No Longer Mere Rumor: Nakamura Is Working With Kasparov

Not that I would ever stoop to telling my readers "I told you so" - that would be childish. It's official, though, from at least one of the horses' mouths, as Hikaru Nakamura acknowledges the collaboration and has lots to say about it in an interview coming out in the current issue of New in Chess Magazine. (There's also more about the story here, including a timeline of the now ex-rumor's progression.)

Comments

[Thomas]

But your prediction in the "I told you so" story will probably be(come) wrong:

"Kasparov's discipline and deep researches nicely complement Nakamura's talent and fighting spirit. My prediction is that if the story proves true and they make it work, the American will his [hit?] 2800 within a year."

At least if you meant within a year of working together - two months, two events and 42 Elo points remaining. At least I would be surprised if Nakamura gains these 42 points in Tal Memorial and London ... .

[DM: A year from the "I told you so story", not a year from the start of their collaboration. I didn't assume in the first story that they had only started working together a couple of days prior. On the other hand, I didn't suspect they had been working together quite as long as they had been, and on the other other hand the story suggests that the Kasparov-Nakamura work relationship isn't as close as the one between Kasparov and Carlsen. So I'll stick to this: if they keep working together, then I think Nakamura will have excellent chances for 2800 by late September of 2012.]

[MNb]

I suppose this makes Kasparov the most successful trainer in the history of chess.

[DM: The trainer of the highest-rated "pupils", sure, but most successful? I don't see that.]

[David]

Most successful? Easily has to be Botvinnik, with Karpov, Kasparov and Kramnik as pupils.

[DM: Shirov too! But most of those cases involved the students attending his school for a couple of weeks at a time, I think twice a year. So he wasn't really their trainer per se, though he certainly helped them.]

[Icepick]

Dennis, you're starting to sound like an economist.

And wouldn't Botvinnik still be the most successful trainer in history, at least until someone tops Kasparov's 2850-something rating?

[DM: I'm not sure I get your point, but I was denying in any case that the student's rating by itself reflects on the success of the trainer. Compare trainer A and trainer B. Trainer A brings a player from 1500 to 2600, while trainer B takes another player from 2790 to 2820. Maybe the two achievements are incommensurable, but if they're not it's far from clear that trainer B is really more successful than trainer A.

As for Botvinnik being more successful by the higher-rated standard, it's semi-iffy that Botvinnik should be considered Kasparov's trainer in the first place (see my remarks to the previous comment). Even if you're willing to call him (one of) Kasparov's trainers, though, he certainly wasn't in that role during the latter's professional career.]

[Thomas]

@MNb: There is at least Dokhoian who was coaching Kasparov himself (if I am not mistaken, already before Garry reached the world top). He is now coaching Karjakin - I would say on a relative scale, compared to where the student was when they started working together, he is about as successful as Kasparov with Carlsen, and more successful than - so far - Kasparov with Nakamura.

In general (and this is how I understand Dennis' response) it's one thing to "hand-pick" well-known talents, and another thing to identify rising stars even before they are mentioned at various chess sites. Here Karjakin is a bit in between - he was already known when he switched federations to work with Dokhoian, but it was uncertain if he can really make the next step(s) to reach the absolute world top.

@Dennis: Ha, that's a "safe" prediction ... if Nakamura does NOT break 2800 within one (more) year, the working relationship with Kasparov wasn't close enough or didn't work for some reason. If he does reach a 'symbolic' higher level, you can say "I told you" ... ,:) - of course no way to know whether he would also manage without Kasparov.
Incidentally, from another angle this may be Kasparov's own attitude: If the student is successful, he gets credit for it. If the student isn't successful, he will blame the student.

[DM: Thank you for interpreting my prediction so charitably! (Or not.)

Of course my reading that their working relationship isn't as close/intensive as the Carlsen-Kasparov relationship leads me to be somewhat more hesitant about the degree and speed of Nakamura's future improvement. But it doesn't mean I'm implying something as vapid as "If Nakamura hits 2800, then they working closely and if he doesn't, they weren't." First of all, I think Nakamura will eventually make it to 2800 in any case, as long as he doesn't get distracted by poker or other outside interests and/or relationships. But if he's reasonably serious, and their working partnership continues, I think around 11 months from now is a fair estimate of when he'll hit that number.

It's not a scientific prediction - no one is monitoring him and there's no control group. But it isn't empty either: one can make decent guesses about both over the course of the year. I assume that if they split up, the chess world will probably know about it. As for Nakamura's seriousness, one can make guesses: is he playing tons of blitz and bullet on ICC? Playing a lot of poker? Talking about hard work on Twitter or poker, travel and general leisure? What kinds of positions is he getting from the opening?]

[Daniel]

So do I get to say I told you so as well for reporting their collaboration began his Corus/Tata win?

[DM: Sure!]