What's with his health?>

some neurosis he has as far as i remember.

his choice is his choice. but i don't think it's very ambitious for a young player to be governed exclusively by the money. do you? :o) also, like i said above, what pays short term, isn't necessarily the same that pays long term.

but it's different making 2750+ performances against 2550-2600 averages and against 2650-2700 averages - if you don't believe me on my word, then check fischl's stats for moro, for instance, say 2000-2006 (except 2002, which was just bad for moro). 2007 was the first year he managed to perform really well against averages close to 2700. before that, his yearly performance rating was higher, the weaker his opposition (his p.r. was much higher when his average was ~2650 than it was those years it was ~2700)

(did you notice, slomarko? :o)

what i mean by this, is that nobody should take nakamura's success at a higher level for granted, unless he makes his way up there and really proves himself. we already know he can beat 2500s and the occasional 2600. i haven't seen him beat a string of 2600s yet, like bu did in gibtelecom, or movsesian did in corus b this year. therefor i think it's shortsighted (at best) to pass up on an opportunity like corus b. i've got an unconfirmed feeling it also might be something of an ego issue...

This shows your blatant un-american spirit and i feel it is my patriotic duty to report you to Homelandsecurity as a terrorist! ;)

due to prize money and start money? how do you know?

i seriously doubt his bank account is bigger than "most 2700-players" due to prize money/start money, and if it still would be, the only reason would be higher prizes in relatively weak events in the us, compared to european standards.

<he can beat a string of back-to-back GMs who are 2600 WHEN THE MONEY IS ON THE TABLE.>

repeatedly, or once every year?

in barcelona in october he scored 4/5 against his 2600+ opponents, which is indeed very good - but he lost to a 2506-player the round after beating 2683-rated dominguez... and regarding "back-to-back", he didn't even beat two 2600s in a row.

however, in the us championship, he scored 0,5/3 against 2600+, in foxwoods 0/1, in last year's gibtelecom 1/2 (and again his "strategy" for racking up a high score was losing to a 2400-rated player early on), and 1,5/2 in nao. that's one year of results.

in other words, you've got the same empirical justification for that statement above, that i would have for saying that "carlsen is so popular because he can win and place ahead of the world's top 3 players when(ever) the field contains at least 10-12 2700+ players". your claim simply isn't backed up by anything at all.

the fact is that nakamura hardly meets 2600-players (and we're talking fide of course). in 2007 he met an <average of 2539> and scored 65%. playing 12-13 games against 2600-players (out of 60-ish games) doesn't really give you any idea of someone's capacity - he scored 7/13 in the games i know. check http://members.aon.at/sfischl/cl200... (where nakamura placed 68 in 2007) and see the number of players that scored around 65% <against much tougher competition than what nakamura faced>.

counting 2002 for kramnik is very strange, though - he had an off-year and didn't play chess at all.

When talking about rating performance, it´s interesting that Moro plays better against lower rated players. But, do this apply to all the top players, or are the someone who plays better against higher rated players?

I know that Kramnik nearly newer plays against 2600-players, but if he did, I imagine that he wouldn´t have a rating performance higher than 2800, mainly because he nearly never wins with black.

It must be very hard to get a 2830-performance like Carlsen got in Corus in a field of 2500-players. In his last Swiss, Gausdal 2007, i think Carlsen lost some rating points, so maybe also Carlsen is best aginst the top players?

Check out this page:

http://members.aon.at/sfischl/po270...

drawingislife, gausdal 2007 that carlsen played, wasn't a swiss, it was a round robin - and he gained about 6,5 rating points if my memory serves me well.

he lost about 0,2 points or so in arctic chess challenge, though, that was a swiss - which he played coming directly from abroad from winning biel 2007.

regarding tprs, they tend to become a useless measure when a number of your opponents are rated 6-700 points below you, like in arctic chess challenge for carlsen (he met stubberud, carlsen senior and hagen, for instance).

however, the best chance a 2600-player has to score a 2800+ tpr, is to rack up a very high percentage score against players with an average around 2550-2600. you will practically never see a 2650-player score a 2800+ performance against a 2700-average - in general the 2650 player isn't even capable of making 50% against the 2700 average, and not at all the required 64% for getting a 2800+ tpr against that average. on the other hand, it happens now and then that a 2650-player manages to score 80% against a 2575-average - which translates to a 2815 tpr. there is no doubt in my mind, though that 64% against a 2700-average is much stronger than 80% against a 2575-average.

so, my stand on this, is that tprs gradually become a slightly meaningless measure, when the scores approach and exceed 75%. another way of putting it - a tpr that you're incapable of reproducing by scoring roughly 50%, does probably not give a correct picture of your performance and your abilities. an example from carlsen's career: he scored a 2700+ tpr in corus c 2004 (when rated 2484), but at that point he would've been completely incapable of scoring 50% in a field that averaged 2700.

well, i know nothing of kasparov's motifs, so we can hardly disagree on that. :o) my point is that playing little/less and always knowing who your opponents are going to be ahead of time, at least facilitates more thorough and player-specific preparations than playing many tournaments and events where you only know your opponent the night before (like in swisses and team events).

whether this was part of some strategy or not for kasparov, i don't know and don't care. like i said, among the current elite, there are indeed players with a similar pattern as that of kasparov in the later part of his active career.

on a micro-level, there also is the difference between those who try to create something in a majority of their games in a tournament, and those who happily steer into drawish positions in 20-25 moves in most of their games, and only put in the extra effort in a selected few games.

so, in aeroflot i'd really say that "the money is on the table", at least metaphorically speaking - if a spot in dortmund isn't motivating enough, then nothing is, in my opinion. :o)

i've never understood why nakamura hasn't participated there even once. the only reason i can think of, is that he prefers weaker events where the chances of winning is greater.

however, it might be that nobody told him that if he's accepted to high-profile events, then all it takes to "finish in the money", is to start the tournament: if you start, you get payed, if you play well, you get more money, and if you play really, really well, you get loads of money.