Talk:Hikaru Nakamura

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography / Sports and Games (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the sports and games work group (marked as Low-importance).
WikiProject Chess (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chess on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.


Which year is "this year"? Joyous 01:32, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)

Can we name some of the unorthodox openings he commonly uses? I'm curious.--Sonjaaa 06:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It's about time his photograph was updated, he is 26 years old now! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 06:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Also - can't a better photograph be found? He looks very young in the present one; it's not accurate as he is now 22. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Biological father[edit]

Whatever happened to his biological dad? Validbluew40 (talk) 13:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

nakamura x rybka shuld be there[edit]

nakamura is among very few grandmasters who have won against chess engines or chess machines . rybka was crushed by nakamura this should be mensioned in this interseting article on nakamura .his strategic and alzebric math calculations also should be added to enwide the information abour naka the great. keep going naka. keep going wikipedia. [[user|user]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

nakamura is among very few grandmasters who have won against chess engines or chess machines

Nonsense. -- (talk) 21:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Favorite piece[edit]

The sentence about his favorite piece was added by October 22, 2006. This was the first of only three edits by the user and at least one of the others was vandalism. Therefore I'm removing the sentence because of WP:BLP, etc. Bubba73 (talk), 05:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Kasparov's assessment of Nakamura's 2011 Wijk aan Zee result[edit]

"Fischer never won a tournament ahead of the world champion. He was second in Santa Monica. Of course there were far fewer such events back then, and Fischer had several great tournament results like Stockholm 62, but it's interesting. Reuben Fine only equaled Keres on points at AVRO in 38. Then you have Marshall at Cambridge Springs in 1904 ahead of Lasker, though Tarrasch wasn't there. So unless you include Capablanca as an American player, I think you can go back to Pillsbury at Hastings 1895 for an American tournament victory on par with Nakamura's!"[1]

So Kasparov didn't say it was better than any of Fischer's wins (as the article incorrectly claims), he said that no American had won a tournament outright ahead of a World Champion since Marshall. He didn't say it was necessarily better than (say) the 1962 Interzonal, just that they weren't "on par". Also, IMHO, Kasparov's comments do not belong in the lead. I'll tidy this up if I get the time. Also, hopefully, other people will comment on Nakamura's win to give it more balance. (Great as the result was). Adpete (talk) 02:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Kasparov: "I think you can go back to Pillsbury at Hastings 1895 for an American tournament victory on par with Nakamura's!" That's pretty clear that Kasparov believes that Nakamura's tournament result was the best by an American since the 1895 event -- more than 100 years ago. The article as it stands is correct, since that quote (which you cited, btw) is clearly in the hyperlinked reference. Shotcallerballerballer (talk) 17:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

  • As Adepte says it's still an example of WP:SYNTH, although perhaps fairly mild. There's no grounds for the article to say it's better than any of Fischer's results unless the quote says that pretty directly. (In fact the quote seems to hedge on that, saying only "it's interesting", rather than "Nakamura's result puts Fischer to shame".) If the quote says best tournament win by an American in over 100 years then that's what the article should say. The reader can draw her own inferences, it isn't our job to do that by putting words in Kasparov's mouth. Quale (talk) 22:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I guess my problem is it's all a bit Kasparov-and-Fischer-centric. I'd rather the lead just said that he won ahead of the top 4 in the world (since that's a fact, not anyone's opinion), and Kasparov was quoted in full in the body of the article, so people can make up their mind exactly what Kasparov said. I'm also not too happy about saying his live rating is 9 points below Fischer's peak, unless we can find a source saying that's notable. (Personally I think it's not notable, given ratings inflation). Adpete (talk) 06:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I've tidied it up (it was rather out of control with a blow by blow description of the Wijk tournament) and put the full Kasparov quote in. I'm still not terribly happy with a simplification of Kasparov quote in the lead, but I've left the lead untouched for now. Adpete (talk) 10:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Unacceptable to delete detail (it was streamlined as it was). The importance of such a tournament deserves the same amount of detail a tennis player would receive on wiki for winning a Grand Slam. Shotcallerballerballer (talk) 13:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Precise Kasparov quote included in appropriate section, which is supposed to be more detailed than the introductory sentences of the article. Given the historical significance of this tournament, for comparison's sake, the details regarding the strength of the field are essential for optimal context Shotcallerballerballer (talk) 13:49, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

In 5 years, who will freaking care what the score was after 12 rounds or whether he played a Kings Indian. Plus you deleted all my links and inserted WP:OR. It's destructive editors like you which drive me from Wikipedia. Adpete (talk) 01:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Agreed -- this level of detail is unwarranted. What we're seeing here is an example of WP:RECENT and perhaps WP:OWN by User:Shotcallerballerballer. Let's establish some consensus on what to include. I support the previous changes made by Adpete. — Myasuda (talk) 02:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


Should Nakamura's poker interest be mentioned? (talk) 23:55, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Head-to-head record versus top players[edit]

This section really needs a global update. If it was even completely correct as of August 2011, it has only been selectively updated since then - e.g. adding his win against Anand in London but not his loss against Carlsen. (talk) 17:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

IMO this section is unncessary and too much work to maintain. What are the flags for anyway? Doesn't seem consistent with MOS:FLAG. MaxBrowne (talk) 13:53, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


This article takes much text verbatim from Bongomatic 22:49, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

No, that website takes text verbatim from this wiki page...look to see which originated first!! Shotcallerballerballer (talk) 06:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The page claims a copyright. Bongomatic 07:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
If that page is violating Creative Commons license, it can be listed at Wikipedia:CC-BY-SA Compliance. See Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks for more information. — Myasuda (talk) 13:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Mother's Maiden Name[edit]

The article claims Hikaru was born to a Carolyn Weeramantry. Carolyn later marries a Sunil Weeramantry. Is this a strange coincidence or an error in giving Hikaru's mother's maiden name? --Abenr (talk) 13:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I haven't found a source mentioning her birth surname, so I just provided this information. Toccata quarta (talk) 16:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I have changed it to Merrow Nakamura (as she was named when she married Weeramantry). Weeramantry is obviously incorrect.--Batmacumba (talk) 11:44, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

2816 rating[edit]

The lead and infobox report that Nakamura's top rating was 2816. That's not supported in the body of the article where it should mention how he achieved this in the 2015: 2800 rating and Grand Prix 2nd place section. At present that section ends with "It also propelled his rating to a career high of 2814, and he was at number 4 in the July 2015 world rankings." The 2814 rating is correct for July 2015[2] but he then got to 2816 and #2 in the world in October 2015.[3] --Marc Kupper|talk 20:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I suppose it could be argued that 2814 was a career high at the time. That said, in general I think there's far too much "ratings geekery" in the article. I removed one of the more egregious examples but this modern obsession with ratings is not a trend wikipedia should encourage. MaxBrowne (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)