If this was a Russian chess site, people would be asking, who is Nakamura? Why is he insulting one of the greatest, Naka is a nobody.]

Even on an American website no one agree's with Naka, imagine a Russian one.

I do not think anybody here was bashing America per se, some just can not let go the blinding stereotypical preconception that if somebody is American that equals cockiness, arrogance, shallowness, fast-food mentality, hmmm...frivolousness...whatever. It is an intellectual laziness to rely on such labels. "If you label me, you negate me" said someone other than Naka. Still, one should respect the person for who he or she is and not use crutches of prefabricated and recycled cliches. This goes as far as giving respect to someone for an opinion and attempt to see his/her point of view instead of losing focus and lash out with personal attacks.

@  NM BMcC333

You said '' Maybe I am being sensitivve, but it really annoys me to see people use American ressources (the chess.com server) to bash America. ''

Yes I think you are being oversensitive :)

@ Sittingpawn I was going by your words in regards to his needing opening work primarily. I think he still needs work in all phases of the game like everyone else. Carlsen found many different places to use Kasparov's help and he seems to be a more rounded player than Naka at this point.

The rest of my points were not directed at you. Several people insisted Naka should not be criticized unless you are 2800 or took lessons from Kasparov, this is just silly. We seem to agree here.

i don't think you made any negative comments about Naka re being American, but it seems every time there is a naka article at chess.com someone from outside the USA takes the opportunity to claim he is just a typical American. There have been at least 2 this time. Hence I think it is proper to remind people that he is far from a typical Amercan, beginning with the fact he was not  born here and does not profess any love for this country that I am aware of. His ICC notes infdicating he is frrom Canada remain unchanged since he moved back from Canada to the chess center about 2 years ago. Maybe I am being sensitivve, but it really annoys me to see people use American ressources (the chess.com server) to bash America.

I talk too much, I'm going to shut up now, love peace and be merry everyone!

Happy New Year, hope it's a better one for all of you!

@ BMcC333, While I think your overall post had some interesting points, I think you miss the mark on a few things such as when you say, "I think it is a bit presumptuous to say the whole point was for Naka to work on openings. Look at his rook endings in the Tal Memorial, he is no Benko (yet)." I'm sure nobody would claim that Nakamura is a perfect endgame specialist by any means but that is irrelevant. The best way I can explain this is as such. If you have a heart problem you go to a cardiac specialist, if you have a degenerative knee you go to and orthopedic specialist and so on. Now, it's not to say that the cardiac specialist couldn't help you with an arthritic knee, it's not that the orthopedic specialist couldn't treat your heart, but that's not why you're going to them. What it appeared to me Nakamura was saying is that if you're going to work on openings, then why not go to not only a specialist in that arena but to the best in the world? Fly in that one doctor that all else revere. If on the other hand you plan on working on the middle and endgame then are there not others who are more suited for that specialty? Does that mean Kasparov cannot help in that arena? Of course not! In fact Nakamura stated they did as such. The point is if Nakamura was going to focus on that part of his game, then he might have sought out someone else, but it was his openings that he was concerned with and your quote about pro chess being mostly openings explains why he would do so. While it's true that each aspect of the game bleeds into one another, they wouldn't be characterized by different names if they are the same. While one man's middle game is still another man's opening, there is a line in which the preplanned ideas and moves end and one has to think more on the fly. In those cases a completely different frame of reference takes over, now the strategy becomes more abstract and less concrete.

I'm not sure what Nakamura's age, being raised in America, having Japanese heritage, being considered a young prodigy or anything else plays into effect when considering the remarks he's made. I'm not of the reality show era and I have read articles similar to what you've mentioned, but while his words were pithy to say the least, there was little disparaging in them with the exception of saying Kasparov was not the absolute best middle or endgame mastermind. Now maybe what you say is true, that there was some inside jab based off of something Nakamura knew about Kasparov's opinion of openings, with this I am at a loss. I just think many have taken some unprepared off the cuff remarks and drawn more out of them then what was said. Sometimes there can be too much assumption and over analyzing, as some have even compared them to the remarks Carlsen made in a recent interview. The Carlsen interview was a genuine interview while this was just a small question and answer made between players moves to kill time in a live broadcast. Many a politician have been caught making gaffs or horrible sounding sound bytes in such situations and they're skilled in that arena. Maybe instead of a coach for opening, middle or endgames he needs a PR coach to teach him how to handle random questions he's unprepared for so people don't immediately jump on ever word he hangs out there. He's a public figure and is prime for criticism but do we in this time of 24 hour non-stop news and information expect too much of people? Could we find similar remarks made by the likes of a young Kasparov, Fischer or Anand if we combed through ever quote, every sound byte, ever word they uttered regarding their elders and mentors?

@Twobit, which country are you from? Nakamura was born in Japan and these are his ICC notes:

Information about CapilanoBridge(GM) (Last disconnected Mon Jan 02 2012 16:44):

rating [need] win loss draw total best

Wild 1782 [6] 2 0 0 2

Crazyhouse 2300 [6] 17 6 0 23 2300 (19-Mar-2011)

Bullet 2531 [8] 12 1 0 13

Blitz 3302 [7] 406 141 50 597 3528 (25-Apr-2011)

5-minute 2582 [6] 255 59 14 328 2955 (07-Apr-2011)

1-minute 2874 [7] 2138 267 75 2480 3063 (07-Nov-2011)

15-minute 1993 [1] 13 14 1 28 2146 (07-Nov-2011)

3-minute 2602 [8] 210 40 8 258 2679 (12-Jul-2011)

45-minute 1235 [4] 0 1 0 1

Chess960 2573 [8] 3 0 0 3

1: VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA

Name : Hikaru Nakamura

Groups : GMs

I think it is a bit presumptuous to say the whole point was for Naka to work on openings. Look at his rook endings in the Tal Memorial, he is no Benko (yet).

I also think people have the right to criticize the tone. Most of the people here have a lot more workforce experience and Nakamura has clearly made some comments that violate the tone of professional courtesy. I am sure Kasparov was paid a handsome sum for his work, but I am also sure his family would not have missed any meals without the money.  I think Gari was trying to help a young player, even if just to annoy Magnus, who seems to have taken a liking to Anand after similar camp Kaspy sessions.

Personally, I do not see how you can disconnect the opening from the middle game. I teach that the pawn structures you choose in the opening guide you in your middle game. It is not Kasparov's fault that he remained protected from cheapos by playing, and knowing classical chess. Perhaps Naka wanted to see him play the same sort of garbage random English set ups he tried on Ivanchuk, get lost positions and then save them after blunders before he will call someone a good middle game player.

Nakamura and I have also worked together on openings for a good bit of time and he told me he knew Kasparov hated it when he said pro chess was mostly openings. I think he knew he was digging at an open wound.  I have just seen recent studies about the effect of reality TV on the young and their manners and behavior. Perhaps Nakamura really didn't realize how offensive some people, including Kasparov would take his statements, but it is pretty clear from the "we'll see" comment that he knew he was burning this bridge.

http://blog.chess.com/SonofPearl/carlsen-on-working-with-kasparov 

 @chrisr2212 But of course we are all here to entertain you with our hilarious comments, while defending our frivolous countryman...

@ flavenido, Absolutely, the whole point of Nakamura working with Kasparov was to improve his opening repertoire and maybe game preparation. Nakamura has always been criticized for his openings which tended to look like they were more influenced by his blitz games then any real preparation. At Nakamura's level I doubt there is much to be taught in the realm of middle and end game knowledge, but I also believe that even if we were to assume Nakamura is a better middle and endgame player than Kasparov (which I disagree with), it wouldn't mean that Kasparov could not offer up fresh perspective and intriguing ideas that Nakamura did not see. When it comes to studying chess, a person's rating is almost all but irrelevant. What someone can produce at the board and what they can produce when the pressure is gone, time troubles alleviated and the outcome established are really two different things. I find some of the best teachers of chess are those who never reached Grandmaster status. So, the real question is whether or not it matters if Kasparov's middle or endgame play was best? I don't think it does, and I can't imagine that Nakamura does either as he admitted to doing endgame work with Kasparov. In the end though, it seems Nakamura was mostly interested in improving his opening repertoire and possibly his pregame preparation. Unless we see some incredible spike in Nakamura's play I doubt we'll know fully the extent to which this collaboration helped or hurt Nakamura, but I'm sure either way both men are more wise from the experience.

@sitting pawn:

The hot topic is about Nakamura (Naka), the student splitting with Kasparov, his mentor (which I am a fan of both). And Naka clearly mentioned the strength of Kasparov is in openings which he "enjoyed" learning.  

The reason for the split then (in my opinion) is Naka never enjoyed Kasparov's middle and endgames. And because he mentioned that there are other players better than Kasparov (and maybe including Naka himself), then we can assume that there was no need to continue studying with Kasparov.

After the split, if Naka improves his openings and win games, then, Kasparov becomes a good (quality) teacher. And if Naka does not improve his games, then Naka himself is not a good student. The point is, in the first case, Kasparov's reputation will be elevated and in the second case, Nakamura's  own will be lowered.

I hope, Nakamura will improve his games after the split and I also hope I answered your question.

"you have a way of bending the facts. I don't know why you waste your time defending Nakamura, pretending he didn't say what he did. Have you considered a career in the legal professions ?"

Which FACTS have I bent?

@rookifromred; fair enough, although again that's my take on the situation. As I've stated in the past my main problem has been people claiming that Nakamura said Kasparov wasn't good at middle and endgames, which he clearly did not say. Your assessment is interesting, but as you admit you've let emotions guide your perspective. Maybe it was a jab or maybe it was his honest assessment of the games between kramnik and kasparov. I mean yes you can throw all the personal back story in but when it comes down to the board, what happened? I personally took the smile as nervousness on Nakamura's part, I've dabbled into body language and you can tell he is very uncomfortable on the topic at all, he tries to comfort himself by discussing what they worked on but it gets worse as the interviewers questions go on and he becomes very agitated near the end. You can see a difference between those questions and the rest of the interview (like when he discusses his birthday and family) and game analysis very clearly. But again, your point is valid because you're arguing the debatable topic of his opinion and not whether or not Nakamura is bad guy.

@ Check_Mate123, I don't understand your question, are you saying that Nakamura is not allowed to talk about Kasparov because Kasparov devoted time to Nakamura? Also if Nakamura needs to reach 2020 before he can say anything about Kasparov, should you also therefore need to reach 2777 to talk about Nakamura or for that matter is nobody on this website therefore allowed to discuss games of players unless they have a better rating then them? That seems a bit extreme to me.

@ chrisr2212, I usually don't use language like this but, O-M-G! What? Where have I in any way insulted you? I actually said that yours is the type of discussion people should be having, even though I disagree with your take. If you're referring to my comment on your last sentence, then you misread it (seems a running theme). I thought your comment on frivolity was a satiric genius! Referencing the frivolous comments with a frivolous statement had me beaming!

@ netzach, While I cannot recall any of your previous statements to judge whether or not you have clearly and simply stated why Nakamura's statement is offensive (I'm too lazy to comb the thread), I can say that this is not what I am defending anyway. It is true that I have recently tried to espouse a different view point that maybe I feel others are overlooking, but my initial reason for joining the foray was people's misreading of the original statement with regards to Kasparov's ability. But, since you did bring up a quote to comment on I will do so. Nakamura made a statement in which he explained why Kasparov lost to Kramnik, his opinion, it was the interviewer that then asked, "simple as that?" Now, if that's what he believes, then how should he answer? Would he have changed the hearts of those now against him if he said, "Well no, not that simple, there were lots of reasons Kasparov lost to Kramnik."? If he doesn't feel that way then it's a lie and therefore worse. If his opinion is it was that simple, it's not an insult, just his take. I never claimed to know his inner thoughts, nobody here knows them unless he is among us, but like all of you I am simply guessing and trying to look at alternative perspectives. Nobody here can express the truth as to what Nakamura was thinking on this forum board, not even Nakamura himself because it would be a reassessment of his thoughts at the time and not his exact thoughts. It's semantics really but this has nothing to do with cultural divides or such. Offense is a personal issue, two people experience the same event and one take offense and one does not, it goes beyond culture and into one's own perspective. We could have an entire philosophical debate upon what constitutes an insult, whether it's intent or how it's received, perceived. The point is I'm happy to discuss ideas here, as long as people get the general concept right, and not falsely claiming that Nakamura said something he didn't say.

For any haters, while this isn't the first time I've been disliked for trying to bring discussion of highly emotional matters to more objective means, don't dislike me because I've defended Nakamura. The truth is I like both players and would love to see Kasparov come back to competitive chess. I think he is a genius and still can offer up much to the game. It was the countless comments in which someone would bring up something Kasparov did and then follow with some statement how that could not have been done if he was bad at middle or endgames. I live my life by staying in the moment and trying to see things from multiple perspectives. We have no idea if Kasparov is a good coach, if Nakamura is a good student, if Nakamura holds malice in his heart or if Kasparov took it as an insult. We can, however, surmise and debate the merits of what Nakamura has said, if he was right or wrong. I'm surprised there isn't a discussion about that going on. Is Nakamura right? It's an impossible task to prove, but were the likes of Fischer, Tal, Kramnik, Annand, Carlsen or Karpov better middle or endgame players? What of that championship match, did Kasparov really loose because he couldn't gain a good position out of the opening? How do their games before that match compare with those games. That's the real discussion, not whether or not Nakamura is a spoiled brat, because unless you know him personally and can share personal stories you haven't the foggiest idea. So lets all share in a toast to chess... Gosh did I ramble, well it's 2am I have an excuse.

Phew this thread goes on like a topic in a debating society..

@   sittingpawn   

Fair & proper that sides are taken equally & natural enough that some ( you mostly ) choose to defend Nakumura & his comments entirely without critiscism of anything said or done.

Clearly though many others disagree with this I have elucidated clearly & simply why ?

In order to bring the matter to some kind of closure let's just say that you may not see anything offensive in the remark:

Q. Simple as that?

Nakamura - Well, pretty much.

Perhaps Nakumura does not either but you cannot speak FOR him here. Is there a cultural difference in opinion meaning that your outlook on what is offensive/derogatory may not concur with what the rest of Planet Earth thinks ?

If so leave it at that. Standards of good-manners & behaviour are different in many countries but deserve to be respected...

@sittingpawn

I have watched the Interview and also am looking at the comments here closely. I understand what you are saying about Nakamura's assessment about Gary's chess (about opening, middle game or end game). I do not have good enough understanding of chess to comment on that assessment but I doubt any top level player would agree with the assessment(at least I did not come across any interview or article where a good player gave that type of assesssment about Gary). So this was totally Mr. Nakamura's opinion and a quite unconventional opinion at the very least. But everybody is entitled to his own opinion.

But I think his opinion is ended at "No, like I said, his strength was in openings. You look at middlegames or endgames and I’m quite convinced there are other players who are better than he was, but he was able to get advantages out of the openings so that was his main strength,". If Nakamura had ended there it would have been a civilized comment which just shows his view/opinion about Gary's chess.

But, then he laughed and added "when he wasn’t able to do that, that’s why he lost his title to Kramnik." Q. Simple as that?Nakamura - "Well, pretty much."

The way he smiled and said this last sentence is a little humiliating to Gary.This is where his remarks hurt my feeling(Being a Gary fan). In a comparatively short match and small margin and when Gary had other priorities in his life including fighting with FIDE, there might be so many reasons why Gary might loose to Kramnik. After all, Kramnik at his prime is an outstanding player and can beat any player in the chess history. I am rather surprized how Gary was able to motivate himself for so long despite dominating the contemporaries for so long which is rare in the chess history.

Some commenters are saying Nakamura can split with anyone and it is only his choice which I totally agree. But nobody disagree with that and this is not the point of whole discussion. Many people are arguing about good/bad teacher and good/bad student analogy but I thinkthat is not the point here at all. Nobody is whining about why Nakamura splits with Gary. Just that many of us are hurt by his comment. I do not think Gary Kasparov cares about this as much as we are doing here.

"Naka clearly (in my view) gave a crap assessment of Kasparov. That's a pretty insulting thing to do, but maybe Garry doesn't care. I don't care who disagrees with me. Why is Naka frivolous ? I don't know, he just is I guess."

See, now I have no problem with your assessment because as you state, it's in your view. Everyone is allowed an opinion and everyone can disagree with it. I disagree with yours, but that's what makes life rich.

I couldn't help but smile at that last sentence, it's like frivolity calling out frivolousness. Priceless!

@sittingpawn:

So do you mean to say that he talks about someone who has been kind enough to devote time in public? Kasparov being the greatest ever has devoted time to Nakamura. He could have easily said he did not have the time. After taking all the teaching, does one casually say things to the press? First let him cross 2820 to assess Kasparov.