Greengard's ChessNinja.com

No Hanky-Panky with Jinky

| Permalink | 203 comments

You can stop following Jinky Young's results in U-10 tournaments for signs of genius. The DNA test performed on Bobby Fischer's remains have ruled out his paternity of the nine-year-old Filipino girl. This likely deals a fatal blow to her mother's chances of getting a piece of Fischer's estate, rumored to be worth whatever the media pulls out of its collective ass on any given day. ChessBase has news clippings and links up here.

I suppose they have to eventually decide on a recipient, no? Would it default to the Icelandic government otherwise? They could use a few bucks. Ms. Watai, Fischer's (apparently somewhat unofficial) Japanese wife, would be my pick. They cared about each other for a non-trivial amount of time and it would sort of keep it in the chess family since she's the president of the Japanese Federation. Maybe they could use it to establish a non-profit chess promotion foundation of some sort, or just give it to the ADL.

Speaking of, and though I'm sure it's far beyond the purview of the court, they could probably use Fischer's DNA to prove his own paternity, which, last I heard, was only anecdotally shown to belong to Paul Nemenyi and not Gerhard Fischer. Nemenyi probably has enough family around to get a produce a statistically significant match. Or at least to disprove, which is easier. Even a comparison with the DNA of Fischer's sister's kids (who are currently trying to get his estate) might be enough for that.

Well, RIP Bobby. Again. For now.


I wish they would just let this guy rest. Just like when he fled the US, reporters seemed to track him down just so they could find some controversial comments. Pretty sure this guy was content to live his life out in relative obscurity before the whole deportation thing happened.

Excellent point Mig. Hopefully somebody picks up on it and checks out the Nemenyi angle.

Fischer's nephews (his sister Joan Targ's sons) may have a reasonable claim here as well. I hope more people read about this situ and realize they need to get a Will.

It's not pleasant to think about one's own death, but we will all die someday and we should think about our loved ones and ensure that they don't have to deal with the legal troubles arising from the disposition of our estates without a Will. I just got one this month and I ensure others to do the same.

I think the charitable view is that this was just an honest mistake on Ms. Marylin Young's part.

Yeah, I was wondering about that too. There are so many dark and rather unpleasant alleys to go down with regard to that topic, that I think the best is to ignore them all and go with what you suggest.

Fischer's estate should be given to Karpov's campaign for FIDE President. It would be enough to bribe 105 third-world countries. Chinese Rolex watches and imitation perfumes can be bought at $5 a piece. So, that makes $10 each for 105 delegates, or $1050. Add a little $750 cash incentive (a la Bush) per country and the bill goes up by $78.750, to a grand total of $79.800. Throw in a few ancillary expenses (condoms, a few cheap wine bottles and the occasional DNA test for Capablanca's relatives in Miami), the total cost of FIDE Chess President's position is a hundred grand. Should be doable if Fischer's Estate and Karpov's millionaire backers join forces.

Bobby... you are NOT the father...

"but we will all die someday and we should think about our loved ones and ensure that they don't have to deal with the legal troubles arising from the disposition of our estates without a Will. I just got one this month and I ensure others to do the same."

Very sound advice, and I fully agree. I too wrote down my Will. All I need to have now is an estate, and I should be good to go.

Now it all depends on whether or not Fischer's greedy american cousins can invalidate his marriage with Watai.

Fischer's sister Joan did not have Nemenyi as father. Thus her children do not carry the "genius" genes that came from Nemenyi. As Jinky is not a carrier, we can now safely say that those genius genes are now lost forever. A pity.

NH tightening up as predicted, but what's happening to Fabiano? Fatigue, maybe? He's underperforming. Van Wely? Maybe he should reconsider taking a sabbatical next year. He's playing well and has been making money at the game. Speaking of money, does anyone know if Walt Browne got rich off of Poker, or was it just a supplement to his ample chess earnings, however much that was?

I dunno about the "genius genes being lost" thing. Joan was pretty smart in her own right...


Mig's comments are not non trivial.This butchery of the english is fascinating to behold :)

Re: Learning All The Time Department. As a non-native English speaker I have just learned that the phrase "butchery of the english" means "masterful and creative usage of the English language." Thank you.

Genius genes? Highly unlikely. A high percentage of the time, there's a regression toward the mean for high- or low-end genes. That means someone like, say J.S. Bach, would have to have a whole bunch of children for the possibility of producing someone near his intellectual stature. That was pretty much the case. Fischer would have had to have been very lucky to father a genius.

By the way, I caught RJF same day on Johnny Carson's Tonight Show back in 1972. Watched very carefully as they matched wits in that litte puzzle game where you move the initially scrambled numbers around until they are in order. Carson warned Bobby that he was pretty good at it. Fischer smiled and said he wasn't bad either. Carson went first and took about a minute, which is very good. Fischer then did it (close up from the camera) in, like, 11 seconds. I would not have believed it if I hadn't seen it with my own eyes. Someone should try to get that show tape.


The speed at which Fischer was moving his finger to arrange the numbers was literally beyond comprehension. It was like he was just an extension of a machine programmed to do that. Frightening. I'm not convinced that he was so good at the game of chess just because he was so all-consumed by it.

Good point kenhabeeb, the fact of the matter is he was immensely gifted in certain areas, which translates I guess to "talent" in Chess. This spatial visualisation (for lack of a better term) gift is something he was born with, along with a prodigious memory and various other intellectual abilities that you cannot possibly develop with practice, however obsessed you are. One of my favourite Fischer stories (which I've related on these pages before, so apologies for boring you) is how he phoned up an Icelandic friend in Reykjavik, but he was not in and his young daughter answered. Fischer realised this girl didn't speak English and soon said thank you and hung up. The next day he repeated what the girl said word for word, including inflexions and accent and all, even though he didn't speak a word of Icelandic and asked what it meant. This is something you're born with, period.

However along with such sublime and little understood gifts, often the mind seems to compensate by not being capable of certain things which are considered ordinary in people without such gifts. This is my enduring sadness about Fischer, his amazing gifts coupled with his strength of personality meant that his problems were never treated, and the thin line between genius, dedication, and unmatched achievement and paranoia, instability and nervous collapse was irrevocably crossed.

Bobby Fischer on Carson's tonight show: http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/40843/


Fischer studied the fifteen game! I believe the DeLucia book reproduces RJF's childhood notes on best play in a given position.

Attention Naka-Haters:

Nakamura - van Wely @ NH Tournament...

Would you like a little salt with that crow?
Oh, it hurts!

Believe Bobby's appearance on the Carson Show was Nov. 8th 1972.

Nakamura haters can fashion their own arguments, but they’ll probably choose some of these:

1. Van Wely is not an elite player and is growing weaker by the day.

2. This is not a normal tournament so it doesn’t count.

3. The big guys (Carlsen, Anand, Kramnik, Topalov) aren’t there.

4. It’s only one game and means very little.

I would guess not even Naka would draw too much of a conclusion from that game--just a disaster for Loek. According to commentary on ICC, he had just analysed that very line to a loss for Black for article in next NIC, and just got confused.

Jeez, Mr. Fiske, is that timely or what??

Thanks. Will await.

"In the Poisoned Pawn Variation of the Najdorf the players followed the game Smith-Laznicka from the recent World Open in Philadelphia. Obviously they both knew this game, but Van Wely had annotated it for the forthcoming issue of New In Chess. And in his comments he had indicated that on move 12 Black cannot play 12…Nd7 (the only move is 12…Ng4) because of the continuation 13.Nd5 Qc5 14.Nb3 Qc6 15.Na5 Qc5 16.Nxb7 ‘and Black is lost’. So, did this mean that he automatically went 12…Ng4 as he had advised himself? No, sadly for him it didn’t. For some inexplicable reason he played 12…Nd7 and only after 16.Nxb7 did he begin to think that something had gone seriously wrong." http://nhchess.com/RoundReport7.html


JOan may have been smart.
However, Nemenyi was famous for having a phenomenal memory for 3-D objects.

Nakamura - Van Wely, WOW. That's the kind of loss that makes you want to quit playings... but you can't! ; )

LOL - masterful and creative a non trivial description indeed.

The following is rated "M" for macabre:

Seated on the left: Jinky and her mother. Seated on the right: Ms Watai. Propped up in the middle and smelling a little strange: Bobby Fischer. Maury opens up the envelope, and says, "Bobby, you are...NOT the father!"

One of my favourite Fischer stories (which I've related on these pages before, so apologies for boring you) is how he phoned up an Icelandic friend in Reykjavik, but he was not in and his young daughter answered. Fischer realised this girl didn't speak English and soon said thank you and hung up. The next day he repeated what the girl said word for word, including inflexions and accent and all, even though he didn't speak a word of Icelandic and asked what it meant. This is something you're born with, period.


I knew Bobby for close to 20 years and don't believe a word of this.

"I knew Bobby for close to 20 years and don't believe a word of this."

Sorry to say, I don't believe a word of this.

"Sorry to say, I don't believe a word of this. "

I don't believe you.

This sounds like a rehash of an old Fischer story told with different details in one of the various books written about him back in the 70s.

(100 years from now):

"Fischer once gave a simultaneous on 50 boards in 1964 in California, and 5 years later, he was able to recite the moves from all 50 games backwards! In four languages! Not only that, he recalled perfectly the color of each opponent's eyes and if they were wearing a wrist watch. He even remembered precisely if his opponents used a pen or a pencil to record their moves!"

I was a close personal friend of Bobby his whole life. All of you are full of crap and don't know anything about him. So quit trying to sponge off of him.

"I knew Bobby for close to 20 years and don't believe a word of this."

Sorry to say, I don't believe a word of this.
Lobster is clearly not my real name. Under my real name I wrote a column for Chess Life in the 1950s and was also a contributing editor to Al Horowitz's Chess Review at the time. You may, of course, believe as you like.

bobby was a very close friend mine i help him in match in yugoslavia. please stop talk bad about him

Yea, some of the stories sound over the top, and who knows, there could be some exaggeration, but an eidetic or some kind of super kind of memory seems to be a hallmark of elite grandmasters. I've heard accounts of that not just about Fischer, but also for Anand and others.

Could any of us get up after a tournament game and recite a long sequence of moves made and not made as quickly and effortlessly as any of the invitees to these elite tournaments?
Ah, no.
I believe that these guys are mostly freaks of nature just like Tour de France riders are in a physical way. A lot of work - and, a lot of talent.

I've always liked the story of Bronstein, looking at a photograph from many years earlier, being baffled as to who his opponent was -- until he saw the position on the board, and it all came back to him!

Actually -- and ironically -- I've misremembered the Bronstein story! I went back to "The Sorcerer's Apprentice" to double check, and there was no other person in the photograph. Here's the anecdote, related by Tom Furstenberg (p. 9):

"When we selected photographs for this book and looked at the one from the Candidates Tournament in Amsterdam 1956, where David was shown seated behind the board without his opponent, I asked him whom he was playing. He looked a couple of seconds at the position on the board and recognised his game with Herman Pilnik!"

It's amusing to me that, while this is still an impressive feat of memory on Bronstein's part(and Furstenberg introduces it as such), my own memory has turned it into something slightly different -- a story about how the steel-trap mind of a chess genius encodes board positions more readily (and less corruptibly) than it does people. Oh well. Our memories tell the stories we want them to tell, I suppose. (And Bronstein, I'm sure -- the most humane of chess players -- was probably less likely than most to forget the "personal" circumstances of a chess game.)

The direction this discussion is now heading reminded me of this anecdote by Tim Krabbe, WRT Jan Timmman:

"This was my first game against Timman. From 1967 to 1971, by which time he had become too strong for me to ever again meet him over the board, we played 6 official games. My score, even when you realise Timman was between 15 and 19, and I was between 24 and 28, was not that bad: three draws, and three losses.
"Later, we became good friends, and even composed an endgame study together. One time, many years after we had last played each other, maybe around 1990, I mentioned our six games to him. I knew the results, but when I wanted to describe the games, I found I could only remember five. Timman then immediately described the sixth - opening, type of play, type of tactics, length.
"I was baffled. For him, that game had only been one of the many he played before his real career started, while for me, any game against an obvious future champion like him was something of an event. And HE remembered it."


Bobby Fischer was so smart he left the money for the second Spassky match with the shady yugoslav bank that sponsored the event. Needless to say, the money was lost. Fischer also showed his deep intellect by becomimng part of a religious cult that took most of his money from the first match with Spassky.

Face it, guys: Fischer was closer to an idiot savant than a genius. The guy was pretty inept for most daily things - that's a sure sign of stupidity, but his undeniable gift for the game of chess makes the average sycophant lose sight of the obvious.

When people claim that he spoke "several languages", they actually mean he could say a dozen phrases in several languages. And, no, he was not good at anything other than chess. For the game, he was a real genius. No question about it: the evidence is there in the many beautiful scores he left behind.

Am fascinated watching B. Gelfand attempt to pluck a point from Caruana in a knight and pawns endgame, Boris being a pawn up - four on three.

I don't completely agree with you, Irv. "Idiot-Savant" is pushing it hard. He was in the world enough as not to be just a savant. He was in the middle ground - singular minded to an obsessive degree, but just because he was not good at anything else doesn't mean he couldn't have been with the same devotion. Mathematics? Physics?

Gelfand did it. Good stuff, I like it when he works the endgames.

A perfect description! Bravo.

The first time I saw the anecdote was in CL&R sometime in the mid-1970s, perhaps in an essay by Ed Edmondson.

An idiotic response that shows your own deep-rooted issues more than anything else. I just hope you deliberately misunderstood the point I was trying to make, but perhaps you really are that stupid.

"Lobster is clearly not my real name. Under my real name I wrote a column for Chess Life in the 1950s and was also a contributing editor to Al Horowitz's Chess Review at the time. You may, of course, believe as you like."

And there's me thinking you were Mr. Lobster, darn, thanks for enlightening me. I was of course christened d_tal and was Tal's personal physician for 19,472 seconds in 1963. And I still don't believe a word of what you say.

"Bobby Fischer was so smart he left the money for the second Spassky match with the shady yugoslav bank that sponsored the event. Needless to say, the money was lost. Fischer also showed his deep intellect by becomim[g] part of a religious cult that took most of his money from the first match with Spassky."

Irv, I'll concede the Worldwide Church of God part of your comment. But two qualifications:

1) While money was obviously important to RJF as a sign of respect accorded by others, he really didn't have much need or use for money. Perhaps it was a function of his mental illness; perhaps it's a function of our collective mental illness that we reduce human relations to economic transactions. Do we think Grigory Perleman is a nutter for turning down $1 million for proving the Poincaré conjecture?

2) When Fischer died, there was about 3,000,000 SFr (then about US $2.7 million) from former UBS customer RJF in an UBS escrow account in Switzerland. Certainly most of that money came from Fischer-Spassky II?

"Lobster is clearly not my real name. Under my real name I wrote a column for Chess Life in the 1950s and was also a contributing editor to Al Horowitz's Chess Review at the time. You may, of course, believe as you like."

And there's me thinking you were Mr. Lobster, darn, thanks for enlightening me. I was of course christened d_tal and was Tal's personal physician for 19,472 seconds in 1963. And I still don't believe a word of what you say.
As you were quick to call me a liar, I thought you might question "Lobster," too.

Mig has my real name, and he once spoke with me by phone shortly after returning from Argentina. We spoke of Dr. Daniel Benninson, and of Benninson's connection with Fischer at the Manhattan chess club.

That's a nice vignette, Mr. Brock. Thanks for the link.

Mig has my real name too, I have exchanged some e-mails with him. So what? Who do I believe, people who had documented and well publicised relationships with Fischer, and related this and numerous other anecdotes placing them in context, showcasing his unbelievable talent and gifts (for example, giving Adison pawn and move and playing blindfold, and holding his own at blitz), or you, who anonymously claims knowledge of Fischer that a handful of people ever had? Even if my cynicism was less well developed, I question how you can disprove something, of which you had as little knowledge as all of those people other than the person to whom Fischer directed this question, i.e. the rest of the World's population.

Shhhh! What's that sound? Naka haters hitting their heads against the wall...lol

Congrats Naka for NH win!

I never questioned his chess prowess; I questioned an anecdote relating to his language prowess. In all the years I knew him, Fischer showed little of this "gift."

Cool. Naka made it to Amber next spring. Can't wait!

BTW: How is he in blindfold chess, anybody knows?

Congrats to Hikaru Nakamura for the ticket to Amber. Not much doubt there about who was going to win the blitz playoff!
Oh, and by the way, Mr. Voor, no one here "hates" Hikaru. When you become his coach or manager, you'll have the right to crow like a rooster. Absent that, you sound pretty juvenile.

I do not consider myself a Naka hater, I didn't hit my head against the wall, but I do feel a bit sorry for Giri ... of course he has himself to blame, primarily for not winning against van Wely yesterday.

Anyway, on Nakamura's win:
- Is it such a big deal that he won an event where he was clear favorite? No
- Was his win convincing? Yes, as far as the blitz tiebreak is concerned ... in his own words: "at the end of the day I won, that's all that matters"

Nakamura does have some blindfold experience:


1. Fischer disliked the Soviet Union. Very normal during the Cold War.

2. Fischer disliked the modern state of Israel. A minority opinion, but there are lots of people who support the view, including Jews: Noam Chomsky comes to mind.

3. Fischer disliked American imperialism. Again a minority opinion (well, among Americans; perhaps a majority opinion around the world by now), but I can find lots of people who agree with him.

4. Fischer liked chess. Now this is truly weird, at least statistically. ;-)

Can anyone please explain what's wrong or even abnormal about Fischer's political beliefs?

I agree that Fischer's views were, for the most part, not far off from how a majority of the world sees the USA, even the stuff about 9/11.

"2. Fischer disliked the modern state of Israel."

"Can anyone please explain what's wrong or even abnormal about Fischer's political beliefs?"

Sadly "disliked the modern state of Israel" doesn't exactly capture Fischer's views on the subject. I'd suggest a quick Google...

Fischer's views, mental illness and general persona are well known and documented. No real need to "prove" that which was "proven" many times before.

Thomas asks if it is true that he loves to snipe at Nakamura every chance he gets.

The Answer is YES.

The answer is not sex?

Sorry for sounding juvenile. I didn't mean "hate" in the literal sense.

However I have detected an element of resentment of Nakamura here. Certain people try to diminish his accomplishments by claiming he excels at blitz and had an unfair advantage, some people dislike him for appearing arrogant, others find him juvenile. Hey, wait a minute...

(Me exercising my right to crow like a rooster without your permission). Perhaps I sound juvenile. That is better than being repressed or being forced into conformity.

I think I can tell you what it is: Nakamura's public persona is something you admire, not like - as Gelfand or Kramnick or Anand or even Carlsen (hard to guage his personality still, but he shakes hands like he means it). Hikaru is abrasive, and it is annoying to hear someone say the word "obviously" all the time. And many of his statements end with a finality to them. I can't say exactly why that is so bothersome, but it is. He also sounds conceited even though he may not be. Maybe he's just limited in his speech pattern. I don't know, but he's not an endearing fellow. Gelfand is very opinionated as well, but he's also a gentleman. God sakes, he didn't have to make it easy for Hikaru to get into a playoff. Look at the outpouring of not just admiration, but heartfelt rooting for Gelfand during this tournament and during the World Cup. Hikaru beat Carlsen in the blitz section, and people didn't exactly cheer that. I don't think anyone cares enough about Nakamura to hate him.

To clarify the last sentence, I was referring to Nakamura beating Carlsen in the blitz tournament in Norway.

I'm very excited about Nakamura's Amber Invite. It will also be a great chance for all the Naka/US haters to come out of the woodwork to bash him. He's (2733) just rated #15 in the world ahead of Wang Yue, because he's lucky. ;)

Why is everyone who doesn't quite join the hype around Nakamura immediately stamped a Naka hater, let alone a US hater? Quite a few people consider Nakamura arrogant (it's not just the little word 'obviously' ....) - do you suggest this is "typically American"?

Yes, he is a bit lucky to have a whopping 1.3 point advantage over Wang Yue in the current live rating list - for example that's the difference between Gelfand offering/accepting a draw and Gelfand playing on to add another endgame squeeze to his Amsterdam collection (not saying it would have happened, but it could have happened).

But if you mention ratings, Naka is now 14 points ahead of #26 Gashimov (who also has or had the ambition to reach the very top), and 14 points behind #14 Karjakin. In other words, he is a confirmed 3rd tier player (currently primus inter pares), nothing less and nothing more. He may have the potential for more, but it hasn't happened yet and it won't happen automatically.

P.S.: Why does this discussion (partly) take place in this Bobby Fischer thread? Granted, he is the best (home-grown) American player since a few decades ... .

Thomas wants to know why he is known as a "Naka-hater".

The Answer: Because everyone is wrong.

Thomas wonders how someone or anyone can be, or speak on behalf of everyone.

Agreed. There are thousands of ranked chess players in the world, Naka is top 15 in the world, but because Thomas doesn't like him he's "third tier". lol

What more proof do you need that in order to get into Amber, Naka had to compete with teenagers? Naka a rising star or a top-15? A top-15 is already a star, not a rising one.

Like him or hate him, Nakamura (at least occasionally) reads this blog, and (occasionally) posts to it. There are several other strong players who post as well, but I doubt any rated higher.

Unless, of course, Hag is really Kramnik.

My point is that I would rather he (Naka) post than not post.


For the record, KenHabeeb would like to state that he is American (born here). Not a U.S. hater. Not a "Naka hater." He just likes other players more, and he's not alone in that. But he sends best wishes for the Blitz king at Amber.

Lol this is getting ridiculous. Of course there are many more players, and many more "tiers" below Nakamura. However:
1st tier: The current top 5 are a class apart, agreed?
2nd tier: Then we have 9 players with live ratings from 2747-2761 (total range 14 points, gap with Nakamura 14 points): Eljanov, Grischuk, Mamedyarov, Gelfand, Shirov, Ponomariov, Radjabov, Karjakin - that's a simple fact (personally I am not sure if Eljanov and Mamedyarov are there to stay, but that's subjective).

To those complaining that Nakamura "doesn't get the invitations he deserves": supertournament organizers tend to choose players from the first and second tier, then add a wildcard, then see how many spots are left if any - and here, Nakamura is one of many candidates.

If it makes you feel better: I (national Elo 1970) would be something like 28th tier!? Neither I nor my "fans" (I may have some as I'm one of the better players in my own small club) would feel insulted, it's reality ... .

But the general point is: If you can't handle anything remotely critical or objective about your hero, you might as well move on to Nakamura's blog where noone dares to post such things. Your handle implies that you aren't objective yourself ... .

Naka dint do badly at this years Corus finishing 4th tying with Anand. But if rapid games is his forte, he should finish better at Amber next year. My own prejudice against Nakamura was due to him playing 2.Qh5 in some top level games (year 2005) - a bit arrogant in my view. But that was long time ago and now he seems to have come a long way from there.

First of all, I am not Kramnik. Now that's out of the way, let me continue.

Look people, Nakamura is an exceptional player, much better than these other bums you talk about. Some of you seem to dislike him intensely (hate?) because of what he says, what he looks like, or where he lives. But, he plays to win, and most of the time he does. It's possible that he could flame out, but most of the other bums I've seen mentioned here have NO FLAME at all. They are pablum, marshmallow nebishes.


Nakamura is a brilliant player , no doubt , he deserves his place among the 2700's , but i have to agree with Thomas that in classical chess , i don't think he's in the world class league of the Carlsen's , Topalov Kramnik , Anand , Ivanchuk , Aronian , or even Shirov or Gelfand .

I think he can rival the likes of Grischuk, Radjabov , Karjakin , Ponomariov etc.. in the future if he works hard , but i don't think it is a given that he will succeed , first of all cause these players are all at least as strong as Naka , and also because there are many other youngsters pushing (Wang Hao ,Caruana , Vachier -Lagrave , Vitiugov , Nepomniatchi etc.. )

Chess blogs are such wonderful empowerment tools. Mere patzers can pontificate to their hearts' content about the chess abilities/potential of those much stronger than their highest aspirations. Judging those on the mountain top from the deep gorge of one's 1800ish ratings must heal the wounds of disappointment about the high ratings we wish we had, but know we'd never attain. Thank you Al Gore for inventing (allegedly) the internet.

Who is a mere patzer who pontificates to his heart's content?

The Answer: Why, it's HardyBerger, of course.

The current top 5 players have been there since the Sept 2009 list, and there has been a gap of about 20 points between them and the rest since Jan 2010. And this situation will probably continue to be the case for the next list. So probably we could say the current top 5 stand apart from the rest.

But Thomas' definition of 2nd tier is arbitrary. The 14 points gap he mentioned was not even there 3-4 weeks ago. After the top 5, the ratings are more or less continuous.

Also, people who are supposedly "3rd tier" under Thomas' distinction, for example Svidler, Wang Yue, or Jakovenko, might cross that gap - in fact they have been higher ranked in the recent past, it is conceivable they'll get there again, so there's no good reason to put them in a different (and lower) class from say Karjakin or Ponomariov.

As for supertournament organizers, obviously they prefer to pick high ranked players. But I don't think they make a big deal out of a temporary 14 point gap :-). In fact, Nakamura was invited for the last Corus group A, and he did just fine.

"But the general point is: If you can't handle anything remotely critical or objective about your hero, you might as well move on to Nakamura's blog where no one dares to post such things. Your handle implies that you aren't objective yourself ... ."

Did it ever occur to you that he may have chosen the name as a reaction to bashing, to get guys like you to make foolish assumptions like the ones above, and then look foolish? Duh.

@andy & @simple Pole in a complex plane:

No, the phrase "butchery of the english" means genocide! :o

OK, my comment was a bit exaggerated - largely motivated by the fact that Nakamura Fan considered a 1.3 point gap between Nakamura and Wang Yue worthwhile pointing out. Yes, the boundary between 2nd and 3rd tier is arbitrary, sometimes non-existing, in any case relatively easy to cross in both directions: I said myself that I am unsure whether Eljanov and Mamedyarov will keep their current rating, Ivanchuk and Morozevich were all over the live rating list and "just below", Leko was top of the subtop until recently, Gashimov was "visiting", ... . Yet - this is obviously subjective - most 2nd tier names are those I would expect (frogbert's comment in the other thread about results against fellow 2700 players matters in that respect).

Regarding invitations, Corus doesn't really count - because it has a larger field of 14 players, leaving more spots to "3rd tier players". I will also leave out London which seems to have a somewhat different invitation policy, and come up with a "frogbertian" list of events in 2009/2010, distinguishing first, second tier and "other" - note that here second tier refers to "as far as I remember at the moment of invitation".

Linares: Carlsen, Anand, Aronian (1st tier), Ivanchuk, Grischuk, Radjabov, Wang Yue (2nd tier), Dominguez (other)
MTel: Carlsen, Topalov (1st), Ivanchuk, Shirov, Wang Yue (2nd), Dominguez (other)
Dortmund: Carlsen, Kramnik (1st), Leko, Jakovenko (2nd), Bacrot (Aeroflot qualifier), Naiditsch (wildcard)
Bazna: Gelfand, Ivanchuk, Shirov, Radjabov (2nd), Kamsky (other), Nisipeanu (wildcard)
Biel: Ivanchuk, Morozevich, Gelfand (2nd), Alekseev (other), Caruana, Vachier-Lagrave (rising stars, Nakamura being too old for those spots?)
Nanjing: Carlsen, Topalov (1st), Leko, Radjabov, Wang Yue (2nd), Jakovenko (other)
Tal Memorial: Carlsen, Kramnik, Anand, Aronian (1st), Morozevich, Gelfand, Ivanchuk, Leko (2nd), Svidler, Ponomariov (other?)

Linares: Topalov, Aronian (1st), Gelfand, Grischuk, Gashimov (2nd), Vallejo (wildcard)
Bazna: Carlsen (1st), Gelfand, Radjabov, Wang Yue (2nd), Ponomariov (other), Nisipeanu (wildcard)
Dortmund: Kramnik (1st), Leko, Mamedyarov (2nd), Ponomariov (other), Le Quang Liem (Aeroflot), Naiditsch (wildcard)
Nanjing (forthcoming): Topalov, Anand, Carlsen (1st), Gashimov (still considered 2nd?), Bacrot (other), Wang Yue (wildcard)

It's of course subjective to put players in various boxes, but it seems clear that there are few spots for "other" players. Among the players within 14 points below him, Nakamura doesn't fare worse than Svidler, Malakhov, Movsesian, Navara and Vachier-Lagrave (Svidler and Movsesian got invites when they were a bit higher-rated in the past). Nakamura's chance or turn would have been MTel 2010 - according to a Bulgarian source which I can't find back, he was on the invitation list before the event was cancelled.

I don't see what this list of tournaments is supposed to prove. That there are not many spots for other than 2nd tiers? But the whole distinction between 2nd and "other" being applied here is questioned. There are no real gaps in the relevant rating lists to make those distinctions. Furthermore, in various cases your distinction between 1st and 2nd is also questionable.

The only "gap" I can see is between top 5 and the rest, starting about the end of 2009. Even that "gap" was not clear prior to the end of 20009.

You subjectively define distinctions, and then use those to prove that ... there are distinctions :-). What are you proving? :-)

I could easily imagine, for example, that organizers consider all players around top 20 (or perhaps even all 2700s) as good candidates, and then pick among them according to various criteria, e.g. diversity, style, etc. All those you consider "other" might be considered "equal" to organizers.

BTW, if Corus doesn't count why does Biel 09 count?

If you want more details, I casually checked your list of tournaments, and consider several rating lists during several months prior to each tournament.

Linares 09 - Ivanchuk and Radjabov 2nd tier, while Aronian was 1st? Ivanchuk was top 5 recently, and Radjabov was close to (and at one point higher than) Aronian.

M-Tel 09 - Again, Ivanchuk was top 5 recently. That's 2nd tier?

Dortmund 09 - Jakovenko "2nd tier" was close to Kramnik and Leko (in fact Jan 09 Jakovenko was a little bit higher than both).

Bazna 09 - Both Ivanchuk and Radjabov were top 5 recently. How are they "2nd tier"? Also Kamsky was not far from Gelfand.

Nanjing 09 - Jakovenko "other"? He had been top 10 since the beginning of that year, even top 5 at one point. And Radjabov was close to the "1st tier" at that time, in fact he was top 5 recently.

Tal Mem 09 - Svidler & Ponomariov's ratings were close to the rest.

Bazna 10 - I don't see how Ponomariov is "other". Check his rating.

Dortmund 10 - Ponomariov and Leko were close to each other (at one point Pono was actually higher), and they were in different classes?

It only proves nothing of course because Thomas always hand picks his criteria to fit his purpose (whatever that is).

"Corus doesn't really count - "

"I will also leave out London"

Yes, you do that Thomas and go ahead and make your widdle bitty piddly point.


Also not entirely on topic... but I really recommend this article I translated on Kalmykia - there are some choice words about Ilyumzhinov's time as president, but I think the Buddhist philosophy of drinking vodka (and other matters) is the highlight! http://www.chessintranslation.com/2010/08/voices-from-kalmykia/

This blog is dead. No post since the 2nd round of Nh? Does anyone know of an active chess blog? Migs posting frequency sucks. At least start a new thread now and then so we don't have to scroll through pages of comments to get to the new ones.

Naka says "I will beat anyone in Blitz, even Magnus" in his interview on http://www.chessclub.com/

It could be true, but why does he have to boast it this way.

Corus has 14 players, most events I listed have six players (Linares 2009 had eight, Tal Memorial had ten - but with a clear desire to get the strongest possible field). So comparing Corus with any of the other events is apples vs. oranges. "Leaving out London" may be debatable, but last year it had four(!) local players - at least two of them won't get top invitations elsewhere - plus Ni Hua as another relative nobody, so it seems safe to call it an "atypical supertournament". Maybe then Biel 2009 should also be excluded, which would strengthen rather than weaken the point I want to make.

OK, I underestimated the strength of some players at the time of invitation, and I (wrongly) used the current list of 1st tier players - again, taking this into consideration strengthens rather than weakens my point.

Let me redefine 2nd tier as "long career at the world top and/or previous successes in major events" (but not part of the current top 5) - most names in my list will fit that definition. The main issue was and is: Does Nakamura get the invitations he deserves, or do organizers neglect him for whichever reason?
- Jakovenko and Gashimov got a few invitations AFTER they reached or approached 2760.
- Grischuk was invited to Linares 2009 only as a late replacement for Topalov, and again this year as defending champion.
- Wang Yue may be comparable to Nakamura, yet I would rank his (early) GP results higher than Naka winning US Championship and San Sebastian.
- Then Dominguez would be the only one with "too many" invitations, one can also include Amber 2010. Here "diversity and style" may have played a role, and Nakamura could conceivably take his role in the near future.
Another story is whether it's fair that Malakhov is arguably the "most overlooked 2700er", juts because there are plenty of other Russians, let alone "Soviets" to choose from ... .

Thanks for the interesting video link.

I think chess need MORE colourful players like Nakamura, creating stir and excitement among chessfans. See your very own engagement in this thread, for example ;-)

Chess society would be boring if all players was as polite and correct as Anand.

Chess fans symphatize and cheer for their heroes. That's half the fun, apart from watching exciting games being played.

PS: Magnus will of course crush Nakamura like a bug next time they play blitz! LOL

What about the following game, somewhat reminiscent of Nakamura's win with black against Giri?
Maybe he should have said "I will beat anyone but Svidler ..."

Forget about beating Svilder. Nakamura lost with white even against the top 20 wannabe Gashimov. :-)

OK, more seriously, I would be actually glad if Nakamura plays more in supertournaments. His style is interesting to watch. Plus it would add interesting diversity to the mix of players - both because he is american and because of his ethnicity.

I listened to what Nakamura said. He said something different than what you quoted. Please go back and listen to it again and then report back to us with the correct quote.


I listened to it again and he made probably an even stronger statement "pretty much if i am going to play anyone in blitz, i am going to beat them and that includes Magnus" Not sure what your point was, he had meant the same as I said initially. Also its unclear what point Naka was trying to justify by adding "that includes Magnus" -- nobody asked him that.

@Bobby Fiske: Stir and excitement created by talk will definitely invoke more people to threads. But that does not mean chess needs such players. For that matter any controversy will cause this, and its not the way to popularize something.


My point was not that this or that player should be 1st tier instead of 2nd tier. By giving those cases, I am questioning the whole distinction of 1st, 2nd, other, based on gaps in the rating list.

Your new definition might make more sense. But in that case, almost the entire top 20 can make a claim to be "2nd tier". In fact, going further down below top 20, players like Leko and Kamsky can be included due to their career, and even Vachier-Lagrave or Caruana can be said to have "big successes", relative to their age. Which makes almost the entire 2700 group part of "2nd tier". Now this is just like I said before, that it is conceivable to me that organizers take more or less all 2700 players into consideration for invitations (after considering the top 5).

And following the same reason, I actually think Nakamura currently has a good chance to be invited.

BTW, the case of Grischuk is different. Although he is not top 5, but he does have a relatively long career in the top 20 (sometimes top 10). He was already top 10 back in 2003. And he is well known as a top player. He's been one of the top 5 Russian for some time.

Another note: The rise of Wang Yue was different from Nakamura. In 2008, besides his impressive results in 2 GPs, Wang Yue didn't fail at other events. He didn't even lose a single game for a long period in 2008. His Elo just went straight up, and by the end of 2008 he was already close to top 10. And then the super-invitations came. And his rating stabilizes.

In contrast, Nakamura's results have been mixed. Right after doing well at San Sebastian, he went down at NH 2009, losing even more points than he gained at San Sebastian. I could imagine this is not so impressive for organizers. On the other hand, his style of play, and even his slightly arrogant comments could make him interesting. Those comments (about other players) provide interesting news and exposure to the event, as long as he doesn't upset the organizers.

"Not sure what your point was..."

The point is to be sure that you accurately quote someone when you put their words inside quotation marks. Thank you.


Apparently Naka was told the wrong start time and showed up a half an hour late.

Aha. That explains what I said in the other thread: That Hikaru was in his element ie., down to three minutes to Gashimov's thirty. Kudos to him for pulling out the draw against a strong player under such circumstances. But I think same goes for Maxime Vachier-Legrave's game, which I think started late.

I thought that Nakamura lost to Gash.

@henry: I think we "do not really disagree with each other" (I also fully agree with what you write about Wang Yue, and had posted similar things myself) and also take similar positions in the "Nakamura debate": neither fan/fanatic/hyper nor hater or detractor, but being objective or at least trying to be ... .

Regarding invites for Nakamura, I basically referred to the past rather than the future. Several additional points come to my mind:
- How important is it for a player to be "reasonably popular among his colleagues" (if he isn't as strong as Topalov and gets away with many things)? What do his peers really think about Nakamura? They may not say everything in interviews ... .
- At least at one occasion, Nakamura did upset the organizers: He skippped the prize giving ceremony at the Mainz 2009 rapid event, the organizers reacted by keeping his prize money.
- How realistic are or were his financial demands? He declined several Corus B invitations because the offer wasn't attractive enough - did he ask for more than e.g. Naiditsch, Motylev, Eljanov, Movsesian (the last ones before they crossed 2700)? They were all roughly comparable to him Elo-wise at some stage, and all did play Corus B (the last three to qualify for Corus A the next year).
If he now already asks similar appearance fees as the top 5 players, it might cost him some invitations ..... .

Oops, Hansie, yer right! I was thinking about another game. Hikaru's loss is more believeable anyway. Pretty tough to give up a half hour to the 26th-rated player in the world and expect a lot. I imagine there might have been a heated and futile discussion with the tournament authorities.

3rd round in the Spanish team liga today. Nakamura expected to have an "easy win" against spanish player Alsina Leal Daniel(Elo 2546).

Several other super GMs in action:
Shirov, Ponomariov, Caruana, Gashimov, Navara, Bacrot, Van Wely, etc.

Games here, starting 15.00 Spanish time: http://livechess.chessdom.com/site/

Off topic:

Anyone annoyed by Chessbase and their new LayerAds?
Use Addblock for Firefox

Yes, me.

Actually I need to rethink the chess sites I use. Seems like chessbase is getting ever more aggressively (irritatingly) commercial and this blog is, as someone mentioned above, no longer really happening. Chessvibes is good, I think.

Chessvibes? Thomas hangs out there too, so you can't escape from him there.

Annoying? Yes very. But playchess is even more annoying, as I'm being constantly disconnected. (I'm experiencing on average 3 disconnects per 3 min game!)

This is using the free guest option, anyone know if this is a case of them deliberately lowering the QoS for freeriders? (Otherwise, I guess I'll have to ask my ISP about it.)

Brilliant, works like a charm. Ironically, the editor of Chessbase once suggested Firefox to me. :-)

Hehe, sometimes I think: where does he find the time. But one can always skip the comments at our site.

For the nth time: Chessbase IS a commercial site that provides lots of free and non-commercial content. If you like most of it - and apparently (all of) you do because you visit(ed) the site - you have to accept the rest. The ads may be annoying, but it takes one mouse click and they disappear within seconds. How often do I wish for a similar fast-forward button regarding ads on TV ... .

Similar things apply to other free sites - for example, Chessvibes was criticized here for their ads by Google ... . Mig sometimes takes breaks from his blog (the current one is unusual to unprecedented, but related to FIDE campaign and +- family affairs), frogbert does update his live rating list almost every day, but not every single day [different from Chessbase and Chessvibes, both sites are one man affairs]. How can anyone dare to complain about it unless he paid for a subscription?

BTW, obviously anyone can skip anything on any site - comments or editorial content. I often skip entire stories at Chessvibes (because I don't have the time to read them, hehe), rarely to never do I play through every single game in their game viewers - but I appreciate that I get the chance or choice. The same applies to reader comments.


I agree 100%!
How can chess fans complain about Internet services which are for free???

If you find something to be anoying, just skip it. Simple as that.

-"Ignore" is a mandatory skill when participating in (chess) blogging!

So if it's free we can't criticize?

-Of course we can. Actually it is not "free" because we "pay" by visiting, because every visit generates “hits” (advertising money) for the site.

So, if you want to vote with your money, just avoid the page!

He was asked if he thought he would be the favorite in the blitz against Giri, and he replied he has the *mentality* that he is the favorite in blitz against anyone, including Magnus. What's wrong with having that mentality as a fighting spirit? Should he NOT have that mentality? I didn't interpret it as boasting.

'every visit generates “hits” (advertising money) for the site'

Who should pay them money for advertising their own products?

I think it's not easy to run a company, selling chess products.
Can you imagine the amount of money you have to earn paing, lets say 10 employees every month?
Additionally the german wage-labor costs are extremly high.
You have to sell many Fritze and much Kraut for that.

BTW, who of us will pay money for Fritz 12+x or Rybka 4+x if there are Stockfish, Fire etc. for free? Any one out there?

Chessbase: I'm enjoying their news and background informatioin for years. I hope they will go on with that.
Nevertheless: I'm not a marketing expert, but I bet they will stop their advertising experiment sooner or later. It's annoying indeed.

Thanks Bobby! In reply to boz: Of course you can criticize free sites - as an extreme and obviously unrelated example, it's legitimate to criticize sites with racist propaganda (though here I personally just choose "ignore"). My impression is that Chessbase gets excessive and often unfair criticism - also regarding "failure" to cover some chess events. Dunno why that's the case, is it (for some people) related to persistent Bulgarian anti-Chessbase propaganda?

Once more, free services by Chessbase are part of a commercial company, and may have to justify their ongoing existence by creating sales. Maybe the new "aggressive" approach with pop-up ads is an attempt to increase sales? If it turns out to be successful, they will keep it. If it doesn't have any effect or, on the contrary, decreases site traffic, they will drop it again.

For comparison, NewinChess also sells via the Internet. Their homepage has nothing but information on their own products. Fair enough, but why criticize Chessbase for being commercial AND having free content?

It is also a bit unfair to compare Chessbase with "hobby sites" like this blog - which doesn't refer to quantity or quality of content, but to its not-for-profit approach. Chessvibes may be a bit in between - to me it seems that, at the very least, they want to earn back the money they spend (server costs, travel expenses to tournaments, ...), hence Google ads and NewinChess advertorials on their site.

Chessbase doesn't only sell engines, but also books, DVDs, memberships on their Playchess server, ... which have less or no competition from freeware. Indeed, they don't earn money from advertisements _by others_, it all remains within the company: But if sales increase, they can spend more money on, for example, GM commentary by Giri, Rogozenko, Marin and others (BTW also a source of income for those players). For me, it's a favorable tradeoff: I am willing to devote one second for clicking away the ad, if I can then spend five, ten minutes or more enjoying the content ... .

Directly @Peter (Doggers): I find it a tiny bit odd that you "join the crowd" picking at your colleagues-competitors. It seems that Chessbase and Chessvibes aren't exactly friends of each other, but still ... .

On the second paragraph, I am obviously biased. But I also consider it odd to make fun of "content providers" to your site - you and anyone else is obviously free to agree or disagree with, appreciate or not anything I and others write. But the content section has added value - sometimes more so, sometimes discussions degenerate. Around here, "we the people" keep things going while Mig is - fair enough - busy with other things. And discussion forums are the primary reason why I visit this blog and your site more frequently than ... Chessbase ,:) .

Oops, "content section" should of course be "comments section" ... and now I shut up for a while! ,:)

Just to be clear: I enjoy all chess sites mentioned, and are very grateful for the (free) service they provide. For sure they are run be idealists, who probably doesnt make much money. Google ads or some po-ups are not a problem for me.

For the record: I am a paying member of Chessgames.com and Playchess.com. I have purchased software from both Chessbase and Rybka. I even donated $100 to Mig last year! So, I am NOT a freerider in the chess world ;-)

" I am willing to devote one second for clicking away the ad, if I can then spend five, ten minutes or more enjoying the content ... ."

Thats not a problem, we'll get used to that, but my point is: sales will NOT increase with too intrusive advertisement. Only many people will be a bit annoyed and subconciously linkig less good feelings when opening the Site. Could lead to less popularity of the site on the long term. Therefore I called it an experiment. But perhaps they know what they do. We'll see, wether the spot will disappear within a few weeks or not.

Great job of Naka to wiggle that amber spot from the rising star, now we get to watch Naka fall on his face at Amber, giggity.

Is there a master in the house??

I need help with Bacrot-Nakamura today at the Spanish Team Championships. My little pea brain said at right @ move 38, the game should end in a draw. But no, the boys kept at into move 97(!) until it finally ended in a -- draw. Not only that, it was the kind of draw seen in a basic endings book, where the king w/o the remaining rook pawn goes into the corner to get stalemated.

In contrast, a number of other games looked truncated -- imbalanced positions with much more play left, to my eyes. I don't get it.

Nariu, as you said yourself you aren't a marketing expert, neither am I. Maybe (Afka)Manu can comment, if he is able to "take a break" from his perceived anti-Chessbase bias?

My take on it: "Aggressive" advertisement may be perceived as annoying, but still increase awareness of potential customers about their products and special offers. Anyone visiting the site is a chess fan, hence a potential customer - hence it's both cheaper and more focused/promising than ads in newspapers or TV commercials. Advertisement works subconciously, and repetition is part of it - visiting the site several times and seeing the same ad several times.

I have no idea about timescales in marketing: Does an experiment have to run for days, weeks or months before it can be evaluated as successful or not?

Jesus, Thomas, put a sock in it. Take a break. Chill for one frickin' day. Take a snooze. Basta!

Thanks for replying - though I would have appreciated more "c's" in your post: clear, concise, constructive, courteous ... ,:)

Hello Mig,

Are you...
1) in vacation (hopefully),
2) very busy with your kids (why not ?),
3) fed up with chess (hopefully not),
4) sick (I certainly hope not),
5) writing your "Memoirs" (Good luck) ?

Anyway, let me remind you the meaning of "daily" in, for example, "The daily dirt chess news blog"...
So "daily" means... EVERY DAY...

Nothing personal ;-)

All the best...

It's important to remember that Naka was the only 'rising star' not born in the 90s. He's also the only one rated over 2700 and should never have been in the rising stars team in the first place.

Plus, he's fat.

In lack of new posts here, you can at least follow Mig on Twitter. See top right of this page. Frequent daily twitter.

Carlsen has defeated Anand in game number 1 of final. Position was almost equal until Carlsen found h5 and then he was winning...

Well that's rapid games. Fun to watch. Though, even Anand can miss stuff at this rate of play.

Anand offered draw as white, so Carlsen won the final 1,5 - 0,5. The first game was briliant by Carlsen.

Hammer also won 1,5 - 0,5 against Judith Polgar.

Very rude behaviour by the Norwegians, beating their invited guests like that.

Hammer just anounced he will play pro chess for a year. This was a good start for him.

I got an interesting impression from Carlsen's play in the final. In game one his play reminded me a lot of some of Kasparov's wins and in game two his play reminded me a lot of how Karpov held so many games vs. the best in the world with his Ruy Lopez. Carlsen can play just like both of the Super K's!

Will Judith Polgar get back in form? I really liked her play style when she was at her best. But it seems like she plays only a handful of rated games per year now and her rating is getting slowly down.

Having child and play at that level of chess must be really difficult, but still we want Judith back.

And he (Carlsen) seems to play such a wide range of openings so well. Like a steadier Ivanchuk or younger Timman.

On Chess Vibes they show a flyer for the Carlsen's recent tournament. It has the line:

"See the world champions Magnus Carlsen vs. Vishy Anand in action."

Note the plural: champions. I'm a big Carlsen fan, but really, as of yet he hasn't won a world championship.

Carlsen is the reigning world champion in blitz. Not quite the same, no, but the statement is factually correct.

Sadly, it is unlikely that Judit Polgar will ever regain her top form. Alas, it is very difficult to take a hiatus from chess, and make a successful comeback. No doubt the same reasons that caused her to be inactive (prioritizing family and kids) are also causing her to stint on devoting the amount of time that is required to be competitive.

3 days of rapid chess are not going to cut it.
Sacrificing career for family is the tough choice that elite Male GMs are often not called upon to make.

Yeah factually correct so he can go and claim his right in a WWE world championship!

Aww c'mon! This was a rapid match, so the claim is not that much of a stretch. If you really want to be this hysterical about it, then fine, but don't shoot the messenger - I only offered an explanation as to why the WC claim was made.

I think "World Champion" is stretching it a bit. It put both players' titles on the same level. It's not certain that he will become the next World Champion after Anand. Many believe he will be Anand successor, but so many younger talents are coming up every year. Carlsen will certainly be the to contender, no question.

"Carlsen is the reigning world champion in blitz"

Carlsen may be the best blitz player in the world, but I don't believe Nakamura was even invited to play in this event, in spite of being clearly stronger at fast time controls than most the other participants.


I dont see how anyone can even claim this is some sort of world championship because of the way participants were chosen:


Just 6 of 20 spots that can legitimately be earned.

Also, Nakamura won the BNbank blitz tournament by defeating Carlsen in the finals. This event was held shortly after the sham they call the World Blitz championship.


Technically, the titles are correct (world blitz champion vs. world champion)...factor in that Carlsen is world #1 and its not a huge stretch. No guarantee that he wins the Candidates Tourney in April 2011, though.

Vishy stated that his goal is to reclaim world #1 by the end of the year...will be interesting to see if he can do it.

Most of this thread is off-topic, so even more off-topic will not hurt. mishanp published the translation of Wojtaszek's annotations to games 7-9 of Anand-Topalov match. Very interesting analysis and "a look behind the curtains". Check it out at http://www.chessintranslation.com/2010/08/the-great-anands-little-ideas-part-ii/ . (Since Shaq was mentioned in this thread, I will use another NBA cliche and say that mishanp is like The Mailman Karl Malone: He delivers!)

" dont see how anyone can even claim this is some sort of world championship"

It's a mystery wrapped in a riddle. A simpleton such as myself cannot fathom such complexity, but it's heartening to know that there are others willing to devote their entire lives to grappling with these all-important issues.

Hopefully, you'll be able to gather your findings in a book in time for x-mas, the burning of which should keep me warm in the long winter nights that lie ahead.

Floppy, if a "World Championship" tournament were held for the classical title with 20 players invited, and Carlsen was not included, would you see a problem with this?

It doesn't take Joe Genius to see that that the "World Championship" blitz tournament has problems with it's player selection if you look at the links. It had similar problems in 2008.

I was kind enough to point these issues out to you, but get insulted instead. Thanks for that, par for the course around here I guess.

On the blitz world championship only that much:
- Nakamura could have tried to qualify, but didn't
- many other participants (the Tal Memorial players) might be considered rating qualifiers - based on FIDE ratings, ICC ratings are another story.

But what about a tournament with the following four world champions?
- world champion Anand (add "classical time control" if you want to)
- blitz WCh Carlsen
- Mainz Grenke Leasing rapid world champion Aronian
- Mainz Chess960 winner Nakamura

With the element of form, chance, luck(?) in rapid games, all players could finish anywhere between first and fourth place. Of course the Mainz rapid event has competition at least from Amber, Anand won it many times before and Kamsky won this year with a different format.

"I was kind enough to point these issues out to you"

Yeah, after I clearly stated I was not interested in debating these "issues". You were trolling.

Phase 1: debunk Carlsen's WC status. Phase 2: debunk Anand's WC status (the line's been broken, see?). Phase 3: change the flyer to read "See the two chess players Magnus Carlsen vs. Vishy Anand in action".

I follow chess because I enjoy it, not to obsess over each and every inconsequentiality. So, the organizer's wanted to spice up their flyer a little. Unless you're dying for me to "insult" you again, you seriously can't say that's a big deal.

It's a very insecure person who takes it as an insult when another calls HIMSELF "A simpleton such as myself..."

I suppose if you look hard enough you can take offence at anything.

Dammit Bab. why do you insist on insulting me with that "offence at anything" over and over again?!

Blitz tournaments have a random quality; formal organization and participation by top players do not fully eliminate the coffeehouse nature of these events. That said, in sustained competition, I think it is clear that, not only Carlsen, but also Anand and probably Grischuk, would outpace Nakamura in sustained blitz match play.

BTW, very nice and timely win by Magnus over Anand in the Arctic Securities rapid event just before the 'Magnus v. the world' G-Star extravaganza.

Today I learned that Carlsen is not world blitz champion because Nakamura chose not to attempt to qualify for the championship.

Does it therefore follow that Kosteniuk is not the women's world champion because Polgar chose not to participate, and that Andreikin is not world junior champion because Carlsen (and others) were absent?

I am confused:)

You are attempting to use that dratted thing "logic", a foolish ploy. Just accept that you are wrong and don't ask questions. And leave it at home for future discussions too. To properly debate, become a "fan" of X, Y and Z. Roar and stamp your feet every time you perceive a slight of your heroes. If you don't perceive one, create a new handle and insult them, defending them with your current handle, or else develop a good sense of paranoia and perceive a slight in everything, right down to your breakfast cereal.
If you need any help with any of the above, scroll through any thread for demonstrations.

I haven't read the entire thread, so forgive if repetition.

That alleged kid of Fischer looks NOTHING LIKE FISCHER. That's all I want to say about the latest Chessbase article.

According to Bobby Ang, the very brilliant Bobby Fischer couldn't understand why the kid's eyes weren't blue. Bobby was a genius at chess, but not at much else.

"Today I learned that Carlsen is not world blitz champion because Nakamura chose not to attempt to qualify for the championship"

To qualify for "The World Championship of Blitz" you have to be be 1 of 16 invited players, or place in the top 6 at the Aeorflot Blitz qualification held in Moscow, Russia.

I apologize for not recognizing the obvious integrity of this selection process. The "World Championship of Blitz" obviously represents the best blitz players in the world.

Naka might be king of ICC, but his credentials OTB are slim

Magnus Carlsen confirmed recently to Norwegian Television that he will defend his title in WC Blitz in Moscow 16-18. Nov.

He will not play the preceding Tal Memorial 4-13. Nov, due to allready packed tournament program till the end of the year.

Ah, the trolls fling monkey-poo again, much like the swallows returning to Capistrano...

September 2010 Rating List is out now. Nakamura is ranked with 2733 points but he is a whopping 93 points behind a junior player. He is also 14 points behind another junior player. He is only 12 points ahead of yet another junior player. Another player, younger to him, is only 9 points behind.
In such a scenario, whether Nakamura can ever play in a World Championship Match, let alone winning it?

Snort. I'm amazed he can hobble down to get his pension. Soon we'll have to have breaks in WC matches so the players' nappies can be changed.

Unlike the case with some other players, I think in the case of Nakamura the 93 points rating deficit is due to lack of assistance on opening knowledge from top rated seconds. A person has only 24 hours, but 5 persons share the work, he could do 5 times more work within the same timeframe. Compare the assistance he gets with fellow players. So it is just a matter of time Nakamura find an antartic securities and some reliable seconds to help him with. Even without that, he would still be a feared and talked about player beacuse of his talent.

For those who seem overly concerned with Nakamura's prowess vis-a-vis Carlsen's, I submited Exhibit A: Check the 9:33 minute mark of this video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rK57zdKuyA

Oh and Nakamura won the match, 3-1. So, yeah...

Exactly my thoughts! Debaters may perhaps chose to argue for the rest of their lives about the validity of DNA sample, these recent photographs have removed all doubts from my mind.

Did she really manage Fisher to blunder into a one move mate trap? Highly commendable!

Of course Nakamura is talented, whether he is feared is another story. By whom? Maybe his opponents in American Swisses, but world-top players aren't particularly afraid of anyone, else they wouldn't be world top. "Respected" may be the right term?

Methinks it's wrong to explain the undeniable gap between Carlsen and Nakamura by Carlsen's corporate sponsorship and superior resources, for several reasons:
- Carlsen got his current sponsorship only when he was an established world-top player (at least stable top 10)
- While opening preparation plays a role, it's not everything: he also wins many games from equal or even - at the onset - slightly worse endings.

Moreover, it's Naka's choice to keep working with his current second or assistant. He could have brought anyone to the NH event (organizers apparently would have paid). He brought Kris Littlejohn - Caruana, Giri and Howell brought GMs, Wesley So an IM.

BTW - you probably mean to exaggerate - I don't think any chess player has four qualified full-time helpers, except during WCh matches.

Thx for the link. Very entertaining. Obviously Carlsen blundered in a won position.
But of course its Nakas incredible creativity creating problems and pressure for his opponents in any situation.

I would like to see more of those high level blitz events with life transmission, seeing the gestures and faces of both opponents. But for such an effort chess istn't popular enough.

BTW Naka is reigning Champ in chess960.
I guess this is an additional hint for his raw talent. His chess and his personality are unconventional. Both can be annoying for opponents, but for spectators its more refreshing and entertaning.

As far as the blitz world championship is concerned, for lack of a formal event we might consider the strongest tournament around sort of a world championship? It had qualifying spots, anyone claiming to be a WCh candidate could have played the qualifier and should have survived it.

BTW, relative proportions are different, but the candidates event at classical time control had a somewhat similar selection process:
- three players (Gelfand, Aronian, Radjabov) formally qualifying within the current cycle
- two rating spots (Carlsen, Kramnik) - as I wrote before, one could consider the Tal Memorial participants rating qualifiers for the blitz event
- two players (Topalov, Kamsky) qualified from the previous cycle
- one wildcard (Mamedyarov unless things change between now and whenever the event takes place).

One could also question the integrity of that selection process ... .

I'm assuming your "blundered in won position" is tongue-in-cheek? Carlsen was already lost and finally realized it at that point.

I'm sick of that jerk Alekhine, the way he's treating Capablanca is a disgrace. And Capa is 10 points ahead of him on the Live Rating List.

Boy, does this site remind you of a graveyard or what

I hear ya, Graveyard.

But what I'd like to see is a pic of Marilyn's real boyfriend. Judging by the kid he's ethnic pinoy (not ethnic Chinese as Marilyn seems), with a wide, happy face. Two tones darker than Marilyn, and 4 than Bobby (the cuckold in our story.)

"I'm assuming your "blundered in won position" is tongue-in-cheek? Carlsen was already lost and finally realized it at that point."


Carlsen dominated the game completly till move 48. Then he blundered a completly won position to a still better endgame.

Then at move 62. he blunderd the endgame from a clear win to absolutly lost.

Can happen very easy in blitz.
Would be intersting to know how much time he had on his clock wehn miscalculating the pawn race at move 62. For me - as an absolute patzer - I could calculate the winning move in a normal game, with several minutes to spare. But in a 'bullet situation' I would have also choosen the loosing move out of the guts.

Here's the final part of my translation of Wojtaszek's "second's eye view" of the match in Sofia: http://www.chessintranslation.com/2010/09/the-great-anands-little-ideas-part-iii/

c4= the English "Defence", misha? I translate myself. So no criticism intended : )

Good point :) I'll change it now (at first I thought you were talking about defense/defence!). Actually I just checked and it seems to be a mistake in the Polish text as well ("obrona angielska").

I'm not a Nakamura-"hater". In fact, I like Nakamura, he has a refreshing style, both on and off the board. I hope he will improve, and play a lot of super-tournaments in the future.
I also sympathize with americans rooting for him, that's natural, just like I root for Carlsen in chess and for the Norwegian national footballteam, being from Norway.
What I do "hate", is Nakamura fanboys who is screaming blue murder every time somebody suggests that Nakamura is not (at least yet) in the same league as Anand, Carlsen and the likes. They remind me of Americans who scream "ANTI-AMERICAN!" to anyone who is slightly critical of American foreign policies (e.g. the war on Irak) or Israelis screaming "ANTI-SEMITE!!" every time someone critizise Israeli politics. (I don't want to single out americans or israelis, these are just examples.)

Thomas, I admire your stamina, and I appreciate most of your posts, but sometimes you just have to give up. You can argue all you want, and have the best arguments in the world, and put forth your arguments as well as anyone, it dosn't matter! These people will close their ears (or simply just not understand the arguments), and once you stop talking they will repeat their "NAKAMURA-HATER!", just like parrots. It's impossible to discuss with such people. They are not interested in discussions or to hear what other people (who doesn't agree with them) has to say. If you realize that, you will spare yourself of a lot of work and agony.

Why is it assumed that Nakamura only has American supporters? Too much is assumed about those speaking in support of Nakamura. They need not be American and it shouldn't be assumed.

Daim,if you assume that it is I that assume that Nakamura only has American supporters then your assumption is wrong. I know thats not the case, because I myself not only root for Carlsen, but also very much for Chucky, and also for Anand, Kramnnik, Shirov and several others. But most people tend to root for their countrymen in competition with foreigners, so I made a generalization to make a point. However, I could have phrased it "I also sympathize with anyone rooting for him" in stead of "...americans rooting for him". I apologize if that hurt your feelings.

Without Mig and his machine-gun the spammers have been getting over the perimeter big time lately!!

Why hasn't Nakamura appeared in the video promotions of the September 10 Carlsen vs. the world game?

The Answer: Insufficeiently articulate and photogenic, plus too many people hate him.

Why can't trolls keep one handle?

Why can't trolls keep one handle?

The Answer: They are too stupid to remember it.

The Shanghai masters featuring Kramnik, Aronian, Shirov and Wang starts at 1:30 Eastern Std time. Thats in 3 hours from this post

Nakamura appears a lot more articulate than Carlsen... at least in English. At 19, Carlsen still appears uncomfortable with his pauses and loss for words. I'm sure he's a lot better in Norwegian.

Nakamura appears a lot more articulate than Carlsen... at least in English. At 19, Carlsen still appears uncomfortable with his pauses and loss for words. I'm sure he's a lot better in Norwegian.

No... not just your comments, but it is a common theme here. The theme is that anyone who speaks favorably of Nakamura must be American and they are hyping him unnecessarily when he doesn't deserve it. Then it goes on about how other young players are better than he is. Then it goes in to some anti-American jibberish which goes into a political debate about Iraq, Afghanistan and imperialism... just like you did.

American foreign policy is objectionable, but this is chess. No need to play the "patriotic card". Nakamura is a CHESS citizen. In fact, few people in the U.S. would know who he is unless they played chess. The U.S.C.F. blew a chance to market him and get him sponsorship.

I think Nakamura plays incredibly exciting, fighting, chess - much more accessible to non-masters than most 2700s. (2. Qh5!!??) So does Topalov.

The problem is, away from the chessboard both of them really rub me the wrong way. That's why I have a hard time supporting either one. And it's not just me - they have that effect on a lot of people. And my guess is, outside of a core fan base (in Topalov's case, Bulgarians), that's why they'll have a disproportionately difficult time getting invitations, sponsors, etc. (Topalov is ranked #2, so he gets invites anyway.) Until they decide to make a change.

I also sympathize with anyone rooting for him

I sympathize for Carlsen, really! Very nice guy, but don't know if you noticed that, look at the chessbase photo before his rapid game against Anand. No python jokes?? :(

I was actually very interested in following Nakamura starting around 2005. Not only is his play interesting (not sure whether it is correct, but it is exciting nevertheless), but also at that time he actually was rating-wise ahead of his peers, except for Radjabov. His rating was way above Vitiugov, Tomashevsky, Gashimov, or Wang Yue (I haven't even heard of those guys in 2005). Soon after turning 17, he got into top 50, which is very rare (many elite players did not reach that stage that early). So there was a good reason to root for him, because he was indeed showing the best potential among players his age (second only to Radjabov).

But then I got a little disappointed when in the next 2 years he more or less of stagnated. So I lost interest in rooting for him. It is not an excuse to say he didn't get a chance to play in the super-events, because even in medium level and open events his results were mixed.

Fortunately he woke up and moved up again. But in the meantime several of his peers, and some younger ones, caught up. He is still doing okay, sitting among the top 20 cannot be bad, and perhaps he can get better in the future. But in my opinion he is not as unique anymore as he was back in 2005.

Many posters are comparing Nakamura to same age players.

To get some perspective, let's compare Nakamura's current standing compared with his peers. In the following list I have included players who are plus-minus 2 years of Nakamura's age, with their current rating and the peak rating they have achieved so far.

Nakamura currently 2733 (peak 2735)

Bu 2695 (peak 2714)
Inarkiev 2671 (peak 2684)
Grachev 2668 (peak 2684)
Harikrishna 2645 (peak 2686)
Areshchenko 2664 (peak 2670)
Volokitin 2661 (peak 2685)
Gashimov 2719 (peak 2759)
Cheparinov 2661 (peak 2713)
Tomashevsky 2701 (peak 2708)
Wojtaszek 2692 (peak 2692)
Vitiugov 2709 (peak 2722)
Radjabov 2748 (peak 2761)
Wang Yue 2732 (peak 2752)
Laznicka 2690 (peak 2690)
Wang Hao 2724 (peak 2724)

Good post, henry.

"Then it goes in to some anti-American jibberish which goes into a political debate about Iraq, Afghanistan and imperialism... just like you did."

Daim, please explain where in my post I was anti-American, and also where I said anything about imperialism. Because I'm not at all anti-American, I'm just anti-Stupid, and I was trying my best to make that clear. And I wasn't discussing politics or imperialism at all, I was just making an anology.

Furthermore, I think you vastly exaggerate the problem of (anti-American?) people assuming that Nakamura-fans must be americans. I think the problem is bigger the other way around: That people who question the Nakamura-fanboyism is assumed to be anti-American. Just like you did... It's a stupid paranoia. Relax a little bit, man.

"They remind me of Americans who scream "ANTI-AMERICAN!" to anyone who is slightly critical of American foreign policies (e.g. the war on Irak)"

I think he's referring to this statement. Your begging for an completely unrelated argument here, as your statement above makes absolutely no sense as an analogy. You might as well say:

"They remind me of French people that scream ANTI-FRENCH to anyone that is slight critical of kicking the gypsies out"

and then we can talk about that unrelated subject ignoring the fact that the analogy is ridiculous and doesn't fit with the discussion.

How will Bjarne prove that he really is "just anti-Stupid"?

The Answer: He will stop pestering poor Daaim.

Wrong, a Naka video is now featured on the "RAW" site and he's a lot more articulate sounding than Maxime and Judit. (Is it me or do Judit and Maxime sound like they were reading off of a script translated into English using the Google translator?)

lwolf:You might as well say:

"They remind me of French people that scream ANTI-FRENCH to anyone that is slight critical of kicking the gypsies out" --- You are absolutely right, lwolf. I might just as well have said that (used that anology). It is exactly the same point.

Bjarne, are you dense?

You're analogies are inflammatory. They invite debate about political subjects.

Chess is a game of absolutes. You win or you lose or you draw. There's no debate about chess results like there is with political opinions.

Your opinion is that a significant portion of U.S. people consider it Anti-American if you slightly criticize U.S. involvement in Iraq. I disagree with that assessment, and I'd guess a significant number of individuals besides myself would disagree with your assessment as well. That fact alone makes your analogy ridiculous. There is no analogy since the premise is debatable.

Like I said before, you are begging for an argument about an unrelated subject.

Last time I looked on ICC, Nakamura was the highest rated 1-minute, 3-minute, and 5-minute player there, and his nearest competitors were a hundred or more points under him. You can verify this by logging into ICC and keying 'best 5', 'best 3', 'best 1'. Chess is a game of absolutes, and Nakamura's results speak for themselves. To compare them to some dumb-ass political diatribe is dense.

I'll try just one more time.

1. It's a sure sign of lack of arguments when you have to label your opponents "dense" or things like that.
2. I have never said, or meant, that "a significant number of U.S. people consider it Anti-American if you slightly criticize U.S. involvement in Iraq". I would say this applies only to a very slim and marginal portion of U.S. citizens. I think you need to read my first post in this thread one more time.
That's another sure sign of lack of arguments by the way, when you have to assign opinions to your opponents which they don't have.
3. I have never questioned Nakamuras results or abilities as a chessplayer. I have no idea why you wrote that last paragraph. I'm not comparing Naka's results, on ICC or anywhere else, to anything.
4. I'm NOT begging for an argument abot Nakamura, imperialism, anti-Americanism or anything else. Certainly not about how big a portion of the U.S. people would concider it anti-American if you critizise the war on Iraq.

However, I have seen here on the Daily Dirt that very often if someone slighly critizises Naka or suggest that his not as good/talented as Anand, Kramnik or Carlsen, some Nakamura fanboy(s) will jump at his throat and call him a "Nakamura-hater" because of that. These are the ones I compare to that "dumb-ass political diatribe" as you call it.

I don't know if you are just pulling my leg here (if that's the case: Good one!) or if you are trolling or maybe you're a little dense yourself, but anyway: Thanks for proving my point!



You compared some supporters of Nakamura to small-minded right-wing nuts that would shout "anti-american" to anyone that even vaguely criticizes U.S. involvement in Iraq.

Someone else already mentioned the inappropriateness of the comment. It appeared to me like you were trolling actually. To be so specific with an analogy like that had to be trolling, I thought.

Maybe you really are dense?

Twitter Updates

    Follow me on Twitter



    About this Entry

    This page contains a single entry by Mig published on August 18, 2010 4:58 AM.

    NH 2010 r2: Dodging a Bullet was the previous entry in this blog.

    Ho Lee Heck is the next entry in this blog.

    Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.