"Now it looks like Grischuk might overtake him in the rating list, so that _he_ will be no 6 in the world, his lowest place in many years."

Yeah, unless Topalov wins tomorrow, he'll be behind Grischuk after the Nanjing event. Today their live ratings are:

5. Grischuk 2771,0
6. Topalov 2770,3

That's dang equal for every practical purpose, and Topalov also finished ahead of Grischuk in Linares 2010, where they were nr. 1 and 2. But despite it being unofficial and only by some tenths of a point, I don't think Topalov will be very happy seeing himself in 6th spot in the Live Top List after today's game.

"I’m not certain we will even see Anand-Carlsen in the near future."

No, actually the chances are only about 20% for Anand-Carlsen, even if we assume that Carlsen continues to play as he has played against his realistic opponents in the candidates, that is

1. Radjabov
2. Kramnik (most likely)
3. Aronian/Topalov (most likely)

I assume roughly 20% for Anand-Kramnik II, and hence a 60% chance that someone else will challenge Anand in 2012 (if things go roughly according to plan). That is, ca 60% that one of Aronian, Topalov, Gelfand, Mamedyarov, Radjabov or Kamsky will go through, ca 40% that one of Carlsen/Kramnik will.

Congratulations to Magnus on dominating yet another world class event.

Magnus's spurt over the short time that he has declared himself a full-time chess professional is remarkable. He has at the least proven himself to be the finest tournament player today. Moreover, the colorable proposition (advanced by Kramnik among others) that there is essentially parity between Carlsen, Anand, Kramnik and Topolov can be soundly countered by posing a simple question: Among this elite, whose performance over the last year or two shows unmistakable signs of significant further potential? That question answers itself. Notwithstanding the fact that Magnus has secured the # 1 rating spot, he shows as much potential today as he ever has.

Congrats to Carlsen!

But if he wants to surpass Kaspavor he needs to win de WCC in 2012 (his first chance maybe), later than that he would be too late for that record.

If he wants tu surpass the 2851 rating of Kasparov wiht the rating inflation of about 45 points (more or less) since 2000, he needs 2896 rating points, so he has a lot of work ahead of him to be compared to Kasparov.

Not counting other achievements of Kasparov of tournament wins in an era of no computer aid, KGB threats in his early Karpov matches, etc.

I think Carlsen has a negative life score with Anand, Kramnik, Gelfand "the oldies".

So I think that Carsen is a great talent but his carrer can not be campared with the one of Kasparov, Anand, Kramnik, etc, already, maybe in the future. He is a raising star and that is why he has to be winning, if not nobody would notice him.

Respect the oldies, the WCC Ananad and cheers Carlsen win, but not compare yet to the others, he has not yet sufficient credential as a whole career.

Best regards,

"cheers Carlsen win, but not compare yet to the others, he has not yet sufficient credential as a whole career"

Of course not, he's only 19. Cheers.

has the location actually been decided yet for the Candidate matches? Because the location determines the wildcard. Mamedjarov is only in if its AZE. If its UKR it could be Ruslan Ponomariov or Ivanchuk. If its Russia, we might see Grischuk or Karjakin or any other strong player. Also its FIDE, so if FIDE doesn't mess around with the rules at least once more then i'd be shocked.

Carlsen already won a classical tournament with Kramnik partecipating,
London 2009, where he won against him.
I'm not saying Carlsen is the best player in the world (well there are many arguments favouring this idea btw), but surely he is the best tournament player by a far margin.
I don't think he is better than Anand, Kramnik, Aronian or Topalov in the strict sense of the word, but we would know for sure if he beat the candidate tournament and than win the title against Anand.
Maybe this cicle is not yet his moment... but every top player agree that he will be world champion for sure.
Who really in his honest opinion wouldn't?

"the rating inflation of about 45 points (more or less) since 2000"

That's based on heavily flawed calculations in my not so humble opinion. My estimate made based on much sounder methods than those suggested by considering the rating of #100 or similar, shows roughly 20 points of SYSTEMIC inflation from 1999 to 2009. In other words, roughly 2 points per year in this period.

Regardless, one can't add and subtract amounts of systemic inflation in rating pools 10 years (or more) apart and then pretend that resulting ratings are comparable as a measure of SKILLS.

Ratings will always remain RELATIVE to the pool in which it's achieved, and the 2000 pool of professional players looked very different from the 2010 pool of professional players.

Kasparov has never been 100 points ahead of the elite players of 2010 - and I find it HIGHLY unlikely that a time-machined Kasparov of 1999 flewn into 2010 would've managed to have anyhthing more than a 60-70 point lead on Kramnik, Anand and Carlsen of 2010. Personally I think it would've been LESS, but all of this is PURE speculation anyway.

Basic point: Ratings simply can't be adjusted for inflation - even when you're able to come up with a reasonable measure of what I call "systemic inflation". Ratings only order players relatively within a specific pool. The player Kasparov-1999 doesn't exist in the 2010 pool, and neither does Kasparov-1990 or Kasparov-2005. "Inflation-adjustment" is an optical illusion - it's not real.

"Carlsen already won a classical tournament with Kramnik partecipating,
London 2009, where he won against him."

No, two actually. Corus 2008 too, where he beat Kramnik (for the first time, having the black pieces) and shared first with Aronian.

Carlsen also won Corus 2010 ahead of Kramnik, but there he lost their internal game (but then it follows automatically that he scored 1,5 points more against the other 12 opponents they both faced).

@noyb:

This is in reference to Kasparov's comments about Anand being a coffee house player.

I've pasted a few links below after a quick search. If nothing, these links at least provide for interesting reading.

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4713
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/23/crosswords/chess/23chess.html
http://www.mark-weeks.com/chess/95ka$$.htm
http://www.chessninja.com/dailydirt/2010/05/hack-by-popular-demand.htm
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/special/youthsummit/story-vishwanath.html
http://www.chess.com/article/view/where-was-chess-invented
http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/2008/10/replay-game-7.html (chess follower writing which I have seen hundreds of times during the last 20 years)

@noyb:

At the very least interesting reading

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4713
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/23/crosswords/chess/23chess.html?_r=1&adx...

World chess is getting competitive by the day. So many above 2700 is no fluke.

Players are WORKING HARD and its NOT their GENIUS that makes them top players. MOST hard work goes in finding ways to SURPRISE your opponent in OPENINGS.

the level of opposition in Karpov, Kasparov days is nothing as compared to today and what will be in future. Everyone has a computer at home and anyone can become super-GM sitting at home if they want to. (see Nakamura)

Magnus played Olympiad thinking he was playing second rate players, so no need to disclose his HARDWORK, and play random openings. He got a rude shock that without help of PREPARATION, there is not a wide gap between chess players in current age.

...

For one small example, I could beat VISHY in that SIMUL game, because he allowed me luxury of space in OPENING.

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=6008
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVLFftfqwuI

If ANAND had decided to stick to his most dangerous opening choices, I simply had no chance as he out-prepares me by giant margin.

PREPARATION is as important as BULLETS in the war. It can't be wasted for lesser purpose, therefore my reasoning...

"Carlsen already won a classical tournament with Kramnik partecipating,
London 2009, where he won against him."

Yep, but this doesn't refute what I wrote - I just said that Carlsen never dominated Kramnik, at least not over the last year: not in any single event (a 1/2 point lead ain't domination), not all common events taken together, not based on their overall head to head score.

There may actually be another explanation why Carlsen's performances at (twice) Nanjing and Bazna were better than Tal Memorial, London and Corus: In double round robins, opening preparation is "easier" as you know opponents AND color distribution well in advance. The Olympiad is the other extreme, as your opponents are known less than 24 hours in advance. And whatever role Kasparov currently plays for Carlsen, he couldn't help him at the Olympiad - being very busy with the FIDE presidential campaign.

The current undisputed WCC Viswanathan Anand is the only player to have won 5 titles, i repeat, 5 titles of the Hoogovens/Corus chess tournament in its long history.
Need we say more?

"There may actually be another explanation why Carlsen’s performances at (twice) Nanjing and Bazna were better than Tal Memorial, London and Corus: In double round robins, opening preparation is “easier” as you know opponents AND color distribution well in advance. The Olympiad is the other extreme, as your opponents are known less than 24 hours in advance. And whatever role Kasparov currently plays for Carlsen, he couldn’t help him at the Olympiad – being very busy with the FIDE presidential campaign"

I'd say this is nonsense. Worthless, pointless speculation. But excellent ego feeding.

"Carsen is a great talent but his carrer can not be campared with the one of Kasparov, Anand, Kramnik, etc, already, maybe in the future. He is a raising star and that is why he has to be winning, if not nobody would notice him.
Respect the oldies, the WCC Ananad and cheers Carlsen win, but not compare yet to the others, he has not yet sufficient credential as a whole career."

At 19 Carlsen's whole career can't yet be compared to that of Kasparov et al, yeah, at least no one would ever consider disagreeing with that one!

"Maybe this cicle is not yet his moment… but every top player agree that he will be world champion for sure.
Who really in his honest opinion wouldn’t?"

Nothing is "for sure".
Carlsen plays very well, but becoming a World Champion is not easy.

- There are other very strong players, who will not simply sit and watch him take the title. They are very talented and hard-working and ambitious and they will fight. One (of many) such player is, for example, Aronian.

- The phrase "he will be world champion" implies that he has all the time in front of him, and that this will happen, if not very soon, then certainly in the distant future (because Carlsen is still very young).

It is true that Carlsen is young, but there are younger players than him, perhaps now 15 years old, who in five years' time could potentially become as strong as Carlsen, or even stronger. If he is to win the title, he had better do it during this cycle. Nobody knows what the future will bring.

That said, I believe nobody has a better chance than Carlsen for the title, but perhaps Aronian and Kramnik have as good a chance as him.

Congratulations to Magnus. His comeback from weak performances in Olympiad and in Bilbao to his excellent win here is simply amazing. I expect to see more great results from him.

Everybody have their opinion and favorites.They have strong opinion until proven wrong. Some have favorites and Thomas's anti Carlsen sentiment no matter what other says he will always have counter argument. But the bottom line is that these players are the best of the best and Carlsen being the youngest of the top players in the world need to be given credit for such a young age (19 years old) and already competing with his much older opponents. All I can say is that any of top these players can wipe the floor with any of you. So I suggest just enjoy watching their games and learn! Stop your criticism so much. You all know, non of you will ever be as good as them period!

Magnus Carlsen,

congratulations!!!

One more counterargument :) : While I DO give credit to Carlsen for being where he is at his young age, credit should also go to those who can still compete with the younger generation at their advanced age - Anand, Kramnik, Topalov, but also Ivanchuk, Gelfand and Shirov. Looking at the July 2000 rating list (the oldest one available online), some other players from that generation have left the absolute world top or became (semi-)inactive: Adams, Leko(?), Bareev, Short, Dreev.

@brecht Kasparov didn't retire; he quit playing competetive chess after he lost a game to Topalov at the Linares tournament.
Back then he was pumping Topalov (minus the training sessions) as the next WC and now he is pumping Carlsen.

@ reality check Im sure you can see on Google how often Anand has won Corus
, but you are completely missing the point. My point is that Anand, as reigning World champion, should either; Try 100% to win these kind of tournaments to prove his superiority or not play them at all because you 'priorities' are different...To be honest, I am sure that Anand is trying his very best to win them, but then you cant say afterwards, when MC has again proven too good, that you werent motivated enough.

@ sunseet You honestly think that its harder to beat Topalov and Kramnik (very good players but who in their right mindcan claim that they are the best of all time) in 2 matches than beating Karpov (easily in the top 5 of alltime) in several matches over dozens of games? Come on you have lost all objectivity, none of the current players can stand up to Karpov in his prime (perhaps MC in the future) let alone Gary Kasparov.
Right now u have 5 top chess players who re more or less equal, back then you also had a great deal of super GMS and then there were AK and GK towering above them so dont tell me GK had it easy.
Face it, Anand is a great chessplayer but he is not Gary Kasparov or Anatoly Karpov who won almost every tournament they were playing in even when they were 'distracted' by the fact that they were world champions......

@jhoravi:

"Carlsen won roughly dozen tournaments in the last couple of years. How about Anand? when was the last time he won a tournament?"

Anand was busy winning a couple of world championship matches. When was the last time Carlsen won one of those?

@ S That comparison is ridiculously unfair and you know it, I am not gonna dignify it any further with arguments cuz your statement was so base that you are not susceptable to reasoning.....I just hope MC will prove to be a more worthy world championship than Viswanathan- I-dont-care-about-tournaments-any-more-cuz-i-am-world-champion Anand and never loses his fighting spirit.

Anand is no Kasparov or Karpov and he would probably admit that himself anyway.

In some ways he is a bit unlucky because he has to deal with an increasingly strong Carlsen and a resurgent Kramnik. But despite a relatively poor tournament record since gaining the title, it can't be disputed he has honed his talents to become the best match player of today.

Well I remember some Anand fans criticizing Kramnik for "not winning tournaments" in around 2005 or 2006...

Where have they gone? Just curious.

Bag the tournament playing 9/10 matches wherein the final match is with Black against the latest world championship contender.

This win cannot be any sweeter.

"Well I remember some Anand fans criticizing Kramnik for “not winning tournaments” in around 2005 or 2006…"

Yeah, and the Kramnik fans saying that tournament results was of no importance at al,l and didn't say anything about the level of the players, now they had to change their tune because of Kramnik's improved tournament results after 2005 but they still have the problem with Carlsen's even better tournament results.

Anand's results haven't been bad in 2010 though, can't be compared to for example Kramnik's in 2008. Solid results in all tournaments and then an excellent title match, can't ask much more of him really.

@Sander "...Anand, as reigning World champion, should either; Try 100% to win these kind of tournaments to prove his superiority or not play them at all because you ‘priorities’ are different…"
You're right. But (unfortunately) we can never know if Anand, or any other player for that matter, gave his all....a 100%. Only the players themselves can know this.
As for not playing at all, we suffered through this when Fischer claimed he was the best but never proved in a match against Karpov that he was in fact the better player and the same is true with Kasparov claiming he was the better than Shirov, Ponomariov, or Kasimdzhanov but never proving his superiority in a match against them. Talk is cheap.
Whereas Anand has proven his superiority in tournament play over and over and over again and is pounded because he took 2nd place a few times.
By the way, Anand is still making history and to compare him with the others is premature. In book, Anand is 2nd to none.

Magnus speaking russian
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpMsQo-nY1k

Some of you Anand fans really need to let go a bit.

Due to the chaotic situation in World Chess, Carlsen hasn't even had the opportunity to contest it. Neither has Anand for that matter had the chance he is the better match player compared to Carlsen.

But to compare Anand to Carlsen's likely potential (consider Anand when he was 19), or Anand's present rule to either Kasparov's, Karpov's or Fischer's domination back in the day is just unreasonable.

Of course he is undisputed World Champion, but neither his tournament results, nor the appearance of this phenomenon by the name of Carlsen make him a clear best in today's chess.

The unreasonableness some of you Anand supporters show (much in contrast to Anand's quintessential reasonableness) leads me to think it's your egos (perhaps nationalistic egos) taking over.

Suneet,

Perhaps you are just so talented, but to think anyone can become a (super!!!) grandmaster, or that it all comes down to surprising your opponent in the opening is a rather gross error.

You say chess is so much more competitive today because of computers. It doesn't follow from that that someone will end up standing out clearly from the rest.

Football (soccer) is also all the more competitive today than 25 years ago, but the best teams stand out now as much as they did back then.

It's difficult to compare, say Capablanca to Karpov's chess strength. Due to opening knowledge, specific preparation, it's possible that Capablanca would, say, score only a couple or three points out of ten against Karpov (a wild, wild guess).
This shouldn't diminish Capa's merit in any way, nor does it make him comparable to anyone below Karpov in Karpov's time.

Unless Anand begins to win all tournaments and remains world champ a few more years (I would say unlikely), he can't be compared to those who clearly dominated chess in their day for a number of years.

at Brecht ;
yesterday the Reichtag was burned and Hitler accused the communists.

In which world you live? We are no longer in Cold war and kasparov domination era.
Kaspy will never come back to chess. More focus should be devoted young players, say Wesely, Giri etc ...

Barring the world championships, which he has won on four separate occasions, but including world cups, world championship cycles (1994 finals) and rapid tournaments, Anand has won sixty-six (66) super GM tournaments.

His last major tournament victory was in 2008 when he won the Linares 2008. Since then he has won 2 world championship title defences.

If we include the events where he has finished runner-up, the count exceeds 100 taking into account Bilbao 2010 and Nanjing 2010.

@ Sunseet Again I couldnt disagree with you more....Now you claim that EVERYONE (with caps lock and all) with a computer can become a super(!!) GM. (obviously you dont realize that Nakamura is hardly just somegeek behind a computer but in fact he was Americas youngest master in his time and you only need to watch his games that hes tremendously TALENTED) Are you serious? And all this time I thought Magnus Carlsen actually had a bit of talent, but according to your statement, I can only conclude that talent had no part in this at all, but apparently he had the best compute and the most time? So, basically, if you, according to your theory, spend say 1 hour a day, you ll be a 2100 player, 2 hours 2300, and so on that when you spend,say, 10 hours a day you ll be a 2900 player. I envy your look on chess, its so simple. Its good to know, ill just work this year only in chess i ll win Nanjing next time easy.

And beating Anand even in a simul is impressive to be sure, but it doesnt mean u r not wrong here.

I wont say preparation isnt important but ill bet that there are many, perhaps dozens, GMs that work as hard or even harder on preparation than Magnus Carlsen, so how do you explain this then?
Ill tell you, its TALENT! True chess skill is born.
By the way, I say Magnus Carlsen but in fact I remember that even Gary Kasparov said that Anand is one of the best 'natural' talents that he ever met.

@ Max - you cant really compare football with chess. You don't need theorist and books by Juhn Nunn for football.

@Sanders - I never (trust me NEVER) read theory myself. but I know the value of it.

@@ you both have your point of views and I respect it.

I didn't mean to make theory the top differentiator, but its a major one IMHO.
Indeed if theory was to make World Champions, John Nunn cannot be displaced then :)

wrt Nakamura, I think he is self coached... will check again.

i will check Anand's interview after his loss to Kasparov in 1995... I think he emphasized a lot on how he lacks in theory as compared to Kasparov, contributing to his loss...

will put up the interview text if I can find.