Turkey beats Israel!!! Israel made such a huge crap today because they had a chance to be within two points before the final round game against Russia.
Since Russia drew against Armenia the U.S. takes a lead of 1 point from Russia. But the US has to play against Azerbaijan and Armenia. If they take 4 points then they are the champions. However, I don't believe that the two nations from Caucasus will let the U.S. to do it.

Nice report two minor things though. You list Ray Robson as an IM when he's a GM. and
" but yesterday the dropped another match points against Israel. " you left off the "y" they dropped.

Nakamura's comments to his game against Gelfand.

Wake up Levon! Is there Arianne in Turkey?

Regarding Gelfand-Nakamura, the full Rybka analysis from Chessok after 24.Kg2: runs as follows:
24. Kxg2 Rg7 25. dxc7 gxh2+ 26. Kh1! (26.Kh2: Ng4+! etc. loses or is at least very dangerous) hxg1=Q+ 27. Rxg1 Qxc7 28. axb6 Rxa1 29. bxc7 Rxd1 30. Bxd1 Rxg1+ 31. Kxg1 [continued for a few more moves with a final evaluation +0.06 equal chances]
Independently(!?), Dennis Monokroussos gives the same line on his Chessmind blog.
Some other sources "hype" the Gelfand-Nakamura game (Dailydirt, TWIC, Chessbase) but do not even mention Gashimov-Grischuk from the previous round. These sources don't look closely at 24.Kg2: and thus fail to mention that "objectively" the game should have ended in a fighting draw. It may be another story to find the variation over the board - but IMO the only difficult move 26.Kh1! can be found by "process of elimination", right after realizing that 26.Kh2: is dangerous or losing.

Yes - Gelfand's unwillingness to take that Knight will haunt him. During the game, I saw that Kh1 was the key move, which doesn't even deserve an exclamation mark. But - this doesn't detract from the fact that Nakamura managed to completely flummox Gelfand with this apparently unsound attack, which actually came with a safety net: a draw.

Fun game to follow, enjoyed it a lot.

An attack isn't unsound just because it was not objectively winning. As Thomas pointed out the Rybka line leads to a position with equal chances.

Which is pretty much what I wrote, Raymo. :-)

Nothing is decided yet. USA leads, but needs to play Armenia and Azerbaijan, while Russia has it "easier" with Israel and Egypt. Azerbaijan may still win if they beat USA and Greece. Or India who has to play Israel and Brazil. But Azerbaijan and India are already 3 points behind so it will be extremly tough for them to win. It will be between USA and Russia, I think.

On Nakamura-Gelfand:
I played this variation as black on a daily basis for a few months (lunch break blitz). I won many games after white played f3 (after either Ng5 or Nd2) and was in trouble many times when my opponent refrained from it. It looks like standard procedure, but why? Apart from variations: you weaken the a7-g1 diagonal, lose control of g3 and take away squares of your own pieces. e4 and d5 can easily be covered with pieces.
I don't get it. Can anybody enlighten me?

The pawn doesn't help much if it sits on f2. The black pawns will come down anyway, and it will rain suicidal knights on g2, h2, h3. If the pawn goes to f3 you have solid control of e4 (except for knight sacs) and some influence on g4. It slows the black avalanche a bit.
Can you imagine how it feels when the black f-pawn comes to f3 while your own f2 pawn prevents your pieces from reaching the kingside?
The a7-g1 diagonal is where your best all-rounder plays defense and offense. And if Black has sac'ed open the kingside, the escape route g1-f2 may prove vital for the white king, because f1 is often blocked by the bishop.

I wonder how no one has mentioned Mamedyarov-Sutovsky.

Naka played a great one, but this game was far more exciting! Just look at the position after move 42 or after move 52.

Bartleby,
Thanks for your answer. But you don't convince me.
Without the f3-pawn the white queen and/or bishop control important white squares, so a suicidal knight heading for h2 will have some difficulty getting there. A white rook can control the third line.
Bringing a black pawn to f3 means white has done without having to exercise 'solid control on e4'. For getting there, it may well need a pawn on g4, taking away squares for the black pieces.
After the Nakamura game, it's hard to conclude that the bishop is doing a great defensive job on g1. No 'escape route' for the king either in that position.
Of course there are a few games in the databases (notably a 1968 Taimanov white win and a white loss in Werle-Vallejo Pons from Wijk aan Zee 2009), but they don't prove very much. For instance, in the latter game (12 a4(!) f4 13 Nc4 g5 I would like to see 14 a5 first, to play 15 c6. Or (after 14 Nb5 Ne8) something better than 15 Ba3 - isn't doing very much, is it?
But playing f3, Kh1, Bg1? Looks to me like making your own coffin.

One can hardly discuss the move f3 in abstract terms.
With the knight on e1 or d2 the move f3 is a commitment. White has only play on the queenside after that. But in turn in some positions the answer f5-f4 is dubious or simply bad.

White may not go into such a play at all, as you said. Take a look at last Grischuk's games, for example.

About the particular variation in Belyavsky-Nakamura and Gelfand-Nakamura, I have a feeling that we will see substantial improvements in the future for white and the reputation of this variation will remain dubious.

Wlad,
I agree that it is difficult to discuss the move f3 in abstract terms. But that's where you start when you don't have much else to go on.
Grischuk-Khalifman is indeed a nice example of how black doesn't get his thing going. And Grischuk-Polgar of how things somehow can get wrong for white.
But still: the way Gelfand (and others before him) plays it: it's hiding in the cupboard and hoping those gangsters won't have time to practice their machine guns at you...

Aronian played a nice demonstration game to show you how to use f3 to make g5-g4 so expensive that Nakamura never came around to push it. Black looks a bit silly when he has invested so many moves in building up an attack that never happens.
Take any diagram from that game and try to imagine what would happen if the pawn would have stayed on f2.

Interesting discussion, I've added Frits Fritschy's suggestion (14.a5 followed by 15.c6) to our analyses in CVO 54.

Merijn,
I'm happy I can leave it to the experts (or to future practice...). Interesting discussion or not: hardly anyone will read reactions on this forum on a subject from a few days ago. And it takes some time to write a comment on matters like this.
So, a free suggestion (I'm otherwise engaged): why not start a separate forum on chess-technical matters? With a good index/search function comments will have a later 'expiration date'. You can do openings, recent games, endgame( composition)s. A bit of 'science', a bit of fun.
Some people might even prefer it over rediscussing Toiletgate, or Kosteniuk-Carlsen, or other Very Important Issues, every few weeks...