Nakamura's Hypocrisy?
So says Peter Zhdanov (HT: Brian Karen). The context was Hikaru Nakamura implicitly but obviously tweeting that Fabiano Caruana was cherry picking by playing in the Reyjkjavik Open, looking for easy rating points. So said Nakamura when Caruana passed him on the live rating list, although when in a subsequent open event Caruana fell back Nakamura didn't change his tune. Now, however, Nakamura himself has played in an open event and not just any open event, but a very weak one (by his exalted standards). Five rounds against players rated 1900+ to -2300+ netted him four rating points, extending his lead over Caruana and enabling him to pass Sergey Karjakin on the live list.
It's much ado about very little, but for me it makes me happy that a real sportsman like Viswanathan Anand holds the crown. A little smack talk among friends is one thing, but unless one's rivals are doing something unethical it's best, I think, to keep one's negative opinions to oneself.
As an aside, it's also wise, most of the time, as the talker runs the risk that one's opponents will be more motivated than before. Veselin Topalov tried it on Vladimir Kramnik, and it didn't work, and the normally classy Kramnik was taught a lesson in his match with Anand a couple of years later. I've experienced it at my own (considerably less exalted) level. Some years ago I had a match with an opponent who thought he would intimidate me with his bluster, but it didn't work. There were two results of this attempt: first, I decided I would never have anything to do with him again if I could help it. Life is too short to waste on people whose primary mode of interaction is belligerence. Second, I determined to do everything possible - ethically possible - to triumph, and I did.
I'm sure others have other opinions, but please, express them without bellicosity!
Reader Comments (7)
Oh well, maybe he needed pocket money for holidays in Canada.
Normally I would be inclined to say "it's quite noble of a top GM to agree to play in such a tournament, giving amateurs a chance to play one-on-one against someone they could normally only meet in a simul". However, in light of his out-of-place comments about Caruana playing in a mighty strong open this is quite outrageous indeed.
Then again, Nakamura is not exactly famous for his charm and manners, so it's probably not surprising. People who have no class whatsoever can't quite be expected to suddenly find some when they reach the heights of their chosen discipline. It probably would have been easily forgotten had he retracted his ill-advised Caruana statement; but again, such behaviour probably does not come easily to him.
I do hope he never realises his dream of becoming the World Champion. Not because of the chess aspect of things, for he is capable of playing great games and I often enjoy them immensely. Nor do I wish against the best player winning. Simply because this man being the foremost ambassador to our great game would be an utter disgrace. He will never compare to, say, Anand in class, pleasantness and gentlemanly manners. If Gelfand becomes the World Champion, he will certainly be a worthy replacement. But can you imagine Nakamura wearing the crown? It's enough to have Kirsan lead the federation; let the World Champion title remain amongst those who wouldn't bring shame to their predecessors.
Despite the fact I personally don't like the behaviour Nakamura had in itself, I think it could be nice for the popularity of the game if there was some more open rivalry between two players at the top of the charts.
Unfortunately at the moment neither Caruana nor Nakamura are exactly those two players, tough, and as long as Carlsen is there I don't see how one out of the two spots for this possible top players' duel cannot be already taken.
So, if Nakamura will really be able to rise his level to the very top, then he should hit on the Nowegian: having people spitting venom on eachother for the sake of a 5th to 8th place is not bringing any attention to Chess!
At the moment the chess world is quite rich in personalities. Anand is certainly a gentleman and a bit of a diplomat. He has threaded every kind of needle in his long career. Aronian and Ivanchuk are fascinating mysteries -- surprising personalities who never fail to say good things when interviewed. And then there are players like Carlsen and Nakamura -- who play astonishing and beautiful chess, but leave something (some would say) to be desired in other ways. Carlsen is a bit wooden and appears to follow a script. Nakamura is brusque and not terribly friendly. At times he seems unfairly sour.
Rather than grousing about people's manners or about the way in which they put together their public persona, one might consider that the personae of nearly all public figures are falsified in the sense that they are reactions to the overwhelmingly uncomfortable circumstance of public attention. Some personae are crafter better than others. Some figures have people to craft them for them.
I say -- the hypocrisy here is not truly Nakamura's. It is that the ratings list is deemed sacred in such a way that one or another method of gaming it appears to matter. I recall not so long ago when a certain someone used blitz games to come close to getting a world championship slot. There were people who were crying in their cups about it.
TLDR: blame the system, not the players. Don't place too much emphasis on remarks made to media. Let chessplayers speak with their chess.
Did Kramnik talk smack about Anand? I don't recall that - at least I don't remember it being a big deal. Vishy may be a "real sportsman," but I think that his extreme of blandness does not serve the chess world terribly well.
[DM: "Talking smack" is a bit of an exaggeration, but he implied that Anand's victory in Mexico City was in someway not yet a "real" world championship.]
Someone between Vishy on one extreme and Nakamura/Kasparov on the other, might be best. Kramnik, actually. Or Carlsen.
I am just saddened by all this. I am an Anand fan primarily because of his dignity and grace - and his amazing talent of course. Naka struck me as someone who could really take chess popularity to the net level but his ill conceived statements dont compare well with other elites - say Aronian for example - he has an amazing rating and skills to boot - always well spoken and classy - you dont need to be in the Fisher mould just because you are a chess genius - moro, shirov, svidler, chucky - all are chess genuses - but they dont make unclassy statements - Naka - please grow up - let your chess skills do the talking.
What did Kramnik say against Anand in their match? I was under the impression that they were quite civil with each other.
[DM: Nothing during the match, but in the leadup Kramnik was a bit disparaging about Anand's victory in Mexico City, that this wasn't "really" the world championship and didn't much matter.]
Kramnik also said some stuff about Anand's tournament wins coming mainly by beating up on lower-ranked players, and subtly questioning his real ability against top-ranked players against whom he mostly drew.