Little Nothing on the earth that you are still spouting off.

Bigmouth oh bigmouth lalalala bigmouth strikes again!

hahaha you are so funny it hurts

Yeah, I think he needs a more solid approach - maybe more positional than the 'catch as catch can' style he seems to be fond of. If he was travelling with a coach he would have advised him on the old Soviet method (always practiced by Kramnik and Kasparov) of playing for a draw after a loss REGARDLESS of the score. That will usually keep a single loss from turning into a streak.

Nakas talent is of other sort. It is if you made Tal to play like Petrosian. It will not work. Ex. game vs Ivanchuk solid approach.

Naka shall follow his own style. I think problem is physical condition. Playing all games for a win, longest in tournament needs power.

NO!

Yes he is famous as a 1 minute sudden death player by flagging his opponents with the 'pre-move' technique. An engine does best with at least 3 minutes and NEEDS a 2 or 3 second increment (because for each move it has to take at least a second to rule out nonsense moves). Let him play an engine like Houdini at 3 min with a 2 sec increment and he will know what blitz is.

He is last in the tournament still.
game Grischuk - Nakamura result is open as Grischuk needs win.So everything could happen.
Naka has chances for a win.

Lots of funny statements in a single comment ... . These Houdini analyses are at low search depth, hence often far too shallow to be meaningful.

Nakamura obviously wanted, or at least didn't mind a draw today - which other reason is there for the tame 5.Qe2 ? (BTW the other great fighter MC recently played the equally tame 5.d3 Nf6 6.d4 d5 transposing to an exchange French). With Sofia rules in place he couldn't "take" (i.e. offer or accept) a draw after 25 or 40 or 60 or 120 moves, unless the position is dead drawn or players find a repetition. So he had to play on, of course no risk involved but objectively only faint winning chances.

The combination is nice but - once you see the idea - not too hard to calculate because the next few moves are completely forced. It is only possible if black puts his bishop on e5, hence it was a sudden accidental opportunity, and for sure it has nothing to do with the opening.

I watched the vid. That is not chess - it is taking advantage of a computer which has a bug. In a completely blocked position Rybka wasted it's time trying to find moves that will avoid a 3 fold repetition. In a sudden death time control Naka simply killed it with the pre-move option. Please link me to the video where a human beats Houdini with a time control of at least 3 minutes and at least a 2 second increment. That is what an engine needs to play CHESS.

@Adolf, listen to Thomas and learn.

He has been all time in top 10. Rating (live) is not deciding. Rating meaninig is overestimated. at all

He has been all time in top 10. Rating (live) is not deciding. Rating meaninig is overestimated. at all

"It doesn't necessarily mean one is playing for a draw."
Yep, not necessarily - maybe my words were too strong even if I won't retract "didn't mind a draw". But my overall impression is that Nakamura tried to follow the "Soviet recipe" - not after the first, but after a second consecutive loss.
Round by round:
Round 1 - a loss against Gelfand
Round 2 - a KID against Kasimdzhanov (and that's "heavy theory"). With a bit of luck, it worked against the Elo tailender (who otherwise plays a decent tournament by his standards).
Rounds 3-5: three draws in opening sidelines
Round 6: a loss against Wang Hao
Round 7: another KID against Mamedyarov, this time he got 'crushed'
And now ....
Round 8: Ruy Lopez exchange against Ivanchuk (safety first? but he messed up in the endgame)
Round 9: Caro-Kann against Adams (anticipating that Adams wouldn't go for the topical 3.e5 ? The 1.e4 brother of the KID would have been a Sicilian, part of Nakamura's repertoire)
Round 10: early queen exchange against Giri.

Only Nakamura himself could shed light on this, but he may not admit that he was playing for draws, or at least trying to avoid risks and more losses.

Nakamura said so himself that he was "playing for a draw w/ white", nothing more.
This false image of HN and MC going all out for a win every time they put the gloves on is pure propaganda. No truth in it at all. Stop the hype.

Nakamura said so himself that he was "playing for a draw w/ white", nothing more.
This false image of HN and MC going all out for a win every time they put the gloves on is pure propaganda. No truth in it at all. Stop the hype.

You are correct. Part of Houdini's strength is it's pruning - and some lines it doesn't bother to consider. This makes it a favorite to win a match against any other engine but it will still drop some games in a long enough match (like 40 games). Also, it seems to hog more system resources than Stockfish.

"Oh, if he said it, then fair enough"

He of course didn't say it, and the conclusion that he "obviously wanted a draw" is just wrong. He naturally wanted to win and did so. Afterwards he said: "Had Black played 22...Rd4, Nakamura said he would have played for a draw", but that's an entirely different question. Going for the endgame against Giri is maybe a promising way to play against him, in the last round Topalov won an equal endgame just by displaying much better endgame technique.