Nakamura, The Future World CHamp??

Sort:
Avatar of Phelon

Also Nakamura has never lost a game to Caruana, Nakamura is +2 =7 against him.

Avatar of pdela
Phelon wrote:
pdela wrote:
Phelon wrote:
pdela wrote:

you guys are all quite irritating and make not more that silly claims taken advantage of the incidental fact that American Naka is currently number 3 to say he is the only one that can avoid a Carlsen era ( he is not qualified for the candidates can you delay the multiple threads on Naka chances to be WC). Azeri player Rabjadov was #3 for long time and over 2800 and there were not multiple threads on him being WC (with reason), Aronian had been #2 and 2800+ for long time and keeps the good performances, Caruana reached 2800, Grischuck surpassed Kramnik at live ratings, Karjakin got the spot to Candidates this year because of Rating average (being younger that Naka)... However is Naka, Naka, Naka all the time ... who will point out candidates blunders in Twitter from his home sofa. US prepotency and ability to overlook everyone else is legendary

I've always loved Radjabov and his playing style, but his black openings require far too much from him to ever allow him to become number one. Also I think his recent losses have demoralized him. Caruana pumps up his rating playing in tournaments the ultra elite aren't a part of, as Nakamura has accurately noted. Also he grew up in the US, vastly benefited from US chess training and being a part of our country and getting the opportunities we provide, and then because he felt like it he decided to move back to his birth country and declare himself a non-UScitizen. I can see why people who don't like the US love him. I thought he would be really good but some big losses against the worlds best have shown me he's not as good as his rating would tell you.

Aronian is not making any headway on Carlsen. In fact he's losing it. I think he can maintain his current strength compared to the rest of the world, but I dont know if he can improve on it at this point.

Karjakin is an extremely strong player but he'll lose games out of nowhere, or go on random losing streaks. I don't know whats up with that, makes me have less confidence in him.

Grischuk is a strong player but maybe a little too trusting in his rapid abilities, and not that good at time management. He'll let time get really low during some of his games and then start moving quickly in the belief that he's an amazing rapid player. He is but against an elite 2700+ opponent with standard time he's probably gonna not do so well lol. Also I don't really like his openings/style so not inclined to root for him.

if Nakamura has said that (I find it find to believe) he is very wrong, basically lying cause the way to boost your rating is playing always against tough opposition and not in tournaments without elite players where every draw punish you, it is much better in order to increase your ratting play double round robin against Carlsen, Aronian and Kamsky. So, if he has stated such a think to explain Caruana rating boost in the last year he's being a demagogue, Naka plays only in top tourneys and in board one (unlike Grischuk, Karjakin, Mamedyarov...) with the US  team and so his rating never changes drastically even if he has bad tourneys

So what youre telling me is that you're more deserving of a high rating if you can beat down lesser players, more so than if you can hold your own and draw or beat the strongest players? I'm sorry that just seems ridiculous. Not to mention the fact that playing against those players your rating wouldn't increase unless you were getting = or plus scores against them. Moving up to #3 in the world means he's winning or equal against pretty much everyone except the top two. Can you say the same about Caruana's number 6 ranking when he's playing some tournaments with a bunch of 2500-2600's in them and just boosting his rating?

It is imposible to make it to 2800 by beating 2500-2600's, I don't know what you are talking about... Yes, it is more difficult to keep a good rating if you play both high category and lesser category tournaments, who says the opposite doesn't have a clue on how the ELO system attach ratings to players

Avatar of pdela
Phelon wrote:

Also Nakamura has never lost a game to Caruana, Nakamura is +2 =7 against him.

hardly proof of anything that he has won him two times more... there's data to make happy everybody's supporters

Player: Magnus Carlsen
Player profile: Fabiano Caruana
Classical games: Magnus Carlsen tied Fabiano Caruana 2 to 2, with 5 draws.
Including rapid/exhibition games: Magnus Carlsen beat Fabiano Caruana 8 to 2, with 5 draws.
Only rapid/exhibition games: Magnus Carlsen beat Fabiano Caruana 6 to 0.

    *The figures above are based only on games present in our database which may be incomplete.

Avatar of Phelon

So then mind explaining how one bad Candidates tournament dropped Radjabov down 60 rating points if playing against top players doesn't really effect your rating? And obviously it's not impossible, Fischer nearly did that himself when he got to 2785 before the rating system became so inflated.

Avatar of waffllemaster

Well, that's not necessarily true.  But it is true if you artificially limit the pool of players you face (e.g. only playing top players) then your rating becomes inaccurate as compared to those you never play against.

Avatar of Phelon

It's hardly harder to raise yourself against bad competition. Maybe if youre not a good enough player it is, but for the best players it's far easier to gain rating points off of lesser players than other top players.

Avatar of Phelon
[COMMENT DELETED]
Avatar of pdela

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1691561

Avatar of Phelon

It may become inaccurate, but that doesn't mean it becomes inaccurately higher. if anything the top players ratings would probably be higher if they felt like crushing the lower level tournaments as Caruana has shown.

Avatar of pdela
Phelon wrote:

So then mind explaining how one bad Candidates tournament dropped Radjabov down 60 rating points if playing against top players doesn't really effect your rating? And obviously it's not impossible, Fischer nearly did that himself when he got to 2785 before the rating system became so inflated.

i don't think he dropped 60 only in the tournament, he kept underperforming in the following competitions, but candidates was a long tourney in which he did horrible after losing a winable game for him against Carlsen in one of the first games

Avatar of pdela

he lost 31 rating points after scoring a -6 (1 win 7 defeats) in London Candidates 2013.

 

Final Standings: 1st Carlsen 8.5pts (5 wins), 2nd Kramnik 8.5pts (4 wins) 3rd Svidler 8pts (beat Aronian 1.5-0.5), 4th Aronian 8pts, 5th Gelfand 6.5pts, 6th Grischuk 6.5pts, 7th Ivanchuk 6pts, 8th Radjabov 4pts.

Carlsen lost 4 rating points, Radjabov 31. Kramnik gained 10 and Svidler 16.

Avatar of pdela
Phelon wrote:

So then mind explaining how one bad Candidates tournament dropped Radjabov down 60 rating points if playing against top players doesn't really effect your rating? And obviously it's not impossible, Fischer nearly did that himself when he got to 2785 before the rating system became so inflated.

so yeah, you have to be Bobby Fischer to come close to 2800 confronting 2600 players, even Carlsen lost rating points after winning the Candidates because their opponents had quite lower rating than him

Avatar of varelse1
[COMMENT DELETED]
Avatar of Veritas08
fabelhaft wrote:

Nakamura reached top ten for the first time in 2011, while the three years younger Carlsen was top five already in 2008. In January 2010 Carlsen was #1 and Nakamura #28, so Nakamura has improved a lot in a short time.

Don't see how Carlsen can improve from his ranking when he was already #1... your point is invalid. of course it is much easier to improve when you are #28 in the world as compared to #1. In fact I think carlsen improved much more than nakamura did: he managed to keep his #1 spot although there were so many fierce opponents, won so many tournaments (more than Nakamura did, might I remind you) and improved his rating to an all-time high (Nakamura, on the other hand, didn't even cross 2800). 

Avatar of waffllemaster
Veritas08 wrote:
fabelhaft wrote:

Nakamura reached top ten for the first time in 2011, while the three years younger Carlsen was top five already in 2008. In January 2010 Carlsen was #1 and Nakamura #28, so Nakamura has improved a lot in a short time.

Don't see how Carlsen can improve from his ranking when he was already #1... your point is invalid. of course it is much easier to improve when you are #28 in the world as compared to #1. In fact I think carlsen improved much more than nakamura did: he managed to keep his #1 spot although there were so many fierce opponents, won so many tournaments (more than Nakamura did, might I remind you) and improved his rating to an all-time high (Nakamura, on the other hand, didn't even cross 2800). 

Ouch.

Avatar of echizenjohn

Looking forward for the young ones.... than Nakamura...

1. Anish Giri
2. Fabiano Caruana
3. Wesley So

Avatar of Chesspro76

Nakamura will be the best in the world within 2 years.....

Avatar of fabelhaft
pdela wrote:
Phelon wrote:

Also Nakamura has never lost a game to Caruana, Nakamura is +2 =7 against him.

hardly proof of anything that he has won him two times more... there's data to make happy everybody's supporters

Nakamura has 3-0 against Caruana, all the wins scored in 2013 (two of them with black):

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1721343

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1732926

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1705379

Avatar of varelse1

@aerodarts

I concede Naka is talented enough to win the US Championship repeatedly. I will predict now that he will remain in the top ten for the top ten for the next decade at least. I sort of expect him to break 2800. Can see him reaching #2 in the world.

He is an amazing talent, and I am a huge fan.

But Naka is no Carlsen.

Avatar of CJ_P

I wasn't sure if the title was a question, or it was saying that the statement "Nakamura, The Future World CHamp" is a blunder (??)