x
Chess - Play & Learn

Chess.com

FREE - In Google Play

FREE - in Win Phone Store

VIEW

Hikaru Nakamura is better than Magnus Carlsen?

  • #1

    Hikaru's Blitz rating is 3021, while Magnus's  Blitz rating is only 2992. Also, Hikaru has played thousands and thousands of games in both Blitz and Bullet, which proves his rating is accurate, while Magnus has only played like 70 blitz games and 22 bullet games.

  • #2
    EndgameStudy wrote:

    Hikaru's Blitz rating is 3021, while Magnus's  Blitz rating is only 2992. Also, Hikaru has played thousands and thousands of games in both Blitz and Bullet, which proves his rating is accurate, while Magnus has only played like 70 blitz games and 22 bullet games.

     

    If a lot of games proves a rating is accurate, what does a lot fewer games prove? surprise.png

     

    If you want to see who is better, compare their face-to-face matches.

  • #3

    Your right. They had a draw a few times, right?

  • #4

    From chessgames.com

     

    Classical games: Magnus Carlsen beat Hikaru Nakamura 12 to 1, with 21 draws.
    Including rapid/exhibition games: Magnus Carlsen beat Hikaru Nakamura 33 to 14, with 39 draws.
    Only rapid/exhibition games: Magnus Carlsen beat Hikaru Nakamura 21 to 13, with 18 draws.

  • #5

    I guess Magnus is better. NVM

  • #6

    Magnus won Nakamura in the final of speed chess last year.

        Carlsen won 5.5-3.5 the 5 minute segement ,5-2 the 3 minute segment and lost only 5-4 the bullet segment.

        The overall score 14.5-10.5 shows that his win was much easier than anyone expected proving that Carlsen is a class higher than anyone else.

        By the way , on line rating means nothing.

  • #7

    Nakamura couldn't shine Carlsen's shoes in a set match with standard time control.

  • #8

    Carlsen dropped below 3000 in blitz lol

  • #9

    I respect the author's opinion but Carlsen defeated Nakamura in a speed chess match here in chess.com not very long ago. But Nakamura is amazing. I enjoy his Knockouts series and matches in YouTube. Chatting while playing doesn't seem to affect his performance.

  • #10

    I think Naka lost to Carlsen last year was mainly due to having too much "respect" for him. That's all. It's a mental issue. Naka's ratings are very much "minted", if you ask me.

    Carlsen's rating has now dropped, simply because Guseinov was very strong, and he inflicted painful defeats on over-confident Carlsen. That's why Carlsen, being a bad loser, did not commend Guseinov at all, but instead said he could have played better. Yeah, right...I would wager Guseinov too can also play much better than this, and give a more "balanced" score in the future (if he wants to).

    Carlsen has not played all comers hundreds of points down, with all kinds of styles or pet openings where they are strong at. If he did, I can almost guarantee, he won't be top (or he will trade places with others like Naka, etc). Look what happened at the recently concluded World Cup if you don't believe me. Or the past Olympiads where Carlsen played against "patzers". LaughingWink

  • #11

    "I think Naka lost to Carlsen last year was mainly due to having too much "respect" for him. That's all"

    I think it has something to do with Carlsen's playing strength too

    "Guseinov was very strong, and he inflicted painful defeats on over-confident Carlsen"

    What was it, 15-2 or something before Guseinov picked up a couple of wins in the end? After 14 games it was +11-0=3 to Carlsen...

    "Carlsen has not played all comers hundreds of points down, with all kinds of styles or pet openings where they are strong at. If he did, I can almost guarantee, he won't be top"

    So how did he do in the opens in Qatar and Isle of Man?

  • #12

    Hikaru is better than Carlsen in bullet but isn't good enough is slow. Blitz it depends who is having a good day. The grand chess tour shows that.

  • #13

    who knows?

  • #14
    fabelhaft wrote:

    "I think Naka lost to Carlsen last year was mainly due to having too much "respect" for him. That's all"

    I think it has something to do with Carlsen's playing strength too

    "Guseinov was very strong, and he inflicted painful defeats on over-confident Carlsen"

    What was it, 15-2 or something before Guseinov picked up a couple of wins in the end? After 14 games it was +11-0=3 to Carlsen...

    "Carlsen has not played all comers hundreds of points down, with all kinds of styles or pet openings where they are strong at. If he did, I can almost guarantee, he won't be top"

    So how did he do in the opens in Qatar and Isle of Man?

    I'm talking mainly about online blitz and bullet. I am willing to bet with you that if Carlsen dares to play everyone like Nakamura does over here, and play thousands of games against everyone, he will not be the clear leader. Exactly what happened - Guseinov reduced his rating, and many people here don't understand why.

    I used those examples from "classical" tournaments just to further strengthen my argument. Those are not even online blitz/bullet. At least Nakamura has played a ton of games here, so if he could maintain his rating after playing everyone, that is more impressive.

  • #15
    Debistro wrote:

    I think Naka lost to Carlsen last year was mainly due to having too much "respect" for him. That's all. It's a mental issue. Naka's ratings are very much "minted", if you ask me.

    Carlsen's rating has now dropped, simply because Guseinov was very strong, and he inflicted painful defeats on over-confident Carlsen. That's why Carlsen, being a bad loser, did not commend Guseinov at all, but instead said he could have played better. Yeah, right...I would wager Guseinov too can also play much better than this, and give a more "balanced" score in the future (if he wants to).

    Carlsen has not played all comers hundreds of points down, with all kinds of styles or pet openings where they are strong at. If he did, I can almost guarantee, he won't be top (or he will trade places with others like Naka, etc). Look what happened at the recently concluded World Cup if you don't believe me. Or the past Olympiads where Carlsen played against "patzers".

    Carlsen crushed Guseinov. In the 5 minute portion alone the score was 8-1. With a score of 20.5 to 5.5 you can't say Carlsen was a bad loser, but I agree that the comment was quite inconsiderate.

  • #16
    Areliae wrote:
    Debistro wrote:

    I think Naka lost to Carlsen last year was mainly due to having too much "respect" for him. That's all. It's a mental issue. Naka's ratings are very much "minted", if you ask me.

    Carlsen's rating has now dropped, simply because Guseinov was very strong, and he inflicted painful defeats on over-confident Carlsen. That's why Carlsen, being a bad loser, did not commend Guseinov at all, but instead said he could have played better. Yeah, right...I would wager Guseinov too can also play much better than this, and give a more "balanced" score in the future (if he wants to).

    Carlsen has not played all comers hundreds of points down, with all kinds of styles or pet openings where they are strong at. If he did, I can almost guarantee, he won't be top (or he will trade places with others like Naka, etc). Look what happened at the recently concluded World Cup if you don't believe me. Or the past Olympiads where Carlsen played against "patzers".

    Carlsen crushed Guseinov. In the 5 minute portion alone the score was 8-1. With a score of 20.5 to 5.5 you can't say Carlsen was a bad loser, but I agree that the comment was quite inconsiderate.

    If I beat someone at blitz/bullet 10-nil, but the other guy lost mostly on time, but was actually keeping level with me in gameplay, I would NOT call my performance as "crushing". To me, crushing is when I outplay the other guy convincingly 10-0.

    I saw some of the Carlsen-Guseinov games live, and to me, Guseinov was keeping up with Carlsen for the most part. He even outplayed Carlsen convincingly (and creatively, I might add) in one of the 3/2 games.

    I think Carlsen was shocked. He probably expected not to lose at all. I also thought he might win nearly all the games, with Guseinov sneaking in a draw or two with great effort.

    I also saw the Carlsen-Petrosian games the last time around, and I can say Carlsen outplayed Petrosian convincingly in many of those games.

  • #17

    ”I think Carlsen was shocked”

    11 wins and 3 draws after 14 games... And Guseinov is not some total weakie, in the Rapid World Championship in 2014 he drew for example Carlsen, Aronian and Svidler and won against MVL. It’s not someone you win every game against just like that.

  • #18
    Isa_Vulpes wrote:

    To be completely honest, I think I might be able to stand a chance against Nakamura. Frankly, he is so overrated, loses all his important games, and acts so arrogant. Fuck him.

    You would have a chance against Nakamura?

    Go challenge him while he’s doing the “Nakamura’s Knockouts” show for chess.com and let’s see. You’re above 2000, but he’s still a Super-GM who plays relatively better in the faster time controls.


    He’s overrated?

    He’s a Super-GM who plays people like Magnus, Caruana and Aronian all the time in tournaments. If his rating stays, he’s truly somewhere around there, wouldn’t you say?


    He loses all his important games?

    He still tries, and he doesn’t want to lose those games... he is still prepared, and he does win some “important games”.


    He’s arrogant?

    Did you watch his “Nakamura’s Knockouts” shows? He takes any challenges and does play people far below his rating. If he was arrogant about that, I can’t imagine him being willing to risk his rating playing people like that, he’d probably just be maintaining it and not really play.

  • #19
    EndgameStudy wrote:

    I guess Magnus is better. NVM

    null

  • #20

    I mean, they both have the disciplie they enjoy better, and each are better than the other one at it.

Online Now