ELO inflation causes that the average rating of a tournament goes higher and higher each year. This tournament has an insane average rating of 2780. Is this the highest in history? The answer is YES and NO, depending how you look at this. For fun I compiled a list of the "World record" breaking tournaments since the beginning of the rating lists in 1971.
We know that it is easier to have a higher average rating if the tournament has less than a handfull of players than if it has dozen of them. So I made three categories:
1. Tournaments with 4 players or more (absolute category)
2. Tournaments with 6 players or more
3. Tournaments with 8 players or more

Note that I ignored tournaments with only 3 players (yes there are few of them). The only such relevant tournament is 1973 Portoroz (playoff for a place in Candidates matches) which would have been the record holder for 8 years if included on the list.

It's also interesting to see who the winners of those tournaments were. Would you expect that players like Eugenio Torre or Valery Salov could once claim to have won the tournament with the hihgest average rating?

So here is the list of the "World record" holders with its average rating and number of players in parentheses.

4 players or more:
1971 Wijk aan Zee - 2531 (16)
1971 Moscow - 2582 (18)
1975 Milan - 2599 (12)
1976 Manila 2601 (4)
1979 Montreal - 2622 (10)
1981 Johanessburg - 2628 (4)
1986 Brussels - 2635 (6)
1988 Amsterdam (Euwe Memorial) - 2657 (4)
1988 Amsterdam (Optiebeurs) - 2673 (4)
1991/92 Reggio Emilia - 2676 (10)
1993 Linares - 2676 (14)
1994 Linares - 2685 (14)
1994 Amsterdam - 2697 (4)
1994 Novgorod - 2717 (6)
1996 Las Palmas - 2756 (6)
1998 Frankfurt - 2781 (4)
2010 Bilbao - 2788 (4)
2011 Moscow (Botvinnik Memorial) - 2809 (4)

6 players or more:
1971 Wijk aan Zee - 2531 (16)
1971 Moscow - 2582 (18)
1975 Milan - 2599 (12)
1979 Montreal - 2622 (10)
1982 Turin - 2627 (7)
1986 Bugojno - 2627 (8)
1986 Brussels - 2635 (6)
1989 Linares - 2628 (11)
1989 Skelleftea - 2631 (16)
1990 Tilburg - 2643 (8)
1990/91 Reggio Emilia - 2644 (7)
1991 Linares - 2658 (14)
1991 Tilburg - 2665 (8)
1991/92 Reggio Emilia - 2676 (10)
1993 Linares - 2676 (14)
1994 Linares - 2685 (14)
1994 Novgorod - 2717 (6)
1996 Las Palmas - 2756 (6)
2000 Frankfurt - 2767 (6)
2008 Bilbao - 2768 (6)
2011 Amber - 2770 (12)
2011 Bilbao - 2780 (6)

8 players or more:
1971 Wijk aan Zee - 2531 (16)
1971 Moscow - 2582 (18)
1975 Milan - 2599 (12)
1979 Montreal - 2622 (10)
1986 Bugojno - 2627 (8)
1989 Linares - 2628 (11)
1989 Skelleftea - 2631 (16)
1990 Tilburg - 2643 (8)
1991 Linares - 2658 (14)
1991 Tilburg - 2665 (8)
1991/92 Reggio Emilia - 2676 (10)
1993 Linares - 2676 (14)
1994 Linares - 2685 (14)
1994 Buenos Aires - 2693 (8)
1996 Dos Hermanas - 2714 (10)
1999 Linares - 2733 (8)
2005 San Luis (FIDE WC) - 2738 (8)
2007 Morelia/Linares - 2745 (8)
2007 Mexico (WC) - 2751 (8)
2008 Morelia/Linares - 2755 (8)
2009 Amber - 2758 (12)
2009 Moscow (Tal Memorial)- 2763 (10)
2011 Amber - 2770 (12)

Once again the problem of having rabbits in these shark tanks rears its (toothy?) head. Let's say this was a 5round tournament - Vallejo has completely skewed the result by not doing what he was "supposed" to - i.e lose to Carlsen. When will organizers learn ?!

Interesting list but I disagree with the conclusion, i.e rating inflation. To me inflation has a negative connotation, which is not the case here. These days with the advent of strong computers, preparation has reached a very high level. The fact that you see many 2700+ players just means that they are good. I have no doubt that an Anand or a Kramnik would fare better against the old masters.

The more there are players, the more the ELO will grow. Why ? Because there is more opportunities for the best to win against the weaks.

Chess is more and more popularized, thus there is more newbies than before in this game than it was by the past. So, many good players will increase their rating by playing against a growing field weaker than their one. The same process is reproduced in each level of the scale of the rating. That is why the ELO keep growing, because the number of new players keep growing. It would be more harder to see such a progression if the number of chess players in the world remained the same.

About strength's players, it's sure that with computer's analyses and huge databases knowledge the depth of the preparation has increased. But what would be the result of a match between the past and the actual legends, assuming the past legends are still young and have access to computer's analyses and databases ?

"If I have seen farther than others, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants". (Isaac Newton)

Recent work shows there has been very little (essentially no) ratings inflation:

http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/Talks/IntrinsicRatings.pdf

-Carl

For anyone interested in ratings inflation something that may be worth looking at for comparison purposes or interest is the ECF grading system. In England a different grade system is used where ECF x 8 + 650 = FIDE (of course top players have an actual fide too). Interestingly a couple of years ago they decided that over the past 10 years or so the ecf grades had 'stretched' or deflated for most players. Using a formula there was a ratings adjustment which meant most players gained about 20 points where the very top players lost a few.

There's more info here on it: http://grading.bcfservices.org.uk/newgrades.php

It remains to be seen if those extra points that were given will even themselves back out again.

Everyone lost to some one.

Carlsen defeating Chucky. Showing whey he is "Carlsen" the Wunderkid!
Things starting to get exciting. Now it is the World Champion with black pieces (his strong suit) against the current World Number 1. Significance wise, very important game of the tournament.

Strange discussion about the historical ratings. There is no link to the actual quality of chess. It just says something about a players' relative strength compared with other players in the same time. And there is inflation because of the system. There is a fault in it.

Before, chess rating was about pure strength. Now, insane opening memorization counts. Karpov BTW didn't jump into the bandwagon and the effect is clear.

eOnfzwLlda isabelle boots
dVgzzxBeuk stores that sell isabel marant sneakers
kRlqejUdlp isabel marant wedge sneakers

tDyipkErch isabel marant sneakers sQwvwzCtvc isabel marant shoes iMbwplKgpe isabel marant sneakers black jMfsgjQhqf isabel marant sneakers to buy uLsvxuWdun isabel marant sneakers inspired
jJwppuAvcw ghd australia iNmrbiAikb cheap ghd oXkhrpUnbg ghd curls cIjvhsPpej http://www.fashionhairtool.com/
gYsjapDhkx isabel marant sneakers aVgfviCzjf isabel marant shoes oGgaccVbrk boots isabel marant hPgsiqXxns http://isabelshopshoesus.com/

awqax tiffany uk ikopq tiffanys uk xqxyw tiffany uk sale jncbp http://www.ghi.org.uk/tiffanyuk.asp vnbgl sac vanessa bruno hbkjd vanessa bruno pas cher mpvea vanessabruno hsuhw http://vanessabrunosac.msvotes.org/ hjovy jillian michaels tfppn jillian michaels 30 day shred bmgei jillian michaels wiki ygrxp http://fitness.kachile.org/ migyu burberry outlet uarke burberry outlet online unwta burberry handbags outlet lcawc http://burberry.msvotes.org/ zwglb isabel marant sneakers jnkqg isabel marant boots qbebk isabel marant sneakers sale rmbpq http://isabelmarant.pacificclubs.org/ wzfwj insanity workout plwzv insanity workout dvd ypiqo insanity workout in stores dqcgr http://dvdau-saleonline.info/ vjrey longchamp bag gdzit longchamp tote pboxg longchamp bags outlet rdpts http://longchamp.msvotes.org/

hDwofhKlsq isabel mar ant
cWrgpeBsyi isabel marant ankle boots
iOjtgdUfco shoes by isabel marant