Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Nakamura wins US ch


  • 3 years ago · Quote · #1

    billwall

    Hikaru Nakamura beat Yasser Seirawn in 30 moves to win the US championship.  Irina Krush won 2 playoff games against Anna Zatonskih to win the US Women's shampionship.  Congrats to both.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #2

    Skwerly

    ummm, lol, you sure?  as of yesterday, there were still two rounds to go...

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #3

    -waller-

    Today was the last round I thought, with Nakamura 1/2 a point ahead of Kamsky. According to the chess.com news updates anyway. I thought Naka would beat Seirawan handily, he seems out of practice.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #4

    FirebrandX

    Nakamura did in fact win the US champ today by soundly beating Seirawan. The real key to his victory was beating Kamsky yesterday when Kamsky had white and a half-point lead. That's also the first time Nakamura has ever beaten Kamsky in a classical tournament game.

    BTW Bill, I like how your blitz rating is around 2300, yet your opponents' average is 1500 with the best win being against a 1900. I guess it shows just how far chess.com's rating system can be 'farmed'.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #5

    Skwerly

    ah, okay, thx!  i was reading wrong or had missed something.  Go naka!

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #6

    red_ratfan

    }{

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #7

    red_ratfan

    cool

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #8

    red_ratfan

    i need help i am changing me opening for black what should i play?

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #9

    FirebrandX

    Shadowknight911 wrote:

    that's typical Nakamura - always going for that win when all he needed was a draw.  Congrats to Hikaru...

    An that's typical ignorance on your part. Nakamura did NOT know whether he would need a win or draw because of only being a half-point ahead of Kamsky. If Kamsky won his last game, Nakamura would have to win his to avoid a tie-breaker round. By winning instead of drawing, Nakamura clinched the title outright. Get your facts straight before talking trash on the H-bomb.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #10

    ArchieBunker

    FirebrandX wrote:

     

    BTW Bill, I like how your blitz rating is around 2300, yet your opponents' average is 1500 with the best win being against a 1900. I guess it shows just how far chess.com's rating system can be 'farmed'.

    I bought my first Bill Wall chess book back during the Reagan administration.  He's given more to the greater chess community than the next hundred people above him in the ratings combined.

    He's light years removed from having to answer to this kind of BS.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #11

    billwall

    Firebrand,

    The answer to your question of how I got rated such-and-such is simple.  I have played over a few thousand games in each category here.  To correct you, first, my blitz rating is not around 2300, it is 2225.  The average rating of my opponents (close to 2 thousand) is 1558, not 1500.  The best win show 1918, but this statistic has been flushed and may not be correct nor reflect the highest rated blitz player that I have played.  I am the first person to play chess here, besides the creators and owners, and over the years, I have played 1,936 rated blitz games, winning 1,891, losing 44, and drawing 28.  No one had high ratings when it started out and I have always allowed my opponents to choose to play me rather than me pick an opponent.  Let me know what your rating is and the average of your players when you have played a few thousand games.  By now, there are more high-rated players.  You  have a bullet chess rating of 2035 and you have only won one game in bullet chess.   Must be that the chess.com rating is 'farmed'  whatever that means.  For the first few years, there was nobody rated in the 2000 or above range.  I had to start out as 1400 like everyone else. The points accumulated just by playing thousands of games.  The rating system here gives me a higher rating than normal, sort of like the Claude Bloodgood effect.  It wasn't his or my fault of the rating system, and perhaps it needs to be corrected.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #12

    xthread

    Firebrand got spanked. That's funny.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #13

    OldHastonian

    The fact that Bill Wall bothered to reply to our comrade, Firebrand,  may be somewhat surprising; but considering the vast amount of valuable chess data Mr Wall makes available, free/gratis, and the experiences he shares on this wonderful game, then perhaps the facts should be left to speak for themselves.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #14

    Estragon

    I've never played Bill Wall and can't recall seeing any of his games except a few he posted here, so I can't vouch for his strength.  But I know for a fact that he was compiling games and putting out books on lots of opening lines, many lesser-played, back when there was no easy internet access to games.  You could spend years finding all the games in a given line Wall assembled in one place, over and over again.

    I've also seen his comments on various subjects here.  We don't always agree, but his remarks are always sensible.

    There is no doubt at all, and it would be attested by many thousands of US players over the years, that Bill Wall has a solid legacy of contributing to chess knowledge.  It would be difficult NOT to get pretty good just in the course of writing his books.

    For some anonymous jerk to belittle a player who has contributed so much to chess over his career is outrageous and objectionable to any fair-minded members.  FirebrandX should apologize, and consider his accusations more carefully in the future.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #15

    FirebrandX

    Regradless of personal insights or anecdotes, the math doesn't lie. You should not be able to rack up a 2300 rating playing 1500s (note Wall's peak rating was over 2300). It's not a fault of Mr. Wall, but rather a fault of the site. I know FMs that are PLENTY stronger, yet can barely muster a 2100 rating. Why? Because they play a higher average rating of opponents. Heck, mine is 200 points higher than Walls, and I'm not anywhere near master level.

    And for the record, I'm not apologising. Calling me a jerk gets the opposite of the result you want.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #16

    Estragon

    alexlaw wrote:
    Estragon wrote

    There is no doubt at all, and it would be attested by many thousands of US players over the years, that Bill Wall has a solid legacy of contributing to chess knowledge.  It would be difficult NOT to get pretty good just in the course of writing his books.

    For some anonymous jerk to belittle a player who has contributed so much to chess over his career is outrageous and objectionable to any fair-minded members.  FirebrandX should apologize, and consider his accusations more carefully in the future.

    yes, we can all understand his great contributions to chess knowledge. I recognize them too. However, this is kind of irrelevant to the ratings. Why should firebrandx apologize? he's just stating the chess.com rating system had flaws. His accusation was that Billwall is 'farming', which is allowed by the rules. the only way i think it's possible to farm is to start off by playing quite strong players, so once you reach a high rating (2300), you can start playing patzers to lower your rating change. Not that I am accusing him of doing so. I believe BillWall's accurate rating is perhaps 2000 in blitz, which is a couple hundred points lower, but that's not too far off from 2300.

    I believe Wall explained why his "average opponent" rating is as low as it is.  Wall's USCF record shows him as high Expert in the early '90s, declining since to a mid-1900s, most likely due to age.  I recall that he was master-rated in the '80s, although not by much.  That's not out of line with his recorded ratings here, on a different system.

    Jerks and punks are just that, and shouldn't be expected to reform themselves, I suppose.  Hope springs eternal, though.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #17

    Estragon

    It should also be noted that FirebrandX inserted this snark into a thread on the US Championship.  He started the crapfest.  He is the aggressor, and alexlaw his little toady.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #18

    ArchieBunker

    FirebrandX wrote:

    Regradless of personal insights or anecdotes, the math doesn't lie. You should not be able to rack up a 2300 rating playing 1500s (note Wall's peak rating was over 2300). It's not a fault of Mr. Wall, but rather a fault of the site. I know FMs that are PLENTY stronger, yet can barely muster a 2100 rating. Why? Because they play a higher average rating of opponents. Heck, mine is 200 points higher than Walls, and I'm not anywhere near master level.

    And for the record, I'm not apologising. Calling me a jerk gets the opposite of the result you want.

    Pretty typical beta male psychology.  When you're shown to be moron who doesn't have a god damn clue what he's talking about, double down and declare moral and intellectual superiority.

    Rethink the math in light of the fact that Mr. Wall built up the bulk of his record when GM's were rated 1200, and you've built up most of yours now that nobodies like you are rated 2200.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #19

    ArchieBunker

    This alexlaw above is a good comparison point.  Have you read this guy's actual posts on chess topics?  Seen his analysis?  At my club, this guy wouldn't crack 1100.  Today's ratings are meaningless.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #20

    billwall

    Boy, I was hoping this forum subject was going to be about Hikaru Nakamura.  But since you want to talk ratings, let's look at Naka's ratings.  Is there rating inflation?  Is Naka's rating, which surpasses Fischer (USCF and Elo) overinflated, or is he really better than Fischer?  Here is Nakamura's history of his rating.

     

    Did you know Hikaru Nakamura’s first USCF rating was only 788, in April 1995?   In 1996, it was 1195.  By January 1997, his rating was 1659 for a 9-year old.    By April 1997, he was the 20th highest rated player under 13, with a rating of 1846.   By October 1997, he became an expert at the age of 9 years and 10 months.  On Feb 26, 1998, his rating went to 2203.  He was 10 years and 79 days old.  Up to that time, he was the youngest rated master in the US, breaking Vinay Bhat’s and Jordy Mont-Reynaud’s record of 10 years and 6 months.  By the end of 1998, his rating was 2237.  In April 1999, he was the nation’s highest rated player under 13 (he was 10) with a rating of 2237.    By the end of 1999, his rating was 2346.   In 2000, his first FIDE rating was 2261.  At the end of 2000, his USCF rating was 2391.  In August 2002, he won the 32nd Continental Open in Massachusetts and had a performance rating of 2766!  He beat 3 grandmasters.  By the end of 2002, his USCF rating was 2614.  His FIDE rating was 2520.  For 2003, his USCF rating jumped to 2656.  At the end of 2004, his USCF rating was 2698.  At the end of 2005, his USCF rating was 2762.  At the end of 2006, his USCF rating was 2774.  At the end of 2007, his USCF rating was 2740.  At the end of 2008, his USCF rating was 2760 and his FIDE rating was 2704.  In 2009, his USCF rating was 2773 and his FIDE rating was 2701.  At the end of 2010, his FIDE rating was 2751.  He was ranked #10 in the world.  In May 2012, his FIDE rating was 2775.  He was ranked #7 in the world.  His USCF rating was 2848.  After the US championship, his FIDE rating is now 2782 (5th in the world and ahead of world champiomn Anand), and his USCF rating is 2882.


Back to Top

Post your reply: