I was also thinking there was compensation when the ICC crowd called out "blunder" as he didn't play 23.e5. However, after 25..Rd6 he doesn't have to capture straight away so maybe it's still annoying. How about a natural move like 23.Ng3 or something first.

Like 26.Ng3 I mean.

It's an attempt to provoke and maybe insult. If my memory serves me Kasparov played an eary Nh3 (or possibly Nf3-h4) in a game against Karpov in the mid-ninties (Linares?). Karpov lost. I saw the game annotated in Chess Life a few years ago.

Nakamura displayed questionable understanding of chess nuances in this game. He violated the rule 'Don't bring out your Queen early in the game' on move 2, but tenaciously stuck to the principle of not exchanging pieces - reminds me of my son when he was receiving Chess training for a few weeks from Noureddine Ziane!

Like Kramnik's comments about his loss against Karpov in 1994, Hikaru is probably wondering at point in the game he started losing (how about on move 2?). I also don't understand why he continued to play on in a clearly lost position, especially after 79. ..Rd1, it was curtains for him.

He is young enough to afford risky play, but at 2650+ level, rating points are hard to come by. Just ask the guy who beat him today!

Bill C I think it was in Las Palmas 1996.

On White's 25th move, Nakamura should taken the initiative by exchanging off a pair of black bishops with the following variation 25.Bxg7 Qxg7 26.Nf5! Bxf5 27.exf5 Re5 28.Rxe5 Nxe5. In this postion, white will have a slight advantage owning to a larger space advantage on the kingside, however black is not too bad due to its centralized Knight, thus chances would be about equal and most likely it would be a draw a few moves afterwards.

Due to Nakamura's refusal to exchange off his dark-square bishop for that of his adversary by the move 25.Be3?, Sasikiran played the strong positional move 25...Qh8! to increase black's presence down the 1-a1-h8 diagonal and a few moves later on 33 was able to get a powerful central position for his queen on e5. However white's not too bad and could have doubled his rooks on move 37 with Rdh1, however Nakamura gave up that golden opportunity and instead made another anti-positional move Rg2, yielding the h file eventually the black rooks and White also wasted his time pushing the b and c pawns and sacrificing his c pawn for no dynamic or positional compensation.

Nakamura ultimately lost due to his flawed plan and a serious loss of a vital c pawn as well as important tempi which he could have snatched on move 25. Sasikiran played accurately in the endgame by refusing to snatch White's g pawn on move 78 since 78...Rxg4? 79.Re5+ Kc6 80.Kxa4 would lead to a draw and that's Nakamura's last trick. Sasikiran very shrewdly played the winning 78...Rd4! and won in convincing manner 9 moves later. Overall, Sasikiran played in the good positional manner. Nakamura lost simply due to his impatience in the middlegame (the opening was rather flawless) and rushed his plan.

Dear saguni, you're right in saying that Nakamura violated opening principles. Anyway, if anyone cares to ask, 2.Qh5 is called the "Patzer's Opening" by the classical masters a century ago. Nakamura displayed a persistent dislike to exchange pieces in the game against Sasikiran, that reminds me of what Mikhail Tal used to say about Viktor Korchnoi that Korchnoi had "an organic dislike to part with material" and that Korchnoi's habit made him suffer a considerable no. of losses at Tal's hands.

This opening has been played for years by an obscure master in Indiana (USA) by the name of Bernard Parham. He plays 2.Qh5 (and 2...Qh4)against almost any move and has developed an interesting system called "The Matrix System" which is based on geometric chess patterns.

I interviewed him a couple of years ago after being intrigued with his "invention" many years ago. He has some very interesting ideas and I asked him some tough questions about his system. He has been playing this exclusively since the 1960s. Of course, he is no Nakamura, but he's been able to get some interesting wins. I was sitting next to him during one of his slashing victories. Here's the interview.

http://www.thechessdrum.net/talkingdrum/TheMatrix/

JZY--

It's probably lots of fun tossing out imaginary facts but did you know that fact checking can also be fun? Why don't you wander over to Chessbase, look up the Korchnoi-Tal games, and report back to us on what you find.

Correction to first post: The move Rdh1 should come on White's 38th move and not the 37. A good continuation would have been 38.Rdh1 Rxh2 39.Rxh2 d5! 40.Nf5 Bxf5 41. exf5 b6 42. Ng3 c6 43. Nh5 Nxh5 44.Rxh5 f6 45.f4 gxf4 46.Qxf4+ Kb7 47. Qh2! (47...Qxg4 Rh7+ followed by Qc7 would mate black) Re1+! 48.Ka2 Re7. Although White's on the attack, Black's defence is solid and most likely a draw would result with extremely careful play from both sides. White must watch out for the phalanx of black pawns on the queenside which could be turned into a threat on his king's position if he does not defend well. Meanwhile, White's connected pawns on f5 and g4 on the kingside plus his heavy pieces would give black problems to worry about. Thus, although the position may look simple, it contains a lot of dynamic potential. Test it out guys, I'm sure some of you would love it!

JZY,

It is well-known that Tal used to lose consistently to Korchnoi. I'm not sure what you are trying to say. In fact, ChessBase just ran an interview about Korchnoi a week ago. You must've missed this one.

greg koster--

Let me warn you that what I said is 100% true and contains no falsehood whatsoever. Korchnoi may not have lost fewer games to Tal than Tal lost against him but in the book "The Magic of Mikhail Tal" published by Everyman CHESS, in game no.26, Tal crushed Korchnoi in 24 moves in the Montpellier Candiadates in 1985 in a Sicilian. In his own annotation, Tal mentioned that it was Korchnoi's reluctance to exchange off pieces to a simplified position that led to his defeat. Moreover, that's not the only case whereby Korchnoi lost in such a manner.

In 1986, one year after the candidates, Korchnoi lost with White against an lesser master named Greenfeld in Biel in only 22 moves. I am a great fan of Tal and memorize a lot of his quotes by heart as well as what other players said about him.

From what Korchnoi said about Tal, "Tal's uncompromising style of play delights chess enthusiasts, and they are won over by his desire and ability to take risks and even bluff his way through. At the same time, Tal's skill in building up his game is inadequate and is often based on routine assessments and routine methods. I consider the genuine masters of attack to be Alekhine, Keres and Spassky." I got a feeling that the two aren't very good friends and thus that led to what Tal said about Korchnoi's play since Korchnoi didn't praise Tal for his ingenuity like what the other Soviet players had done, including Botvinnik who said "I couldn't make myself dislike him."

I'm here to offer my opinions on Nakamura's game and not to start a debate on who's the better player, Tal or Korchnoi. If you want the games between the 2, go and look it up yourself and don't ask me to do so 'cause I just to do some proper chess analysis for friends out there and I'm not your slave or anything. I'm not wrong in saying what I said and I've got nothing to prove! :@ If you want me to say who's the better player, I would not hesistate for even one second and say that It's got to be Tal because he became the World Champion for once and he was even able to beat Kasparov in a rapid game by(see My Great Predecessors Vol. 2 last page on the chapter on Tal) an unsound knight sacrifice towards the end of his life when his body could not possibly undergo the strain of competitive chess. Tal is probably the only Soviet master Fischer adore and respect and he wasn't like Korchnoi who defected to the West and betrayed his country, colleagues and friends in the former USSR.

Dear Daaim Shabazz,

Thanks for doing that bit for me, I really appreciated it. I know that Korchnoi beat Tal more than Tal beat him. But most of that occurred in the early years when Tal was young. When I mentioned Korchnoi endured a "considerable no. of losses at Tal's hands", it definitely did not mean that Korchnoi lost a lot of games to Tal. What I really meant by using the word 'considerable' was that the few games Tal won over Korchnoi in his later years were brilliant and instructive and were the result of some of Korchnoi's dogmatic approaches to chess marked off by his own positional and defensive style. I've got nothing against Korchnoi. He's a living chess legend and I'm sure everyone knows that. I respect him as a chess player but that does not mean I respect his political stance. [greg, pls don't yell at me for this one, it's just my opinion.;-) ]

P.S. Can we all just look at Nakamura's game and my analysis instead of carrying on this useless debate??

JZY

Okay...I'll look it up for you. Korchnoi's organic dislike of parting with material made him suffer a considerable number of losses to Tal (4). Korchnoi may have been consoled, however, by his even more considerable number of wins against Tal (12).

And if it's not too much trouble, you might want to look into the circumstances of Korchnoi's defection before you criticize him for it.

JZY...

You're right. The Nakamura-Sasikiran game is more interesting althought I find the Korchnoi-Tal rivalry stunning... 12-4 is really an amazing score against Tal.

I believe the issue is that Hikaru failed to trade off pieces at crucial moments. However, going back to 2.Qh5, I'm not sure what makes this opening much less worse that the Center Counter, a fairly respectable defense.

Even the Center Game (1.e4 e5 2.d4 ed 3.Qxd4) has quite a bit of venom as do other lines where the Queen enters the fray early (4.Qxd4 against 2...d6 Sicilian). I believe we are often too caught up in age-old principles of chess without looking at the merits of hypermodern play. I was once told by a GM that following principles can often get in the way of finding the best moves. This GM also told me that GMs sometimes break rules so that his/her opponent cannot obey rules.

At one time... the fianchetto was considered silly because it yielded the center. We know better now because fianchetto systems are fierce fighting weapons (i.e., Benko, KID, Grunfeld, Modern Benoni). In addition, classical openings have been revived. The Petroff was revived and Kasparov crushed Anand with the Evans Gambit in 25 moves.

My point is not to compare the above systems with 2.Qh5. Certainly... 2.Qh5 is provocative, but I believe Hikaru proved that one can get a decent position. Hikaru has now immortalized this opening though it has been played exclusively by Bernard Parham, Sr. for four decades under his "Matrix System."

If I were a gambling man, I would bet that after Nakamura-Sasikiran, another Grandmaster will play it very soon in a tournament. I applaud Hikaru for his willingness to trot out new ideas at the highest level. Hikaru is a true revolutionary... all of whom have their detractors in history.

JZY

Most of Tal's losses to Korchnoi occurred when Tal was young?? Tal lost 3 games to Korchnoi before becoming world champion and 11 after.

There is an understanding in this blog that however much contributors differ in their opinions, they at least try to convey accurate information. I'm sure all would appreciate it if you would check to make sure that what you want to post is at least approximately true before you post it.

3 before, 9 after.

Dear greg koster and all friends,

Yes, you're right in saying that, but Tal was the youngest World Champion at that time in 1960, thus when I mentioned his losses against Korchnoi in his early years, I meant that's when Tal was still a young man (I regard a person as young when he's not more than 40 years of age) and not just starting out in his chess profession. Please take note of that. And when I mentioned Tal winning over Korchnoi in his later years, that did not necessarily mean the period after he became World Champion. That only refer to the times when Tal was more experienced, wiser or in a better shape of mind. I appreciate your facts, they're all correct but the words I mentioned should not be judged only on the surface and by their contextual meanings for I don't mince my words, I choose them with great scrutiny.

As for Korchnoi's reasons for defection, I understand them very well. (I've read his biography) I know perfectly well the troubles and psychologically torture that Korchnoi's been through. A lot of his family and friends died during the war years and it was with great difficulty and determination that Korchnoi became a first-class chess master. But if you think carefully and critically, what Korchnoi did out of the harsh circumstances was indeed an act of betrayal to the former USSR and nothing patriotic. Korchnoi was no traitor (in the political sense) of course but his defection certainly came as a surprise move to the many Soviet masters including Tal as well as friends and especially his family who really cared for him. However, if you look back the years of Korchnoi's life and from Korchnoi's own judgement, he did the right thing and although he was relegated in the former USSR, his family and himself finally managed to find solace and a sanctuary in Switzerland and that's a wonderful thing.

Korchnoi was and is still a great player but I still prefer Tal because amidst all the political injustices the Soviet Communists did to him, (from Mikhail Tal: Life and games) Tal remained a Soviet citizen and stuck to promoting national pride as well as chess in his native Latvia when he was in his senior years. Tal suffered both physcially (his health deteriorated as the years go by) and psychologically (ignored by the authorities from late 1968 to 1969 and disallowed to participate in the Soviet team) under the commnunist system but yet he tolerated all this. Please remember that Tal died in 1992 in his mid-50s (56, I think), quite a young age in today's standards. Tal was man who thought and talked about chess even on his deathbed. It's only fitting for us to remember and respect Tal's legacy as a tribute to the great things he had done for chess and his great determination to overcome persistent kidney problem since his early 20s and other health problems.

Anyway, greg, I need to thank you for pointing out the right facts. I guess I'm wrong in certain ways and I hope I've cleared all the misconceptions with this posting. I'm sure all friends here will appreciate it. :-)

Regards,
JZY

P.S. I hope this very posting would finally put an end to the Korchnoi-Tal debate. They're both great players but I still stick to my view that I prefer Tal more.

The Tal-Kasparov game (mentioned by the Tal-kissing Korchnoi-bashing blowhard JZY) occurred in the 1992 Moscow Blitz tournament. It is said that Tal sneaked out of the hospital to compete in the event; in the event, Kasparov fought off a Tal attack and lost on time. Tal fell ill shortly afterward, returned to hospital and died a week later. Incidentally, Tal's only recorded win against Karpov was also under blitz time controls.

Not long after Tal's death, Genna Sosonko wrote a beautiful tribute to his longtime friend in New in Chess magazine. Has anyone read this? It was something else.

Greg is right, just check your facts before you backup your opinion with them.

The best way to end a debate is stop talking about it, so if that's what you really want, let's give it a rest.

Qh5 looks surprising. Openings nowadays should not be avoided unless there are clear and widely known flaws to them (unless of course someone finds a flaw in the flaw). Maybe his intention was to surprise his rival.

I think chess players, at this level, should stick with openings that can give them an advantage. You gotta recognize that after some moves, Nakamura was fine, not great, but fine.

I praise fighting chess above all, even if it at times costs some rating points. Or what, you want H to become a little greedy drawish youngster Leko, praising his precious rating points above all?

Dear Chess-loving friends,

On Mig's suggestion of winning the exchange with 23.e5 dxe5 24.Ba7+ Ka8 (24...Kc8 is what REBEL 10 suggests, maybe it's more active) 25.Bc5 Rd6 26. Bxd6 cxd6, I found a probable variation continuing with 27.Na4!? d5 28.Nb6+ Kb8 29.Qe3 Kc7 (forced, if 29...Qd6 30.Nc4) [with White's Knight on b6, 29. Qe3 is more powerful than 27.Qe3] and then 30.Ng3 (threatening a future jump to f5)30... d4 (the sharpest continuation, 30...Qf8 may be better) 31. Qxe5+ Kxb6 32.Nf5! (now White's 30th move is justified) 32...Qf8 33.Qxd4+ Kc7 34.Qe5+ Kb6 35.Nxg7 Qxg7 36. Rd6+ Ka7 37. Qd4+ Kb8 38.Rd8+ Rxd8 39.Qxd8+ Ka7 40.Rd1.

White is a pawn up despite having a rook against Black's bishop and knight, his major pieces are well coordinated for an assault against Black's king and Black must defend well, White threatens 41.Rd6, so Black should counter with the precise 40...Nh5 (quite hard for a human to find at the board) 41.Rd6 Qe5! 42.Qb6+ Kb8 43.g3 Nf6 44. Rd8+ Bc8 45.Qd6+ Qxd6 46.Rxd6 leaves White having to fight off Black's bishop and knight with a lone rook. Such an interesting endgame ought to be theoretically drawn since both sides don't possess too much structural weaknesses. But both sides must play with vigour and great accuracy. Nakamura's real chance for the initive came on the 25th move when he ought to have done 25.Bxg7, but he missed the positional idea behind the simple exchange and it was really quite hard for him afterwards, especially after the loss of the h file to the 2 black rooks.

Overall, I'm deeply amazed by Nakamura's great fighting spirit, he fights on and prevented the inevitable loss for as many moves as he could and I think we chess players should learn and respect his great determination. When you're losing, give your opponent hell and prolong the moves as many as possible, that's what I learnt from Nakamura. I think Nakamura has that extra gift which not many youngsters possess. Well done, young man. America's got hope!

Regards,
JZY

Some have been discussing that 2. Qh5 was an insult to black. Why? Who cares? If it is such a bad move, it can only be an insult to the man who plays it. Hey, Tony Miles beat the world champion with 1...a6. Insult? Sure, whatever. Beating the world champion? Priceless.
By the way, if you search on ICC, you'll see that Nakamura has played 2. Qh5 in a handful of blitz games (who knows how many bullet games), including as recently as a couple of weeks ago. He played it against Kamsky (I recall that Kamsky won in 30-odd moves). He's also played 1. e4 e5 2. h4!? against Gata, so shall we get ready for that opening bomb as well? (Interpret bomb in whatever way you'd like.)

hmmm.. Nakamura is fun to watch, but so far he just seems like a pale imitation of Alexander "the Great" Morozevich.

This kid Nakamura is quite arrogant and obnoxious. A few weeks ago at the supernationals, he screamed and shouted at the organizer Diane Reese in front of about 100-150 people bringing her to tears. She was completely shaken up. She is a nice old lady and she doesn't deserve that from anyone.

While we all agree that the kid is talented, he needs to learn some manners. I can't imagine how he would behave when he starts to win more tournaments.

Sheesh!

"A few weeks ago at the supernationals, he screamed and shouted at the organizer Diane Reese in front of about 100-150 people bringing her to tears."

Man, maybe he is the next Fischer.

Fervent Prayer #1-- That Dirk is wrong, and HN never screamed and shouted at Scholastic Chess' Diane Reese.

Fervent Prayer #2--If Dirk is right, that we'll be spared lengthy paragraphs about how HN's conduct was not excusable, but perhaps understandable because of bla bla bla. And HN will put an end to the matter by saying something like, "I acted like a total jerk. I apologized profusely to the lady. And I resolve to clean up my act."

Absolutely this is a pseudo opening. Playing against a positional player certainly fails. I dont understand his style. He is trying to play computer type moves. Maybe he should have tried King's Gambit. He is only trying to give show to disprove the age old traditions of Neo-Romantic school. They are the foundations of Chess. Humility is the mark of a great fighter. This game is a classic example of pride goes before fall. All of you talking about Miles playing a6 against Karpov is useless. How many times does his system worked against top Masters?

Dirk,reading your post makes me think that, Naka has to learn good manners. His parents must teach him the virtues of life.

Qh5 is not a terrible move per se but I am still upset being a Nakamura fan it seems like he played this game almost as a joke. Against an important rival it is impossible to treat the game like this. I thnik it is more symbolic of his viewpoint that in general chess is a game. That is fine but not for a world championship contender.

What World Championship ?, there isn't any, he has nothing to fight for :-(

Dirk, did Naka have a reason for shouting at this lady? What was his gripe?

I was as surprised as the next guy to see Nakamura's premature Queen sortie, I'm sure he essayed it in the hopes of throwing Sasikiran off his stride. Still, the move was in character; Nakamura seems fond of early queen moves as demonstrated by his fondness for the Centre Counter (Scandanavian defense). Tal was another player with a penchant shoving his queen into the fray early in the game with an eye to inducing complications. Nakamura's scrappy chess is a delight. Today he fought Timman down to bare kings – and notice he had to have the last move. He's a great entertainer. As for reports of obnoxious behaviour, let's not forget he's just entered the tortuous and tortured teen years.

One point is that his opening play generally speaking is so lousy anyway, it doesn't hurt him by playing something like this so that at least his opponent doesn't know what's going on either.

Hahahah. Right, the US champion and one of the top 50 players in the world has "lousy" opening play. And the renowned authority passing this judgement? Man, what a world.

acirce--

You've been challenged! Your honor's at stake! In what games has HN's opening play been "lousy?"

No, because you can find games in which every player on earth has played the opening poorly. That's chess. I want to know why Nakamura's opening play is lousy, period, as stated. And "SO lousy," even. If it's SO clear it must be easy to explain to us simpletons.

Mig, you seriously don't know such statements are relative, as in "weak GM"? I didn't think it was controversial to point out how he rarely gets anything special out of the openings even against worse players, and that he often outplays them later on instead with his superior skills. Sigeman is significative. It almost always varies from "bad" to "ok". It is obviously an area he needs to work on a lot when he enters 2700+ competition, deny it or not.

When asked about Nakamura in San Diego, Ibragimov said he's "very well prepared, especially for someone so young."

Even before 2.Qh5 his repertoire is known to be eclectic and experimental, which seems natural at this age. But I agree he seems more interested in just getting to an interesting middlegame.

One of the things that made Leko seem 60 years old when he was a teen was his predilection for deep main lines. Radjabov had his love affair with the King's Indian.

If bad opening moves are insulting... to all my future opponents: keep the insults coming!

PS: if it's not bad and perfectly playable, wtf is everybody whining about, get a life.

I've been away for a while, and didn't know about 2.Qh5. Amazing! Someone said he wasn't a betting man, but if he were he would bet that another GM would play 2.Qh5 before long. I am a betting man, so if you change your mind please get in touch. It won't happen.

2.Qh5 is played by many computers on ICC, and they often win. Hikaru is a known computer chess addict. Has no-one mentioned this coincidence?

I see that the Tal / Korchnoi rivalry crept into the thread. Someone said that Tal's large minus score should be discounted because he was young when many of the games were played. But he had already been World Champion at the time, hadn't he? Yes, but he was still young. What!?

I'm a huge Tal fan, but let's retain a minimal level of common sense.

Nick... that was I who made that statement. I'm not a betting man, but who would have thought 2.Qh5 would have been played at all in a GM tournament? You would've lost that bet and it will be played again at GM level.

Nick... if you don't believe it will be played SOON, will you bet that it will NEVER be played again at GM level?? You forget the "bandwagon effect." Someone will play it.

People who continue saying that Hikaru's opening was bad are missing that his 2.Qh5 opening did not lose the game, nor did it cause him to get a bad position. He got a very playable position and a chance to wrest the initiative. No one on this board has articulated why 2.Qh5 is bad. Please don't tell me, "Well you're not supposed to bring the queen out early in the opening." There is a difference between Hikaru doing it and a 1500 ELO player doing it. Someone show me why 2.Qh5 is bad and also tell me why 1.e4 d5!? 2.exd5 Qd5 (2...Nf6) 3.Nc3 Qa5 is not also considered bad.

The problem is we condemn it because we don't know any analysis. We only know that it is played a beginner's level, but I would imagine that people are analyzing it now! I'll tell you... after seeing Alexander Shabalov smash strong players with the Center Game (1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.Qxd4), he made a believer of me. Certainly, I know 2.Qh5 is more provocative, but these moves should not be relegated as "bad" merely because we are reminiscing on our childhood chess memories.

Dear friends,

2.Qh5 really is not such a bad move even though it violates genearal chess principle of not bringing your queen too early into play as it'll become a target for your opponent's minor pieces. Yet however in such a case, although White wasted a tempo by having to retreat his queen to f3 (a powerful square for the queen on the queen-side), Black also has to waste a tempo on his own part in making the move g6. The black bishop's fianchettoing takes some time (5.Bg7 is logical but that may not be strictly necessary) and White don't have any structural weaknesses and can make use of the lost tempi in the early moves to develop its pieces.

Regards,

JZY

P.S. I wonder if anyone of you out there had read
my analysis. If so, please tell me about
it if you found it helpful.

Errata: Queen to f3 on the KINGSIDE, not
queenside. (silly error)

Of course I won't bet that it will NEVER be played again. How would I ever collect?

Nick...

That's the point. You won't be able to collect because it will be played again... and soon. Maybe we'll see it in the Open section of the HB Global tourney Nick.

An interesting story was that I played white against Bernard Parham (the 2.Qh5 advocate) and the game went something like 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Qg4 g6 (4.Kf8!?) 5.Qf3. A strong player walked by the game, looked at me and smirked. I looked at him as if to say, "What?"

After Parham won the tense game, he told me that what I played was part of his "Matrix System" which prides itself on geometric paths to find the quickest checkmate. As you can see, my game was out of a main line in the Vienna Game which I had studied extensively. I had a friend who once played Ove Kroll and fell into 1.Nc3 d5 2.e3 e5 3.Qh5!?

Again... I believe we may sometimes be prejudiced by principles learned as beginners. While I believe 2.Qh5 is quite crude, folks like IM Michael Basman, GM Duncan Suttles and GM Pavel Blatny win quite a number of games by breaking every principle in chess books. That is what will save chess from being "played out" as Bobby Fischer has stated.

Peace...

In order to understand some of his decisions, it is important to understand Hikaru's approach. Hikaru wants to fight. He wants you to throw punches so that he can throw harder ones. If you fight because you feel insulted, then so be it. If you fight because you feel that he is obnoxious, then so be it. He wants you to fight him, good fight or bad fight. More often than not, he will win.

I hear mention of what Hikaru has to do to make it to the 2700+ class and stay there, and I know for a fact that he has considered such things. We once had a discussion during which he said that his primary work is on openings, because, he asserted, 2700+ players rarely get into trouble from the opening, while he still does. He has so many engagements now that studying openings, tedious work for any GM, is not as possible as it might otherwise be, and so he plays openings which simply do the job of getting him to a playable middlegame. As was previously mentioned, other players take this approach, such as Pavel Blatny, who has sat in my living room and introduced some bizarre yet imaginative continuations from what I myself considered to be bogus openings.

Finally, as a friend of Hikaru's, I feel it is essential to say that he is actually a pretty cool guy, and that I am not convinced that his reputation is entirely warranted. Of course, I have been privy to incidents over the years which he is not proud of, but I was also in Nashville for the SuperNationals, and Hikaru was nothing but friendly when I introduced him to my students and one of their parents. He even agreed to sign three boards for students of mine and refused when I said I would compensate him for his helpfulness. He is a young man finding his way in this crazy American society, determining what he wants to do with his future, what role chess will play, and how he wants to make his mark on the world. Sometimes, he will do great things; other times, he will do terrible things. If you are his supporter, then support him through thick and thin. If not, then leave him the hell alone -- no one needs fair-weather friends. Just try to remember that he is very much aware of how much he can gain and lose in this arena, and that it is a hell of a lot more than most of us are risking.

Hotep,

Maliq

I'm with Hikaru as a fan for the long haul; no matter what gossip I read, what openings he experiments with or what he does with his life away from the board. His chess is extremely entertaining...whether it be classic time control or ICC blitz. I admire Pavel Blatny too for that matter...he's a great under appreciated genius. Where can I order Naka or Blatny T-shirts???? Shall I make my own?

Apparently, Short was talking on Playchess something about a discussion with Kramnik about 2.Qh5 and that the latter had been preparing it for the 24-game blitz match against Kasparov in 1998 although didn't use it.

Is this true or just the Englishman's weird sense of humour again?

Hotep Maliq...

Always a gentleman and a scholar. Good to have your input!

No one has given Hikaru's side of the story of the Nashville incident, but that has nothing to do with him playing 2.Qh5. However, it is certain that he will continue to make a few mistakes as a high profile player at age 17 because everyone will be watching everything he does.

Let's just say that his choice of opening may have also been an excellent psychological tactic. How many of us believe that Sasikiran looked at 2.Qh5 in preparation for Nakamura? If I had to interview Sasikiran, I'd ask him, "Tell me exactly what went through your mind after Nakamura played 2.Qh5 and hit the clock?"

I remember a famous player saying practically any opening is playable. I don't necessarily agree with his notion, but if any of us on this board played 20 games as black against Fritz and set the training mode to 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5, we would be hard-pressed to refute such an opening.

When strong master Boris Men (as Black) faced 1.e4 c5 2.Qh5, Bernard Parham said that Men didn't appear surprised. Men almost lost that game (which was drawn)! Top GMs usually don't try to refute bizarre ideas over the board... they just play normal chess and let their understanding reveal the weakness.

For the sake of chess development, let's hope there are more creative ideas brought in top-level play. We could be missing something.

Is Hikaru a tennis fan?
Didn't Boris Becker play 2. Qh5 against
Kasparov in a rapid game on CNN a few years back?
Black won that one too, so 2, Qh5 *must* be bad? ;-)
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1313969

Correction... the aforementioned Parham-Men was even wilder than I thought. It went...

1.e4 d5!? 2.e5 c5 3.Qh5

Maliq--

For a successful method of helping a young person with a behavior problem, see the following report about Bjorn Borg from the Chandigarh Times, 5/4/01:

Borg said when he was a junior player he used to behave very badly on the court. Borg, who is known for keeping a cool head even when things were not going his way, said "I would swear at my opponents, cheat and break racquets when I was a junior."

"All that stopped when at Stockholm club, where I played near my house, officials complained to parents and suspended me for six months. Without tennis I was very very sad and I was more disappointed with my behaviour. So when I returned to playing I never opened my mouth after that incident," he said.

Hikaru Nakamura just defeated Palo in 33 moves with black playing another obscure line (1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 Nc6 3. Nf3 e6 4. Bf4 d6). After 33...Qb6! Palo resigned in lieu of the cute 34...Rxg3+! Notice 34.Rxc6 doesn't stop it. Must be tough for Palo to miss making his GM title on this game.

Tremendous thread! It's nice that people are discussing chess for a change, rather than politics!

Has anyone mentioned that Bronstein, in his book on Open Games, suggested 2. Qh5 as an interesting, playable move.

It's refreshing to see a not so familiar played among the elite. As I looked on two weeks ago at the scholastic nationals (Nashville), I was surprised at the lack of standard openings. Perhaps it's time for the orangatang (1. b4) to make a stand? ;)

http://thepassedpawn.blogspot.com

Peace...

Actually, the Orangutan has made appearances in big scholastic tournaments, courtesy of students of IM Yury Lapshun, who beat WIM Anna Hahn with it in the recent US Championship. He played the bizarre Blatny-ism, 1. b4 2. Bb2 3. Qc1?!?! and won a complex position later on.

Hotep,

Maliq

"I hear mention of what Hikaru has to do to make it to the 2700+ class and stay there, and I know for a fact that he has considered such things. We once had a discussion during which he said that his primary work is on openings, because, he asserted, 2700+ players rarely get into trouble from the opening, while he still does. He has so many engagements now that studying openings, tedious work for any GM, is not as possible as it might otherwise be"

I'm glad he's aware of the importance of this phase, because coming up with opening innovations is really the main job of a Chess Professional. And Kasparov apparently always had lots of time to devote to analysis, despite his many engagements. Nakamura is very strong, but he won't join the elite unless he dedicates the long hours at the board (and Fritz) to find new ideas.

"When strong master Boris Men (as Black) faced 1.e4 c5 2.Qh5, Bernard Parham said that Men didn't appear surprised. Men almost lost that game (which was drawn)! Top GMs usually don't try to refute bizarre ideas over the board... they just play normal chess and let their understanding reveal the weakness."

Sorry to post twice in a row, but I just saw this post. When I first started playing chess (I was like 1500), I played at a tournament in North Carolina and played Bernard Parham. I had played one of his students in the first round, and the guy had played an early Qh4 with the black pieces (I can't remember the exact line). I beat the hell out of him. But then I actually had to play Parham the next round as black and the first moves were just this - 1. e4 c5 2. Qh5, and he ended up beating me after a long struggle, where he sac'ed an exchange when I was building up an initiative (I wish I could find the game). I remember thinking that there must be a direct refutation, but then just settling down, and being real alert to danger. I think Sasikiran handled 'the shock' well - he didn't try anything crazy, just made solid moves and equalized easily.

Another interesting story and a game to follow...

Erik Karklins (father of FM Andrew Karklins) once played Bernard Parham and produced what is probably one of the most clear examples of how "Matrix Chess" (of which 2.Qh5 is a integral part) can produce games with wild geometric patterns. The funny thing is Karklins was playing white!!

The game went 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nd4 4. Nxd4 exd4 5. Qh5. Parham was caught off guard by his own brand of play and got a horrible position. He would've had to resign had Karklins played 25.Bd6+!

http://www.thechessdrum.net/palview/EKarklins-Parham.htm

Nothing to do directly with the move Qh5. But the discussion about this move being an insult reminded me of an article from Tim Krabbe, where he discuss the opening 1.e4, e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nxe5, and asks if an opening can be "inpolite".

The article is available in the link http://www.xs4all.nl/~timkr/tour/breeze.htm

I was in the crowd in 2000 at the US Junior Open/U.S. Junior Closed in Baltimore when NM Enrique Rios representing the U.S. Junior Open crushed IM Eugene Perelshtyn representing the U.S. Junior Closed in an exhibition match in front of about 200+ people. Needless to say, when Rios started as white with 1. e4 e5 2. Qh5 there were many laughs in the audience and quite a smile on Perelshtyn's face, however that smile quickly turned to shock after 2..Nc6 3. Bc4 g6 4. Qf3 Nf6 5. Ne2 0-0 6. d3 Na5 7. Bg5 Nxc4 8. Nd5! and Rios won quite easily. I'll try to see if I can get the complete gamescore from Rios. Rios played it regularly in serious tournament competition, even defeating a ~2350 Sonny Kamberi in 40/2 SD/1, before I put an end to the opening with the brilliant. 1. e4 e5 2. Qh5 Nc6 3. Bc4 g6 4. Qf3 f5!!

Actually 2...Nf6 3 Qxe5 ( Qe2 transposes to Adams-Radjabov Tripoli 2004) Be7 seems like decent comp.

Dear Andrew,

I would really appreciate if you're able to get the complete game score from Rios. As for the line you showed, there's a stark error on Black's fifth move. (Black cannot castle with its bishop still on f8, probably the move Bg7 or Be7 is missed.) Regarding your refutation of 2.Qh5 with 4.f5 instead of the positional move Nf6 which Fritz and most humans would suggest, I understand that after 5.exf5 Nd4 6.Qe4 gxf5 7. Qxe5+ Qe7 8.Qxe7+ Nxe7 9.Bb3, Black gets a developmental advantage over White at the cost of a pawn. However the problem with Black is that he can never castle on the kingside, and if later on he castles on the queen side, he must be wary of a queen-side assault. If he chooses to keep his king in the centre, it would definitely be risky. Furthermore, even though White is a pawn down and a few tempi lost, he would not lose simply due his better pawn structure and lack of serious opposition in easy development. Black's lone h and f pawn would saddle him with difficulties in the long run. Of course Black can use the semi-open g-file for its rook but White can parry that threat quite easily. Thus, I am sorry to say that 4.f5 ought not be rendered double exclamation marks (it's not a combinative move that crushes White) but instead a !? or a critical ?!. Sorry, man, 4.f5 is a great idea but it may just at best draw against a cautious opponent. If you don't believe me, I can play one e-mail chess-game against you. (just e-mail your moves to me in your message) I am a 19 year-old candidate master of 2200+ rating. :-)

Regards,

JZY

HHmmm...a coincidence in this thread. Oddly enough, I had the pleasure of losing a "won" endgame against Enrique Rios in Dallas recently. He's damned clever and just the sort I wouldn't want to give a chance to play "2.Qh5". I was told he's a savvy internet gambler...I'm not surprised. It seems like the smart money is behind: 2.Qh5 at the NM level.

bill s, thanks for the info re the slanging. It does appear to put Naka in a bad light, but I'll reserve my judgement till I know what she did. I dont think just the fact that she's mature and he's young is enough to convict him. I was once in a work environment where I was relentlessly harassed by a Secretary much older than me. Fianlly I couldnt take it any longer, and shouted at her in a corridor. The problem there was with her not me. Yes young people should respect the elderly, but some sadly grow old without becoming wise, and just become progressively ruder.

JZY, you'll be surprised to know that Andrew Whatley is a very strong player with a slightly(much?!) bigger rating than yours. I think the post is very light hearted (put an end to what?) and was not meant to be excessively analyzed

DP--

So what if Andrew is strong, he's no Kasparov (sorry Andrew, no insults here.) I'm not a bad player myself. Tell me if Andrew is a GM and if he is in the top 10. If that's the case, I'll be MORE than willing to play against him since it'll be a great honor. I enjoy playing against strong players. Lastly, let me remind you that I'm not even a professional, I'm a strong amateur and I value my studies above everything. I play chess for recreation only.

I also want to say that it is tempting to blame Nakamura's defeat solely on Qh5 because he is our champ(for many of us anyway) but he had a very normal position around move 10. Sasikiran just outplayed him. Overall, I think Hikaru made a good showing(how did it affect his rating?)simply through his tenacity, but I honestly can't help but wonder, what would happen if he got some advantage with white and decent positions with black. Of course, playing mainlines alone doesn't acheive this. It requires alot of work and Hikaru used to play main lines like the Grunfeld without too much success(as compared to now). Does anyone get the sense that Hikaru may be like Moro, not studying chess anymore? Could this explain their penchant for strange openings, to avoid their opponents preparation? It seems like it has taken Moro fairly far, could it work well for Hikaru as well?

JZY I did not mean to imply he was Kasparov... I just wanted to point out that the didactic tone was perhaps not appropriate.

Sorry for the hat trick. JZY, if you want to discuss 4...f5!? seriously, from my best guess your analysis is not complete. For example 6...gxf5 does not appear to be in the spirit of the opening. Maybe Qf6,Qe7, or Bg7 with the idea of playing d5 are better trys just off the top of my head. Anyway, I'll agree that f5 may not be winning, but without a board at the office it seems pretty dangerous.

Indeed... Andrew Whatley is quite a strong player. I remember him Atlanta tournaments when he was a top junior and in particular a blitz game we played (Shabazz-Whatley) that went 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4.b4!? We had to abort the game because of the next round. See... we're at the right blog! (smile)

Thanks for that story Andrew. Goodness... Perelshteyn must've gotten a shock after Nd5! I was sitting next to Bernard Parham at a Chicago Open tourney when he beat a Candidate Master with 1.e4 c6 2.Qh5!? The guy was so puzzled and look totally shellshocked after resigning.

I'm going to have to find this Enrico Rios guy and ask Bernard Parham if he knows his kindred chess cousin. I believe we'll 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 more often. Maybe Morozevich will play it!

This note contains instructions for you the reader.

So first, I'm not shy: Based on the anecdotes I've decided to put Nakamura in my EVIL category. Together with other EVIL people. Like Jar Jar, Antonin Scalia, and the 1985 LA Lakers.

Unfortunately 2.Qh5 also puts him in the COOL category. So Nakamura is EVIL COOL. Along with Miles Davis and Lance Armstrong.

Just to help you shake it out: The next time he gets out of hand at a tournament: If you're there to witness it I want you to GET IN HIS FACE. These are your instructions. Don't just stand by and watch. Don't put up with it.

You nailed it, Rob.

I nominate yours for "post of the week."

Hear hear for Fatland of the Flatlands. But one move played in one tournament doesn't yet qualify Nakamura for EC status, although he's picking up the trail for sure. Miles didn't really get EC until a few years into his career when he walked calmly into Charlie Parker's hotel room and choked him for an unpaid royalty.

Other EC's who come to mind here are Hunter S Thompson, Christopher Hitchens, Werner Herzog, Steve Carlton, Louis Ferdinand Celine, Stanley Kubrick, Thomas Pynchon and Prince.

Good advice, by the way. The chess world would be a better place today if more people had slapped Fischer's face in the 60's.

Rob Fatland...

There are better ways to handle that than to provoke an altercation... which is what is likely to happen. As I said on another topic, Hikaru needs coaching to help manage his public image. He'll have to realize, for better or for worse, everyone in the U.S. chess arena knows who he is and will watch his every move.

I don't know what happened, but it sounds like a dialogue ensued and the organizer made a comment showing her lack of knowledge in some chess matter or concern. It appears as if Hikaru got offended at her attempt and reacted. It would best if we got the full context of the situation and until then, we should let it alone.

OK...

... let's get back to Nakamura-Sasikiran and the move 2.Qh5. I remember seeing Parham slide his queen from h5 to h4 (after a ...Nf6 move) and realized how hard it was for black to attack the queen. However, it stood in a menacing location.

I also remember Zambian IM Amon Simutowe playing a queen manuever from a4 to h4. His white queen sat on h4 unassailed only to participate in a sacrificial kingside attack which ended with the black king being mated on the actual h4 or h5 square.

I believe there a lot to be learned from the concept of 2.Qh5. We often define this move from the beginner's attempt at a "Scholar's Mate," but there are deeper concepts involved. After I interviewed Bernard Parham, I learned a bit more about 2.Qh5 and realized that his "Matrix" ideas, while bizarre, were worthy of respect and consideration. Parham didn't invent 2.Qh5, but I would imagine he would benefit from and be able to add to our fruitful discussion.

I have been playing chess from last 20 years. I can say without any doubt, without organizers, there would not be any chess. Unfortunately lot of sponsors does not understand and get any value out of it unless it is like deepblue.

So insulting and shouting on an organizer at the age of 16 is total lack of respect for others. He did made comments like “I am the US champ and you do not know how to play chess”. I lost the respect for the guy and I do not think much of him. I done a little survey to check how many people know him in outside world. So, I asked a group of people including some journalists, who is US chess champion? Surprisingly none of them know him. I sure don’t think with this attitude this guy is going to make any thing. Sure few interesting games like Qh5.

It's puzzling that the victims of bad chessic behavior often seem to be women (HN v. the Scholastic Chess organizer), children (GK v. Radjubov; beauty prize) or both (GK v. Judit Polgar; touch move). Why don't these gentlemen ever flame out on people like Vitali Klitschko?

Peace...

Again, I am not sure of the context of the incident in Nashville. I spent time with Hikaru while we were there, and I was unaware of this incident until it appeared on this post. Owing to the fact that I was everywhere in Nashville and knew a lot of people, I think I would have heard about it if it was really so big a deal. In short, it is overblown here, because it involves Hikaru.

Sometimes, people need to be told that they don't know what the hell they are doing. At the same tournament, I was literally ready to punch out a TD who moved my students from one section to another, then got arrogant about it when I told him that he was mistaken. The guy basically shoved his USCF tournament director badge in my face and told me that I always had the option of withdrawing my students from the tournament and using the weekend as a vacation. One might argue that it would be wrong to curse him out, and then I would say that I am nobody's doormat. Truly, people make decisions in the chess world everyday which have nothing to do with chess. They don't understand the significance of scheduling, etc. and would prefer to make a spectacle rather than to actually have players work under fair conditions. If this organizer acted, in any way, like the TD did toward me (and I have met some rude scholastic organizers in my years as a chess coach), then all of that "she's older" stuff is irrelevant. Maybe Hikaru was in the wrong, and maybe he was not. Again, let's get the facts first before making a judgement.

Hotep,

Maliq

sam,

Hikaru's persona has nothing to do with people not knowing who the U.S. Champion is. He has been the champion all of about four months. You also have to realize that those persons probably didn't know who the last U.S. champ was, or the one before that, or the one before that. Does any U.S. chessplayer on this blog know who the 1996 U.S. Champion was without looking it up? Probably not. How about 2000? Maybe. By the way, how many people know who the World Chess Champion is?

Your sample group may have been able to name Bobby Fischer. I'm not sure what your sample proves, but I will say that if you prepare a well-constructed questionnaire, we may find out how U.S. Chess has failed to properly market chess (and the national champion) in the country. Hikaru's picture should at least be on the home page of the U.S.C.F. website (www.uschess.org). He's a phenomenon and opportunity has been lost.

If he continues with his pragmatic approach to chess, then people will find out about him soon enough. Especially if he continues to play bold moves. His 2.Qh5 experiment, for better or for worse, will provide him with more notoriety.

sam,

I talked about marketing in my last post. Do you know that if you Google "U.S. Chess Champion," the USCF site is not one of the top listings? I believe my site has the #1 listing on "US Chess Champion" without the quotes. With the quotes in the Google search, the top reference points to Larry Christiansen, the 2002 champion.

Also on the USCF site, it is difficult to find any reference to Hikaru Nakamura being the national champion. His profile on the site is out-of-date. Google "Hikaru Nakamura" and the U.S.C.F. site also has an abysmal ranking. There are many reasons why the general public does not know Hikaru Nakamura, but his behavioral tendancies is not the main one. In fact, using your rationale, it would have the opposite effect.

Hikaru cannot avoid being compared to Bobby Fischer, but I believe it is unfair to expect him to have the same popularity when he is relatively new to the world stage. It even took Fischer quite awhile to accomplish this.

Firstly, about the ...f5 line. It's not my invention, I found it in a book for absolute beginners by the Makarychev couple (in Russian only). For whose of you who don't know any chessplayers beyond the usual suspects soon to be seen in Argentina, Sergei is a GM who left practical chess in the 1980's, and Marina is a WIM. I'm sure they didn't take this whole line seriously (who could predict Nakamura's arrival), and just gave one sample line which goes ef5 Nd4 Qd5 Qe7 and Black soon wins.
Qe4 instead of Qd5 shouldn't make much difference, as the character of the game remains the same. Take my word for it, any 2200 player who attempts this kind of play against a GM will be crushed in 20 moves.
What would Hikaru do (next time use WWHD) if Sasi played 4...f5! My guess is something like 5.d3 Nf6 6.Ne2 Bc5 7.Nbc3 d6 with an ugly but playable game for White.
Secondly, the woman Hikaru alledgedly yelled at is Diane Riese. Last year she was contracted by the USCF to do telecommuting work in preparations for the US Championship. She was in San Diego when Hikaru won, and she was one of the people congratulating him at the closing ceremony, so I assume she knew who the US Champion was. Hikaru, on the other hand, likely didn't remember her, and apparently neither does Mig who keeps mysterious silence about the whole incident.
And thirdly, about the prestige of the title of US Chess Champion: it's not much laurels to rest on. Best if you win it and move on to the next event. When I won it (incidentally in 1996, and that was a Round-Robin, not some random Swiss), I spent my prize money before Chess Life could publish a tournament report.

Maliq:

You start every post with "peace" but you were "literally ready to punch out a TD"? And what do you imagine this lady did to justify getting verbally abused by a 16 year old kid? It would have to be pretty severe to make her age irrelevant.

Yermo,

I suppose the point was that, I had to look up your victory after I wrote that comment. The fact that the general public does not know that Hikaru is the U.S. Champion is not an indictment on him... which blogger "sam" was implying. The point is that USCF needs to do more marketing in this regard. Fortunately, an outside sponsor revamped the format which makes the competition more interesting, IMHO.

Many have the view that a Swiss is more of a crap shoot with a field of 64 players. I'll admit, it leads to a lot more unpredictable results (and upsets), but no one will deny Hikaru's accomplishment despite his off-the-board issues. His 2.Qh5 is a breath of fresh air in the maze of Merans, Sveshnikovs and Najdorfs which have been analyzed to mate. I would imagine that he won't make it part of his repertoire. (smile)

Peace...

Jim, maybe you live in a world where being peaceful means that you never respond to being disrespected, but I don't. He gave me the arrogant response because he thought he was above reproach and that there was nothing I could do about it; he would not have acted this way otherwise. As I said, I am not a doormat for anybody. I am a nice guy, as my students and their parents can attest to, but I am not Ghandi.

On another note, I clearly said that we should get the details before deciding whether Hikaru was in the wrong or not. Thus, why ask me to "imagine" anything? I get the feeling that you are more hung up on the fact that a SEVENTEEN-year-old would actually tell off an adult than the matter of whether or not he was overreacting or justified in his actions. With regard to respect, age is, indeed, irrelevant. I am not at liberty to disrespect my students just because they are younger than I am, and I am not required to bow to somebody who is older than I am. Get rid of these outdated ideas and deal with the actual issue.

Hotep,

Maliq

Peace...

First of all, Yermo, I thank you for the great book "Road to Chess Improvement", which has done a lot for my own approach to the game as well as the approaches of students to whom I have loaned it. I apologize for mentioning this, but whenever I miss a win in an important game, I remember your game against Ehlvest where you could have trapped his queen in one move and instead went into a losing endgame to console myself. :-)

With regard to the US Championship, I do not really feel that the results, at the end, amount to random occurences. The cream rises to the top, however it gets there, and the best players are the ones fighting for it in the end. There is no question that the current US Champion is the best player we have, and Shabalov was the most dominant player on the tournament circuit during his reign, winning Chicago Open, US Open, tying in World Open, etc. It is not as though some Kasimdzhanov situation has overtaken US chess!

There is more to be said for this debate, and perhaps a different thread is needed to debate the prestige of the US Championship. I don't think that there can be any debate, however, about the fact that Hikaru is not like recent US Champions, in that he is generating a lot of attention on the international scene and has been mentioned as one who might one day challenge for the World Championship if he decides to dedicate himself to chess.

Hotep,

Maliq

My silence isn't mysterious. I try, not always successfully, to refrain from commenting on thing about which I know nothing. I met Diane Reese (and Hikaru) in San Diego. They were both very pleasant. I wasn't at the supernationals and the first I heard of this incident was in this thread. Mystery solved. Not being a yeller myself I don't pretend to understand the motivations of those who find it necessary on occasion.

It sounds like Nakamura has a temper. I've seen Grandmasters display a wide range of human emotion, just like real people. (This, for the uninitiated, is sarcasm.) I don't have a terrible amount of interest in another demonstration of this fact. I also doubt the usefulness microanalyzing it from afar, but it does illustrate the interest Nakamura has generated.

Winning a swiss and winning a closed may or may not require different things (Yermo has certainly won his share of swisses), but you can't ask more of a player than winning the event at hand. Nakamura's opposition and performance rating in San Diego were certainly not inferior to those of the winners of the old closed events. Muhammad and Lackdawala aren't GMs, but I don't think anyone would consider them patsies, or weaker than the usual US junior champ invitees to the closed.

Perhaps Nakamura is savvy enough to have played Qh5 solely for the interest it would generate. If he plays a few more times he will likely have his name attached to it if it's not already. I have no doubt he'll comment on it in Black Belt in the coming weeks.

Maliq:

If you consider showing respect for older people to be outdated then we'll just have to agree to disagree on that.

There is nothing wrong with sticking up for yourself, but you can do that at a chess tournament without gearing up to punch someone out. You weren't on the "street" or in prison or some other such spot where people have to know you're ready to use your fists.

And Nakamura (16 or 17, who cares), if he had a case to make, could have stuck up for himself without reducing that poor woman to tears, barring unusual circumstances which I cannot imagine. Neither can you or you would have pointed them out. Maybe you can help "get the facts" for us, after all he is your friend.

Peace...

Obviously, I did not punch the TD, or that would have been a bigger story than the Hikaru incident. I felt like punching him for his arrogance, and there is nothing wrong with feeling that way. I showed restraint, walked off to find a higher TD, and then the situation was resolved by a third party (incidentally, in favor of the decision I KNEW to be correct all along). It has nothing to do with street reputation or anything of the sort. Sometimes, you just feel like somebody needs to get his @$$ kicked, and anger is not an emotion to be ashamed of.

Regarding the Hikaru incident, there are likely other ways in which he could have handled the situation, but to pretend that emotion should play no role is to ignore what emotions are altogether. He did not reduce her to tears; if she was crying, then that is because she cannot handle it, but he did not "make" her cry. Nobody can make me cry by yelling at me, no matter how loud or vicious their words are. Some people cry watching the Lion King, while others don't wince while getting stitches. Thus, the fact that she cried does not make it any worse, even though it cannot help his case.

Regarding respect for elders, I already said that I have a responsibility to respect others regardless of age. You keep harping on the age difference, as though that is supposed to be important, but it is not. Your words sound more like "a young man should know his place" than an assessment of the incident itself. If she was yelling at him, would it be fine because she is older? If yes, then you are a hypocrite. If no, then you have proven that age is irrelevant. Thus, let the age thing rest and focus on one human being interacting with another.

Hotep,

Maliq

This debate has turned into another area that is interesting... respect. One good thing about Hikaru is the fact that he will analyze and participate in discussions with much lesser players. This is more than some non-Master players who will pretend to be Kasparov after winning a game. They will analyze a game with their opponent and because they won, they'll claim to be right in every line (while dismissing your ideas).

How does this translate to this case? I don't believe unilateral respect is given defacto to the person who won the game, who has the higher rating, the oldest player, the Russian player, male player, or someone who has a Ph.D. There is often this impression given and I'm not impressed by any of this. I differ in some respects with Maliq in that when dealing with an older person in civilian life, my posture changes... especially toward an elder relative.

However, if someone offends me, then my honor and dignity are worth defending regardless of those factors. How we handle it is another matter. Do we handle it diplomatically or "get in his face" and ask him to step outside? We simply do not know all the details to understand the extent of the conflict. Perhaps Hikaru's dignity and honor were threatened in front of the crowd.

What is your dignity worth? Some people go to war and risk life and limb to defend it. Some of us may disagree with the way Hikaru responded, but as the national champion, he was defending the honor of his crown... which deserved the utmost respect in that particular venue. What did she say or do to precipitate such a response?

Let's get the straight facts first.

Maliq:

Well, having said that you don't know why you should have to imagine anything, you went right ahead and produced a scenario where the lady was yelling at him and he just responded in kind.

Righto.

Instead of refuting arguments that no one would ever make - it's not ok for older people to abuse their juniors, I have to agree with you there - you might want to review the two posts in this thread in which two incidents are mentioned, do some additional fact gathering to satisfy your desire for a proper investigation, and then have a word with your friend about his appalling behaviour.

Daaim Shabazz:
I appreciate your comments. But you are looking only one side of the story, thereby your judgement is becoming a partial one in this case. One cannot defend the dignity and honor by humiliating a person that too an elderly woman infront of a large crowd. He could have defended his honor by peacefully explaining the situation. Look what has happened to his good image, what others are saying? Real honor is in humility. When people see that person, then they will honor him always not just a great Chess player but also as a great man. I do not know what that woman said to him, but whatever it is, one can politely respond. Because of his young age, the people should forgive him, because the kids do not know well to handle situations like this. But I will tell you that if any other Champ. who is an adult had behaved like this, people would not forgive or forget. I advise his parents to teach their son. Otherwise, if this kind of behaviour if he repeats, he will bring dishonor and ill image not only on himself but on the US Chess itself.

To those people who are mysteriously silent here and patiently waiting for the FACTS can never justify this behaviour from a honorable US Champ. Sorry.

As usual, debate that has long since ceased to receive any new information or original opinion has radicalized the debaters.

Anyway, I don't recall Ms. Reese being "elderly," not that it's particularly relevant. I just thought it lame to see this description being added to portray Nakamura's behavior as even more atrocious.

Having scanned the thread a bit, there is something odd about Kasparov attacking Radjabov, which didn't happen. His tantrum in Linares was both general and directed at several journalists, not Radjabov.

Ryan, it beats impatiently ranting without the facts. People aren't mysteriously silent when they don't want to follow others in making mountains out of molehills. What we know is that Nakamura was shouting at an event organizer. Emotional blather about it being a woman, or an elderly woman, or Mother Theresa, is pure spin. It wasn't a wrestling match; I rather doubt he physically intimidated her.

As described it was undoubtedly poor behavior. I don't see anyone saying it wasn't, or that it was justifiable to yell at someone in public. But making it out to mean a big character flaw or crimes against humanity, or asking the chess world to unanimously condemn it, is blowing it way out of proportion. I've seen plenty of players yell at organizers in public before. Yes, the US champion should try to hold himself to a higher standard, absolutely. But this must be somewhat mitigated by his age. Hate the sin, love the sinner. And try to change them with tough love, not going jihad as if he had beaten someone up.

Mig,
I have not started this. I was only responding to Daaim Shabazz. Yes you are right, love is the way!

Besides being a big chess tallent, Nakamura, we would all agree, would do well to improve his table manners, along with his endgame skills. A great star or flameout? Time will tell. His apology sounded truly authentic.

Actually those unconventional moves such as 2. Qh5!? could represent a
step closer to the acceptance of Fischerandom chess (aka chess960)
in the mainstream chess practice, at the same time possibly replacing
conventional chess.

The point is they bring over disruption in the long-established _faith_ in
main playable lines such as 15-or-so-move long variations of Spanish,
Sicilians, etc.

Truth is however that these mainlines are not better than any other
unconventional lines in creating unbalanced positions with good play
for both sides, where computer (home) analysis can no longer be used.

Carrying this unbalance pursuit to an extreme it would mean that to achieve a
unbalanced position with live play no longer depends on following
any traditional recipe or disruptive 2nd-move unconventional openings:
in fact that sought unbalanced middle-game position could be just a shuffled
starting position as in Fischerrandom chess.

While the aesthetic distribution of the pieces on the back rows is not
the best, it is interesting to note that fischerrandom chess could be
the perfect revealing of ignorance/understanding of the so-called deepest
secrets of the game. Thousands of hours of computer analysis in middle-game
positions would mean nothing after 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 as well as in FRC --which
means software companies such as Chessbase should either adapt and
re-invent their bussiness or perish --Commercial
interests as ever would play an important role here.
2. Qh5 may well be a step closer to fully realize this.

Mig,

I wonder if Hikaru can post a response. If not on the blog, at least conveying to you what happened. He may be traveling now, but hopefully we can find out something more. I could try to ask Sunil.

Hey Mig... on the Radjabov case... they may be referring to the interview Radjabov did where he stated that Kasparov was blocking his progress and influencing organizers not to invite him. I'm just guessing that is what they mean.

Ryan, Hikaru is not the first national champion in history to yell at an organizer. Let's be real. Have you ever gotten upset at somebody and snapped? Do we know how the exchange was initiated? Do we know that he didn't apologize later? We should reserve judgement until details are revealed.

I guess we have farmed out the 2.Qh5 issue. What an interesting discussion! I hope another GM plays 2.Qh5. Where are you Morozevich? Maybe Nigel Short could play it.

Sorry for my rapid post, but chessfanatic made a profound statement.

I have been playing Fischer Random and shufflechess a lot lately and it is amazing the patterns you can get. Fritz is very strong at organizing its pieces with these wierd moves. It is easy to get a busted position in less than 7-8 moves if you're not careful.

We are so used to set positions that we forget about chess and think robotically about the moves. Thus, we condemn 2.Qh5 because somebody said that moving your queen out early is automatically bad. This is why 2.Qh5 is so revolutionary. It should cause us to rethink our approach to chess.

Of course, Fischer Random makes opening theory irrelevant, but it requires certain middlegame understanding. It should be understood that there is still an opening in Fischer Random, but a very short one. I propose a 10-game exhibition match between Hikaru Nakamura and Robert James Fischer.

Yermo--

Your experience as U.S. Champion might be helpful to Nakamura. What wise investments did you make with your U.S. Championship winnings? (Having read the Harvard Business Review's article linking chess talent and business success I'm sure you picked out some good stocks, mutual funds, or bonds.)

Here is what Gelfans said about Nakamura:

"Nakamura is a player of a new generation. He does not hide, he shows off that he has not read a single book and does not know the endgame theory. Instead of studying the works of Tarrasch he prefers to be 24 hours on the ICC. However, he has convincing competitive results. This is a very interesting phenomenon.

Other young talents – Karjakin, Harikrishna, Volokitin – are playing normal classical chess. And the play of Nakamura is another dimension. I cannot judge his prospects. As I understand, at some point such a player stops progressing and it is already late to learn again. On the other hand, if one can bring to perfection the concrete play, “move by move”, maybe such an approach to chess turns out to be more effective?"

I believe, this game is a perfect example for Boris's statement. But who can answer the question he brought?

Fascinating quote, Vlad. Can you give me the source so I can use it elsewhere? Thanks.

I don't know Hikaru all that well but I have spent some hours here and there with him. Yes he does have some haughty points. He loves to talk about as Gelfand mentions that he never studies chess and knows nothing but is still US Champion, or his amazing memory etc., which always leaves the rest of us thinking... but on the other hand he has the right to be the way he is. He speaks to everyone he knows. He is always willing to discuss chess ideas. He is interested in things outside of chess. I am sure the incident is blown way out of proportion possibly even akin to the rumor on ICC that Morozevich is an arms dealer...i.e. completely made up. If it happens to be true, so what? You don't know the facts so don't make judgements. Don't behave as if have never screamed at a woman or that there is no provocation for doing so. Whatever the parents of the children were thinking when watching. F'em. Who cares? Most of those kids will drop out the moment they get out of high school, if not way before. This whole image thing is BS anyway. If a school kid wants to play with success, he will.

"Fascinating quote, Vlad. Can you give me the source so that I can quote it elsewhere? Thanks."

Mig: This was quoted by Boris Gelfand in the ACP interview.

http://www.chess-players.org/eng/news/viewarticle.html?id=347

It is well-known what happened in the Nakamura-Karjakin match, but Gelfand brings up an interesting point. Hikaru has made it known that he doesn't read many books. However, part of his learning methods entails playing tons of games by "trial and error." This leads to a science of learning called epistemology. What is the most effective way to learn and/or acquire knowledge?

Hikaru's method is an interactive approach which allows him to eliminate his defects quickly as opposed to referencing volumes of books and databases of past games. Of course, he can always refer to databases if he prefers, but the problem is that the database may no longer be up to date as he plays hundreds of interactive games with strong players. Interesting method.

Just as Kasparov has built that extensive database of openings, Hikaru has built an interactive database with each offhand game he plays. Thus, he may feel that reading books is not proactive, but reactive learning. It is an interesting method that works for him. This is not to say that he shouldn't know endgames because these principles change very little, but his learning method deserves attention.

Kasparov's database, while a valuable tool, may not allow a quick enough response... especially if someone plays an offhand opening that is not in the database or book. You can't always go back and look up the answers quick enough. I tell my students not to rely on their textbook all the time because (1) it may be out of date despite the copyright date (2) you have to be able to think on your own.

I'm no accomplished player, but I believe there is too much reliance on theoretical principles and not enough learning through interaction. Hikaru may have added to a new school of chess thought. The rapid accumulation of knowledge with interactive play is an interesting paradigm which may produce more moves like 2.Qh5.

Mig,
Here is the URL
http://chess-players.org/eng/news/viewarticle.html?id=347
Don't tell Garry you read this site ;-)

I've been an ACP member since it started, and Garry knows it.

Regarding Qh5 and anti-book play, Kasparov talked about this trend in his retirement interviews. Many players are shying away from concrete lines where computer preparation can be decisive.

Peace...

The following was forwarded on another forum:

I spoke to Diane today. Not all of the facts are accurate. She
requested people stop posting on this subject in open forums.
Rob

Enough said. Leave the kid alone.

Hotep,

Maliq

war ....

What is it good for?

I've been looking at this whole 2. Qh5 thing, and just trying to break it down rationally:

(1) It sidesteps the Petroff, which European players like to play to draw with.
(2) For whatever good that does, if Black responds Nc6, then Bc4 forces g6 (or Qe7, blocking the Bf8).
(3) After the Queen withdrawal, the Qe2 and Bc4 aren't that badly placed - I often play the Worral attack against the Spanish, and my Queen ends up on that square anyway.
(4) It might turn out to produce some new, interesting middlegames.

Let it rip.

peace .... (just kidding)

NO Maliq, absolutely not: if that unsolicited post is to be believed, it has to do with Diane being left alone, not the petulant teen who popped a piston on her.

Hi. I am a player from Uruguay, and not certainly an opening theoritician , but against 2. Qh5?! I had read somewhere that black could simply play
2...Nf6!?
3. Qe5+ Be7
followed by Nc6, castling and a quick d5 combined with Re8 and white may have some problems.
Any idea?

Clubfoot,

Let it rest. What are we gaining from talking about this off-topic matter? Nothing. Besides, Hikaru is not here to defend himself and Diane Reese is not her to explain what happened. Of course, the matter is deserves attention, but is this the proper venue? This thread is about 2.Qh5 and its impact, not Hikaru's behavior at a tournament.

Peace...

Hikaru told me that he was hot under the collar, but actually never lost his temper. People are here talking about some exaggerated incident like they know what the hell they are speaking of. If the two parties involved do not make a big deal of it, then why should any of us? Have we no lives, so that we are overly concerned with this situation? As I said, I was in Nashville. If it was a big situation, I would not have first heard of it on this forum. Let it rest already. It wasn't even the point of this thread.

Hotep,

Maliq

Daaim

I am all for letting the matter rest but unfortunately you read a censored post. The blogmaster removed just enough to obfuscate its original intention and make it appear as if I wanted everyone to keep hammering away at Nakamura. Be assured this is not the case, but just a trademark piece of nastiness from Mig.

Hey Daaim,
Yes, I know Bernard Parham. The way I learned the Qh5 opening was through NM Jason Doss. I noticed him playing it in G/30 when I first moved to Dallas from San Antonio in 2000. So I asked him to teach me "the system"..which he did and Jason Doss also told me about Bernard Parham. So, I met Bernard at the 2000 or 2001 Chicago Open (can't remember which) and asked him if he had any ideas what I should do against the novelty (or so I thought) that Whatley unleashed on me with 4..f5. We didn't really come up with anything conclusive.
I don't really have any old gamescores that I can find off hand, however JZY, Bg7 Nbc3 are the omitted moves from my game vs Perelshtyn. I stopped playing the opening after I couldn't find a satisfactory continuation after 4..f5, but I won a boatload of games and rating points thanks to this opening.

Clubfoot, the part of the post I deleted was an extra paragraph attacking Maliq that had nothing to do with this case or your first paragraph and everything to do with your being a jerk. If that was your idea of ending the matter you are more deluded I thought. That you would then use my removing such garbage as a way to attack me and act the martyr is pathetic. Waahh, Mig is so nasty. He must have an agenda to keep me down. I'm so important.

"It is well-known what happened in the Nakamura-Karjakin match, but Gelfand brings up an interesting point. Hikaru has made it known that he doesn't read many books. However, part of his learning methods entails playing tons of games by "trial and error." This leads to a science of learning called epistemology. What is the most effective way to learn and/or acquire knowledge?"

Daaim,

I thought epistemology was the study of the nature, origin and scope of knowledge.

Anyway thanks for you and others for bringing this to the thread which has somewhat morphed into one of those bashing fest again.

canuck,

Yes... that's the definition, but I suppose I was just trying to say it was a science which deals with how knowledge is acquired. I wasn't trying to be too technical on that one, but you're right... I should been more precise.

Enrique,

Pleased to have your insight. Yermo added some analysis to the 4...f5 line. You may have seen it. It would be interesting to be some of your wins against the stronger players. Incidentally, my attempts to contact Bernard Parham have failed. His son, also a 2.Qh5 player, hasn't responded yet either. I knew Jason Doss played it when I talked to Parham.

I was looking at that 2...Nf6 line and it's interesting. Black can really get good play after 3.Qxe5+ Be7 followed by 4...Nc6. Anybody find anything?

Incidentally, I played a game (as white) against Guillermo Ruiz, a crafty Peruvian master which was similar to the line that Yermo suggested...

1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 Nc6 3.Bc4 g6 4.Qf3 f5 5.d3 Nf6 6.Ne2 Bc5 7.Nbc3 d6.

My game with Ruiz came from the Vienna Game went

1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Bc5 3. Bc4 Nc6 4. Qg4 g6 5. Qf3 Nf6 6. Nge2 Na5 7. d3!?

I beat Ruiz in a positional style, but of course the move ...f5 makes quite a difference! As Yermo stated in his ...f5 line, White has a playable position nevertheless. It's not that easy for Black to get the king out of the center without playing a move like ...f4 because Bg5! is lurking.

Mig is mistaken. He's never been that bright, but he is less intelligent than I thought if he truly believes he did not emasculate my post. Not surprising, but here his childishness is astounding:

"Waahh, Mig is so nasty. He must have an agenda to keep me down."

Wrong again, kid. I pointed out that you chopped up my post -- true -- and that you then put it out so its meaning was unclear -- also true. True and deliberate.

Mig so delights in playing the bully that one wonders how his tune would change if he had to face his targets. He's a ninja master at acting the tough guy behind a computer screen. Who's pathetic now?

"I thought epistemology was the study of the nature, origin and scope of knowledge."

Perhaps Mr. Shabazz meant 'empiricism'.

On this thing about TD's, it seems like some people who have posted here have a really unrealistic viewpoint of these people's motivations and the pressures they have to deal with. It's not like millions of excess dollars are being pumped into the U.S. chess scene (have you followed the saga of the USCF balance sheets the last few years?), and greedy TD's are grabbing it. There's probably just enough left over (if any) to keep a club or a newsletter going, to keep their thing together in their community for this game we all love. Furthermore, in their conduct of tournaments, you're talking about people who have to suddenly supervise 50 or 100 people and a whole range of conflicts, like disputes over pairings, E players who didn't know the 'en passant' rule, or (I saw this in the South Carolina State Championship), the players are blitzing out moves in a time scramble, one knocks his King over, puts it on the wrong square, and they make three moves before they notice the difference. TD's may have a couple of assistants working for them, but facts are that problems are going to arise, and they have to be resolved quickly and decisively (we don't have all weekend!). We've all played blitz chess, and we know that mistakes can occur under these circumstances.

So if, in theory, someone screamed at a TD in the middle of a tournament until she cried, or if one had the urge to punch another one for his 'arrogance', it's hard for me to believe that they understand the full context of their actions or desires.

piece .... (mine)

Read the current Dutch Treat column and Chesscafe.com and it appears to be true that Kramnik did in fact prepare 1. e4 e5 2. Qh5 for blitz games against Kasparov. Vlady passed on a bit of his analysis to Nigel Short. Very interesting!

Hmmmm... the term empiricism (learning by experience/experimentation) could be used, but what I was interested in was the way Hikaru was creating his knowledge and the quality of it.

"Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that studies knowledge. It attempts to answer the basic question: what distinguishes true (adequate) knowledge from false (inadequate) knowledge?"

I believe it's worthy to point out the idea that Hikaru is able to absorb a mass amount of data quickly and correct his errors in "real time." This is opposed to relying on "inadequate" databases that may not include the 50 games he's played on the ICC a few hours ago.

Think of this...

If someone read this thread, it is possible they may understand 2.Qh5 a bit better. If they had not read this thread and played 50 blitz games with and against 2.Qh5, could we say they may learn quite a bit more through empiricism? It would be interesting to find out how Kramnik prepared 2.Qh5.

I wonder how Gelfand (who lauds Karjakin) would explain the Nakamura-Karjakin result? As an interviewer, I would have raised that question. However, he ends his interview by entertaining a very interesting debate.

Sorry for the length.

Peace...

Anonymous coward, I am a scholastic chess coach (at least until the end of this school year), and I have directed scholastic tournaments in the past in which, as Jenn Shahade once said, relatively strong players were sitting a knight's move away from other players who, literally, were not sure how the knight moves. It is not because I do not understand the rigors of being a tournament director that I felt like punching this guy. One of my closest friends in the chess world is Assistant Manager at the Marshall Chess Club, and we talk all the time about the differences between directing adult tournaments and scholastic tournaments. Do not put "arrogance" in quotation marks. It is not disputable that this guy displayed great arrogance in shoving his USCF badge forward, using his index finger to attempt to draw my attention to the words "tournament director", and telling me that I could always withdraw the kids and stay for vacation. Such action is clearly indicative of arrogance, so I thank you not to demean my classification of this. I am very aware of the context of my actions and desires, and I am also aware of the context of those of the TD.

Hotep,

Maliq

Let's chill.

We're missing out on a good discussion.

Hans Ree's article is very interesting. I believe one thing we have missed is the psychological impact of 2.Qh5. Remember... I saw a guy shellshocked after losing to 2.Qh5. Enrique Rios showed us how psychology can work in his quick win against Perelshteyn.

Kasparov would have in a fit of rage had Kramnik played 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5. However, Sasikiran's temperament is much milder than Kasparov's which is probably why he survived. Now people will be prepared against this killer move.

Dennis Monokroussos analyses Nakamura-Sasikiran and gives some 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 Nf6!? analysis.

Go down toward the lower third of the page at

http://chessmind.powerblogs.com/

"I wonder how Gelfand (who lauds Karjakin) would explain the Nakamura-Karjakin result? As an interviewer, I would have raised that question. However, he ends his interview by entertaining a very interesting debate."

I think it's a very good interview (w/ Gelfand), which brings attention to the subtle difference between the theoretical innovator and practical player at the highest level. But you're right - he does seem to be 'faintly damning with praise' Nakamura for being a pragamtist, which does amount to criticizing someone for playing well, which is strange. I personally would like to have at my disposal the ability to pimp-slap 2500 players by just 'playing out of book'. But alas, such are not the powers of a patzer. And you're right, I think Karjakin found out up close the powers of practical play.

But Gelfand's comments might be overly reductionist, too. In round 7 of Sigeman, Nakamura played the most 'book' of all the openings, Gelfand's (and my) beloved Najdorf, and dismantled Sune Berg Hansen with it. I think this game will be a note in an opening book real soon.

Peace...

I don't understand this talk of Hikaru playing out of "book" all the time. He plays known openings, only with wrinkles, and the only question is whether the openings are common or not. 2. Qh5 is not an unknown opening, just uncommon to GM play, and for this it is derided. The opening is not losing for white; it is dynamically equal. As such, there is still a lot of play left in the position. When I trained with Yudasin, I was very intrigued by the fact that he played anti-Sicilian lines with white and often came out of "book" in favor of his own pet lines, aiming not for advantage but rather for imbalance. As he said to me at the time, "I come to fight. Good fight, bad fight, it doesn't matter if you don't know how to fight like me." This changed my entire approach to the game and took me from 1900 to 2100 very quickly. It seems that if a two-time World Championship Candidate and former top 10 in the world could think of chess in such a way, then it is curious that Hikaru's similar approach is derided. Incidentally, note how people derided Tal for just such breaking of principles, even as he crushed GMs routinely. If I can crush Smirin in 22 moves by playing uncommon lines without using time on my clock and smash a 2600 GM by a score of +3 in a short match, then I favor this approach, as well!

Hotep,

Maliq

Maliq,

In today's age, opening theory changes so fast and games are available almost instantaneously. It's too much data! So maybe it is wise for Hikaru to keep an element of surprise up his sleeve. If people know he's capable of playing moves like 2.Qh5, then it gives him a psychological advantage.

I remember years ago as a junior, I spent hours devouring opening books and was very much "booked up." However, I decided that it was impossible to keep up with the latest lines given my university studies. So I took up a lot of obscure openings and started studying the endgame more.

I played 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 for many years and added 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.Qxd4 when Shabalov crushed a few strong players with it. Sometimes I'll throw 1.e4 e6 2.Nf3!? on the board.

The element of surprise with obscurce lines can be very effective. Fortunately, for Sasikiran, he had the right temperament to face 2.Qh5 or he would've become a footnote in many opening books.

I am not so clear that 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 Nf6 3.Qxe5+ Be7 is a slightly worse position then in the line in the Scotch 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4. Nxd4 Qh4 5.Nf3?! Qxe4+ 6.Be2 this line is slightly dubious. I have played it in blitz and since there are better lines for white I don't really think it is too great for serious games. 4...f5 seems like the right answer if this becomes a trendy move.

It was interesting to see the comments spew out on ICC when Nakamura played 2 Qh5. It is objectively not a bad move as evidenced by the position he obtained and subsequent analysis perviously posted. Chess, for all it's transformations with computers, databases,tablebases,deeper opening analysis and theory of knowledge, still seems to reside with the player who can see further into the position over the board. The question will be for Nakamura's future if he can discipline himself for theoretical study necessary to offset the 2700's (ie Leko,
Kramnik)observable edge in that area for I already believe he has approached their natural calculative abilities.

Hikaru has constantly amazed me with his theoretical preparation and natural talent for finding new ideas in openings (with regards to king hunts and initiatives)..I find it refreshing he was willing to try something so outlandish (but not bad!) against a top player such as sasikiran. I have goated him into playing Qh5 on dozens of occasions and seen him smash TOP PLAYERS in blitz games...I somehow doubt we're suddenly going to see him give up on the Queens Gambit or Ruy Lopez (he plays everything!!), and take up Qh5 as his main weapon :). As often written about, GM's spend months preparing and analyzing to find a single innovation for an important game in order to get SOME edge, (whether psychological or practical), Hikaru did this and it paid off! He got an edge! I personally would find it humorous if his future opponents must now prepare for Qh5 :) Perhaps an NIC yearbook article will be written? Starring the games of Nakamura, Parham, Doss, and Rios :)
At the very worst, at least love the hours of interesting and fun debate it has stirred in our chess lives.

Jason,

I'd like to see that yearbook! (smile)

I mentioned early that what Hikaru has done is revolutionary. He has reinvigorated the debate that Bernard Parham pioneered. Sometimes your ideas don't have to be "correct" and you don't always have to have all the answers. Theories created centuries ago sometimes enter the mainstream only because of the work of some young scientist.

This is the 134th post on this topic and I would say that we all may have learned from it. It took a high profile player like Hikaru to play 2.Qh5! and get some attention. Kramnik is probably regretting that he didn't play it against Kasparov as he had planned to do.

I must say Parham deserves some credit for bringing this debate to the table. Of course, GMs are the only ones who get credit for chess ideas, but of course this is wrong. However, I believe Nakamura-Sasikiran gives some legitimacy to Parham's ideas and hopefully people will see chess differently.

You could also add a few games by John Rouleau.

With regards to Parham....This did indeed bring some of his lines to the table, but I do not think his ideas or principles are whats being discussed. I have a soft spot in my heart for Parham, as he was my coach and mentor as a kid, but most of the 'matrix' ideals are a gimmick and not advisable (especially with regards to the black pieces!). His methodology is good for kids to get them off the ground quickly(with exception to the point value system and dumb notation), but it promotes laziness to the hilt (most never once read a chess book, and are encouraged not too under Parham)...Most of the students quit or stop getting better because by the time they realize they need to enrich their chess knowledge with classics, they've already grown too rigid and lazy to start incorporating real chess fundamentals. The only exceptions to this rule are Jim H. Dean and I (but most coaches can rarely say they had 2 of their kids go on to become masters I think). I guess in a way the 'matrix' system is a McDonalds designed type system.
I think Parham should get the proper credit, as his lines went from himself to me (As a kid, rated almost as high as Bernard, I developed half of his lines alongside with him until I changed to a more traditional coach when I was around 1900 rated), and then from me to Hikaru. Hikaru is a breathe of fresh air when it comes to such ideas...he didn't immediately shovel off to the side, instead he looked for ideas and practical chances. This built-in trait to 'create' are one of his best aspects I think (and Sunil did one hell of a job promoting this!).

Jason,

I suppose what I'm getting at is not his system per se, but the fact that he has played the system in competitive play for years. Again... you don't have to have all the answers to be a pioneer. A stronger player can improve on your ideas and make them better, but who else in the universe was defying theory by playing 2.Qh5 exclusively?

Parham has explained to me his methods and also his son, Bernard II, claims to have never read a book. However, earlier we were discussing how Hikaru methods did not entail reading a horde of classic books and he's pushing 2700. In the other thread, Gelfand is wondering whether this method is more effective then the classic approach... hence the other debate.

While I believe Parham was onto something in his Matrix system, I'm more interested in his motivation for creating such a system and not whether his Matrix ideas are "correct." The 2.Qh5/Matrix debate will evolve naturally and can be proven right or wrong... wrong or right.

The ideas on this thread are not so much about the merits or demerits of 2.Qh5 as it is about breaking the rules of established principles. Notice there are few lines given in these 137 posts. The real issue is the defiance of accepted principles and Hikaru has reinvigorated the debate in fine style... DESPITE his loss!

Yes Hikaru did get a playable game as white against a strong player. But so what? We could well play 1.a3!? and do the same. White can well afford one small error and still remain okay. Let's face it, 2.Qh5 is not a great move under chess considerations. It is not about revolutionary principles and the normal principles still hold for the the most part. Psychology is a different question and there I agree that Hikaru is a great practical player. As are Bernard Parham, John Rouleau, Enrique Rios and I surmise Jason Doss as well. Maybe it would have been better sprung on someone else though.To me it seems like the best reply to the non standard queen sally is the equally paradoxical move 4..f5. What I think is missing from this discussion is more consideration to the move 4...f5! which would have been the real challenge to white's "error." Is white still equal or has black taken the iniative? Should we be labelling Qh5 with a "?!" Did Sasikiran even consider this move? I am sure he thought for a while after Qh5. In any case, as Jason Doss seems to think the associated chess ideas are slightly dubious so to call it a revolution of principles is a bit too much. A ploy gone awry seems more accurate.

Dear chess-loving friends,

Hmmm, it seems that 4...f5!? seems to be the best fighting answer to 2.Qh5, perhaps Kramnik knows about this line in his analysis. I think we should