Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. 16 Dec '11 22:07 / 1 edit
    Well that sure was short lived. Kasparov has been chased off now by two top ten players. Both Magnus Carlsen and Hikaru Nakamura have forced his exit. Nakamura having done so after a confirmed period of barely longer than a month (although he had training sessions with Kasparov since January).

    After having worked in New York with Kasparov, Nakamura wrapped up his most valuable win in a long time at Wijk aan zee. His play in London is also inspirational. So why the disconnect so early? My assumption is that Hikaru based the disconnect on his lackluster finishes at the Tal memorial and Dortmund invitational. Nakamura said some nasty things about Kasparov - placing his training as only valuable in opening preparation... Not much of a compliment to a former world champion.

    Magnus was much more professional in his dismissal. We'll see in the short term future if Hikaru made the right decision. As far as I know Hikaru's strongest performance to date (Pre Kasparov date I meen) was back in 2009 at the US Championships when he performed at 2805 when the youngster Robert Hess made his big break through finish (2nd place).

    Since then the only inspirational finishes that have me convinced of SuperGM class play have come since this January - that is after his sessions with Kasparov.

    What are your opinions on this dismissal?


    Q
  2. 16 Dec '11 22:18
    Maybe GK isn't a very good coach. The best players often don't make the best teachers.

    Poor Magnus got talked into dropping out of the World Chps.

    Naka is entitled to concentrate on opening prep if he likes.
  3. 16 Dec '11 22:23
    Originally posted by PhySiQ
    Well that sure was short lived. Kasparov has been chased off now by two top ten players. Both Magnus Carlsen and Hikaru Nakamura have forced his exit. Nakamura having done so after a confirmed period of barely longer than a month (although he had training sessions with Kasparov since January).

    After having worked in New York with Kasparov, Nakamura wr ...[text shortened]... hat is after his sessions with Kasparov.

    What are your opinions on this dismissal?


    Q
    I think it was probably the fee, i mean was Kaspers doing it for nothing? Did the fee
    justify the improvement? Plus i remember a commentary which Magnus gave stating
    that they had worked so much on the opening that it left him tired and drained and
    unable to compete at his best, next round. Maybe Kaspers is trying to get an insight
    into their minds to make a comeback? 🙂
  4. Standard member wormwood
    If Theres Hell Below
    17 Dec '11 01:45
    nakamura has always been more of a DIY guy, hasn't he. probably has some kind of an issue with strong authorities. and garry is a very strong personality. I don't see naka taking any kind of strong guidance for very long. maybe it's just that.

    and magnus obviously did get a lot out of it, garry practically changed his style into the current 'get a playable position and take it from there', which is killing everyone now. it wasn't like that before. I suppose magnus thought he got what he came for, and continued onwards to other things.
  5. 17 Dec '11 02:00
    Yeah he did an amazing job on Carlsen.. I don't know how anyone can say otherwise... He probably beat naka in a blitz with knight odds during one of their breaks and got into an argument after
  6. 17 Dec '11 02:12
    Originally posted by Maxacre42
    Yeah he did an amazing job on Carlsen.. I don't know how anyone can say otherwise... He probably beat naka in a blitz with knight odds during one of their breaks and got into an argument after
    I doubt that Kasparov in his prime could beat Nakamura with knight odds in a blitz game let alone even consitently beating him without knight odds in a blitz game.
  7. 17 Dec '11 03:24 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by wormwood
    nakamura has always been more of a DIY guy, hasn't he. probably has some kind of an issue with strong authorities. and garry is a very strong personality. I don't see naka taking any kind of strong guidance for very long. maybe it's just that.

    and magnus obviously did get a lot out of it, garry practically changed his style into the current 'get a playab . I suppose magnus thought he got what he came for, and continued onwards to other things.
    I think you have hit the nail on the head Mr. Wormwood. I think much of the growth potential of Nakamura is going to be limited because of that personality trait as well! Too bad for Nakamura, that while he is a tactical machine - he's missing some of the finesse and understanding of the game that a player like Kasparov could teach him. I'm not the only one who thinks so... Carlsen has said that there are 8 (maybe he said 10? can't remember) GM's who understand the game much better than he - that its a completely different tier. I would suppose Carlsen would know. Carlsen has changed his play a great deal. Especially with regards to openings.

    As for Kasparov in his prime not being able to beat Nakamura at blitz... I think thats probably a fairy tale. Nakamura is revered as a blitz deity and yet its Aronian who stands champion atop that time scale. Kasparov was never weak at blitz. I think that match would be much more equal if not Kasparov favored than most would expect.

    Q
  8. 17 Dec '11 05:34
    Originally posted by PhySiQ
    I think you have hit the nail on the head Mr. Wormwood. I think much of the growth potential of Nakamura is going to be limited because of that personality trait as well! Too bad for Nakamura, that while he is a tactical machine - he's missing some of the finesse and understanding of the game that a player like Kasparov could teach him. I'm not the only on ...[text shortened]... ink that match would be much more equal if not Kasparov favored than most would expect.

    Q
    Yes, but certainly not with knight odds... and certainly not easily even without knight odds.
  9. 17 Dec '11 05:43
    Originally posted by tomtom232
    Yes, but certainly not with knight odds... and certainly not easily even without knight odds.
    Indeed. I make an accord on both points.

    Q
  10. Donation ketchuplover
    G.O.A.T.
    17 Dec '11 16:26
    Kasparov v. Nakamura

    So let it be written. So let it be done.
  11. 17 Dec '11 22:23
    Originally posted by PhySiQ
    Well that sure was short lived. ... What are your opinions on this dismissal?
    Q
    Some marriages have ended sooner. I don't have much of an opinion about why
    Hikaru Nakamura and Garry Kasparov parted ways because I don't know what
    was going on between them in private. When, during his match against Kasparov,
    Nigel Short decided to sack Lubomir Kavalek, each of them gave quite different
    accounts of what had happened and why it did. So whom would you believe?

    Some differences in culture as well as in personalities might make it harder for
    some American players to work comfortably with some famous Russian trainers.
    Josh Waitzkin once was trained by Mark Dvoretsky, but Waitzkin could not get on
    well with him and concluded that Dvoretsky was incapable of helping him at all.
    Mark Dvoretsky has shown he's capable of helping some strong GMs, however,
    such as Artur Yusupov. Josh Waitzkin did not succeed in becoming a GM.
  12. 18 Dec '11 00:12
    Originally posted by ketchuplover
    Kasparov v. Nakamura

    So let it be written. So let it be done.
    I doubt Kasparov is anywhere close to his game right now. I think it shows poor class to take cheap shots at former players, especially one that could own them in the face when he was in his prime.


    SHAME.
  13. Standard member nimzo5
    Ronin
    18 Dec '11 01:56
    Nakamura is rarely accused of having class, but he might have made an accurate point that Kasparov's dominance of the chess world from the late 80's to 2000 was on the back of his opening advantage.
  14. 18 Dec '11 02:54
    Originally posted by nimzo5
    Nakamura is rarely accused of having class, but he might have made an accurate point that Kasparov's dominance of the chess world from the late 80's to 2000 was on the back of his opening advantage.
    Mind you I'm far from an expert, or even that strong of a player. But it seems impossible to me you can be considered by many the best chess player who ever lived by having a one dimensional game.
  15. Standard member nimzo5
    Ronin
    18 Dec '11 03:23
    Agreed, but Naka didn't call him one dimensional, just stated there are better players in the other phases of the game, which is arguably true.