Nakamura drops Kaspy

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.

I think it was seirawan who said that he'd been intimidated by kasparovs opening, and worked like hell to get past that. that garry was like a tennis player with a monster 1st serve, and if only he just could survive the serve, he just MIGHT have a slight chance. and then he did get past garry's opening, only to find out that all other aspects of garry's play was every little bit as monstrous as his 1st serve.

Originally posted by nimzo5
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.

I would imagine the best player who ever lived would be extraordinarily strong in every aspect of his game.

Keeping that in mind, that doesn't necessarily make him the best coach. Mike Singletary is one of the greatest football players ever, and he was a horrible coach for the 49ers. Jim Harbaugh was a mediocre player at best, and he's a fantastic coach.

Originally posted by wormwood
I think it was seirawan who said that he'd been intimidated by kasparovs opening, and worked like hell to get past that. that garry was like a tennis player with a monster 1st serve, and if only he just could survive the serve, he just MIGHT have a slight chance. and then he did get past garry's opening, only to find out that all other aspects of garry's play was every little bit as monstrous as his 1st serve.

Valeri Tsaturian is an excellent source for his strengths, and so I've quoted him below. Do remember that GK learned from Botvinnik's school of chess. He was the most ideal student hand picked by the GM himself. How could anyone argue with what he has done? He dominated chess for twenty years.

Q

To make a rather primitive classification, the average grandmaster knows about 1,500 - 2,000 typical positions, including the opening, possible middlegame plans, and some outlines of endgame. Super GMs, like Kramnik or Anand, have a wider and deeper knowledge. As for Kasparov, his knowledge is truly head-spinning, I guess, his number of positions might exceed 10,000. Garry's memory is phenomenal! I think it even impedes him during the game. - Valeri Tsaturian

Potentially, Garry is an outstanding tactician who thinks originally and has a fine, sharp sense for dynamic positions. The trainers who worked with him concentrated on another of his assets, the most obvious one being his unique memory. This natural gift and his strong character, multiplied by his tremendous working ability, along with his ability to accumulate and retain information, produced the world champion; perhaps the greatest chess player of all time. Nevertheless, I believe that Garry did not realize his true chess potential to the maximum. Great knowledge is a great burden. Young Kasparov was incredibly inventive, even in difficult positions. He knew how to transform them, to explode the situation on the board in his favor, and he collected points from the strongest opponents, who could not cope with such complications. Garry's chess talent had a lot in common with Tal's. Later these traits were greatly developed. Garry has been the world's strongest player for 20 years and still he is not fully satisfied. Due to the constant pressure on him, Garry can't play a single game for his own pleasure. Those who've seen friendly games by Kasparov, when he plays in a relaxed manner without worrying about the outcome, will never forget it: what spectacular chess! - Valeri Tsaturian

and finally -- I dispute that his only good work is the opening. His middlegame and ending technique is among the most inventive in history.




Q

Originally posted by PhySiQ
Valeri Tsaturian is an excellent source for his strengths, and so I've quoted him below. Do remember that GK learned from Botvinnik's school of chess. He was the most ideal student hand picked by the GM himself. How could anyone argue with what he has done? He dominated chess for twenty years.

Q

To make a rather primitive classification, the average Rf5+ 34.Kd4 Rf4+ 35.Kc5 Re5+ 36.Kb6 Re6+ 37.Rc6 1-0[/pgn]


Q

this has to be amoung my favourite games ,

Anatoly Karpov - Gary Kasparov Game 16 Moscow 1985

That is rubbish. The guy (Garry Kasparov) is still a beast of a calculator. It was NEVER just about the openings -- such a silly concept to be floating around.

You all need to read this recent interview of Magnus Carlson, the highest-rated player in the world, to put things into perspective: http://www.whychess.org/node/3490

If Kasparov were to challenge Nakamura in a match right now, I would put my money on Garry to keep it very close, if not win. He just won a blitz mini-match over Max Vachier-Lagrave, who is easily as good as Nakamura.

Originally posted by joesheppe
That is rubbish. The guy (Garry Kasparov) is still a beast of a calculator. It was NEVER just about the openings -- such a silly concept to be floating around.

You all need to read this recent interview of Magnus Carlson, the highest-rated player in the world, to put things into perspective: http://www.whychess.org/node/3490

If Kasparov were to chal ...[text shortened]... win. He just won a blitz mini-match over Max Vachier-Lagrave, who is easily as good as Nakamura.

I'd rather listen to the super GM's word than yours.

What word?
Anyway, if you've followed international chess for more than a year, you would already have had doubts about what Nakamura said in London, and if you read the earlier Carlsen interview, you'll know that what Nakamura said was trash talk. Maybe even sour grapes. No one ever put sour grapes past Hikaru.

Originally posted by joesheppe
That is rubbish. The guy (Garry Kasparov) is still a beast of a calculator. It was NEVER just about the openings -- such a silly concept to be floating around.

You all need to read this recent interview of Magnus Carlson, the highest-rated player in the world, to put things into perspective: http://www.whychess.org/node/3490

If Kasparov were to chal ...[text shortened]... win. He just won a blitz mini-match over Max Vachier-Lagrave, who is easily as good as Nakamura.

Interesting Carlson interview. thanks.

I don't think it is coincidence that both he and Kasparov became great players without the aid of computers. The way to learn is to do it yourself.

Not being privvy to the private thoughts of the players concerned I speculate.
(which is what everyone else is doing.)

Nakamura was born with a certain amount of innate talent.
A very gifted player. (as indeed was Kasparov and Carlsen).

Kasparov worked very hard to cultivate this talent and I'd say he was
the best chess player the game has ever known. (and I'm a huge Fischer fan).

So when Nak saw how much work Gary expected him to do he did not fancy it all.

You can imagine Gary's frustration. Here is a very good player who can get
better but does not want to put in the effort.

(When it comes to learning new things chess players are the laziest people I know.)

Kaspaorv does not allow anyone to disagree with him, I think his over powering
personality is not a good sign in a coach.

Carlsen and Nak most likely cannot explain why they are so good at chess
(gifted players rarely can - remember Fischer's quote: "One day I got good." ).

Suddenly they are being asked...No TOLD...to graft like they have never done before.

So there is a clash of personalities. Carlsen is too laid back to snipe.
Nakamura gets in his side of the story first.

End of specualtion.

Le Quang Liem(his federation) was looking for a tutor in September. Haven't heard anything since.

I think those who are debating Kasparov's middlegame strength are missing the point. Obviously Kasparov is wickedly strong at all aspects of the game, but his opening preparation was literally years ahead of his opponents. The fact that Naka would value his opening prep this many years after his retirement speaks volumes about how insanely deep his opening "book" truly is.

Originally posted by nimzo5
I think those who are debating Kasparov's middlegame strength are missing the point. Obviously Kasparov is wickedly strong at all aspects of the game, but his opening preparation was literally years ahead of his opponents. The fact that Naka would value his opening prep this many years after his retirement speaks volumes about how insanely deep his opening "book" truly is.

This thought is especially relevant when talking about and comparing/contrasting World Champions.

They are all "good at everything", because that's what it takes to get to the top. Weaknesses are exploited as people rise, and those weaknesses are either corrected or they don't make it. That said, every world champion seems to have something that they are known for.

In Kasparov's case, it is probably a pretty accurate indicator that, if his GM competitors like Seirawan say they feared his opening prep the most, it is probably his strongest competitive advantage relative to his other strengths.

Personally, I would fear his calculating ability the most, but I guess all GMs are good calculators, and their fears have different foundations than mine!