< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7 OF 7 ·
|Feb-01-08|| ||ongyj: <pawnofdoom>Look, its those unobjective critics that keeps biting on the "fact"(looks more and more like a fallacy to me now) that Nakamura was rude. In what way was saying "Are you kidding me" rude? (He didn't actually say "It's not gonna happen.") To look at it objectively, he did prove it on the board that his opponent was really 'kidding'.|
And mind you (and any other kibitzers whose upset about bad attitutes of competitive chess players), such things happen ALL the time. If you actually go and play in ANY tournament I would be surprised if all the competitors you see are 100% gentlemen.
Some "rude behavior" I personally encountered in my short-lived, low level tournament days include 1.The refusal to shake hands before/after a game(with new FIDE rules, at least hand shakes must be done before a game if someone offers it) 2.Refusal to sign the score sheet for resignation gracefully 3.Refusal to rearrange the pieces back after (losing) a game 4.Grumbling about your opponent's defensive style when its his own offensive inaccuracies that cost hte game 5.Accounting the loss solely to one's own mistake rather than giving any credits to the opponent, 6.Hammering every piece capture you make, or banging the clock. 7.Shouting checks so loud that the entire playing hall can hear you (as if a check is necessarily good, or that the loudness makes the checking move stronger in any sense)
My point is, it's all part of the game, and absolutely normal in competitive play, especially at the elite level, where so much is at stake. It may actually be part of gamesmanship, which is perfectly legal so long as it doesn't violate any rules of chess. There are no saints around, or if there are, maybe they don't play competitive chess LOL
|Feb-01-08|| ||Jim Bartle: "5.Accounting the loss solely to one's own mistake rather than giving any credits to the opponent,"|
See "Williams, Venus" and "Williams, Serena."
|Feb-01-08|| ||Shams: I've seen the video and I thought it was rude. Ruder than "talking smack" at any rate, which is at least partly in jest. Nakamura is clearly contemptuous when he says it. Dismissive behavior != sportsmanlike behavior. Yeah, he proved it on the board. So did Garry most of the time against Polgar; does that make him calling her a "trained dog" not rude?|
I like Hikaru, but from that video I have no trouble believing other reports of his rudeness.
|Feb-01-08|| ||ongyj: <Shams> Pardon me, but when did Gary call <Polgar> a "trained dog"? The most I can remember is that he said Polgar "played with a feminine weakness", but whether that was being rude, or whether that was male-chauvanist, I can't really tell for sure. Maybe a mixture of both, perhaps. But not to forget, the entire society was rather male-domineering back then, with more "dilutions" today.|
In any case your example shows that being rude is just a very small aspect of a chess player. How many of us here don't like Gary's chess (contributions)? I'd rather have more Gary Kasparov[Players who can play good chess] in the chess scene than 100 or even 1000 perfect gentlemen that don't play as well.
Okay, so even if everyone else(which I doubt) thinks Nakamura is rude, it has absolutely 0 damping effect in my appreciation of his chess (contributions). In any case, such character(s) reminds me that everyone is different and unique, and we should always accept "apparently different" behavior and attitudes with an open mind ^Ô^
|Feb-01-08|| ||Shams: <ongyj>
take your pick-- the second google link is to my post elsewhere on this site :)
< But not to forget, the entire society was rather male-domineering back then, with more "dilutions" today.> back then? it was in the 90s!
It's odd, I give Fischer a pass for far more damaging stuff, but that's because I see him as stone cold nuts. I love Nakamura's chess but he strikes me as spoiled. No great crime.
|Feb-02-08|| ||Gameoverziggy: < whether that was being rude, or whether that was male-chauvanist, I can't really tell for sure.> Since when is being a chauvanist not rude?|
|Feb-02-08|| ||ongyj: <Shams>Thanks for the links. And I'm sorry to use "back then", though to me 10 years is an awful lot of time as well.|
<Gameoverziggy> <Since when is being a chauvanist not rude?> On the contrary, (male)chauvanism was never considered rude in the "old days" when feminism is an "unknown concept", where the entire society appears to support patriarchy. It was probably a "norm" and the idea to be "rude" doesn't exist. To me, being a chauvanist is only rude in a more modern social setting.
|Feb-02-08|| ||tiger petrosinian: chess players should not be rude. why? simply, they lose a fan like me. and we are many. When djobovich won the australian open Im kinda less excited for the new star because of those explitives and insults he shouted on the court against his opponent. Being rude is a downer.|
|Feb-02-08|| ||ongyj: My point is not to make Nakamura haters like Nakamura (Though somehow I myself was 'converted' through reading the forum posts around chessgames.com), but rather to be fair to Nakamura, as well as the other chess professionals. I am absolutely sure that these kind of things(referrring to the bad habits of competitive chess players, youtube video of Akopian and Nakamura, as well as a few other "episodes") happen all the time, but why is ONLY Nakamura pin-pointed against?
I recall my first Nakamura-bashing(when I was a hater) came when I criticised him on the Zhu chen-Nakamura game, where Nakamura played on in a pawnless end-game, with material advantage due to his superior pieces left(same piece count). But I realised it wasn't a draw as I first believed. A Rook VS a minor piece is draw, but actually nobody knows for sure in a Rook + Minor piece VS 2 Minor Piece. If anything, Nakamura certainly has the rights to play on. I was simply childish. Look at Kramnik-Aronian, 2008, and you will know what I mean. It was absolutely legal, proper and appropriate for Kramnik(or anyone else) to play on in a "tablebase draw", which assumed perfect play from both players.|
I think the next episode came in Nakamura-Sasikiran, where Nakamura used the unorthodox Patzer's opening 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 which stunned Sasikiran into an hour thinking time-deficit. Again, strong criticisms from Bashers who think Nakamura's not respecting his opponent. Now, why must Nakamura be DICTATED into playing an "orthodox, rationale opening"? Can't he take a risk and possible do a little opening experiment? If he's succeeded he would have become a major contributor to the development of opening lines. If it's such a taboo to use an unorthodox opening, why not just make it a law in chess? "A player who makes the move 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 automatically gets disqualified". And mind you, even a GM like Sasikiran didn't handle the opening well, Nakamura dropped the game because of a mistake later in the game, nothing to do with his opening choice at all. As pointed by a fellow user around this community, the best refutation is probably 2...Nf6! gambitting a pawn, for an overwhelming development advantage to follow.
If anything, I'd prefer to have more Gary Kasparov's[Good Players] than more perfect gentlemen who play inferior chess ^Ô^
|Feb-02-08|| ||BishopofBlunder: It's nice to see an American win an international tournament now and again. Between Nakamura and Kamsky, maybe American chess doesn't look as bad as I thought.|
|Feb-02-08|| ||offramp: Why would a company that sells giblets sponsor a chess event?|
|Feb-02-08|| ||socnegoti: <I'm looking forward to the day when Nakamura gets his butt kicked by Grischuk or Radjabov in a world class blitz tournament. Hopefully there will be videos on youtube. I don't care for arrogant rude chessplayers like him. Being talented doesn't excuse anyone from being a jerk.>|
LOl!!! Are there any prestigious 1-minute blitz tournaments. :D
|Feb-02-08|| ||Eyal: <Rolfo: Is it possible to take a "tactical loss" in Swiss system, let say in first half just to get some rounds of lower rated opponents? I don't say somebody does, but it would give this effect I think...>|
In fact, that's pretty much what happened with Nakamura in this tournament - though I'm not saying it was intentional - due to his "slow start" (loss and 2 draws in the early rounds). Overall, Naka played significantly weaker opposition than Bu - which is also why he gained "only" 9.2 rating points for his 8/10 score compared with Bu's 17.1 points for the same score (full statistical details in
Hans Arild Runde).
|Feb-02-08|| ||Shams: <Rolfo> indeed, such an opening round loss has a name: the Swiss Gambit. ;)|
|Feb-03-08|| ||ajile: <socnegoti: LOl!!! Are there any prestigious 1-minute blitz tournaments. :D>|
|Feb-03-08|| ||alexmagnus: <As pointed by a fellow user around this community, the best refutation is probably 2...Nf6! gambitting a pawn, for an overwhelming development advantage to follow.> See my chessforum, I wrote there Nakamura's "main line" in the 2...Nf6 line:)|
|Feb-04-08|| ||nescio: <TheAlchemist: I looked at Beliavsky's tournament profile and saw Federation: SLO (Tajikistan)> Yes, nice, and they are consistent. I see the same nonsense in the profile of Anna Muzychuk (also a typically Ukrainian name. Is she indeed Slovenian or did she come with Beliavsky?).|
|Feb-04-08|| ||Karpova: <nescio: <TheAlchemist: I looked at Beliavsky's tournament profile and saw Federation: SLO (Tajikistan)> Yes, nice, and they are consistent. I see the same nonsense in the profile of Anna Muzychuk (also a typically Ukrainian name. Is she indeed Slovenian or did she come with Beliavsky?).>|
Anna was born in the Ukraine but became a citizen of Slovenia 4 years ago. Her sister Mariya still plays for the Ukraine. Beljavsky is also from the Ukraine but lives in Slovenia and plays for the Slovenian Chess Federation. There are several examples, e.g. guess what country GM Mikhail Gurevich (born in Kharkov) played for before he changed to the Turkish federation ......... Belgium!
|Feb-04-08|| ||nescio: Thank you, <Karpova>, you are a fountain of knowledge. |
<There are several examples> Changing citizenship seems to be a tradition among chess masters: Reshevsky, Alyekhin, Rubinstein, Tartakower, Koltanovski, Flohr, Najdorf, Pilnik, Rossolimo, Benkö, Füster and dozens of others didn't keep the nationality they were born with.
|Feb-06-08|| ||einuj: Been hearing a lot of stuff lately about Nakamura's rude behavior. Though I agree that some of those are just natural bahavior/responses, I would also like to think that to a certain extent also totally unnecessary. Which brings me into posting this : I think I witnessed something in this game that is not right.
R Antonio vs Nakamura, 2005
I may be wrong as I was not the closest spectator but I think someone else who was in the same room might have had the same observation as I did. At the exact position where it ended in this game posting, both players were on time trouble and a draw had been offered by Naka but the 2 kept on playing. The ensuing moves are not posted. At one point, with all the confusion, it was later said that a draw had been agreed but somehow the 2 kept on playing beating the clock, no signs of slowing down by either of them. When finally White’s bishop reached d6 (I wasn't so sure what kind of advantage White had) Naka all of a sudden claimed that a draw had already been agreed on. Rogelio, as soft spoken as he was couldn't respond to Naka's claim. He might be as surprised as I was that since both of them kept on playing means that the game was still on. Now an arbiter came by and asked if a draw had been agreed on, Naka said ‘yes’ and one guy who was physically closer to Naka, (and probably a friend), also told the arbiter ‘yes’. At that point Rogelio was still looking at the board, his hand on his head, who probably either was surprised at the turn of the event or maybe looking how the game might have ended. Then the arbiter asked Rogelio a few times but he couldn’t make any of his reply. At the end he just nodded his head and with a very low, almost breaking voice, also said ‘yes’. For the benefit of the doubt, maybe it was really a drawn game after thorough analysis. But what I can’t understand is – why would Naka only insist that a draw had already been agreed at the time Rogelio gained a positional advantage.
Now again, I was not the closest spectator in the room though both were easily within my reach. This was what I saw and I may be wrong. But please if someone was there too at HB and witnessed this game, please feel free to let us know what you saw happened in that game. Because really, I want to be proven wrong as this is not good for chess especially at this level. I hope nobody here gets me wrong - I am a fan of both GM and neither of them is a friend or an enemy.
|Feb-08-08|| ||Eyal: I've noticed that the 2 rapid playoff games between Nakamura and Bu haven't been uploaded to the database, so here they are for the record (followed by Nakamura's comments from his blog):|
Hikaru Nakamura (2670) - Bu Xiangzhi (2691) [D94]
Gibtelecom Play-Off/Gibraltar (1) 2008
1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. e3 g6 5. Nc3 Bg7 6. Be2 O-O 7. O-O a6 8. a4 dxc4 9. a5 Bg4 10. Ne5 Bxe2 11. Qxe2 Qc7 12. Nxc4 Nbd7 13. e4 e5 14. Be3 Rfe8 15. Rfd1 exd4 16. Bxd4 Re6 17. f3 Nh5 18. Bxg7 Kxg7 19. Qc2 Rae8 20. Ne2 Ne5 21. Ne3 Nf6 22. Qc3 Kg8 23. Ng3 Rd8 24. f4 Neg4 25. Nxg4 Nxg4 26. e5 Nh6 27. Ne4 Nf5 28. g4 Ne7 29. Ng5 Nd5 30. Qh3 h5 31. Nxe6 fxe6 32. gxh5 Nxf4 33. Qh4 Rf8 34. hxg6 Qg7 35. Qh7+ Qxh7 36. gxh7+ Kxh7 37. Rd7+ Kg6 38. Rxb7 Kf5 39. Rb6 Ke4 40. Re1+ Kf3 41. Rb3+ Kg4 42. Rf1 Ne2+ 43. Kg2 Rd8 44. Rb4+ Kg5 45. Rf2 Nc1 46. h3 Nd3 47. Rg4+ Kh5 48. Rf7 Kh6 49. Rf6+ Kh5 50. Rxe6 Rb8 51. b4 Nxb4 52. Re7 Kh6 53. Rc7 Nd5 54. Rxc6+ Kh5 55. Re4 Kg5 56. e6 Kf5 57. e7 Re8 58. Rce6 Nf4+ 59. Rxf4+ Kxe6 60. Re4+ Kd7 61. Kf3 1-0
<In the first game, I played 4.e3 against Bu’s Slav and he replied with 4…g6!? This line has been played before but the only prominent grandmaster who has had success with it is Gata KamskyK. The game continued with 5.Nc3 Bg7 6.Be2 0-0 7.0-0 a6!? 8.a4 dxc4?
This harmless looking move seems ok as black usually wants to play …dxc4, Bxc4 Bg4 followed by …Nbd7, …Bxf3 and …e5; however, the problem here is that I was able to play 9.a5!, and after Bg4 10.Nxe5 Bxe2 11.Qxe2, Bu was unable to execute his plan. Instead, I was able to trade off the two bishops and keep a very good knight on c4. Later on in the game Bu probably had some chances to hold but the fact that he was down six minutes for most of the game did not help. In the end, after a few inaccuracies, he was lost. 1-0!>
|Feb-08-08|| ||Eyal: Bu Xiangzhi (2691) - Hikaru Nakamura (2670) [D36]
Gibtelecom Play-Off/Gibraltar (2) 2008
1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 e6 4. Qc2 Nf6 5. Bg5 Nbd7 6. cxd5 exd5 7. Nc3 Be7 8. e3 O-O 9. Bd3 Re8 10. O-O Nf8 11. Rae1 Ne4 12. Bxe7 Qxe7 13. Bxe4 dxe4 14. Nd2 f5 15. f3 exf3 16. Nxf3 Be6 17. e4 fxe4 18. Rxe4 Rad8 19. Rfe1 Qf6 20. Re5 Ng6 21. Ne4 Qf8 22. Neg5 Bf7 23. Nxf7 Qxf7 24. Ng5 Rxe5 25. Nxf7 Rxe1+ 26. Kf2 Rde8 27. Ne5 Nxe5 28. Kxe1 Nf3+ 29. Kf2 Nxd4 30. Qa4 Rf8+ 31. Ke3 Nf5+ 32. Ke4 a6 33. Ke5 Ne3 34. Kd6 Nd5 35. Qe4 g6 36. g4 g5 37. Qe6+ Kg7 38. Kc5 h6 39. a3 Rf7 40. b4 Re7 41. Qc8 Rc7 42. Qd8 Rf7 43. Qd6 Re7 44. a4 Rf7 45. Qe5+ Kh7 46. h4 gxh4 47. Qh5 Kg7 48. g5 hxg5 49. Qxg5+ Kf8 50. Qxh4 Ke8 51. Qh8+ Kd7 52. a5 Ke6 53. Qe8+ Re7 54. Qg6+ Nf6 55. Kb6 Rd7 56. Ka7 Re7 57. Kb8 Rd7 58. Kc8 Re7 59. Qh6 Kf7 60. Qf4 Ke6 61. Qe3+ Kf7 62. Qh6 Ke6 63. Qg6 Rf7 64. Qd3 Re7 65. Qh3+ Kf7 66. Kd8 Re8+ 67. Kc7 Re7+ 68. Kd6 Ne4# 0-1
<Usually the way these rapid matches work is that the first game has a very big psychological factor to it. I learned a lot of this during the rapid event I played in Corsica a few months ago. Usually, if black is able to draw/win he will have a significant advantage in the second game; however, if the person with white wins in the first game they almost always end up winning the match (this wasn’t the case when I lost with black in Corsica though)! In the 2nd game, Bu tricked me slightly by transposing from a Slav into the Queens Gambit Declined. The game was theory up until I played the move 21…Ng6!? Previously, only h6 had been tried. Whether or not Ng6 is a better move depends largely upon whether white can win the resulting endgame […] although white has the queen for the rook, knight, and pawn, it is hard to make progress. If analysis proves that in fact this is a win for white then the line is playable. If, however, the variation proves to be a draw then the whole variation likely has to be scrapped as a potential way to play for a win. Since I am quite exhausted, I will leave it at that.> (http://www.hikarunakamura.com/main/...)
|Oct-09-09|| ||offramp: Why did a company that processes giblets sponsor a chess tournament?|
|Oct-09-09|| ||HeMateMe: They know that most of us play like Turkeys...|
|Apr-05-11|| ||kevins55555: Zhao Zong Yuan vs Nakamura, 2008 Did you see this game? This game is Zhao defeating Nakamura! Amazing.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7 OF 7 ·