< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 639 OF 774 ·
|Dec-12-11|| ||Riverbeast: <Rolfo> Wow
In the money rounds of big swisses, thousands of dollars can swing on a half point, or a point
But the Nakamura-Adams game, going from 0-1 to 1-0 in a time scramble, was a swing of 20,000 pounds (over $30,000 dollars)!
I guess Adams could say 'Happy Birthday Nakamura'
|Dec-12-11|| ||Shams: <a swing of 20,000 pounds (over $30,000 dollars)!>|
Nakamura needs it, to buy gas for the sports car he won last year at Wijk aan Zee.
|Dec-12-11|| ||Billy Vaughan: <I'd like to know if many players has beaten two +2800 in the same tournament.> Ivanchuk did the exact same thing (beat Anand and Aronian, lose to Carlsen) this year in Bilbao.|
|Dec-12-11|| ||frogbert: prize money, easily available on the official site (rolfo and riverbeast):|
note: euros, not pounds or dollars.
note also that equal points meant money split - tie-breaks didn't affect the money prizes.
carlsen "lost 5,000" because nakamura played better than adams in the 6 last moves of their game, while he lost 17,500 by not being able to beat short (would've picked up 37,500 for shared first).
nakamura would've got 17,500 for shared 3rd (4th on tie-breaks), so he earned 7,500 more by winning the final round. [if you like: 5,000 "from" carlsen and 2,500 "from" mcshane]
i doubt carlsen is too bothered about those 5,000 representing i think less than 1% of what he makes in 2011.
|Dec-12-11|| ||frogbert: <Then he <frog> posts something fair minded lol.>|
jambow, maybe you should try a small experiment: allowing say 10 posts from yours truely between each time you let your urge to pass judgement result in another rushed, unbalanced, prejudiced post about me? just a friendly piece of advice. :o)
|Dec-12-11|| ||frogbert: <But the Nakamura-Adams game, going from 0-1 to 1-0 in a time scramble, was a swing of 20,000 pounds (over $30,000 dollars)!>|
the same 3 players would've shared the money for 2nd, 3rd and 4th.
in the time scramble the game went from 0-1 via 1/2 to 1-0. i already listed the difference from the last change, 1/2 to 1-0. from 0-1 to 1-0 the change was
+10,000 for naka (4th to 2nd)
-5,000 for carlsen (2nd to 3rd)
-5,000 for mcshane (3rd to 4th)
isn't that "only" 10,000 being "redistributed"?
|Dec-12-11|| ||frogbert: <I guess second spot is around 40.000£ and 4th around 20.000£>|
|Dec-12-11|| ||jombar: Don't give Naka ALL the credit for a 2nd place perfomance. He owes it Kasparov for helping him out. So basically, everybody who played against Naka was ALSO playing against Kasparov. I don't think thats gentleman chess when you have two minds against one; McShane had to play against Naka and Kasparov! Fischer was a one man show when all the russian chess players put their minds together to try to beat him! And Fischer reigned supreme over all of them petty collaboration of the russian chess players!!! Naka should be ashamed he need Kasparov's HELP to come 2nd place.|
|Dec-12-11|| ||veigaman: <Strongest Force> naka was "in the zone" , playing with "street feeling" on the chessboard.|
|Dec-12-11|| ||Eric Schiller: <jombar> This makes no sense. Would you say the same of Kasparov, who had Botvinnik as a trainer, or Kramnik, who was mentored by Kasparov. Studying with one's betters is a common way to improve in chess.|
And if Kasparov recommended the lin Naka played against Anand he should be ashamed!
|Dec-12-11|| ||shach matov: |
<SteinitzLives> said it right:
<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.>
I would add that ingratitude is one of the lowest features of human character. Naka won his first serious super-tourney only a couple of months after Kasparov began coaching him. His general chess level has also dramatically increased since that time. And instead of a "Thank you!", we hear the blather of an immature dimwit.
Hopefully Naka is not following in the footsteps of Fischer and turning into a halfwit from too much chess. To avoid crashing and burning he needs more culture and education, not poker.
|Dec-12-11|| ||Riverbeast: <schach matov> Get a life|
Nakamura expressed an opinion about Kasparov - Just an opinion, like anybody else's
His opinion may be more valid than yours, or anybody else's on cg.com, since he actually knows Kasparov and has worked with him closely
Did somebody say something you didn't like about your boy Kasparov? Awwww.....
Did he hint that maybe there may have been players stronger than him, at some aspects of the game?
|Dec-12-11|| ||shach matov: <Riverbeast>
You seem to be even more of Naka fanboy than Fischer's! Didn't you argue with me and say that Fischer's win in 72 was equivalent to the first man landing on the moon? What else is there to argue about after that?
Realize that it's not just what Naka said but even more important was the nasty and malicious tone of his comment.
His comment was also completely contradictory to his previous statement only a few months ago:
<I knew right away that I would definitely take up the offer simply because there are certain times certain opportunities you have in life that just dont come around that often, and certainly having the opportunity to work with, at least what I consider to be, the greatest chess player ever, is sort of an opportunity you cant turn down.>
But I know you see no problems with that since your own posts are usually even more contradictory.
|Dec-12-11|| ||Rolfo: <prize money, easily available on the official site (rolfo and riverbeast):|
note: euros, not pounds or dollars. >
Guessing is a sport too;)
And besides, frogbert don't be to hasty. You have to consider the latest development between Cameron and Merkel regarding priveleges for the City money traders against the Eurozone. Will the prize money ever be paid in Euro's? And to what exchange course?:)
|Dec-13-11|| ||acirce: <His comment was also completely contradictory to his previous statement only a few months ago:|
<I knew right away that I would definitely take up the offer simply because there are certain times certain opportunities you have in life that just dont come around that often, and certainly having the opportunity to work with, at least what I consider to be, the greatest chess player ever, is sort of an opportunity you cant turn down.>>
Where do you see the contradiction?
|Dec-13-11|| ||shach matov: Relative to his recent comment, it's 100% contradictory: if he meant what he said recently, in the older comment he would say Kasparov was the best opening player; instead he said "at least what I consider to be, the greatest chess player ever". There's a huge difference between those two formulations... not that it matters though:)|
|Dec-13-11|| ||acirce: He's just talking about different things. That doesn't mean there is a contradiction. In his recent comments, he is talking about the parts of the game separately: openings, middlegames, endgames. In the earlier statement, he was talking about Kasparov's play as a whole.|
No contradiction. Even if there are areas where you are not the very best, you can still be the best overall.
|Dec-13-11|| ||shach matov: <Even if there are areas where you are not the very best, you can still be the best overall>|
You have to listen to the silly comment again: the whole thing was meant to downgrade GK's overall chess ability as much as possible. But even the statement itself is completely contradictory: he basically tried to make him sound like an opening machine and nothing else compared to other greats. While in the older comment he clearly says: "the greatest chess player ever". You can't be the greatest if you're merely the best in the opening.
His older comment clearly reflects what he actually believes. The recent one is superficially implosive.
|Dec-13-11|| ||selfmate: Since London is Naka's last major tournament of the year, I took the time to calculate a performance rating for him for all his major tournament and match games at classical time controls in 2011.|
This includes includes a total of 65 games (excluding the bizarre time forfeiture against Vallejo) spanning:
The Result: < PR = 2781 >
|Dec-13-11|| ||Riverbeast: <Didn't you argue with me and say that Fischer's win in 72 was equivalent to the first man landing on the moon>|
No, I didn't say that....Misrepresent my points and put words in my mouth all you like....But for someone who can't seem to live without arguments, you don't seem to be very good at them
I said in terms of propaganda purposes, it was 'nearly equivalent'...Not 'equivalent'
I also made my case for that in detail, and to the best of my recollection I got no coherent rebuttal from you, other than "that's asinine" or "that's ridiculous"
The truth is, you are an overly hotheaded and extremely nationalistic Russian who can't stand Fischer (no surprise there), and can't stand the hint that your favorite player is not 'The Greatest Player of All Time'
I've been reading your drivel on several pages.....Your outraged, belligerent posts are everywhere, and each one is more shrill than the other
Now you are 'demanding apologies' for this deadly slight against Kasparov!
Well, don't hold your breath for any apologies from Nakamura or anybody else here...And like I said, maybe it's time to get a life
|Dec-13-11|| ||shach matov: <Riverbeast: The truth is, you are an overly hotheaded and extremely nationalistic Russian> |
I seem to have touched a nerve with you, but don't get your panties in a bunch, calm down. However, I have never been called a Russian in my life, LOL, that's a first.
And about the comparison of the 72 match with the first man landing on the moon you said:
< There is no HUGE difference between the two. In fact, there really is no difference at all in the larger scheme of things>
To which I replied:
"Wrong! A chess match indeed makes no difference in <the larger scheme of things> but a human landing on the moon (for pits sake) is as huge as it gets! As I said (why do I even have to repeat this?) humanity had dreamed for millenia about the cosmos, the planets, the moon. Landing a human there and returning him back safely is obviously a major achievement not just in the scientific sense but in the philosophical for the whole of humanity! How can you seriously compare that to a chess match??"
But I guess you forget everything you ever said and then change your story, as always:)
|Dec-13-11|| ||King Death: This page is getting to be one of the silliest I've seen. In one corner, you get <frogbert> who shows up to glorify his boy Carlsen and put down anybody who suggests that he isn't already the greatest thing on two legs, and puts Nakamura down with either direct comments or backhand slaps at him every chance he gets. In another corner, we now have <shach matov> who's come over to defend every so called attack on Kasparov with fangs and claws and everything else.|
Oh, yeah, I almost forgot to mention that nobody can discuss anything with these players in this drama. We all get treated to long spiels of nonsense.
|Dec-13-11|| ||arkansaw: <King Death> fully agreed|
|Dec-13-11|| ||shach matov: Hehe, the Naka fanboys are waking up! <King Death> loves his boy Naka so much that you can't even post anything here anymore about Naka without listening to his fanboism masquerading as critique. And of course his little puppy <arkansaw> is always around to bark in agreement and kissing his master's you know what. Ahh, you guys are something:)|
|Dec-13-11|| ||Jambow: <result in another rushed, unbalanced, prejudiced post about me?>|
Frog my posts weren't unbalanced, and I'm only predjudiced by your actions which are too predictable, so my prejudgements turn out to be correct.
You shouldn't have made comments until after you heard Nakamura in context don't operate off other posts listen for yoursef before not after, and then you wouldn't have come off as sounding so absurd. As already stated by others Nakamura's point was yes he was lost against a computer, bot not <objectively> lost against a human in a complex position with plenty of room to make a mistake, which is <objectively> what happened BTW. Worse sure but worse and lost are simply different words aren't they.
<puts Nakamura down with either direct comments or backhand slaps at him every chance he gets.>
That's not from me <frog> and generally that's the impression you leave not me.
Anyway I do agree with your assesment of Nakamura for 2011. Eventually you catch up with the rest of us and it's ok not to see it before hand, just be quite and don't argue with those of us who have a little better forward vision. Remember how many people were trying to tell you that he would step up when he was put in with the big dogs and you got rabid on us and thought we were all just fanboys, delusional, nationalist etc... C-mon wasn't that long ago was it.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 639 OF 774 ·