Short of that, being a very famous theorist is probably a big help. There are legions of American B and C players who own <My System> and know Nimzowitsch's games, even though they may barely know of any other GM games.

Everybody knows this game:

Vidmar vs Nimzowitsch, 1927

But nobody knows these:

Nimzowitsch vs Vidmar, 1927

Vidmar vs Nimzowitsch, 1927

...even though they're both quite brilliant and probably more useful instruction for a club player than Nimzo's win.

(Aside on Vidmar: there are only seven of his games in Tartakower and du Mont's 500 Master Games of Chess, and six of those are Vidmar losses! Not sure quite why he left such a faint footprint on chess history, but it certainly wasn't because of a lack of strength.)

But there will never be another Nimzowitsch, not least because his modern counterparts like Watson tend to write about other people's games rather than their own. So that particular path to eternal renown is no longer open.

If you're not Kasparov, a world champion, or Aron Nimzowitsch, the best way to be eternally famous is to play brilliant games, I think. The Immortal Game and the Evergreen Game assure that Anderssen will never be forgotten, Zukertort has 28. Qb4!! against Blackburne at London 1883, Marshall has the gold pieces game, etc. In more modern times, Nezhmetdinov has to be the most famous non-GM in chess history.

Here is Tal himself on winning tournaments versus playing great games, written (with characteristic grace) about one of his own defeats.

<Shortly after these notes were written the chess world heard with regret of the death of the great chess artist Rashid Nezhmetdinov. Players die, tournaments are forgotten, but the works of great artists are left behind them to live on for ever in memory of their creators.>

<Let this game and notes remain as my modest tribute to the memory of a fine player.>

Nezhmetdinov vs Tal, 1957

Yes, Shirov is another example. Despite being a top-10 player (again) he didn't really WIN all that much. He'll probably go down in history filed in the same drawer as Marshall, Spielmann, Nezhmetdinov (sp.?) et al. Which isn't bad really.

I didn't post it first time around but yes, Tal is also and rightly so remembered with more fondness than others for being the nicest, kindest top chess player ever to have lived. If he'd have been more like Kasparov we'd be here going "Ah yeah Tal, played some great games but was only WCC for a few years, nothing special."

marvol, where in the world did you get the idea that nakamura is "beating up on the 2600s"?

nakamura seldomly plays 2600-players (he mostly plays lower rated players), and when he does, he loses about as often as he wins. last time i took a count over his last 15 2600+ games, he scored about 50%. if you like me to, i can make a new count. and this is in classical chess, mind you - for this purpose, i don't care about blitz or rapid.

if the average american chess fan goes around believing that nakamura regularly wipes the floor with 2600-players, then i wonder where these delusions origin. are simple win-loss-draw stats too advanced for american chess players?!?

nakamura action plan

point one: stop telling your fans how unfairly treated you are

point two: tell your fans how you really score against decent opposition

point three: play more than 15 2600-players each year (hint: aeroflot open, corus b and similar)

shabalov 2606: 0 (us champ)
ehlvest 2643: 0,5
onischuk 2663: 0
shabalov 2606: 0 (foxwoods)

total games this list: 16

<october 2007 list:>

(world open: no 2600-opposition)
(us open: no 2600-opposition)
(national open: no 2600-opposition)
(japan league: no 2600-opposition)

total games this list: 21

<january 2008 list:>

(new york: ibragimov 2599: 0 - not counted, 5 games)
shabalov 2637: 1
sadvakasov 2629: 0,5
(7 more games miami open)

nakamura's single strong performance in 2007: barcelona!

krasenkow 2668: 1
gashimov 2663: 0,5
vaganian 2600: 1
beliavsky 2646: 0,5
dominguez 2683: 1
(4 more games, including a loss for 2506 oms pallise)

total games this list : 23

[this was where i made my last count, looking one year back]

<april 2008 list:>

shabalov 2626: 1 (6 more games na open)
efimenko 2638: 1
petrosian 2606: 1
(8 more games gibtelecom, including loss for zhao 2487 - nakamura faced an average of 2507 in gibtelecom, btw)

total games this list: 17

---

so, in the last 4 fide lists, there is some sign of improvement for nakamura, but he still has quite little experience in playing 2600+ opposition - which, to a rather large degree can be blamed on nakamura himself, unlike what he claims. if he'd started "seriously" in gibtelecom, for instance without drawing and losing to opponents under 2500, gibtelecom could've been a strong event - now it became a category 11 event for nakamura. or instead he could've accepted a guaranteed number of 2600+ and 2700+ opponents in corus b, instead of being picky about "conditions".

what do we have in these latest 4 rating periods:

16+21+23+17 = 77 games in total
* he could've been more active

total games against 2600-players: 14 out of 77 games
games against 2600-2649: 10
games against 2650-2699: 4
average of 2600-opposition: 2637
* he should've searched better opposition

last time i checked, 3 months ago, nakamura scored
+5 -3 =7 in 15 games (over the run of a year)
or 57%

this time, nakamura scored
+6 -3 =4 in 14 games (over the run of a year)
or 57%

since all of his losses are almost one year back, these stats will look much prettier for nakamura in just 3-4 months, unless he plays and loses against several 2600-players, of course. :o)

anyway, 14-15 games each year isn't much, and he's faced very few of the strongest 2650+ players in europe below 2700. avoiding the best opportunities to meet those in favour of playing shabalov for the nth time is a very strange choice if he wants to further his career. most importantly, though - he needs to understand that in order to get to play in the top tier events, he first has to show something in the tier next to the top tier. <and nakamura hasn't even played <any> events in the sub-top-tier!> and he declined corus b - go figure... :o)

person a: "can i shoot myself in the foot if i want to?"

Whoa, where did that come from? The average American chess fan has no opinion or knowledge regarding the quality of Nakamura's opposition, except that it's obviously below Linares/Corus standards. He plays in a lot of open tournaments.

Not many fans of any nationality have the knowledge you do on ratings, strength of opposition, etc., <frogbert>, so there is no need to take a shot at American chess fans in particular.

i just get annoyed with all the nonsense that is said and written about nakamura, mostly by americans that think nakamura is the 3rd best player on the planet, clearly superior to karjakin and carlsen, for instance. :o)

sure, i know not everyone thinks that way, but an awfully big number of people seem to think that nakamura is ready for prime-time, while in fact he systematically avoids the events that can give him that (corus b --> corus a, aeroflot a1 --> dortmund, and so on).

and what did marvol just say?

<as long as he keeps beating up on the 2600s>

there is so statistical material to support that nakamura is superior head-to-head against 2600-players. in the last 12 months, in 77 games, he played four (4) players at about his own level. still, the gambit blog item and not to mention the usual nakaheads on icc seem to think that there is some global conspiracy against naka, because why isn't he playing corus a, linares, dortmund and so on, it there wasn't? :o)

typical comment during the candidates tournament last year? "why isn't naka playing?". duh. the usual reason - he wasn't good enough, he was knocked out 1,5 years ago...

i "shoot" at the americans because it's mainly the americans that are hyping nakamura. :o)

i've never thought that ignorance is a very good excuse. :o) if you don't know what nakamura has accomplished - and this is measured by who you play and how well you do - how can someone then have a strong opinion of where nakamura should be invited or not?

regarding tournament wins, this holds true: a win's not a win's not a win. :o) maybe this fact isn't known by american chess players either?

recently, nakamura won gibtelecom. sounds great, doesn't it? until you realize that nakamura did it, first by riding a swiss wave due to a bad start, and then by winning 2 blitz games. his performance wasn't anything near that of bu, who was the "real" winner of this tournament, in my opinion. nakamura met two decent players in 10 rounds, and in total played an average of 2507 - this is category 11, similar to corus _c_ - and nakamura declined to play in corus _b_.

still, gibtelecom is the 2nd best result nakamura had the last 12 months, the clearly best one was the tournament in barcelona, where he made a very fine result against qualified opposition.

if the average american uscf-organized chess player doesn't understand the concept of "performance" as related to your opposition, or hasn't noticed how you more easily can come from behind and catch up in swiss events, avoiding the best opposition [the best players usually score heavily in early rounds] at the cost of getting lousy tie-breaks, then i'm not very impressed. but hey, i'm trying to rectify his lack of knowledge! :o)

seriously, i can understand some level of patriotism, but like you know, in chess we've got some rather good measures of performance and strength, both of players and of tournaments. gibtelecom as seen from nakamura's viewpoint, was category 11. linares was category 21, while corus was category 20. there is "an ocean of unexplored land" ;o) nakamura should play some more category 15 to 18 events before even thinking about corus a and friends. by the way, carlsen didn't play any category 18 event before reaching 2698, if that's something to go by.

<i've never thought that ignorance is a very good excuse. :o) if you don't know what nakamura has accomplished - and this is measured by who you play and how well you do - how can someone then have a strong opinion of where nakamura should be invited or not?>

But that's just it. I <don't> have a strong opinion about Nakamura. I've read some of your posts on the level of his opposition and what sort of tournament he is "entitled" to play in and I find them quite convincing. If I were really concerned about it, I suppose I would look at the matter more closely. In the meantime, I try to avoid having strong opinions on a subject I really don't know much about.

No doubt there are some fans who exaggerate Nakamura's accomplishments and believe he is being "shut out" somehow. But I don't think the average American chess player/fan feels that way.

As for the posts regarding the American player Nakamura I can only add this: though he's not considered an elite player like Kramnik, Anand, Topalov and the rest he's a good oppponent for those who play at the level he's at now.

<Frogbert>:

Your "action plan" for <Hikaru Nagasaki> is excellent--

I think it qualifies you to be his manager.

Interestingly, <hikaru> is a very popular Japanese Cartoon show as well.

All my students watch it.