Nakamura wins US ch

Hikaru Nakamura beat Yasser Seirawn in 30 moves to win the US championship.  Irina Krush won 2 playoff games against Anna Zatonskih to win the US Women's shampionship.  Congrats to both.

ummm, lol, you sure?  as of yesterday, there were still two rounds to go...

Today was the last round I thought, with Nakamura 1/2 a point ahead of Kamsky. According to the chess.com news updates anyway. I thought Naka would beat Seirawan handily, he seems out of practice.

ah, okay, thx!  i was reading wrong or had missed something.  Go naka!

}{

cool

i need help i am changing me opening for black what should i play?

I bought my first Bill Wall chess book back during the Reagan administration.  He's given more to the greater chess community than the next hundred people above him in the ratings combined.

He's light years removed from having to answer to this kind of BS.

Firebrand,

The answer to your question of how I got rated such-and-such is simple.  I have played over a few thousand games in each category here.  To correct you, first, my blitz rating is not around 2300, it is 2225.  The average rating of my opponents (close to 2 thousand) is 1558, not 1500.  The best win show 1918, but this statistic has been flushed and may not be correct nor reflect the highest rated blitz player that I have played.  I am the first person to play chess here, besides the creators and owners, and over the years, I have played 1,936 rated blitz games, winning 1,891, losing 44, and drawing 28.  No one had high ratings when it started out and I have always allowed my opponents to choose to play me rather than me pick an opponent.  Let me know what your rating is and the average of your players when you have played a few thousand games.  By now, there are more high-rated players.  You  have a bullet chess rating of 2035 and you have only won one game in bullet chess.   Must be that the chess.com rating is 'farmed'  whatever that means.  For the first few years, there was nobody rated in the 2000 or above range.  I had to start out as 1400 like everyone else. The points accumulated just by playing thousands of games.  The rating system here gives me a higher rating than normal, sort of like the Claude Bloodgood effect.  It wasn't his or my fault of the rating system, and perhaps it needs to be corrected.

Firebrand got spanked. That's funny.

The fact that Bill Wall bothered to reply to our comrade, Firebrand,  may be somewhat surprising; but considering the vast amount of valuable chess data Mr Wall makes available, free/gratis, and the experiences he shares on this wonderful game, then perhaps the facts should be left to speak for themselves.

Pretty typical beta male psychology.  When you're shown to be moron who doesn't have a god damn clue what he's talking about, double down and declare moral and intellectual superiority.

Rethink the math in light of the fact that Mr. Wall built up the bulk of his record when GM's were rated 1200, and you've built up most of yours now that nobodies like you are rated 2200.

This alexlaw above is a good comparison point.  Have you read this guy's actual posts on chess topics?  Seen his analysis?  At my club, this guy wouldn't crack 1100.  Today's ratings are meaningless.

Boy, I was hoping this forum subject was going to be about Hikaru Nakamura.  But since you want to talk ratings, let's look at Naka's ratings.  Is there rating inflation?  Is Naka's rating, which surpasses Fischer (USCF and Elo) overinflated, or is he really better than Fischer?  Here is Nakamura's history of his rating.

Did you know Hikaru Nakamura’s first USCF rating was only 788, in April 1995?   In 1996, it was 1195.  By January 1997, his rating was 1659 for a 9-year old.    By April 1997, he was the 20^th highest rated player under 13, with a rating of 1846.   By October 1997, he became an expert at the age of 9 years and 10 months.  On Feb 26, 1998, his rating went to 2203.  He was 10 years and 79 days old.  Up to that time, he was the youngest rated master in the US, breaking Vinay Bhat’s and Jordy Mont-Reynaud’s record of 10 years and 6 months.  By the end of 1998, his rating was 2237.  In April 1999, he was the nation’s highest rated player under 13 (he was 10) with a rating of 2237.    By the end of 1999, his rating was 2346.   In 2000, his first FIDE rating was 2261.  At the end of 2000, his USCF rating was 2391.  In August 2002, he won the 32^nd Continental Open in Massachusetts and had a performance rating of 2766!  He beat 3 grandmasters.  By the end of 2002, his USCF rating was 2614.  His FIDE rating was 2520.  For 2003, his USCF rating jumped to 2656.  At the end of 2004, his USCF rating was 2698.  At the end of 2005, his USCF rating was 2762.  At the end of 2006, his USCF rating was 2774.  At the end of 2007, his USCF rating was 2740.  At the end of 2008, his USCF rating was 2760 and his FIDE rating was 2704.  In 2009, his USCF rating was 2773 and his FIDE rating was 2701.  At the end of 2010, his FIDE rating was 2751.  He was ranked #10 in the world.  In May 2012, his FIDE rating was 2775.  He was ranked #7 in the world.  His USCF rating was 2848.  After the US championship, his FIDE rating is now 2782 (5th in the world and ahead of world champiomn Anand), and his USCF rating is 2882.

Good thread. What would be most interesting and helful is to know what Naka attributes to his big jumps in rating.For example from 1846 to expert and then to master.Then all the way to a performance rating of over 2600.

it would be great to know how he trained during this period.

Alexlaw, your first statement of not having the time is certainly accurate. Especially if you aren't in your teens. People of my age with jobs, wives, kids, two yards to mow and trim, cars to repair, etc truly don't have the time to study as much as we would like. So, young people take note: if you are going to become really good at this amazing game, you have to start young! Of course, I believe it's the same with whatever you want to excel at, be it chess, baseball, football, or whatever. 

who really cares about someones chess rating ? Over time u will win games that are amazing, and u will blunder away games .It's a game of ups and downs. Great ? SURE ! But still just a game.....Name calling, resentment or jealousy are out of line.

cool

Some answering this thread have said that they don't have enough time to study. Quite understandble. OK, so how can we learn from Naka's assent to greatness ( or any other great player for that matter) to use the time we do have to study most wisely?

Of course, having a strong chess player and teacher for a Dad certainly helped a lot. Perhaps some guidance from a teacher so you can identify your weakness and hone in on them would be one lesson to learn.

My Dad was an expert in biochemistry. I had my first chemistry lesson when I was 5. I worked through college chemistry with him from 9-11. Even though I don't have a degree in chemistry, it is easier for me to analyze certain problems than a lot of people who work in the field. I guess it is the same way for Naka in chess.

That's great, but this news doesn't have any affect on my game.