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)!

1st €50,000
2nd €25,000
3rd €20,000
4th €15,000
5th €10,000
5th €10,000

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]

no?

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)

<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.

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?

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 don’t 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 can’t turn down.>

note: euros, not pounds or dollars. >

Guessing is a sport too;)

<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 don’t 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 can’t turn down.>>

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.

This includes includes a total of 65 games (excluding the bizarre time forfeiture against Vallejo) spanning:

Tata
Pono Match
Bazna
Dortmund
Bilbao
Tal
London

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!

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??"

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.