualified candidates won't be interested?

the comment above by "stupid kid" shows how appropriate his name is.

but I'm sure you would've held this endgame better than Kramnik. right.

Of course a second needs to be trusted, but how can other top players trust their seconds? You will probably argue that Nakamura's opening preparation is much better than anyone else's, I would disagree ... .

From the tournament website (Ian Rogers): http://live.tatasteelchess.com/f3/livecommentary.html

"Carlsen was pleased with the win but said that Kramnik had to play very carelessly to lose this endgame. He pinpointed 59.Bb7 as the final error, because after 59...Kd2 White is in zugzwang. "If he had played 59. Bc8! I don't see how I can win. I would have had to bring my king back and play for ...d4, but I don't think it is enough. I have plenty of time to try, though." Earlier in the game, Carlsen described 16...b5 as "a trap. He missed that if 19.Nxd7 I have this very nice move 19... Bb7!!. Then after 22.Qxb5 he offered a draw, but I have played Kramnik often enough to know what that means - I must play on. "I was disappointed to see 24. Qe3 - I didn't see any way to win after that. But he really played the endgame carelessly. I think he could have played 44.Ke6 - after I get ...g5+ I at least have winning chances."

>> You will probably argue that Nakamura's opening preparation is much better than anyone else's, I would disagree

Thomas, I actually thought his opening prep was inferior because a couple games stuck in my head, and he'd just suffered through the Carlsen/Anand games.

After looking at the games he's played again, I made the startling discovery that Nakamura has been the best prepared player in this tournament. There's no doubt in my mind that his opening prep was superior to his first three opponents and helped him in those games. Look at my earlier post where I document that FACT. I didn't look at the rest of the games up to the Carlsen/Anand encounters that closely, but I thought Carlsen outplayed him in the opening (and went on to win the game), and against Anand he was lucky to defend a very difficult position he got himself into from the opening.

He bested Vachier in the opening as well and went on to win that one. In the game today against Nepo he had another opening success and went on to win that also.

If you don't believe what I'm telling you, please be specific as to why. I can document Hikaru's brilliant preparation easily in all these games, thanks to ICC having time stamps on the moves as they were played. Point out the other players that you think were better prepared, and explain to me how you reach that absurd conclusion.

It's not over yet though. Two more rounds. I'm sure we are all rooting for Hikaru, right?

Congrats on a great tournament!

Carlsen won and the ratings are updated!

Why am I not surprised? :)

I got the quote (or misquote) from the tournament website - http://www.tatasteelchess.com/tournament/report/round/11

What if the chap who maintains live ratings is a little favorable to Carlsen? What he is still doing is a great service expecting nothing in return

The context of my comment was a bit different: does Nakamura regularly produce spectacular novelties, where a second could do great damage revealing them to his opponent? I don't think so, and I think you overrate Naka's preparation - one could even argue that you don't do enough justice to his abilities over the board:
- If he wins from unclear positions, it's opening preparation (Shirov, Nepomniachtchi)
- If he outplays the opponent from an even position where he actually offered an early draw, it's opening preparation (l'Ami)
- If both players follow known theory and the game ends in a draw a few moves later, it's opening preparation (Aronian)
In Nakamura-Smeets, according to Smeets' second Gustafsson black simply forgot his preparation (I am inclined to believe him, Smeets is an expert in the Botvinnik). This leaves Naka's games against Vachier-Lagrave and (possibly) Grischuk where preparation made a BIG difference.

Other obvious preparation victories were [winners in capitals] SMEETS - Shirov, ANAND - Wang Hao, Shirov - VACHIER-LAGRAVE, Shirov - KRAMNIK and maybe KRAMNIK - l'Ami (objectively, Kramnik didn't have much but his unique concept led to a quick victory). If a draw with black is considered a success, one can add Anand - KRAMNIK and Nepo - SHIROV. I don't think Naka stands out. If one player stands out, it's Shirov in a negative sense - supporting Gustafsson's statement (after round 1) that his preparation isn't at the level of other top players.

Thomas, I don't mean to insult you but, you're hardly even making sense anymore.

Do you even know what an opening advantage is?

Against Shirov it was at the very least time on the clock. Yes, in an even position, if your opening system killed an hour of your opponents time verses 15 minutes of yours, that's the result of better preparation normally.

Your black against the second highest rated player in the tournament (Aronian), the game follows known theory for 12 or so moves, and a couple moves later your opponent offers a draw. I call that an opening victory. Not sure what you make of it.

Then you go on in your typical manner spouting the usual gibberish when it comes to actually forming an opinion.

There's five games I looked at pretty closely where Hikaru showed better preparation than his opponents. There's two (Anand/Carlsen) where the opposite could be said. There's one (l'Ami) that's debatable. He had black, equalized, and offered a draw. L'ami declined and lost. I didn't look at the moves in that game, so I'm not sure who won that opening battle (if anyone).

I doubt you looked at any of the games from that perspective. Your just repeating what you heard, which is about all you seem to do lately.

I meant to say earlier, re: Grischuk. According to Russian sources (Yury Vasiliev at Sport-Express or ChessPro - I couldn't find the exact quote when I looked earlier) there's nothing wrong with Grischuk except he's having a bad tournament. He said something like he always has at least one disaster every year - usually it's the Russian Championship, but this year he did ok there so it seems to have switched to Wijk...

"Of course a second needs to be trusted, but how can other top players trust their seconds? You will probably argue that Nakamura's opening preparation is much better than anyone else's, I would disagree ... ."

It definitely is this tournament. And to think that people on this site were bashing it before I was the first to step up to defend him!

Thank you to Bongo Bill, mishanp and Yogi. (I was away from the Dirt for a while.) Nice to know that Rogers is doing a live commentary; so I have another page to open and spam F5's on tomorrow, in addition to mishanp's.

"Carlsen beat Kramnik with black. Should end all this silly talk about Carlsen having no chance in a Kramnik match."

Well said. All the more reason Carlsen shouldn't have withdrawn from the upcoming Candidates tournament.

It was a good win for Carlsen. Should do good to his confidence against Kramnik. Against Anand he has still performed badly. That hurdle would be more difficult to overcome.

Nakamura's result has surprised many including me. Tomorrow's game will be the key for his tournament standing. I am almost pretty sure Anand will beat Giri.

You read my mind. I wanted to post this "Nakamuka" song. Nakamura and Anand are on a song and both can sing I believe at the end of this tournament!

Nakamura told me personally that he felt having a second as strong as you is a recipe for disaster. He feels that Littlejohn offers his computer expertise and helps him to stay loose. Sometimes its not only about chess. They seem to have a good friendship and it is a new paradigm. However, when he qualifies for the championship cycle, I'm sure he will have a team.

The biggest key for any second is trust...trust matters far more than analysis ability, especially since the difference between a master + supercomputer versus a GM + good computer is minimal at most.

Plus your team has to have complete belief in your abilities...there are so many who have doubted Naka over the years (and continue to do so) that its essential for him to surround himself with people who, for example, aren't surprised that he's on the verge of winning a super-GM tournament.

"Can [Nakamura} once in a while not walk on the knife's edge? You don't have to win every game. Sometimes 12 moves and a hand shake brings home the bacon, while going for the gusto leaves you with nothing."

Those are words no chess player wants to hear, and no chess player should say. Especially if you're a Nakamura fan, you gotta root for your guy to go for it.

Good comments pioneer and Daaim Shabazz. I recall Nakamura saying in a past interview that it is important that the two of them are also good friends (or to that meaning).

Here are two photos of the two together: http://www.chessbase.com/news/2010/wijk/wijk082.jpg & http://www.chessvibes.com/plaatjes/hikaru_kris.jpg