Monday
Dec192011
Nakamura No Longer Working With Kasparov
Monday, December 19, 2011 at 9:51AM
After Hikaru Nakamura's recent comments about Garry Kasparov and the nature of their work together, it's not exactly earthshaking news to discover that they have ended their professional relationship.
That's too bad for Nakamura, I think, but if he uses what he learned from Kasparov and puts in the work - at chess rather than poker or online bullet and blitz - he can vindicate his decision. And it's good news for the next talented young player with a sponsor or money to burn. Will Fabiano Caruana or Anish Giri be next?
tagged Garry Kasparov, Hikaru Nakamura
Reader Comments (4)
as a chess spectator with limited chess ability, i don't see myself as qualified to confirm or deny nakamura's comments during the london chess classic.
may i ask your thoughts, dennis? it certainly seems fair to at least consider that there have been better middlegame or endgame players. but what about, for instance, the claim regarding the championship match loss to kramnik? is this on more shaky ground?
i am less interested in opinions on whether the comments were ill-timed, or did not show sufficient deference to kasparov... i guess i am just left to wonder about the merits of his chess claims - were they really that incendiary or off base, as some seem to think? (not you, of course, i know that you have already cautioned folks against overly negative reads of his comments)
p.s. kasparov and giri would be an interesting turn...
@ kerry: I suppose it depends, at least in part, on the period of Kasparov's career Nakamura had in mind. The gap between Kasparov and Karpov and then everyone else back in the 1980s was simple colossal, and it's very hard to believe that this can be chalked up to Kasparov's fabulous opening preparation alone. Maybe by the late 90s Anand and Kramnik had caught up to Kasparov, discounting opening prep, but no one else really comes to mind.
Maybe soon someone will run tests of the sort Ken Regan mentioned to compare Kasparov's "intrinsic rating" with his contemporaries. (And hopefully with Nakamura's as well - even if Nakamura is right that others played the middlegame and endgame better than Kasparov did, if doesn't mean that Nakamura himself is superior in those phases of the game.
A simple truth here is that the best players don't always make the best coaches. Ihave a feeling that both Carlsen and Nakamura found Kasparov overbearing and were probably concerned that Kasparov would expect rather too much credit for any success they had. I suspect they both made a good decision.
Thanks
Mike Twyble
It's interesting to contrast Nakamura's thoughts on Kasparov with those of Carlsen : http://whychess.org/node/3490