Disgusting Video

Oh God, it was so bad. He was mentioning Red Bull and saying how Naka was better Caruana and So. It was so bad I stopped the video right there. I couldn't watch any more.

Even the disgustingly stupid twitch chat was going nuts. They were spamming "paid actor"

-

-

I mean... since your question is on the level of a child, I guess I should clarify. Do I think he literally read a speech Naka wrote for him? Maybe not. But Levy is just a low rated IM. He's smart enough to know that his social media clout, at least when it comes to chess, is closely tied to Naka. He's not good enough at pure chess to stand out on his own. But he's also smart. So he really could have ad-libbed the disgusting sycophantic speech, no pre-writing necessary, but whether or not Naka wrote it for him, it doesn't change the fact that no serious chess player would agree.

99% of serious chess players would rank Caruana above Naka.

It's not even close.

I mean really. Let's get some candid reaction shots.

Someone walk up to Kramnik and tell him that Naka rated himself above Caruana.

And lets count how long Kramnik laughs out loud.

Same for Anand.

Hikaru may think he's the new jaw in town. Caruana definitely doesn't cut it. Any puns are totally coincidental.  Or just dental. 

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/community/are-you-good-looking-enough-to-defeat-carlsen#comment-18517834

Well, that's just social justice BS.

Hikaru may not be very smart, but he's at least smart enough to know his audience. He knows that playing up female competitors is useful for increasing viewers.

And I have nothing against the Polgar family. What they accomplished is obviously enormous. I think the current female world champ is Hou Yiffan who is a comparatively pathetic 2600. Judit was really special.

Nice title

I disagree. This is no fit sight for a sober man.

Haha

Sobriety is a spectrum

I might use the word "continuum."

For example, I'm not drunk enough that typing is impossible.

Oh, she was put above Carlsen?

Yeah, that's dumb.

Like I said, I literally stopped watching the video as soon Levy got on his knees.

I might have even thrown up in my mouth a little... this was like... on minute 3 out of an hour+ video. I barely watched any of it.

Of course Naka is a strong GM... which is why I'm interested in his opinion of who the best players are.

But when he overrated himself to that extent, I couldn't watch anymore. 

And again, I know he wants to count social media.

Which is why if he were consistent (and not so fking shameless) he would rate Agadmator up there with Anand.

Nakamura was the established US champ when Caruana was coming up, and Nakamura is just enough older that he is always going to see him as "that kid who I beat a lot who is doing really well now, but I know in my heart I can beat him in a match".

It's not much different than an NBA players older brother who used to beat him one on one with ease when they were kids.  You're always going to feel like you've got something extra.

He is a cautionary tale for blitz/bullet players, that's for sure.

I don't know about that. Naka, like anyone who was a world top 10, is like a living encyclopedia of chess knoweldge.

Maybe not to the extent of someone like Kramnik (who is God level) or Anand (who is close enough) but Naka knows a hell of a lot about chess. No one should deny that.

But as usual, his ego gets in the way of any honest assessement.

At the end of the day where does his popularity come from? 12 year old beginners who don't know how the horsey moves? Not very respectable.

Maybe Youtube and Twitch and Chess.com cut him a fat check, and that's how he earns his living. I get that. But that doesn't mean I'm going to agree with his inane statements. I don't care how many 12 year olds he has impressed.

Well I can't really comment because as I said I didn't watch the video.

I will say that I 100% never trust a player's account of how they got good. Naka says he never read a book? That's obviously less than half the real story, so it's very ignorable.

I've had enough encounters to know this is true... for example masters who have told me they never study the endgame and the endgame isn't important. Then I play them OTB and analyze with them... and they know more about technical endgames than I do (and I enjoy studying endgames).

What people self-report is almost always BS. Bar no one. Chess or otherwise. Naka says he never read a book? That tells me less than nothing. 100% ignored.

I was going to be disappointed at your lack of mentioning sausage... but you saved it at the end. Good job.

I mean...here’s how I see it. Of our time (and probably ever) Magnus is the greatest player and it’s not close. Some of his WC matches have been close, but nobody has ever just dominated in rating and super tournaments like this (at least in this time). Naka is undoubtably one of the best players of the time, even in classical, even though he has declined, but I don’t really think peak Naka is any better than peak Anand, Karjakin, Nepo, Aronian, MVL, Caruana (probably better than Naka), So, etc.

I think Naka’s abilities (Overall) are probably a bit overrated due to his speed chess prowess and Twitch presence.

In speed chesss the gap between Naka and the very top (Magnus) is much closer, but Magnus is still a touch better (with increment)

Yeah, I have no real criticisms of this...

... with the slight caveat of wanting to mention that Kasparov and Karov were at one point both rated ~90 points above world number 3.

And Fischer was at his peak ~125 points above world #2 (Fischer lost rating points after winning the world championship).

Carlsen was never as dominant as that, but yes, we have to dig up the absolute best players in history at their absolute peak just to make valid comparisons. Obviously Carlsen is one of the best, if not the absolute best (depending on your criteria).

Meanwhile Naka accidentally makes 2800 once in his life, then a decade later gets a few Twitch followers and wants to rank himself among the best.

What a joke.

If there were ever an example of a millennial being entitled without actually earning anything...

Yeah, in some sense it's unfair. Carlsen got to learn from many great GMs in his young years.

Meanwhile players like Morphy had (almost) literally no one to learn from.

So yeah, criteria matters.