I didn't say it had been discussed here, I just thought the Na4 idea had been tossed around quite a lot and I assumed many people were aware of it. When I checked the line with Fritz, it only showed a 0.50 advantage for White to begin with, but after letting it run for a bit, it does actually suggest White has a crushing advantage, so I was wrong there.

Hikaru Nakamura - Varuzhan Akobian, 120'+5"/40+60'/20+30'

click for larger view

Analysis by Fritz 11:

1. (4.20): 16...Qb6-c7 17.Na4xc5 Qc7xc5 18.f5-f6 Rf8-e8 19.Rh1-h4 d5-d4 20.Qd2-g5 Qc5-f8 21.Rh4xd4 Ra8-b8 22.f6xg7 Qf8xg7 23.Qg5-e3 Kg8-h8 24.h5-h6 Qg7-g8 25.Bf1-d3 Bc8-b7

I was simply saying I thought he had gone into this line with Na4! in mind if Akobian was going to play into it.

I used Fritz to show some lines because (unlike you, I'm sure), I can't see 10+ moves deep in these positions and I felt clarifying the picture with some computer analysis would be useful.

So if you've got nothing better to do, stop being an annoying little troll and please go and stick your head in a food blender.

Funny you should say that, because you obviously didn't read mine:

<When I checked the line with Fritz, it only showed a 0.50 advantage for White to begin with, but after letting it run for a bit, it does actually suggest White has a crushing advantage, so I was wrong there.>

In top level chess, players tend to prepare for their opponents and vice-versa, contrary to what you might believe. I for one don't believe Nakamura would go into this game, knowing his opponent almost exclusively plays the French against 1. e4, and leave himself the arduous task of having to figure things out as he went along in the opening. The idea that this was prepared was also suggested by the commentators on the ICC as the game was being played. I could be wrong, but I think it's quite likely Nakamura had done some analysis on this line beforehand.

And I don't have a clue what "bluff" you're referring to. I made a mistake and acknowledged it. Then you came in looking for a fight and you got one. Well done.

It's funny how you edited your post after I pointed out the fact that you hadn't actually read much of mine.

Unfortunately, you still suffer from the same problem.

<this has all been discussed before, but the position isn't actually 'huge' for White if Black plays accurately>.

Let's be honest: you never wanted to avoid a fight, otherwise you wouldn't have stirred things up with your antagonistic comments. You may argue you're simply commenting on the preparation, etc. but I think it's obvious to anyone who reads your posts that your wording and tone is clearly provocative.

<You know darn well if you beat somebody and he writes it off to preparation that's going to make you mad. Particularly if it was brilliant win like this one.>

This is the last time I'm going to say this, because I'm fed up with repeating myself for the benefit of some clown who can't be bothered / is unable to read posts properly. I never credited the victory to preparation. Nakamura didn't even play the (possibly) prepared move. All I said was I thought the Na4 idea was known to Nakamura before the game, that's all. End of story.

So before you post any more idiotic flames regarding this worn-out issue, I suggest you visit: http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Re... first and consider what it tells you.

<This was bluff designed to silence the enthusiasm of ToTheDeath. You only admitted you were wrong after a challenge was issued.>

And <hedgeh0g>, you should watch your condescending remarks: <So if you've got nothing better to do, stop being an annoying little troll and please go and stick your head in a food blender.>

<I'll give you the "benefit of the doubt" here and assume you simply enjoy winding people up and that you're not a complete ****ing moron.>

<So before you post any more idiotic flames regarding this worn-out issue, I suggest you visit: http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Re... first and consider what it tells you.>

I only corrected myself after <ToTheDeath> claimed it was winning. This caused me to analyse deeper with Fritz than I had previously and I discovered the line was winning and I corrected myself. You make it seem like I knew this all along and was just arguing for the sake of it.

<Postal>, I was responding to the tone and content of <lostthefight>'s posts which I perceived as being clearly provocative and insulting.

As a sidenote, it is curious how you have only 2 posts as a member on chessgames and they coincidentally happen to be involved in a heated argument.

<The idea that this was prepared was also suggested by the commentators on the ICC as the game was being played. I could be wrong, but I think it's quite likely Nakamura had done some analysis on this line beforehand.>

And that is a very good reason for doubting that Nakamura found the move otb; players stronger than all of us have stated that they believe the same thing (this could be confirmed, I did not watch the broadcast). He gave other reasons as well. Obviously, it is possible that Nakamura found the move otb, but <hedge> didn't just pull the idea it out of thin air.

<Once you've been proven wrong about a critical point in a game, your cred is shot for pontificating about other matters directly related to that particular game.>

To me it did not appear to be pontification, it looked like he was merely stating his opinion. He thinks that Na4 was found in home analysis.

Preparation these days of course means computers. So if you say someone prepped the line it means he came to the position and let the machine run for half an hour to find a killer sequence. Thus... Hedge's comment about prepping the line was a reference to Naka using computers rather than being a great player. And no, once you've made an unconditional statement that he prepped the line you don't get to have it both ways as you attempted to describe in the second to last sentence of your first paragraph (see I'm reading his post Hedge - just like you taught me!).