Reports | January 01, 2012 20:30

Carlsen tops January FIDE rating list with 2835

Carlsen tops January FIDE rating list with 2835

For the third year in a row Magnus Carlsen tops the FIDE rating list at the start of the new year. The Norwegian reached his career's highest Elo: 2835 - only 16 points below Garry Kasparov's peak rating of 2851 which the 13th World Champion reached in July 1999. On the previous list (November 2011) Carlsen equaled his earlier highest rating of July and September 2010 which was 2826, and since then he earned 9 more points.

The 2800 club went down from 4 to 3 players as Vishy Anand's bad form in recent months is now shown in figures as well - the World Champ dropped to 2799 and spot #4 in the rankings. As a result, Levon Aronian reached the 2nd spot for the first time in his career while Vladimir Kramnik is 3rd.

Fabiano Caruana is struggling a bit in Reggio Emilia at the moment, but on the rating list he his the best junior player and in fact now also a top 20 player. Leinier Dominguez is 'connecting' with the absolute top again, going from 32 to 21 while Etienne Bacrot dropped from 29 to 39. His compatriot Maxime Vachier-Lagrave didn't have a good period either and dropped just below the 2700 mark.

In the women's list there's also a new #2: World Champion Hou Yifan. In this period she won no less than 27 points to reach 2605, which is still 105 points less than Judit Polgar, who didn't play rated games. Humpy Koneru can be found in third position with 2589. With a 19 point gain, Nana Dzagnidze entered the top 10.

Below you'll find the new top 100, the top 100 women, the top 20 juniors and the top 20 girls. We give all lists including the changes with the previous lists.

Legend:
black color - player remained on the same position
green color - player moved up in the list
red color - player moved down in the list
blue color - player is new to the current Top list
Old represents player's position in the previous period list


FIDE JANUARY 2012 RATING LIST: TOP 100 PLAYERS


Rank   Old    Name Title Country Rating Games
   1  1  Carlsen, Magnus  g  NOR  2835 (+9)  17 (+7)
   2  3  Aronian, Levon  g  ARM  2805 (+3)  25 (+15)
   3  4  Kramnik, Vladimir  g  RUS  2801 (+1)  17 (+11)
 4  2  Anand, Viswanathan  g  IND  2799 (-12)  17 (+7)
   5  5  Radjabov, Teimour  g  AZE  2773 (-8)  9 (-6)
   6  7  Topalov, Veselin  g  BUL  2770 (+2)  9 (+9)
   7  8  Karjakin, Sergey  g  RUS  2769 (+6)  16 (+1)
 8  6  Ivanchuk, Vassily  g  UKR  2766 (-9)  16 (-10)
   9  9  Morozevich, Alexander  g  RUS  2763 (+1)  6 (-11)
   10  11  Gashimov, Vugar  g  AZE  2761 (+4)  9 (-1)
 11  13  Grischuk, Alexander  g  RUS  2761 (+9)  8 (-13)
 12  10  Nakamura, Hikaru  g  USA  2759 (+1)  17 (+7)
 13  12  Svidler, Peter  g  RUS  2749 (-6)  17 (-4)
 14  18  Mamedyarov, Shakhriyar  g  AZE  2747 (+14)  9 (-2)
   15  15  Tomashevsky, Evgeny  g  RUS  2740 (0)  0 (-22)
 16  14  Gelfand, Boris  g  ISR  2739 (-5)  9 (+5)
 17  23  Caruana, Fabiano  g  ITA  2736 (+9)  19 (-8)
 18  20  Nepomniachtchi, Ian  g  RUS  2735 (+5)  16 (+5)
 19  16  Wang, Hao  g  CHN  2733 (-3)  6 (0)
 20  19  Kamsky, Gata  g  USA  2732 (0)  0 (-16)
 21  32  Dominguez Perez, Leinier  g  CUB  2730 (+18)  6 (-12)
 22  21  Jakovenko, Dmitry  g  RUS  2729 (0)  0 (-23)
 23  25  Ponomariov, Ruslan  g  UKR  2727 (+4)  13 (-20)
 24  22  Vitiugov, Nikita  g  RUS  2726 (-3)  1 (-21)
 25  17  Adams, Michael  g  ENG  2724 (-10)  17 (+7)
   26  26  Leko, Peter  g  HUN  2720 (0)  9 (-3)
 27  38  Almasi, Zoltan  g  HUN  2717 (+10)  8 (+4)
 28  30  Giri, Anish  g  NED  2714 (0)  15 (+1)
 29  28  Le, Quang Liem  g  VIE  2714 (0)  0 (-25)
 30  24  Navara, David  g  CZE  2712 (-12)  8 (-11)
 31  39  Shirov, Alexei  g  LAT  2710 (+5)  13 (-9)
 32  35  Polgar, Judit  g  HUN  2710 (0)  0 (-16)
 33  36  Riazantsev, Alexander  g  RUS  2710 (0)  0 (-11)
 34  41  Wojtaszek, Radoslaw  g  POL  2706 (+1)  8 (-6)
 35  27  Moiseenko, Alexander  g  UKR  2706 (-9)  7 (-16)
 36  40  Vallejo Pons, Francisco  g  ESP  2705 (0)  15 (+1)
 37  43  Malakhov, Vladimir  g  RUS  2705 (0)  0 (-8)
 38  65  Jobava, Baadur  g  GEO  2704 (+26)  23 (+3)
 39  29  Bacrot, Etienne  g  FRA  2704 (-10)  14 (-7)
 40  44  Laznicka, Viktor  g  CZE  2704 (+1)  8 (-14)
 41  50  Sutovsky, Emil  g  ISR  2703 (+7)  8 (-4)
 42  31  Naiditsch, Arkadij  g  GER  2702 (-10)  14 (-12)
 43  34  Movsesian, Sergei  g  ARM  2700 (-10)  9 (-11)
 44  56  Sasikiran, Krishnan  g  IND  2700 (+11)  9 (+9)
 45  37  Vachier-Lagrave, Maxime  g  FRA  2699 (-11)  13 (+3)
 46  33  Dreev, Aleksey  g  RUS  2698 (-12)  6 (-17)
 47  45  Efimenko, Zahar  g  UKR  2695 (-7)  8 (-13)
 48  51  Volokitin, Andrei  g  UKR  2695 (0)  0 (-13)
   49  49  Wang, Yue  g  CHN  2694 (-3)  6 (-12)
 50  47  Fressinet, Laurent  g  FRA  2693 (-7)  17 (+12)
 51  46  Li, Chao b  g  CHN  2693 (-7)  6 (-13)
   52  52  Grachev, Boris  g  RUS  2693 (0)  0 (-15)
   53  53  Nielsen, Peter Heine  g  DEN  2693 (0)  0 (-14)
 54  61  Van Wely, Loek  g  NED  2692 (+6)  13 (+4)
   55  55  Bruzon Batista, Lazaro  g  CUB  2691 (+2)  19 (+2)
 56  74  McShane, Luke J  g  ENG  2691 (+20)  8 (+8)
 57  54  Eljanov, Pavel  g  UKR  2690 (-1)  10 (-10)
 58  68  Kasimdzhanov, Rustam  g  UZB  2689 (+14)  14 (+4)
   59  60  Inarkiev, Ernesto  g  RUS  2689 (+3)  6 (-4)
 60  64  Zvjaginsev, Vadim  g  RUS  2688 (+8)  8 (-8)
 61  57  Andreikin, Dmitry  g  RUS  2688 (0)  0 (-20)
 62  58  Areshchenko, Alexander  g  UKR  2688 (0)  0 (-7)
 63  59  Rublevsky, Sergei  g  RUS  2686 (0)  0 (-24)
 64  63  Akopian, Vladimir  g  ARM  2685 (+4)  8 (+8)
 65  62  Potkin, Vladimir  g  RUS  2684 (0)  0 (-13)
 66  73  Sargissian, Gabriel  g  ARM  2683 (+12)  15 (+8)
 67  42  Berkes, Ferenc  g  HUN  2682 (-23)  16 (+6)
 68  80  Bologan, Viktor  g  MDA  2680 (+15)  15 (-3)
 69  -  Bauer, Christian  g  FRA  2679 (+)  24 (+)
 70  -  Tiviakov, Sergei  g  NED  2677 (+)  22 (+)
 71  48  Short, Nigel D  g  ENG  2677 (-21)  15 (+15)
 72  66  Motylev, Alexander  g  RUS  2677 (-1)  6 (-12)
 73  67  Gharamian, Tigran  g  FRA  2676 (0)  0 (0)
 74  72  Kobalia, Mikhail  g  RUS  2673 (0)  0 (-2)
 75  90  Meier, Georg  g  GER  2671 (+12)  9 (-1)
 76  69  Onischuk, Alexander  g  USA  2670 (-4)  13 (0)
 77  70  Bu, Xiangzhi  g  CHN  2670 (-3)  6 (-10)
 78  75  Alekseev, Evgeny  g  RUS  2670 (0)  0 (-20)
 79  77  Azarov, Sergei  g  BLR  2667 (0)  0 (-20)
 80  78  Kryvoruchko, Yuriy  g  UKR  2666 (0)  0 (-12)
 81  84  Balogh, Csaba  g  HUN  2665 (+3)  8 (+8)
 82  71  Harikrishna, P.  g  IND  2665 (-8)  6 (+2)
 83  86  Khismatullin, Denis  g  RUS  2664 (+4)  8 (-15)
 84  83  Nguyen, Ngoc Truong Son  g  VIE  2662 (0)  6 (-6)
   85  85  Fridman, Daniel  g  GER  2660 (-1)  11 (+6)
 86  76  Smirin, Ilia  g  ISR  2660 (-10)  7 (-8)
   87  88  Ding, Liren  g  CHN  2660 (0)  6 (-5)
 88  81  Sadler, Matthew D  g  ENG  2660 (-2)  3 (-17)
 89  87  Korobov, Anton  g  UKR  2660 (0)  0 (-19)
 90  -  Cheparinov, Ivan  g  BUL  2659 (+)  18 (+)
   91  91  Timofeev, Artyom  g  RUS  2659 (0)  0 (-2)
 92  79  Georgiev, Kiril  g  BUL  2658 (-8)  17 (+10)
 93  97  Bartel, Mateusz  g  POL  2658 (+5)  9 (-4)
 94  101  Zhigalko, Sergei  g  BLR  2658 (+7)  8 (-12)
 95  92  Feller, Sebastien  g  FRA  2658 (0)  0 (-14)
 96  82  Ragger, Markus  g  AUT  2655 (-7)  17 (-1)
 97  -  Jones, Gawain C B  g  ENG  2653 (+)  27 (+)
 98  89  So, Wesley  g  PHI  2653 (-6)  5 (-8)
 99  98  Milov, Vadim  g  SUI  2653 (0)  0 (-8)
 100  -  Gupta, Abhijeet  g  IND  2652 (+)  9 (+)
 101  -  Postny, Evgeny  g  ISR  2652 (+)  8 (+)
 102  100  Roiz, Michael  g  ISR  2652 (+1)  6 (-17)
 103  99  Gyimesi, Zoltan  g  HUN  2652 (0)  4 (-3)
 104  -  Nikolic, Predrag  g  BIH  2652 (+)  2 (+)


FIDE JANUARY 2012 RATING LIST: TOP 100 WOMEN

Rank   Old    Name Title Country Rating Games
   1  1  Polgar, Judit  g  HUN  2710 (0)  0 (-16)
   2  3  Hou, Yifan  g  CHN  2605 (+27)  20 (+1)
 3  2  Koneru, Humpy  g  IND  2589 (-11)  16 (+16)
   4  4  Muzychuk, Anna  m  SLO  2580 (+18)  9 (-16)
   5  5  Lahno, Kateryna  g  UKR  2557 (+8)  7 (-10)
   6  7  Ju, Wenjun  wg  CHN  2552 (+9)  15 (-16)
   7  8  Zhao, Xue  g  CHN  2551 (+10)  15 (-7)
 8  6  Kosintseva, Nadezhda  g  RUS  2537 (-9)  17 (+6)
 9  11  Dzagnidze, Nana  g  GEO  2535 (+19)  16 (+9)
 10  9  Stefanova, Antoaneta  g  BUL  2523 (-8)  7 (-10)
 11  13  Harika, Dronavalli  g  IND  2516 (+3)  8 (+1)
 12  10  Kosintseva, Tatiana  g  RUS  2513 (-13)  16 (+5)
   13  14  Sebag, Marie  g  FRA  2512 (0)  0 (0)
 14  12  Gunina, Valentina  m  RUS  2510 (-4)  15 (0)
   15  15  Zatonskih, Anna  m  USA  2506 (0)  0 (-7)
   16  16  Cmilyte, Viktorija  g  LTU  2503 (0)  0 (-28)
   17  17  Chiburdanidze, Maia  g  GEO  2500 (0)  0 (0)
 18  24  Socko, Monika  g  POL  2499 (+20)  20 (+8)
   19  20  Cramling, Pia  g  SWE  2491 (-4)  6 (-9)
 20  18  Danielian, Elina  g  ARM  2490 (-7)  23 (+5)
 21  19  Khotenashvili, Bela  m  GEO  2490 (-7)  9 (+9)
 22  21  Galliamova, Alisa  m  RUS  2490 (0)  0 (-20)
 23  33  Muzychuk, Mariya  m  UKR  2483 (+23)  24 (+15)
 24  22  Ruan, Lufei  wg  CHN  2483 (0)  0 (-11)
 25  23  Atalik, Ekaterina  m  TUR  2481 (0)  0 (0)
 26  28  Zhu, Chen  g  QAT  2472 (+1)  7 (-22)
 27  31  Skripchenko, Almira  m  FRA  2468 (0)  0 (-4)
 28  25  Krush, Irina  m  USA  2467 (-9)  15 (+11)
 29  27  Xu, Yuhua  g  CHN  2465 (-7)  1 (+1)
   30  30  Dembo, Yelena  m  GRE  2460 (-8)  17 (+1)
 31  29  Mkrtchian, Lilit  m  ARM  2458 (-11)  18 (-2)
   32  32  Ushenina, Anna  m  UKR  2458 (-5)  14 (+6)
 33  26  Javakhishvili, Lela  m  GEO  2454 (-21)  15 (+9)
   34  35  Paehtz, Elisabeth  m  GER  2454 (-3)  7 (-2)
 35  34  Munguntuul, Batkhuyag  m  MGL  2452 (-7)  9 (-19)
   36  36  Pogonina, Natalija  wg  RUS  2449 (-2)  18 (+3)
 37  44  Kosteniuk, Alexandra  g  RUS  2448 (+9)  14 (-11)
 38  45  Matnadze, Ana  m  GEO  2447 (+9)  9 (-1)
   39  39  Shen, Yang  wg  CHN  2447 (-1)  6 (+6)
 40  38  Moser, Eva  m  AUT  2446 (-2)  8 (-1)
 41  40  Zaiatz, Elena  m  RUS  2446 (0)  0 (-15)
   42  43  Khurtsidze, Nino  m  GEO  2444 (+4)  15 (+15)
 43  37  Tan, Zhongyi  wg  CHN  2438 (-10)  15 (+4)
 44  41  Hoang, Thanh Trang  g  HUN  2435 (-11)  8 (+8)
   45  46  Kovalevskaya, Ekaterina  m  RUS  2435 (0)  0 (-22)
 46  42  Arakhamia-Grant, Ketevan  g  SCO  2434 (-9)  6 (-3)
 47  49  Rajlich, Iweta  m  POL  2428 (0)  0 (-3)
 48  50  Zhukova, Natalia  g  UKR  2426 (-1)  15 (+9)
 49  55  Batsiashvili, Nino  wg  GEO  2426 (+5)  9 (0)
 50  52  Peptan, Corina-Isabela  m  ROU  2425 (0)  0 (-8)
 51  53  Alexandrova, Olga  m  ESP  2419 (-4)  8 (-1)
 52  58  Bodnaruk, Anastasia  m  RUS  2419 (+2)  6 (-24)
 53  56  Li, Ruofan  m  SIN  2419 (0)  0 (0)
 54  47  Gaponenko, Inna  m  UKR  2416 (-19)  13 (+4)
 55  59  Repkova, Eva  m  SVK  2416 (0)  0 (-6)
 56  62  Cori T., Deysi  wg  PER  2415 (+1)  18 (+9)
 57  61  Vijayalakshmi, Subbaraman  m  IND  2415 (0)  0 (0)
 58  60  Houska, Jovanka  m  ENG  2414 (-1)  17 (+8)
 59  63  Ovod, Evgenija  m  RUS  2412 (0)  0 (-9)
 60  48  Tania, Sachdev  m  IND  2411 (-17)  28 (+16)
 61  54  Paikidze, Nazi  wg  GEO  2411 (-11)  5 (-22)
 62  64  Vasilevich, Tatjana  m  UKR  2410 (-2)  7 (-2)
 63  65  Turova, Irina  m  RUS  2410 (0)  0 (0)
 64  51  Khukhashvili, Sopiko  m  GEO  2408 (-18)  9 (+9)
 65  84  Peng, Zhaoqin  g  NED  2406 (+27)  17 (+17)
 66  75  Milliet, Sophie  m  FRA  2404 (+18)  15 (-3)
   67  67  Girya, Olga  wg  RUS  2399 (0)  0 (-24)
 68  73  Melia, Salome  m  GEO  2398 (+6)  12 (-6)
   69  70  Wang, Pin  wg  CHN  2397 (0)  0 (0)
 70  57  Foisor, Cristina-Adela  m  ROU  2395 (-23)  19 (-3)
   71  71  Bojkovic, Natasa  m  SRB  2395 (-1)  9 (-7)
 72  85  Kashlinskaya, Alina  wg  RUS  2389 (+12)  9 (-16)
 73  66  Romanko, Marina  m  RUS  2389 (-15)  7 (-14)
 74  69  Huang, Qian  wg  CHN  2389 (-8)  6 (-3)
 75  74  Zdebskaja, Natalia  wg  UKR  2389 (0)  0 (0)
 76  92  Wang, Jue    CHN  2388 (+21)  5 (-13)
 77  76  Majdan-Gajewska, Joanna  wg  POL  2387 (+1)  7 (+7)
 78  68  Madl, Ildiko  m  HUN  2386 (-13)  7 (+7)
 79  89  Guramishvili, Sopiko  wg  GEO  2384 (+10)  19 (-8)
 80  -  Ohme, Melanie  wm  GER  2384 (+)  8 (+)
 81  72  Padmini, Rout  wg  IND  2383 (-9)  17 (-28)
 82  80  Michna, Marta  wg  GER  2383 (+1)  9 (+4)
 83  77  Kovanova, Baira  wg  RUS  2383 (0)  0 (-9)
 84  79  Tsereteli, Tamar  wg  GEO  2383 (0)  0 (0)
 85  81  Fierro Baquero, Martha L.  m  ECU  2380 (0)  0 (-15)
 86  82  Vasilevich, Irina  m  RUS  2380 (0)  0 (-6)
 87  -  Ordaz Valdes, Lisandra Teresa  wg  CUB  2378 (+)  9 (+)
 88  83  Szczepkowska-Horowska, Karina  wg  POL  2377 (-2)  13 (+4)
 89  -  Gomes, Mary Ann  wg  IND  2377 (+)  11 (+)
 90  86  Matveeva, Svetlana  m  RUS  2377 (0)  0 (0)
 91  -  Linares Napoles, Oleiny  wg  CUB  2375 (+)  8 (+)
 92  88  Kononenko, Tatiana  m  UKR  2375 (0)  0 (0)
 93  90  Wang, Yu A.  m  CHN  2371 (0)  1 (-8)
 94  -  Lujan, Carolina  m  ARG  2369 (+)  9 (+)
 95  -  Pokorna, Regina  wg  SVK  2367 (+)  9 (+)
 96  93  Vajda, Szidonia  m  HUN  2367 (0)  0 (0)
 97  78  Galojan, Lilit  m  ARM  2366 (-17)  16 (+8)
 98  96  Lomineishvili, Maia  m  GEO  2366 (0)  0 (0)
 99  95  Shadrina, Tatiana  wg  RUS  2366 (0)  0 (-18)
 100  -  Videnova, Iva  wg  BUL  2360 (+)  27 (+)
 101  -  Bulmaga, Irina  wm  ROU  2360 (+)  9 (+)
 102  98  L'Ami, Alina  wg  ROU  2360 (-4)  9 (-3)
 103  -  Stockova, Zuzana  m  SVK  2360 (+)  0 (+)


FIDE JANUARY 2012 RATING LIST: TOP 20 JUNIORS


Rank   Old    Name Title Country Rating Games
   1  1  Caruana, Fabiano  g  ITA  2736 (+9)  19 (-8)
   2  3  Giri, Anish  g  NED  2714 (0)  15 (+1)
   3  4  Ding, Liren  g  CHN  2660 (0)  6 (-5)
   4  5  So, Wesley  g  PHI  2653 (-6)  5 (-8)
 5  14  Negi, Parimarjan  g  IND  2641 (+24)  15 (-9)
 6  8  Safarli, Eltaj  g  AZE  2638 (+8)  4 (-1)
 7  10  Yu, Yangyi  g  CHN  2631 (+8)  6 (-5)
 8  11  Sjugirov, Sanan  g  RUS  2622 (0)  0 (-16)
 9  13  Kovalyov, Anton  g  ARG  2619 (0)  0 (-17)
 10  20  Hou, Yifan  g  CHN  2605 (+27)  20 (+1)
 11  16  Robson, Ray  g  USA  2596 (+2)  5 (-7)
 12  15  Zherebukh, Yaroslav  g  UKR  2594 (0)  0 (-23)
 13  17  Ipatov, Alexander  g  ESP  2586 (0)  0 (-15)
 14  19  Swiercz, Dariusz  g  POL  2583 (-1)  9 (-7)
 15  -  Ter-Sahakyan, Samvel  g  ARM  2569 (+)  9 (+)
 16  -  Nyzhnyk, Illya  g  UKR  2568 (+)  9 (+)
 17  -  Van Kampen, Robin  g  NED  2566 (+)  9 (+)
 18  -  Adhiban, B.  g  IND  2561 (+)  18 (+)
 19  -  Shimanov, Aleksandr  g  RUS  2549 (+)  0 (+)
 20  -  Prohaszka, Peter  g  HUN  2547 (+)  9 (+)


FIDE JANUARY 2012 RATING LIST: TOP 20 GIRLS


Rank   Old    Name Title Country Rating Games
   1  1  Hou, Yifan  g  CHN  2605 (+27)  20 (+1)
 2  4  Muzychuk, Mariya  m  UKR  2483 (+23)  24 (+15)
 3  7  Bodnaruk, Anastasia  m  RUS  2419 (+2)  6 (-24)
 4  8  Cori T., Deysi  wg  PER  2415 (+1)  18 (+9)
   5  6  Paikidze, Nazi  wg  GEO  2411 (-11)  5 (-22)
 6  11  Kashlinskaya, Alina  wg  RUS  2389 (+12)  9 (-16)
 7  13  Wang, Jue    CHN  2388 (+21)  5 (-13)
 8  10  Padmini, Rout  wg  IND  2383 (-9)  17 (-28)
 9  19  Bulmaga, Irina  wm  ROU  2360 (+26)  9 (-9)
 10  16  Vojinovic, Jovana  wg  MNE  2359 (+13)  9 (-14)
 11  20  Arabidze, Meri  wm  GEO  2358 (+29)  9 (0)
 12  14  Guo, Qi  wg  CHN  2351 (-8)  6 (-2)
 13  17  Savina, Anastasia  m  RUS  2337 (-6)  9 (0)
 14  -  Goryachkina, Aleksandra  wm  RUS  2333 (+)  9 (+)
   15  15  Sukandar, Irine Kharisma  wg  INA  2325 (-25)  14 (-4)
 16  -  Pustovoitova, Daria  f  RUS  2303 (+)  0 (+)
 17  -  Soloviova, Liza  wg  UKR  2294 (+)  0 (+)
 18  -  Haast, Anne  wm  NED  2290 (+)  20 (+)
 19  -  Ziaziulkina, Nastassia  wm  BLR  2290 (+)  9 (+)
 20  -  Schut, Lisa  wm  NED  2290 (+)  5 (+)

All data courtesy of FIDE

Peter Doggers's picture
Author: Peter Doggers

Founder and editor-in-chief of ChessVibes.com, Peter is responsible for most of the chess news and tournament reports. Often visiting top events, he also provides photos and videos for the site. He's a 1.e4 player himself, likes Thai food and the Stones.

Chess.com

Comments

Anonymous's picture

carlsen is a genius

stevefraser's picture

It certainly seems so...too bad there aren't more books of his games, as he's had so many wins against the other top players.

Chess Fan's picture

You must check out book on Carlsen by his manager/agent for his early games, if you have already haven't. His creativity and method of play reminded me of early Kasparov (of the early 1980s). Absolutely brilliant.

noyb's picture

Carlsen's play reminds me more of Karpov's than Kasparov's. Even Carlsen himself and Kasparov have remarked as much.

columbo's picture

kasparov said it, not carlsen

noyb's picture

Columbo - You might better sleuth better (and change your moniker), here is Carlsen's affirmation of his play being like Karpov's (he says agrees with Kasparov's assessment):

Chessbase Translation of ChessPro Interview - http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=7778

"From some things he [Kasparov] said I realised that my approach is largely associated for him with the way Karpov took decisions. He knew him like no-one else – I can’t say it was unpleasant for me to hear such an assessment…"

S3's picture

Well they got it all wrong. His style is more like the young Kamsky's, or maybe Ponomariovs.

sab's picture

Some explanations please ?

Anthony's picture

Well, this certainly confirms Carlsen's domination in the last few months. He surges ahead, as the rest stalls.

The difference between him and Gelfand is now almost a staggering hundred points.

Anand is almost 40 points behind. Although he will certainly bounce back after the match.

How relevant this match turns out to be in the light of such a strong contender, remains to be seen.

S3's picture

Maybe it's getting repetitive but "dominating' would include beating guys like Anand, Kramnik and Aronian. Not beating Short, Adams or even Nakamuras.
As for Gelfand, he played great chess and had Carlsen on the ropes at Moscow.

h8dgeh0g's picture

yes. too bad i don't find the "like" button anymore.

Anonymous's picture

had Carlsen on the ropes and ... lost

redivivo's picture

Yes, one single game lost against Carlsen doesn't say much about how strong Gelfand is. Carlsen's current strength is often measured by looking at his career stats against Anand and Kramnik, but try looking at Gelfand's results against Anand, Kramnik, Kasparov and Topalov the last 15 years and you end up with 0-20 or worse. Carlsen's results against Anand and Kramnik haven't been bad the last years, but include other top players like Topalov, Ivanchuk, Radjabov and Nakamura and Carlsen's results are amazing. Compare them with for example the scores of Anand and Kramnik against the same players.

Looking at a rating list from 1996 the top three was Kasparov, Kramnik and Karpov, and Kasparov's stats against Kramnik and Karpov were never particularly impressive. All players have some difficult opponents. Anand had -15 against Kasparov + Kramnik but improved since then, just like Carlsen has improved since those losses against Anand and Kramnik some years ago.

Anthony's picture

Yes, and it's quite normal for a kid below twenty to lose against Anand and Kramnik.

In fact, the amazing thing is he was already battling with them at such a tender age.

It's useless to consider early losses against them.

It's funny how myopic people can get when they don't like what they see. And what we see is Carlsen way ahead of the pack.

S3's picture

Speaking of myopic, you should note that you bring up the losses against Anand and Kramnik, not me.
I just point out the fact that you need to beat players in order to dominate them. Drawing or losing is not enough.

S3's picture

btw, Gelfand's results against Topalov are not that bad if I am not mistaken. 0-20 is of course a grand excaggeration.

redivivo's picture

The last 15 years Gelfand has 0 wins against Topalov (as against Anand, Kramnik and Kasparov) so calling those stats "not that bad" is to be kind towards Gelfand even if I haven't bothered counting the exact number of losses against those four strongest players of 1997-2012. Topalov was far from as strong before 2005 as after that, so 0 wins in 15 years against a player Carlsen scored 7 wins against in less than 5 (stronger) years is at least not one of Gelfand's bigger claims to fame.

S3's picture

0 wins against Topalov doesn't mean that Topalov is 20 points up, is that so hard to see?

redivivo's picture

No, that's why I of course never said such a thing.

S3's picture

It's usually not exactly clear what you are saying, or trying to say. But Gelfand's score against Topalov isn't that bad.

stevefraser's picture

Why are there separate lists for men and women? Since there is no advantage in chess for physical strength, speed or quickness, why the sexual segregation?

Macauley's picture

A common question. Strictly speaking the first list is Top 100 "overall" list" not "men". To wit: Judit Polgar is #32. No other woman currently places in the Top 100. So it's largely historical and demographic. Here's a CV column on the subject from a couple years back: http://www.chessvibes.com/columns/abolishing-women%E2%80%99s-titles-a-di...

stevefraser's picture

Much thanks for the link. Very informative.

Anthony Migchels's picture

Well, there is the fact that man have 11% more brainmass......................

Just one more example of myopia.........

Parkov's picture

2012 will be the year of Morozevich

Ashish's picture

To be that far ahead with a (relative) opening disadvantage ... imagine how Carlsen would dominate in Chess960, with openings taken out of the equation.

Chess Fan's picture

As we all know (or should know!), the chess ratings mean little between the top five players of the world and so until Carlsen becomes the official undisputed world chess champion, let us not blow his trumpet for him too much. I agree that he seems to be a very talented genius (I am doubling the praise with this oxymoron statement). But until he actually beats Kramnik and Aronian, worthy world champion contenders themselves, and of course the undisputed unified world champion, Anand himself, against whom Carlsen has a less than favorable playing record one-to-one, let us hold our praise.
I am objective here when I try to say that Anand is the undisputed World Chess Champion, and three others, Carlsen included, are worthy and capable successors currently. Till otherwise, nothing else conclusive can be said.

Chess Fan's picture

Throw the ratings out.
I recently happened to meet world champion Anand. His maturity, simplicity, and intelligence cannot be perceived from mere blogs, news articles, or even video clips. I was blown away by his personality. I could well imagine how formidable he could be when seriously preparing for a World Championship title defense match in a focused approach.
To be fair, I have not met Aronian, Carlsen, or Kramnik in person, but the simplicity, intelligence, and maturity of Anand's personality in person was striking and even overwhelming. I mean all this as an absolute, unadulterated compliment.

noyb's picture

Next WCC #4 vs. #16? Ouch. We need a better qualification/WCC system. If the WCC matches are only going to be 10-12 games, we may as well have them every year. Shorter matches necessitate more frequent matches.

BVK's picture

I hope Anand bounces back. It has been a devastating year for Anand. It resembled almost like draw or lose..!! Do or Die :(

AK's picture

First of all it's silly to compare 2851 in 1999 to modern times. Inflation have been massive. In 1999 we had 4 players with 2750+. Now we have 12. In 1999 we had 11 players with 2700+, now 44. That's a massive difference. I say that Magnus needs to break 2900 and only then we can talk about similar domination that Kasparov had.

Then Magnus is not stronger than Aronian, Kramnik, Anand. Head-to-head he is +1 against them in classical chess and -2 in rapid and blindfold (in 2011). Against:
Aronian -1 in rapid and even in classical chess; Anand -1 rapid and even in classical; Kramnik +1 both in rapid and classical chess. Hardly a dominating performance against top players. Garry used to crush everyone except Kramnik.
Carlsen does obviously better against Nakamura and other lesser players compared to Anand & Co.

Anonymous's picture

I'd say you can't compare this very well, but, let me say this. Since 1999, computers have helped players tremendously with openings, tactics, etc. While Kasparov dominated everything about 10 years ago, he had the advantage of playing players which did not analyze everything with a comp.
Nowadays, it's much harder to get an edge out of the opening, because players simply know openings much better. This was Kasparov's main advantage, he knew so many openings, and he knew them well. He was a tactical genius too, but I'd say Magnus isn't much worse in that area.
So, to say Magnus needs to break 2900 in order to achieve the same feat, is a bit like saying the best football player needs to score twice as much goals to compare to former legends of the game.
Chess evolves, and doesn't get any weaker at it, so in my opinion to be able to reach a +30 points compared to #2 on the list is a HUGE performance.

AK's picture

So you are saying it was easier to beat Kramnik, Ivanchuk, Svidler, Adams, Gelfand, Morozevich, Anand in 1999 (all top15 that year) than in 2011? Oh... in 1999 every top player had been using computer for years and yet Kasparov was better prepared than younger generation.

Nowadays it's Carlsen who is one of the weakest in the openings among top players. Now, if Carlsen worked on the openings as hard as Kramnik, Gelfand, Anand, then maybe he could break 2900. Because he is a great talent and is already one of the best endgame and positional players of all time.

And no, Carlsen is not as good as Kasparov in tactics and dynamics. Kasparov is the best ever in these elements and Carlsen is not even the best among currently active players.

PS. Garry had +81 points over #2 Anand in 1999. Now that's a HUGE performance.

redivivo's picture

"Carlsen is not even the best among currently active players"

So who are the best currently active players?

AK's picture

I meant in dynamic and tactical chess. Topalov is a good bet. Anand and Ivanchuk are certainly not worse. Hell... Morozevich might be better in dynamics than Carlsen.

jussu's picture

Even if your guesses were anywhere near truth, your notion of "best" would still mean best in some carefully selected subset of chess position. That is not chess, and nobody has been claiming that the players in these lists here are the best players of checkers, rendju, pokemon or some other such game.

S3's picture

No. But someone had been claiming that one or the other was best in tactical positions. So what's your point?

brabo's picture

Kramnik,Ivanchuk,Svidler,Adams, Gelfand,Morozevich and Anand had all their individual evolution. It is completely wrong to put all of them in one basket and compare them between 1999 and 2011.
Kramnik gained 31 points between july 2000(first ratinglist I can find on fidewebsite) and today.
Ivanchuk gained 47 points
Svidler gained 60 points
Adams lost 31 points
Gelfand gained 58 points
Morozevich gained 7 points
Anand gained 37 points

I really believe that Kramnik, Anand, Gelfand, Ivanchuk and Svilder are better than in 2000 while Morozevich and certainly Adams are not. Svidler can be explained quite easy as in 2000, he was only 24 and would still win a lot of experience in the next supertournaments. At the age of 24 one hasn't reached its full potential yet. Kramnik was only 25 in 2000 so also here the same can be said as Svidler. Besides I am sure that the worldchampionshipmatches with Kasparov, Topalov, Leko and Anand have brought him extra experience. Anand also got a further growth in strength thanks to many supertournaments but I guess especially by expanding enormously his repertoire (see e.g. picking up 1.d4). Ivanchuk always has been a player of depths (see july 2009 where he had 2703) and hights. I estimate that he certainly gained experience over the years but he is too unpredictable to know what will come next. From Gelfand is known that he is a very serious worker and he more or less made a very slow but steady progression over the last 10 years (see his ratingcurve).
On the other side of the medal I see Morozevich who only now picks up with his old level. It is well known that Morozevich doesn't want to study chess like Kramnik, Anand or others with the effect that he didn't progress like his peers of 2000. From Adams I've the impression that he wasn't able to evolve as the other players. I can be wrong but I still see Adams playing the same lines as in 2000 while all his peers from that time are today playing much more universal.

S3's picture

As far as I know Adams never hired a trainer for himself when most top players have had one. That would fit in nicely with your theory, which I don't believe btw.

AK's picture

Again... rating is not the same thing as strength. I do agree that average GM is stronger than ten years ago. But top 15-20 is on a similar level (only opening preparation is somewhat deeper, but that's it). Both Kasparov and Carlsen most of the time play against top15-20.

Kramnik is certainly not stronger now than he was in 1999-2000. No matter what ratings say. More experienced? Yes. But older and less motivated. Do you really think that current Kramnik is stronger than Kramnik who beat Kasparov? What did Kramnik do in 2011? Won his usual Dortmund and London, where he beat only Englishmen. But he was bad at the strongest tournaments of the year - Tal Memorial and Amber. Now tell how this Kramnik is stronger than Kramnik in 1999.

Anand if anything is more well-rounded. More experienced, but also older and a lot less motivated. He certainly has not improved a lot in 10-12 years.

Every player that you mentioned is certainly more experienced than 12 years ago. But don't overplay this card. Most of them had 10 years of elite chess behind them in 2000. They had played in Candidates matches, super tournaments, FIDE knockout WCC. Anand had played match against Garry. How much more experience they needed?

I simply don't buy that it was easier for Kasparov to beat a bit lower-rated Kramnik, Anand, Ivanchuk, Gelfand, etc than for Carlsen nowadays. Actually it's quite the opposite. Carlsen faces the same player, who has higher rating due to inflation. And so it's easier for Carlsen to achieve higher rating. And no Kramnik and Anand are not stronger now. Certainly not Kramnik.

Kasparov crushed younger generation. That's why he was special. He was one of the very few in chess history who was better than younger generation. I find it impossible to think that it's harder for Carlsen to beat older generation than it was beating younger for Garry. It doesn't make sense.

Simply, Carlsen is nowhere as good compared to competition as Kasparov was. In 2000 Garry was a clear-cut favorite against anyone. It was a massive upset and a miracle that he lost to #3 Kramnik. Now is Carlsen clear-cut favorite against the same #3 Kramnik. No. Odds are at best 55-45 on Carlsens side.

brabo's picture

If you would analyse the games of today top 15 compared with the top 15 of before 2000 then you would see a difference in number of mistakes. Any topcomputerprogram would indicate that if you do the trouble to investigate 100 of games as I did when following up theory.
To state that Anand, Kramnik,... are less motivated today is ridiculous. Nobody becomes and stays worldchampion if he isn't 200% motivated. Kramnik is still extremely motivated as he himself stated in recent interviews and his last game in Dortmund where he went for broke to get back over 2800 points (and eventually lost) is a clear proof of that. They are still working many hours per day on chess and you don't do that if you aren't fully motivated.
Beating Englishmen isn't a small thing to do. Short, Adams, Howell and Mc Shane are extremely strong players and scoring 4/4 even for a 2800 player is really exceptional. I find it even more surprising that Kramnik could find the necessary motivation so easily back after the rather weak performance in the Tal Memorial. Amber isn't a serious tournament. It is for most topplayers a well paid holiday in the south of France (which won't be prolonged anymore).

You completly ignore the transformation Anand has made last years. Switching to 1.d4 isn't a small thing to do. Also his matchpreparations were completely different from his first match with Kasparov. In that match he naively still thought that the one who is finding the chesstruth is becoming the worldchampion. In a recent interview he mentioned that it is not about being right or wrong on the board but being a step ahead which can be achieved by continuous alternating lines and openings. This is a major development which he made only after 2000!

Kasparov (around year 2000) was beating inexperienced young and weaker players having no serious helpers (except the match in 2000 which turned out a disaster for Kasparov). Computers at that time were still ridiculous weak. Today I redo all computeranalysis older than 2007 as there are simply too many holes in it (indicated by Rybka, Fritz, Houdini,..). In 2000 the help of the computers was still very limited while Kasparov possessed several strong secondants and was able to use his gigantic wc-match preparations (read the books Kasparov-Karpov where he many times mentions which lines he used later against Anand, Topalov, Kramnik,...). The young generation around 2000 was playing with a big handicap against Kasparov while today this isn't the case anymore. Secondants are today less and less used and replaced by Houdini, Rybka,...

The game has evolved and the old topplayers too or have been replaced by young players.

S3's picture

It's funny that you are saying the same as Nakamura (on Kasparov's main strength) but that those people who burned him for that are now taking your side. Gotta love those fanboys.
On a sidenote, even after his lost match in 2000 Kasparov continued to "dominate" the scene for several years - when computers were used by all top players (which by the way doesn't take away the fact that Kramnik managed to play better when it mattered most)
I do agree with you on the 2900 thingy-that's just an arbitrary number and proves nothing especially when we don't take into account other peoples rating at that time.

cak's picture

In classical chess Carlsen had 7/13 against the three players you mentioned, so his score was 53.8%. According to the Elo table this translates to a rating difference of +26.

jussu's picture

Nice observation.

AK's picture

One can calculate ratings, but it doesn't change the fact that he beat Kramnik once and drew all other games. Hardly dominating performance. Add that he lost in rapid more than he won and it becomes even further from dominating the field.

Aronian also had +1 against the same field (Kramnik, Anand, Carlsen) and had much better record in rapid chess. So if we look how those 4 played against each other in 2011 then it's Levon Aronian, who was the best player.

redivivo's picture

With your selective definition of "dominating performance" Kasparov never dominated since he had a minus against Kramnik and was close to even against Karpov in five title matches. And Fischer didn't have a plus against Korchnoi and Tal, and was 0-5 against Spassky before the third game of the title match, so he was even further from ever being dominant.

Aronian and Carlsen both had +1 against the same two players, so Aronian was the better player since he did better in rapid chess? What about Aronian's going 0-2 in classical against Nakamura while Carlsen scored 4-0? Doesn't count for some reason. What about Carlsen winning the strongest tournaments of the year ahead of Aronian? Doesn't count either.

S3's picture

You often accuse people of using outdated data yet you are the one doing it.
Karpov in the 2nd half of the 90's had a clear minusscore against Kaspy.
But it is true: Kasparov didn't dominate Kramnik-who was of about the same strength at times. Btw..what a silly discussion, I'm loving it.

brabo's picture

Please read the blog from GM Macieja. You will quickly find out that your statement on inflation makes no sense.

Thomas Richter's picture

I will first comment on the third paragraph (Dominguez up, Frenchmen down) - for me it's always interesting to look at the results behind the naked Elo numbers:

Dominguez had a great Spanish Team Championship to conclude a somewhat "bumpy ride" in 2011: 11/12 at the Central American zonal tournament (against a rather weak field, he drew against two players >2500 and won the rest), then rather bad results at Capablanca Memorial and Baku Open and "neutral" ones for the Nov 2011 list. For Bacrot, one can reduce it all to his last-round game against Giri at the Spanish Team Championship - if he had won rather than lost these two would have swapped places! Vachier-Lagrave had a terrible European Team Championship, a decent Spanish Team Championship and great (but unrated) World Mind Sports Games. Any official rating list (and obviously any live rating list) is just a snapshot in time.

Now this also applies to the top of the list: Anand now being 6 points behind Aronian, 2 points behind Kramnik and 1 point below the magic 2800 certainly isn't a disaster beyond repair. True, his form was bad (or rather he lacked inspiration?) in the _second half_ of 2011 - nothing wrong with his form and results about a year ago, including 8.5/13 in Wijk aan Zee to reach his highest-ever rating and, for a while, the world #1 spot.

Carlsen has now created a somewhat significant gap, which may or may not be a "snapshot". In any case, I will consider him world champion if, and only if he successfully goes for it - until then he is "just" world #1.

columbo's picture

so it means that Anand is " just " world champion ...

Pages

Latest articles