chessgames.com

Nakamura 
Photography copyright © 2008, courtesy of chesspatzerblog.  
Hikaru Nakamura
Number of games in database: 1,164
Years covered: 1995 to 2014
Last FIDE rating: 2772
Highest rating achieved in database: 2789
Overall record: +394 -167 =332 (62.7%)*
   * Overall winning percentage = (wins+draws/2) / total games
      Based on games in the database; may be incomplete.
      271 exhibition games, odds games, etc. are excluded from this statistic.

MOST PLAYED OPENINGS
With the White pieces:
 Sicilian (93) 
    B90 B42 B30 B23 B33
 Queen's Pawn Game (42) 
    A45 D00 E00 A50 D05
 French Defense (34) 
    C02 C11 C10 C16 C18
 Queen's Gambit Declined (32) 
    D31 D37 D38 D30 D35
 Nimzo Indian (29) 
    E21 E44 E46 E32 E47
 Grunfeld (28) 
    D85 D91 D70 D86 D97
With the Black pieces:
 Sicilian (134) 
    B90 B92 B30 B42 B23
 King's Indian (60) 
    E97 E63 E94 E92 E99
 Sicilian Najdorf (46) 
    B90 B92 B99 B94 B96
 French Defense (37) 
    C11 C03 C12 C10 C04
 Ruy Lopez (33) 
    C67 C78 C80 C65 C60
 Dutch Defense (28) 
    A88 A81 A85 A89 A87
Repertoire Explorer

NOTABLE GAMES: [what is this?]
   Krasenkow vs Nakamura, 2007 0-1
   Gelfand vs Nakamura, 2010 0-1
   Rybka vs Nakamura, 2008 0-1
   Crafty vs Nakamura, 2007 0-1
   Nakamura vs Kramnik, 2012 1-0
   G Sagalchik vs Nakamura, 2003 0-1
   Nakamura vs Robson, 2012 1-0
   Beliavsky vs Nakamura, 2009 0-1
   Anand vs Nakamura, 2011 0-1
   Nakamura vs T Hillarp Persson, 2005 1-0

WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS: [what is this?]
   FIDE World Championship Knockout Tournament (2004)

NOTABLE TOURNAMENTS: [what is this?]
   Torneo Continental Americano (2003)
   34th World Open (2006)
   Casino de Barcelona (2007)
   Corsica Masters (2007)
   Ordix Open (2008)
   Cap d'Agde (2008)
   Gibraltar (2008)
   Gibtelecom (2009)
   Ordix Open (2009)
   Cap d'Agde (2010)
   US Championship (2012)
   Geneva Chess Masters (2013)

GAME COLLECTIONS: [what is this?]
   Fighting Chess with Hikaru Nakamura by kenilworthian
   Notable Nakamura Games by iron maiden
   Hikaru! by larrewl
   Match Nakamura! by amadeus
   Art of War's favorite games 7 by Art of War
   Selected Tournaments and Favorite Games (2011) a by partien
   Interesting Opening Lines by EruditeEgress
   NAKAMURA'S BEST GAMES by notyetagm
   Nakamura's Noteables voted by members 1/26/08+ by ffpainz

Search Sacrifice Explorer for Hikaru Nakamura
Search Google for Hikaru Nakamura
FIDE player card for Hikaru Nakamura


HIKARU NAKAMURA
(born Dec-09-1987) Japan (citizen of United States of America)

[what is this?]
IM (2001); GM (2003); 3-time US Champion (2004, 2009 and 2012); world #1 blitz and bullet player, world #7 player (of the standard time game - March 2014).

Prodigy

Christopher Hikaru Nakamura was born December 9, 1987 in Hirakata in Osaka, Japan, and is the younger brother of Asuka Nakamura. When he was two years old he and his family moved to the United States. He started playing chess when he was four, coached by his stepfather, Sunil Weeramantry. He was the youngest player in US history to defeat an International Master (Jay R Bonin) in a USCF-rated game (10 years, 0 months), to become a National Master (USCF) (10 years 79 days), to defeat a Grandmaster (Arthur Bisguier) in a USCF-rated game (10 years, 117 days), and to become an IM (13 years 2 months), although most of these records have subsequently been surpassed. In 2003 he became the USA's youngest-ever grandmaster (15 years 2 months and 19 days), a record later broken by Fabiano Caruana and Ray Robson.

Championships

<Youth> In 2001 he won the World U14 championship.

<National> When he won the Chessmaster US Championships 2005 (2004) (on tiebreak from Alexander Stripunsky), he was the youngest player to win the US championship since Robert James Fischer. He also won the US Championship (2009) outright by half a point ahead of the joint runners-up Robert Lee Hess and Alexander Onischuk, and the US Championship (2012) outright by a full point ahead of the winner of the 2010 and 2011 events, Gata Kamsky.

<World championship cycle> Seeded number 87 and aged 16, Nakamura reached the final 16 in the FIDE World Championship Knockout Tournament (2004), defeating 46th seed Sergey Volkov, 19th seeded Alexey Aleksandrov, and 51st seed Alexander Lastin in the preliminary rounds before bowing out to number 3 seed and finalist Michael Adams in the round of 16. He qualified to play in the World Cup (2013) through his rating, and defeated Peruvian WGM Deysi Estela Cori Tello in the first round, Azeri GM Eltaj Safarli in the second round and Indian GM Baskaran Adhiban in the third round, but was eliminated in the Round of 16 (fourth round) by Ukrainian GM Anton Korobov.

<Grand Prix Series 2012-2013> He started the Grand Prix series with last at the FIDE Grand Prix London (2012). After bouncing back into contention with outright second in the FIDE Grand Prix Zug (2013), a poor showing at the FIDE Grand Prix Thessaloniki (2013) eliminated him from contention for the top 2 spots that will qualify for the 2014 Candidates Tournament. (1) He did however place 3rd behind Fabiano Caruana and Boris Gelfand in the FIDE Grand Prix Paris (2013) to accumulate 300 GP points and place 6th in the 2012-13 Grand Prix series. Subsequently, his only chance to play in the 2014 Candidates Tournament was to be nominated as the Organizer's wild card once the venue was settled, however this did not eventuate.

Standard tournaments

In 2005, he won the 7th Foxwoods Open (2005).

In 2007, he won both the National Open (2007) that was held in Las Vegas and the Casino de Barcelona (2007).

The following year, he beat Bu Xiangzhi in the play-off to win the Gibraltar (2008) Masters Open with 8.0/10.

Nakamura tied for first with Evgeny Najer at the World Open (2009) after taking two last-day byes, each worth half a point and won the Donostia Chess Festival (2009) in tiebreak over Ruslan Ponomariov.

In 2010, he came =4th at Corus (2010), and was equal top scorer in the victorious Rising Stars team in the Rising Stars vs Experience (2010) tournament. He scored 5/9 (+1 -0 =8) at the Tal Memorial (2010), placing =4th, and finished the year with =4th place in the London Chess Classic (2010).

Nakamura began 2011 by taking clear first place at the A-Group of the prestigious category 20 Tata Steel (2011) (formerly Corus) with a 9/13 score (+6 -1 =6) and a 2880 performance rating, ahead of a powerful field including the world's top four players: World Champion Viswanathan Anand, Magnus Carlsen, Levon Aronian and former World Champion Vladimir Kramnik. In June 2011, Nakamura placed =3rd in the Bazna King's Tournament (2011), in July he scored 4.5/10 at Dortmund (2011), in August he came =1st in the 2011 US Open Championship with 7.5/9 and in October he came =3rd in the 4th Bilbao Masters (2011) with 5/10. The following month, he suffered a lapse in form at the category 22 Tal Memorial (2011), scoring 3/9 and coming last but recovered to finish 2011 with second place behind Kramnik at the category 20 London Chess Classic (2011), scoring +4 -1 =3 (TPR of 2887).

He started 2012 by coming =2nd (4th on count back) at the Reggio Emilia (2011), half a point behind Anish Giri, and then came =5th at Tata Steel (2012), scoring 7.5/13 (+3 -1 =9). He followed up in April 2012 with 1st at the 6th Annual Grand Pacific Open held in British Columbia. He competed in the Tal Memorial (2012) held in June, scoring 4/9. In July/August 2012, Nakamura placed a solid =3rd at the Biel Chess Festival (2012), but underperformed at the 28th European Club Cup (2012), although in October 2012, he recovered to some extent by winning the 4 player double round robin 16th Unive Tournament (2012) (crown group) with 4.5/6 (+3 -0 =3). Nakamura finished 2012 with a strong 3rd placement in the London Chess Classic (2012) behind Carlsen and Kramnik, adding enough rating points to restore him to the top 10.

2013 started with a modest 7/13 result for outright 6th at the Tata Steel (2013) event. He then followed up in May 2013 with equal 2nd at the Norway Chess Tournament (2013) with 5.5/9, half a point behind Sergey Karjakin and 3rd on tiebreak behind Carlsen; he also placed =2nd with 6/9 at the preliminary Norway Chess Tournament (Blitz) (2013) held to determine the draw for the main tournament, and earned the right to play with the White pieces in 5 games out of 9. In June 2013, he contested the category 22 Tal Memorial (2013), and was outright leader after 6 rounds. However, he lost the last 3 game to place 6th with 4.5/9, winning more games (4) and losing more games (4) than any other player in the tournament. Soon after, he came =3rd in the Houston Open in July 2013. In September he played in the quadrangular double round robin category 22 Sinquefield Cup (2013), and was in contention for first place until the last round, when he drew against Gata Kamsky finishing second with 3.5/6 (+2 -1 =3; TPR 2863) behind Magnus Carlsen.

Nakamura first event in 2014 was the category 20 Tata Steel (2014) where he scored 5/11 (+2 -3 =6) to shed a few rating points for FIDE's February rating list. He next competed in the category 23 Zurich Chess Challenge (2014) in which he placed 4th with 2/5 after coming agonisingly close to defeating World Champion Magnus Carlsen. He came 2nd with 3.5/5 in the Zurich Chess Challenge (Rapid) (2014) which followed the standard time event, to remain in 4th in the overall event with the results of the standard and rapid events combined.

Team Events

<Olympiads> Nakamura has represented the U.S. in the Olympiads of 2006, 2008, 2010 and 2012, helping his country to the bronze medal in 2006 and 2008. He scored 6/10 during the Chess Olympiad (2010) on top board for the USA and a performance rating of 2741 and 6/9 in the Chess Olympiad (2012), coming in fourth on top board. His overall score in Olympiads is 25.5 points accumulated in 40 games played.

<World Team Championship> Nakamura played board 1 for the USA at the FIDE World Team Championship (2013), winning individual silver and helping his team to 4th place in the event.

<European Club Cup> In October 2013, he played top board for the Italian team O.R. Padova in the European Club Cup (2013), and won individual bronze, his team placing 10th.

Rapids

Nakamura is one of the world's best rapid and blitz players, and the world's best bullet (one-minute) player. He regularly plays on the internet, usually at the ICC where he is the highest rated player (userid <Smallville>), and at Playchess, where he is known as <Star Wars>. He has set many rating records under different categories. In 2008, he challenged and broke blitz king Alexander Grischuk ’s record at ICC of 3737, reaching 3750. Grischuk subsequently challenged Nakamura to a 20 game 3 minutes blitz match, which Nakamura took out convincingly by 14.5-5.5. (2) He also won the first ICC Open in 2011 ahead of over 2000 other contestants. (3)

In 2007, he won the annual Corsica Masters (2007), defeating Rustam Kasimdzhanov in the final. One of the most convincing demonstrations of Nakamura’s ability as a rapid player was when he won the Cap d'Agde (2008), defeating Bu Xiangzhi, Anatoly Karpov and Vassily Ivanchuk in the playoff matches to take first prize in a field that included Carlsen. Nakamura also defeated Carlsen to take out the BNbank Blitz (2009). He was runner-up to Ivanchuk at the Cap d'Agde (2010) in the playoff. He also defeated Rising Stars team mate Anish Giri for the right to play at Amber 2011.

In 2012, Nakamura won the trifecta of silver medals at the SportAccord World Mind Games (Men's Rapid) (2012), the World Mind Games (Men's Blitz) and the World Mind Games (Men's Blindfold) events. He closed out 2013 by winning the London Chess Classic (Knockout) (2013), defeating Gelfand in the final by 1.5-0.5, after qualifying for the final by winning the preliminary London Chess Classic (Group C) (2013).

He authored the book Bullet Chess: One Minute to Mate.

Match

In December 2004, Nakamura played the best-of-six game Karjakin-Nakamura Match (2004) in the "Duelo de los Jovenes Prodigios" (Duel of the Wonder Boys) in Cuernavaca, Estado de Morelos, Mexico, winning 4.5-1.5 (+4 -1 =1). In May 2011 at the St Louis chess club, he won the Nakamura-Ponomariov Match (2011) by 3.5-2.5 (+2 =3 -1).

960 Chess

In August 2009, Nakamura defeated Aronian in Mainz, Germany to become the 960 World Champion and remains unchallenged as such.

Ratings and rankings

As of 1 March 2014, Nakamura's rating was:

<Standard> 2772, maintaining his position as the top ranking player in the Americas. He is the #7 player in the world;

<Rapid> 2841; and

<Blitz> 2879.

Sources and references

(1) Wikipedia article: FIDE Grand Prix 2012–2013 (2) http://dod.ru/chess/game/Crest/Smal...; (3) Further details are at this post: Hikaru Nakamura; Live rating list: http://www.2700chess.com/; Wikipedia article: Hikaru Nakamura


 page 1 of 47; games 1-25 of 1,165  PGN Download
Game  ResultMoves Year Event/LocaleOpening
1. S Predescu vs Nakamura 1-064 1995 U.S. National Scholastic Grade 2 ChampionshipB08 Pirc, Classical
2. Nakamura vs B Karen 0-152 1997 Nassau FuturityB06 Robatsch
3. Nakamura vs J Bonin  1-036 1997 Marshall Chess ClubC02 French, Advance
4. L Au vs Nakamura 1-043 1997 Hawaii opB83 Sicilian
5. Stripunsky vs Nakamura 0-143 1998 Marshall Chess ClubB40 Sicilian
6. Bisguier vs Nakamura 0-121 1998 Somerset ACN Action SwissE70 King's Indian
7. B Karen vs Nakamura  0-126 1998 Nassau g/30B23 Sicilian, Closed
8. Nakamura vs I Krush 1-062 1998 Cardoza US opB67 Sicilian, Richter-Rauzer Attack, 7...a6 Defense, 8...Bd7
9. P MacIntyre vs Nakamura  1-054 1998 US Amateur Team EastA07 King's Indian Attack
10. D Schneider vs Nakamura 0-153 1999 Manhattan CC-chB90 Sicilian, Najdorf
11. D Moody vs Nakamura 0-120 1999 U.S. OpenB21 Sicilian, 2.f4 and 2.d4
12. Wojtkiewicz vs Nakamura 1-042 1999 U.S. OpenE62 King's Indian, Fianchetto
13. S Kriventsov vs Nakamura  1-024 1999 Rated TournamentB90 Sicilian, Najdorf
14. A David vs Nakamura  1-025 1999 World opB92 Sicilian, Najdorf, Opocensky Variation
15. Nakamura vs A Aleksandrov  ½-½60 1999 U.S. OpenC47 Four Knights
16. S Kriventsov vs Nakamura  1-095 1999 Eastern OpenA49 King's Indian, Fianchetto without c4
17. Nakamura vs O Adu  1-037 1999 Washington Eastern opB54 Sicilian
18. A Hoffman vs Nakamura 0-135 1999 U.S. Open 99E61 King's Indian
19. Wang Yue vs Nakamura 1-0112 1999 Wch U12A04 Reti Opening
20. Nakamura vs J Fang 0-121 1999 Eastern Class- chB06 Robatsch
21. Nakamura vs G Gaiffe 1-054 1999 U.S. Open (5)B23 Sicilian, Closed
22. Efimenko vs Nakamura 1-040 2000 KasparovChess Cadet GP netB99 Sicilian, Najdorf, 7...Be7 Main line
23. Nakamura vs Harikrishna ½-½22 2000 Wch U14C16 French, Winawer
24. V Gaprindashvili vs Nakamura 1-051 2000 World OpenA04 Reti Opening
25. Nakamura vs A De Palma 1-030 2000 World Open Friday Action OpenC45 Scotch Game
 page 1 of 47; games 1-25 of 1,165  PGN Download
  REFINE SEARCH:   White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2) | Nakamura wins | Nakamura loses  
 

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 702 OF 803 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Feb-14-12  rilkefan: <you have an insignificant hang-up on an equally unimportant (in this context) quibble>

Ok, I'll take that as your best approximation to "Yeah, my point was dumb, and I defended it the death, and now I admit it was wrong, but I don't actually give a damn about the point anyway" given your difficulties carrying on an adult conversation on such topics. And I'll reiterate that I don't care about the point either, I just mentioned it to you to make you aware you were arguing emotionally and incoherently to the justified bewilderment of folks here, and I followed up on your flailing replies because the site would be better if you didn't fly off the handle randomly as above fairly regularly.

<however, the real issue on debate is 1) the practice of selling a place in the final 8 of the wc cycle>

Note that if you had just fessed up earlier, you could have gotten to this point a lot earlier and with a lot more credibility. Though as I showed above your claim is also just flying off the handle in this context, because there's no rational justification for claiming Radja's not the obvious guy to be the organizers' pick. As I said earlier, you may have other arguments which are valid to back your concerns - I don't know and care even less. I'm only interested in pointing out that having a meltdown about Radja's selection in this particular context simply makes you look unhinged. He's the guy 99/100 intelligent disinterested chess fans would have said should be in the tournament. His selection is of zero evidentiary value here.

<it's not about frogbert>

Facts not in evidence. By the way, if you happen to run into him, let him know I mentioned that someone's making him look silly on the Naka page and could he please reset his password and get back to posting about citable data? Thanks, whoever you are.

Feb-14-12
Premium Chessgames Member
  Shams: <It's objectionable that there should be an "organizer's spot" for an event like the Candidates, but as Radjabov (#5 in the world) was the highest-rated player not to qualify by other means it's at least as unobjectionable as such a decision could be.> --Dennis Monokroussos

http://www.thechessmind.net/blog/20...

Feb-14-12  frogbert: <I'll take that as your best approximation to "Yeah, my point was dumb, and I defended it the death, and now I admit it was wrong, but I don't actually give a damn about the point anyway" given your difficulties carrying on an adult conversation on such topics.>

natural language isn't semantically precise, and you don't hold a unique ability to unearth precise, intelligent meaning even when the writer doesn't seem to know the first thing about what he (?) is describing. and here i'm still talking about the author of the chessbase "article".

when i didn't bother to spend more time elaborating on the multiple interpretations of the sentence you're hung up on, it was because my point didn't depend on one specific interpretation of it.

<I don't actually give a damn about the point anyway>

you seem to be doing as well interpreting what i write as you did interpreting the chessbase article, and i guess that next on your agenda is to explain to me what *i* wrote and what *my* point was.

the simple point i had about the "article" was that <it was wrong and/or imprecise about things we actually knew/know too>, and hence it only made limited sense to use it as some kind of final evidence for anything related to the rumours surrounding the who and the why's of the candidate tournament and its organizer nominee. its weaknesses included but were not limited to the following:

1) it claimed to be linking to *demands* that carlsen had made (while carlsen makes no specific demands in the linked article - he lists some suggestions for future wc cycles while explicitly confirming that his withdrawal is from *the specific cycle* 2008-2012 only)

2) it claimed that fide had accepted carlsen's (non-existing) demands

3) the only (seemingly implied) attempt it did of telling which "demands" had been accepted by fide was to point to the change of format (which you have <chosen> to consider to be totally independent and unrelated to carlsen's so-called "demands")

4) the article doesn't say this explicitly, but gives the impression that carlsen is the only reason there have been made changes to the candidates

1) and 2) are clearly wrong and are more than enough to support the point i wanted to make, 3) and 4) are more open to interpretation, and not only to <rilkefan's interpretation> but to every reasonably intelligent person's interpretation.

<Note that if you had just fessed up earlier, you could have gotten to this point a lot earlier and with a lot more credibility.>

that was where i and everyone else *were* before you started lecturing us about the mathematically precise semantics of natural language as used by "chess journalists" on bad days. prior to your "tour de force" of linguistic and logical supremacy, i'd made the claim that radjabov's nomination proved nothing whatsoever about his chess skills compared to nakamura; and the corollary to that: the only thing it proves about naka is that he isn't from azerbaijan.

jombar contested this by referring to the crappy chessbase article we've been tearing to pieces. however, that article doesn't tell anything about *who* actually is "the organizer", as in the people who will in fact organize the event - or anything else that isn't more thoroughly and better explained elsewhere. it's even wrong and misleading about a few things we know for sure, and as such a poor source of truthful info - which was my response to jombar.

enter rilkefan, with seemingly no other agenda than correcting frogbert by providing supreme and undisputable interpretations of poor journalism, doing his best to be obnoxious and condescending with the slimmest of justifications.

but you've taught me one thing: the next time your ridiculous desire to lecture someone surfaces, i will do one of two things. either 1) say "yes, you're right of course" (no matter how silly your claim might be), or 2) quietly ignore your irrelevant input.

if you're looking for help to communicate without implicit or explicit condescension, i will gladly help debugging your posts, starting with this exchange as an example. yes, i wrote that - you can believe your eyes. if you respond in typical and anticipated manner, it'll be redirected to /dev/null until you touch the ground again.

Feb-14-12  rilkefan: <<frogbert>: with seemingly no other agenda than correcting frogbert>

Sorry, which one are you referring to? The one who said something rude and dumb to a random poster, which I calmly pointed out provoking the above poutrage? Or the guy who's careful about avoiding speculation and exaggeration?

<the frogberts-pull-ups-twisting chessbase article we've been tearing to pieces>

Is that the royal we? Or are you or y'all saying both frogberts agree? Or what?

<<Shams>: <<as Radjabov (#5 in the world) was the highest-rated player not to qualify by other means it's at least as unobjectionable as such a decision could be.> --Dennis Monokroussos>>

Thanks, that's how everyone should conclude posts to <frogberts> until they come back down.

<as Radjabov (#5 in the world) was the highest-rated player not to qualify by other means it's at least as unobjectionable as such a decision could be.> --Dennis Monokroussos

Feb-14-12  bronkenstein: <Bobby Fiske> , Grischuk already had his ´punishment´ (esp on the internet) for ´cynical´ draw(s?) in Kazan , from being labeled as <boring> player (many people are normally aware only of his Kazan games , and mostly those few short classic draws) to <being a disgrace> or even <he stinks> , <he should shave> (also washing was mentioned IIRC) in some extreme cases aroundhere ...

Also , connected with very bad hype , his 2011 achievements didn´t get him too much invitations (not to mention Chess Oscars ;) , he is largely ignored , unless mentioned in some negative context . In Russia he is considered enfant terrible , with Karjakin , the ´nice´ guy , getting most of the attention/invitations . I can only feel sympathy for him.

Feb-15-12  frogbert: rilkefan, you're right of course.
Feb-15-12  frogbert: <which I calmly pointed out>

heh. calm and condescending actually go very well together. :o)

"of course i'm right. i'm merely correcting you, not trying to start an argument or anything. i certainly don't care *why* you said that, i'm simply providing some much needed enlightenment, for which you should be thankful. now, please go on with your trivialities, whatever they might be - i couldn't care less. after uttering this many sentences in succession i'm already exhausted; i will calmly leave the stage to your mundane chatter and resume pondering my own superiority. but don't despair - i might be bothered to provide some direction and guidance on later occasions too. semantics and logic 101 are hardly the only areas in which you lack basic knowledge. good day."

Feb-15-12  jombar: The fact is: the Candidates organizers exist. Live with it.

The purpose of my previous post was not about who the organizers are. That is out of our control and nothing we can do about it.

Are you going do anything that will change the organizers - for better or worse - frogbert? No, I don't think so. You can't do anything to change them or how they do things. So stop wasting your time ranting about something you can't even change. That's yelling at the wind.

More importantly, it is who the organizers selected for the Candidates. That was the purpose of my post in the first place. So, frogbert, if you want to have a meaningful discussion with me and rilkfan, stay on the purpose of the topic - which is about selecting Radjabov for the Candidates.

So let me reiterate the statement of my post: the Candidates organizers made a solid choice in selecting Radjabov.

Radjabov - 5th in the world right behind wc Anand, with a 2785 rating performance.

Imho, anybody who thinks Radjabov doesn't deserve to be selected for the Candidates tournament is either a troll or related to a troll; or look like a troll.

And......I don't think frogbert would make all his meaningless ranting against the "organizers" had "they" picked Naka for the Candidates instead of Radjabov.

Picking Radjabov (2780-ish player) for the Candidates is the best choice they made and is not at all controversial. Only a troll would say such a thing.

Picking Naka (2760-ish player) for the Candidates instead of Radjabov is controversial.

Feb-15-12  jombar: <bondll: This latter point is unfortunate because you have many otherwise useful insights>

Gee, thanks. Do you have anything to say about selecting Radjabov for the Candidates? (Please, I'm not asking who the ogranizers are. I'm asking is selecting Radjabov was a good choice.)

jombar

Feb-15-12  jombar: <rilkfan>

Obviously you think selecting Radjabov was a good choice indeed. :)

But do you think selecting Naka instead of Radjabov would be a better choice? And why?

Sorry I called you a troll in the past. Maybe you are only a cousin to one. Draw a venn diagram. You will see what I mean.

;)

Feb-15-12  frogbert: <I don't think frogbert would make all his meaningless ranting against the "organizers" had "they" picked Naka for the Candidates instead of Radjabov.>

hehe, you're a funny guy, jombar. :o)

Feb-15-12  frogbert: <Radjabov (2780-ish player)>

actually, there is much more empirical evidence for radjabov being a 2740-ish player than for him being 2780-ish, jombar.

you care about the "facts", don't you? here are radjabov's ratings for the past *5* years:

Jan 2012 2773
Nov 2011 2781 ?
Sep 2011 2752
Jul 2011 2744 *
May 2011 2744 *
Mar 2011 2744 *
Jan 2011 2744 *
Nov 2010 2744 *
Sep 2010 2748 *
Jul 2010 2748 *
May 2010 2740 *
Mar 2010 2740 *
Jan 2010 2733
Nov 2009 2748 *
Sep 2009 2757
Jul 2009 2756
Apr 2009 2756
Jan 2009 2761
Oct 2008 2752
Jul 2008 2744 *
Apr 2008 2751
Jan 2008 2735
Oct 2007 2742 *
Jul 2007 2746 *
Apr 2007 2747 *

for your convenience i marked the 2780-ish ratings with a question mark and the 2740-ish ratings with a star. i also counted them:

2780-ish: 1
2740-ish: 14

i also averaged <all> his past 25 fide-ratings. that average is 2749 - or 2740-ish.

one year ago (well, actually 7 months ago too), radjabov's rating was also 2740-ish (2744).

how do we know that 2780-ish isn't just a fluke, jombar? :o)

Feb-15-12  galdur: Radjabov hit 2700 five years ago and then was sort of range-bound between ca. 2730-2760 until the breakout to the 2780s and World number five last year. Certainly a logical choice for the candidates. I would have liked to see Nakamura there but it´s just seven and some earned the spot through the World Cup and Grand Prix and then there´s the loser of the Anand-Gelfand match to make it eight. Seems fair to me.
Feb-15-12  frogbert: <Certainly a logical choice for the candidates. [...] Seems fair to me.>

i'm not aware of anyone who questions radjabov's skills. however, i'm surprised about the number of people who seemingly think he's the "organizer" candidate <due to> his skills.

it must mean that the ploy somehow works, and that's disappointing.

Feb-15-12  jombar: <frogbert: however, i'm surprised about the number of people who seemingly think he's the "organizer" candidate <due to> his skills.> And...<radjabov is an excellent chess player>

Why shouldn't the Candidates organizers select Radjabov, for <"radjabov is an excellent chess player">?

rilkfan, you have unearthed the greatest detective work ever on cg.com. You should win the Nobel Prize for your great discovery: you have found out that there are two frogs. The 'royal we."

<rilkfan: Is that the royal we? Or are you or y'all saying both frogberts agree? Or what?>

One frog says, <"radjabov is an excellent chess player."> And the other one, <" i'm surprised about the number of people who seemingly think he's the "organizer" candidate <due to> his skills.">

Hypocritical or a contradiction of statement? Or both?

Imho, the frog has turned upside down. The "royal we."

: 0

One last thing.

<rilkfan: <as Radjabov (#5 in the world) was the highest-rated player not to qualify by other means it's at least as unobjectionable as such a decision could be.> --Dennis Monokroussos>

Feb-15-12  frogbert: <you have found out that there are two frogs.>

oh, there are much more than two frogs even on this site. irl there are millions of frogs. no detective is needed to know that.

<The 'royal we'>

that's a misunderstanding, though. rilkefan and i ("we") paid way too much attention to a silly chessbase article, <tearing> even a single sentence into pieces in - not one, but multiple - ways, only because rilkefan felt he'd had an epiphany about what the author <actually> meant to express.

however, i'm afraid that we've only seen another example of how a lingustic and logical master failed to grasp what the writer actually expressed; the semantically ambigous "we" was interpreted to refer to a single person even when the natural assumption would've been that it referred to at least <two people>.

rumours have it that timhortons thinks also rilkefan is a sock-puppet of mine (like jombar is), and given that perspective it can be argued that "we" referred to one and the same person. i.e. to both frogbert and rilkefan.

<Hypocritical or a contradiction of statement? Or both?>

neither. but of course there's a skill component to radjabov's candidacy: he needed to be 2700+ and about as strong as mamedyarov and gashimov.

being rated higher than nakamura, karjakin or ivanchuk was <not> any issue though. and it's accidental and not causal to his selection that he's currently ranked #5 in the world.

Feb-15-12  frogbert: btw jombar, i didn't see your response to my fact box on being 2740-ish? :o)
Feb-15-12  adair10: Was there Fide regulation stating that the final participant to the Candidates Tournament will be the one who has the highest average rating based on July 2011 and January 2012 rating lists?
Feb-15-12  frogbert: <going for the last resort via ad hominem, he unjustly calls rilkfan (and me) his sock-puppets>

that's called a joke, jombar. <i know> you aren't my sock, mind you. :o)

<
<"we" referred to one and the same person. i.e. to both frogbert and rilkefan.>

No. The "royal we" do not include rilkfan. He has nothing to do with it.>

heh. jombar, you seem to have forgot <who> used the word "we" in the first place. it was i. i used it about rilkefan and myself. rilkefan quoted that usage and wondered if it referred to the "royal we" - but as i just told you (now and in a previous post), it referred to rilkefan and myself. so whether you like it or not, he was part of the "we". there never was any "royal we".

<Of course it's a contradiction to say, <"radjabov is an excellent player"> and <"however, i'm surprised about the number of people who seemingly think he's the "organizer" candidate <due to> his skills.>>

of course it isn't.

<In other words, you are saying: "radjabov is an excellent player" but "radjabov has no skills to be selected for the Candidates.">

i certainly didn't say that. he's absolutely skilled enough to participate in the candidates; i'm just saying that (except some "lower bound" requirements on skills, admittedly very high lower bounds, like being 2700+) radjabov wasn't selected for being ranked #5 in the world. it wasn't <due to> that ranking - or <due to> being temporarily ranked higher than for instance ivanchuk, karjakin and nakamura - that radjabov was selected. theoretically he could've been selected based on such a criterion, but he wasn't.

<That's a contradiction.>

nope, it's some mix of misunderstanding and problems with perception and/or reading skills. on your part, obviously.

radjabov's passport was more important for his selection than his chess skills. that doesn't make his chess skills any worse, of course. only less relevant. :o)

Feb-15-12  jombar: <frogbert: rumours have it that timhortons thinks also rilkefan is a sock-puppet of mine (like jombar is)>

I always had a suspicion, but the frog has come out of the closet as a sock-puppet master. Losing his argument against rilkfan, and going for the last resort via ad hominem, he unjustly calls rilkfan (and me) his sock-puppets.

That's pretty desperate, frog.

<silly chessbase article>

There's nothing "silly" about the article. Maybe you are the silly one.

<"we" referred to one and the same person. i.e. to both frogbert and rilkefan.>

No. The "royal we" do not include rilkfan. He has nothing to do with it.

<<Hypocritical or a contradiction of statement? Or both?> neither.>

You are being silly again. Of course it's a contradiction to say, <"radjabov is an excellent player"> and <"however, i'm surprised about the number of people who seemingly think he's the "organizer" candidate <due to> his skills.>

In other words, you are saying: "radjabov is an excellent player" but "radjabov has no skills to be selected for the Candidates." That's a contradiction.

<it's accidental and not causal to his selection that he's currently ranked #5 in the world.>

For the third time in a row, you are being silly again. I guess you really hate Radjabov to unjustly slander and defame his reputation as a chess player. You call his performance "accidental" and then say he's not worthy to play in the Candidates because "due to his skills" he is not good enough.

There is nothing "accidental" about his 5th ranking performance in the world. Everything happens for a reason. The law of cause and effect. I'm sure rilkfan can explain that better than I could.

rilkfan, may you do the honor of explaining to frogbert the law of cause and effect; and that Radjabov has chess skills?

Imho, the frog has jumped into the pelican's throat instead of the pond.

: 0

Feb-15-12  frogbert: <Was there Fide regulation stating that the final participant to the Candidates Tournament will be the one who has the highest average rating based on July 2011 and January 2012 rating lists?>

no, the regulations said/say that the organizer of the candidates would nominate the final candidate, and that player ahd to be 2700+ on the january 2012 rating list.

however, the first reports about the "london candidacy" were unclear about whether fide or the organizer had nominated radjabov for the final spot. later reports said he was nominated by "the organizer" - but all that was initially published was the name of a us businessman working in russia and one of his companies "agon" with no relationship to chess in any way.

note, however, that officially fide has made <no announcement> yet of who will organize the candidates - the latest *official* information is this: <The bids for the Candidates Matches were discussed, with a final decision to be made before 29th February, 2012.> (from the fide page, about the 1st quarter presidential board meeting.)

of course, in an interview <kirsan> has already "confirmed" that "agon" has bought the rights to the fide world championship and the candidates. while <polarmis> pointed us to another "unofficial" source (also in russian) that confirms that the azeri chess federation is in fact behind the "agon" offer, and that it's being paid for by azeri money.

officially though, we don't know anything except what's in the regulations for the next candidates (http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.h...) or generally on the fide site. but every chess site has already run the news about radjabov's participation.

in short, it's fide business as usual. :o)

Feb-15-12  jombar: <frogbert: radjabov wasn't selected for being ranked #5 in the world. it wasn't <due to> that ranking>

Wrong! The frog is suffering from delusion and living in fantasy land where the facts aren't real.

The chessbase article says: "Radjabov is number five on the January 1st FIDE list and so warrants the nomination."

That just proves how silly and ignorant your above statement is. You are a slanderer. You are a shameless liar.

: O

Feb-15-12  frogbert: jombar, you're messing up the chronology when you delete posts of yours after i've written/posted a long reply to it.

(i may be brilliant, but i'm not able to quote you ahead of time.)

<I guess you really hate Radjabov to unjustly slander and defame his reputation as a chess player. You call his performance "accidental" and then say he's not worthy to play in the Candidates because "due to his skills" he is not good enough.>

eh... i did none of those things. radjabov is an excellent chess player, and his participation in the candidates will make it a superb event. but he (and any organizer nominee, imo) is there for the wrong reasons. that's a rather different issue.

<There is nothing "accidental" about his 5th ranking performance in the world. Everything happens for a reason.>

nobody said radjabov's rating or ranking was accidental either. look:

<it's accidental and not causal <<to his selection>> that he's currently ranked #5 in the world.>

let me rephrase it in a way you hopefully understand: "being ranked #5 in the world didn't (in itself) cause radjabov to be selected. he just happened to be ranked #5 at the time."

but of course he deserved his number 5 ranking and the rating that got him there. your rating expresses your past results, and radjabov's results have been excellent and better than ever in the past 6 months.

aren't you becoming mighty upset with me when i'm only expressing my opinion about radjabov as a candidate, jombar? :o)

Feb-15-12  frogbert: <You are a slanderer. You are a shameless liar.>

what did you say to those nakamura fans who called you names for expressing your opinion? forgot that already? i think it was something about "ad hominems"... :o)

Feb-15-12  jombar: <frogbert: radjabov wasn't selected for being ranked #5 in the world. it wasn't <due to> that ranking>

Wrong!

The chessbase article says: "Radjabov is number five on the January 1st FIDE list and so warrants the nomination."

That just proves how silly and ignorant your above statement is. Shame on you for making things up!

: O

Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 803)
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 702 OF 803 ·  Later Kibitzing>
NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply. Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous, and 100% free--plus, it entitles you to features otherwise unavailable. Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should login now.
Please observe our posting guidelines:
  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.
  3. No personal attacks against other users.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
Blow the Whistle See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.


NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page. This forum is for this specific player and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.
Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!


home | about | login | logout | F.A.Q. | your profile | preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | new kibitzing | chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Little ChessPartner | privacy notice | contact us
Copyright 2001-2014, Chessgames Services LLC
Web design & database development by 20/20 Technologies