Q. Simple as that?

Nakamura - Well, pretty much.

A reread of "sittingpawn's" comment, convinces me that it is the most objective, intelligent, dispassionate and fair assessment of Nakamura's statements that has so far been posted.  I highly recommend a second look. 

I remember trying to comprehend Kasparov's lines in the sicilian ( najdorf etc ) & failing also.

If that's not the '' middle-game '' then I do not know what is ?

Also those who whinge & critiscise others only damage their own reputation. Nigel Short behaved a little like Naka has here & that proved to be true for him. Is very hard to shake these things off once the words have been said.

Nakamura should concentrate on his chess & exercise restraint in his comments about others.

one has to achieve what kasparov has achieved to talk so arrogantly to a a 15 year world champion...nakamura... hmm i cant see how this blitz player can really go for a world title...

i ve seen recently his game contra carlsen in the tal memorial...i tell you guys he lost like a 1700 or less and this blitzplayer has the guts to criticise the best of all time. I don't know some people really don't know who they are...

Nakamura is a good grandmaster ok...but thats it pretty much

As for the middlegames...i ve seen combinations by kasparov i tell you i think this is perhaps the only chessplayer i dont understand even after explanation:)

so high was his skilllevel...

In 1986 when Kasparov beat the number 9 in the world at the time, Tony Miles, by 5 1/2 - 1/2, Miles said he thought he was playing the World Champion, not a ""monster with a thousand eyes who sees all".

Doesn't sound much like Nakamura's description of Kasparov: I wonder if a personality clash is at play here?

Naka has his own comment period okay.. waht ever are all your comments Naka has said, ha has said it then and again period , thus this deal a great issue??

It is good to be strong in the opening,mlddle and endgame ,but the general idea is to get whatever advantage you can as early as you can and drive in the win.If Nakamura do not respect GM Kasparov's game, then he should not have hin in his camp for any advise be it on opening,middle or end game,in my opinion.

You garry-boys treat him like a God! Nakamura just pointed out what was his strong point, and this is not disrespectful at all!

Since many of us seem to be speculating, I will do a little speculating of my own. 

 A strong middle game is still likely a relative factor amongst GMs

All GMs have relative strengths and weakness in all phases of the game and GMs are not equal in all phases of the game.

Nakamura is saying that Kasparov is the top guy in openings.

Maybe it would be better if Nakamura was more careful with his wording; however do we know what he was thinking when he made these comments and if his intention was really to put Kasparov down?  Rather or not you personally like Nakamura, isn't it also possible that his statements might be honest, objective and accurate?  Some of you may have more inside knowledge, but I am certainly not in a position to make a judgement call.

Do we see how things are; or do we see what we are?

this reminds me of the final rocky movie... i dont know why a world champion for so many years  would not have a strong middlegame... please show a bit of delicadeza amigo!

awesome!

@sittingpawn- if this was fb.. I would have 'liked' your comment! :p

{sigh} Okay, can some of you making comments here please READ what Naka said! While I don't normally get annoyed by spirited debate the majority of you Naka haters are taking his comments to extremes and changing their meaning. When he said that Kasparov was not the best at middle and endgame, it is not saying that Kasparov was a patzer on endgame and middle games and only a stud at openings. This assumption by most of you is absurd. What Naka was saying, and I'm sure is quite accurate, is that Kasparov's bread and butter came from his extensive study of the opening, which allowed him advantages early on that he was able to capitalize on. Would we not say that players with a more strategic approach, such as kramnik, are more technically sound in the middle and endgame play than was Kasparov? Remember here, we are not talking about the ability to create wonderfully beautiful sharp lines and variations, or an ability to perform amazing tactical sacrifices. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ALL AROUND MIDDLE AND ENDGAME ASTUTENESS. Gary was great, maybe even the greatest, but that doesn't mean that there weren't players who were better in certain aspects of the game. Gary was a complete package, you have to be to become world champion, but that doesn't mean that he was the greatest in every nuance of the game.

You want to debate that fact, then so be it, but don't rip on Naka for something you're imagining he said.

giving comments like that, to one of the best chess player in history...it's just too much

Talk about defecating on your own doorstep...

But Fischer & Kasparov were exceptional world chess champions motivating tens of thousands of people to take up the game. Despite the extremes of tension ( & in Fischer's case illness ) they were under at times they never descended to '' personal derision or critiscism '' of previous world-champions. In fact their passion & commitment to chess meant the opposite of that with Fischer freely admitting his admiration of Capablanca. Kasparov in return openly admiring Fischer's genius for the game.

How can Nakamura possibly be considered in the same category as these individuals ? Ludicrous to suggest this as an excuse for bad behaviour...

@ Andy_18 and @ netzach, that is exactly how I feel. Someone needs to be the bad boy as they are the ones running away with the prom queen (and media attention). If someone is always just humming along with the crowd (well, Magnus did not exactly do that with his FIDE defiance), then it is hard to be interesting and memorable. It is also hard to address issues that demand change. Look at Fischer then; nobody, I mean nobody raised more attention, turned more youngsters and adults to chess than he did. Was he a bore? Could he ever be a model of sportsmanship? Was he a "role model"? (H*ll no, would say Charles Barkley) Making a splash only in a toilet is one thing, but refusing to meet a challenger and losing the crown like Bobby did is another. In retrospect, was not he right? In forward-spect, I know Carlsen was right, too. So, nothing is wrong with being controversial and being honest about one's opinion should not be labeled as disrespect.

beardogjones, your comment is really funny and makes a good tongue in cheek point.  Unfortunately, some may think you are serious.

hmm.... I think alot of pressure on Nakamura to produce whilst he still can. Though natural to be supportive of players representing countries whereby some have ambitions ( hence USA members defending him here ) . From an outsider's point-of-view recent behaviour/comments from him do seem somewhat disrespectful & exibiting signs of stress.

Maintaining good-manners & sportmanship IS important in chess with so many aspiring youngsters looking up to the top-players as role-models. These people are influential in development & future of the game so some duty outside their own personal goals does exist.

Thanks Twobit.  I also do not sense any disrespect being expressed by Nakamura.  Hmm, I wonder how many of us are projecting our own deficiencies on him?