< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 41 OF 54 ·
|Dec-10-11|| ||Everett: It needs to be said that Kasparov may not be the greatest chess coach or trainer. In fact, most of the greatest coaches in any sport were not stars themselves, much less the greatest competitor in their chosen field.|
Chess history has shown us that some of the greatest trainers were not superstars: Koblentz, Zaitsev, Bondarevsky, Dvoretsky, Furman, Konstantinopolsky, etc.
|Dec-10-11|| ||whithaw: Nakamura was born in Japan to an American mother and a Japanese father. His name is Japanese, however, he has been American by nationality since birth. Also, he has been living in the United States since the age of 2 years.|
Many Americans are born outside of the United States each year to an American parent, and they are also Americans by law. It is rather sophomoric to argue this issue.
For Nakamura's biography, please follow this link:
|Dec-10-11|| ||whithaw: Nakamura is the best thing that has happened to American Chess since Bobby Fischer.|
|Dec-10-11|| ||bronkenstein: The way Naka talked about Kasparov here , kinda reducing him to openings http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail... (the last vid in the article) , and especially the way he hesitated in the end (answering to D.King`s <So , your training sessions will continue?>) sounds to me like the cooperation is over or in serious crisis.|
Also , not just Naka`s answers but Danny King`s opening with <Are you enjoying the sessions?> + insisting with <So , your training sessions will continue?> - he might know some rumors on their split(?).
|Dec-10-11|| ||HeMateMe: I'd prefer there were no tiebreaks used. If one or more players finish at the top, no one entrant should be able to see that he or she "won" or "finished first". Just say two players tied for first. |
When a tournament uses tie breaks, people forget that he may have finished even with one or two others. They will just say that "player X won the London 2011 tournament. Not fair to others who finished tied for first.
|Dec-11-11|| ||JoergWalter: Does anybody seriously believe that after Nakamura statement the cooperation is still on? Well, Kasparov will not eat his pride, I guess. For me it is over.|
<Right, so he doesn’t look at particular middlegames that much with you, or…?
No, like I said, his strength was in openings. I mean you look at middlegames or endgames and I’m quite convinced there are other players who are better than he was, but he was able to get advantages out of the openings so that was his main strength.
And when he wasn’t able to do that, that’s why he lost his title to Kramnik.
Simple as that?
Well, pretty much.
Right… interesting. And your training sessions are continuing anyway?
Uh…. We’ll see.>
|Dec-11-11|| ||tacticalmonster: To evaluate chess strength of any player, I have broken it into five factors: |
1) opening 2) attack 3) defense 4) strategy 5) endgame.
Let's analysis the strengths and weaknesses of what I consider the three greatest chess player of all time:
a) Kasparov, b) Fischer and c) Karpov
1) greatest opening theoretician of all time.
2) greatest attacking player of all time, followed by Alekhine and Tal
3) relatively poor for a world champion.
4) worthy of a WC but not the best
5) very strong but not at a WC level
b) Fischer is a true universal chess player who has almost no weakness
1) Top five of all time
2) great attacker but Spassky and Tal were better
3)Great defender but Petrosian, Andersen and Korchnoi were better
4) Top 3 of all time
5) top 5 of all time
1) relatively poor for a WC
2) Strong attacker but below WC level
3) One of the best defender of all time
4) Top 3 of all time (Fischer, Capablanca and Karpov)
5) Top 10 of all time
Fischer vs Kasparov: I prefer Fischer. They are probably within 25 Elo rating of each other.
|Dec-11-11|| ||Blunderdome: The Kramnik - Howell postmortem was great.|
|Dec-11-11|| ||Caissanist: Nakamura's trash talking Kasparov was pretty wild, and seemingly at odds with what he had said in the past. But my first thought when I heard that was "gee, Naka and Kasparov really are a lot alike, aren't they?"|
|Dec-11-11|| ||whithaw: Tacticalmonster,
You have taken on the difficult topic of comparing great individuals in chess, and you have made an effort of making this comparison qualitatively. This is a difficult task, and I'll leave it at that.
However, Nakamura's statements regarding Kasparov's strengths and weaknesses are fairly accurate. That is, "Kasparov couldn't beat Kramnik in a match where he (Kasparov) could not obtain a significant advantage out of the opening."
I believe that players such as Nakamura (including Carlsen) are extrememly pragmatic in their assesments of players' assets. They are not caught up in "Idol Worship." They are concerned with the question, "How do I improve my chess such that I can become the best player in the world?" If Nakamura see's that he can only gain from Kasparov's opening knowledge, then he has probably reached this conclusion from a sound basis.
|Dec-11-11|| ||anandrulez: Nakamura's opinion about Kasparov is probably incorrect . He says he has seen many middle game players better than him , I doubt it . Anyway if you look at 1995 WC or 2000 Kramnik WC , Kasparov won/lost respectively the WC right out of the opening and not in the middle game . 1995 saw Vishy making some uncharecteristic middle game blunders too .|
|Dec-11-11|| ||acirce: <Nakamura's opinion about Kasparov is probably incorrect . He says he has seen many middle game players better than him , I doubt it .>|
He didn't say "many".
|Dec-11-11|| ||Kinghunt: While there are still two rounds to go and almost anyone could win this tournament, I believe Kramnik's won the last Candidates spot in the next cycle. He only needs to be at least 7 points ahead of Karjakin on January 1st, and that is now guaranteed, even with two losses.|
|Dec-11-11|| ||whithaw: I hope that Kramnik makes the championship cycle. He is a great player. Lately, he has been playing a lot of sharp and exciting chess.|
|Dec-11-11|| ||SteinitzLives: Disappointed to see Nakamura believes there are other players better than Kasparov in the middle game. To say that in an interview and to only say Kasparovs' opening prep is what he can learn from him is unfortunate for Naka. |
Yes, there may be better middlegame and endgame players than Kasparov, especially now since he has retired, but how many are available or willing to teach Nakamura?
It's youthful arrogance (just listen to Nakas' tone of voice in the interview, it really speaks volumes) bucking against established wisdom. Kasparov could have been and may have been one of the best things to ever happen to Nakamura.
I think Naka could use a "life coach" as much as a chess coach if he really feels the way he has described about Kasparov.
Who else out there even close to Kasparovs' caliber of player, coach, and leader would lower themselves to try to teach this talented but tormenting twit.
|Dec-11-11|| ||anandrulez: Well I think most of these young players are like that . Probably its the computer influence . Computers have made middle game a very precise art which is very boring - Yesterdays Aronian vs Anand for exampple . Kasparov always had creative ideas that really put his opponents in trouble .|
|Dec-11-11|| ||brankat: <SteinitzLives> <I think Naka could use a "life coach" as much as a chess coach if he really feels the way he has described about Kasparov.|
Who else out there even close to Kasparovs' caliber of player, coach, and leader would lower themselves to try to teach this talented but tormenting twit.> Right on.
"Famous since childhood, always surrounded by flattery, chess players grow to feel themselves exceptionally gifted. They believe that they could achieve success in any field.... I hold a different opinion. Chess players are self-centered, whiny, arrogant S.O.B.`s unable to coexist with each other. With some exceptions, that includes the Linares crowd and all of the world's top twenty."
-– Alex Yermolinsky
|Dec-11-11|| ||brankat: More importantly, today, Dec-11, is Vishy Anand's Birthday.|
Happy Birthday Vishy!
|Dec-11-11|| ||serenpidity.ejd: <MyPredictionscametrueMyPredictionscametrue>|
I predicted that Anand will not win the title.
I predicted that McShane will have a guaranteed 3-points ( impliedly against Howell,Adams and Short).
I predicted the round 7 result.
*But I failed to predict the win of Anand against all of the 3 stooges (1/3).
|Dec-11-11|| ||whithaw: SteinitzLives,
I agree with you in some ways, but I disagree (respectfully) in other ways.
The younger generation of rising world class players seems to approach certain aspects of the game a bit differently. Both Nakamura and Carlsen speak in a matter of fact tone about many related issues, and at times, they seem to speak in an irreverent tone. But, they also speak very precisely.
Nakamura did not say that Kasparov wasn't a great player. He said that there are other players that were better in the middle or end games (implying that the majority of Kasparov's success came from playing a superior position, following a successful opening.) I believe that this statement may be objectively true, although that list of players with a superior middle or endgame would be small. The alternative, which would be to say that Kasparov was the best middlegame or endgame player ever to have lived is probably less likely to be true.
What is unfortunate, is that Nakamura chose a strange opportunity to make such a statement. He almost appears to imply that, "I have used you for your strengths, and you are no longer of any use to me for anything else."
Nakamura may need to learn that it is better to show respect for people in a public forum, despite what his objective opinion may be.
|Dec-11-11|| ||arkansaw: Knowing Kasparov's personality, he will not be silent for too long if he has taken insult.|
|Dec-11-11|| ||anandrulez: With no chance for Vishy to win this tournament , Anand goes 4 years without a tourney win - after 2007 Linares . Now his next is WC vs Gelfand .|
|Dec-11-11|| ||Mendrys: Oh dear, how will Kasparov ever forgive Nakamura for not proclaiming him the best ever in every facet of the game? I think Kasparov will take this "insult" in stride and go on with his life and not worry too much about Nakamura's responses to questions after a match.|
|Dec-11-11|| ||arkansaw: <Who else out there even close to Kasparovs' caliber of player> His caliber when he had a rating of 2851? or when he actually lost rapid games to Short, in a King's Gambit no less? or his more than fair share of caliber of being a twit which Polgar and Radjabov can bear witness to?|
|Dec-11-11|| ||King Death: < brankat: "Famous since childhood, always surrounded by flattery, chess players grow to feel themselves exceptionally gifted. They believe that they could achieve success in any field.... I hold a different opinion. Chess players are self-centered, whiny, arrogant S.O.B.`s unable to coexist with each other. With some exceptions, that includes the Linares crowd and all of the world's top twenty."|
-– Alex Yermolinsky>
It isn't only chess players. Look at other sports figures as well. In fairness, to be told how great you are, and that the world revolves around you, from almost the day you're out of the womb could turn anybody's head. Even an adult who had never got this kind of attention could change if somebody laid it on them. Is it really any wonder why some of these talents are so one sided in their character and immature in their behavior?
< whithaw: ...Nakamura may need to learn that it is better to show respect for people in a public forum, despite what his objective opinion may be.>
Fischer too was like this. He was disparaging of almost everything not related to chess, didn't give credit to opponents (at least outwardly) and came across as a brat.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 41 OF 54 ·