Why all the fuss about Nakamura?

But why does one play the game, put in the work and preperation? In game motivation must be differentiated from the true motivation. They want to win for themselves during the game because they put in the work; they made the sacrifices and thus they desrve to win. But they prepare and make the sacrifices for the glory and pride, especially if the represent something greater.

Many of the eastern european chess pros that now play for the US team in the Olympiad are also not "real Americans" to me .  Kamsky, Onischuk and several others. They were already very strong chess players/professionals when they moved to the USA and its always a joke in the Olympiads that both the US and Israeli teams are : Russia B and Russia C  teams in reality. Sad , but true. 

You are forgetting Jackson Showalter ;). Oh yeah wasnt Alhekine american?

Nakamura is however immune from this argument.

Steinitz was a US citizen. Alekhine no.

Reshevsky: was master strength as a child from Poland...but matured as both person and player in the US.

Fine: All-American but stopped his chess career. He had a slightly better international record than Reshevsky, and a somewhat worse domestic one.

Seirawan: Born in Syria but raised in the US and got his chess here. Got to the Candidate level. Perhaps not great but very, very good.

And what is Caruana? Born in the US and played plenty here but is playing for Italy all over Europe. An international player?

^well, since we through his first point on the the floor he switched to saying that all athletes and chess player compete only for themselves.

I already said that Nakamura is a bad example of what I was speaking. But I still found it strange to talk about living people as products!

But what you have just said is the argument I could not find until now. They are products. You invest in them so you can use them later. So you can use their success for your own needs. When I say you I mean nation - federation or government...

Like our Serbian soccer team. We invest in youth, than we let them play 2-3 games for national team, so clubs can sell them at higher price. So they go, and you never hear about them again.

People should not be a product of chess. You should play chess because you love it. And then you ask why so many draw games, why no one plays aggressive chess any more? Because every players is someones investition, and no one want to risk all that money just to play interesting chess game.

When he said product, he'd meant that america had shaped and crafted his chess experiences/skills, much the way a manufacturer shapes and crafts a finished product. It was not meant to dehumanize the player, which is how I perceive you to be understanding it.

You're user name reminds me of something I've heard of, does it mean a throat virus like the cold? Or some sort of cold prevention medicine? I remember hearing it somewhere from a doctor.

This is just language misunderstanding.  The way he said "product" is a common phrase by Americans, it is not bad.  He does not mean a product like "we use him and then throw him away."  he means he is a product of his American environment.  You are a product of Serbia for example.

My bet is because he's from the states, and because he gets alot of attention for his insane bullet chess skills.

It is antibiotic.

And yes, that is how I understood it. But what do you mean when you say "America shaped his skills". What do you mean by America? I'm sure you are referring to somne kind of chess education system that exist.

Tnx, fyy0r and Phelon. Most of the people wouldn't even bother to assume that it may be language barrier that we are arguing about.

All members of a society are a product of enculturation, including both national cultures and "chess societies". Every person is a product of their experiences and therefore a product of their nation (which is the main supplier of experience). 

However, this is not to say that a person does not retain their individuality and ability to make choices. If a person plays attacking/fighting chess in general, they do this because it is their way, their choice. This is still influenced by their training to a noticable degree.

Noone who reaches 2700 does not love chess.

As an aside, if attacking aggresive play became part of the American chess "product" I would enjoy it much more than its counterpart of dull "Grischukian with white" part. That is, I would enjoy a player representing me as an American playing aggressively. 

But, Bobby Fischer was used as the "product" you mean by American government because of the Cold War.  He was aware of it too, that is why he turned down millions of dollars of deals after he won in 1972, because he didn't want to turn into a "product", but the phrase we mean it in this thread is not that kind.

@Streptomicin

With the preeciding understanding of "product" your argument is sensible. I had been thinking along the lines of "I am a product of my upbringing". 

A word that may express your thoughts is resource. Does this fit?

@fyy0r

Was Fischer used as a resource? Maybe. 

http://ratings.fide.com/topfed.phtml?ina=1&country=USA

This list clearly shows that more than half of the US top 10 chess players are "mercenaries " from other countries. I would like to seen a team in the Olympiad that had enough "real Americans" on it so that the jokes would end about it being a " Russia B team " ( or any other country ) even if it meant worse results , which it probably would... I dont know if A Ramirez would be on such a team as I know too little about him. Was he born in the US and is perhaps of Cuban ( or South American ) heritage ?  Anyone know ? 

Yes, but just so we are on the same track and not going into semantics, Bobby Fischer fits Streptomicin's definition well enough the way the government used him. 

This point has merit, but I would contest that Nakamura and Seirawan do not qualify. Race is purely a cultural construction. Therfore, cultural origin is the sole determining factor.

Correct. This was done in the context of the cold war. And this is surely not taking place currently. Unless anyone has evidence otherwise?

I don't know too much about Reshevsky, but from what I do know I would think he was "real" American.  He lived there for most of his life I think and represented America in most if not all of his tournaments.  He was actually the only American for a while to have reasonable chances at becoming World Champion before Bobby Fischer came along.  The Russians also used draw collusion against him to hold him back though like they did later on to Fischer as well.