Reports | July 01, 2012 0:55

FIDE publishes July 1st ratings, also for rapid and blitz

FIDE publishes July 1st ratings, also for rapid and blitz

On its website FIDE has published not only the July 1st rating list, but also the first rapid and blitz ratings. In the regular list, Magnus Carlsen reached his peak rating of 2837 and is only 15 points shy of passing Garry Kasparov's all-time high of 2851.

The biggest news about today's new FIDE rating list is the fact that for the first time, a number of players also got a rapid rating and/or a blitz rating. Another novelty is that FIDE will now be publishing new rating lists every month, instead of every two months. All this was announced by FIDE back in November. However, besides a note in today's announcement on the website, it's actually not that easy to find the blitz or rapid rating list. The reason is that... there are no lists yet! 

We contacted FIDE on Saturday night, shortly after the new list was published. It was explained to us that the top 100 lists for blitz and rapid were not published yet, because at this moment they do not reflect the actual strength of the top 100 – many players do not have games yet. But at the moment of writing FIDE is considering to put up lists anyway.

Currently the rapid and blitz ratings can be accessed at the download page or via individual player profiles. For example, English grandmaster Jon Speelman now has a blitz rating next to his "classical" rating.

Speaking of classical ratings, let's have a look at that list. Magnus Carlsen added two points to his 2835 rating and is now only 15 points shy of passing Garry Kasparov's all-time high of 2851. The only change in the top 10 is the switch of names at 4th and 5th place: Vishy Anand lost 11 points in the World Championship match and Teimour Radjabov, who won 4 points, is now 8 points above the World Champion. Anand's 11 points went to Gelfand, and this helped the Israeli to climb from 20th to 16th place in the world.

Judit Polgar saw her lead over Hou Yifan increase from 86 to 92 points because the Chinese World Champion lost 6 points. Viktorija Cmilyte re-entered the top 10 after winning 16 points in these two months.

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 JULY 2012 RATING LIST: TOP 100 PLAYERS

Rank   Old    Name Title Country Rating Games
   1  1  Carlsen, Magnus  g  NOR  2837 (+2)  9 (+9)
   2  2  Aronian, Levon  g  ARM  2816 (-9)  15 (+12)
   3  3  Kramnik, Vladimir  g  RUS  2799 (-2)  15 (+15)
   4  5  Radjabov, Teimour  g  AZE  2788 (+4)  9 (+9)
 5  4  Anand, Viswanathan  g  IND  2780 (-11)  12 (+8)
   6  6  Karjakin, Sergey  g  RUS  2779 (0)  0 (-7)
   7  7  Nakamura, Hikaru  g  USA  2778 (+3)  23 (+18)
   8  8  Caruana, Fabiano  g  ITA  2775 (+5)  22 (-4)
   9  9  Morozevich, Alexander  g  RUS  2770 (+1)  9 (+2)
   10  10  Ivanchuk, Vassily  g  UKR  2769 (+5)  15 (+15)
   11  11  Grischuk, Alexander  g  RUS  2763 (+2)  9 (+9)
   12  12  Topalov, Veselin  g  BUL  2752 (0)  0 (0)
   13  13  Svidler, Peter  g  RUS  2749 (+8)  4 (-8)
   14  14  Kamsky, Gata  g  USA  2744 (+3)  11 (+11)
 15  20  Gelfand, Boris  g  ISR  2738 (+11)  12 (+12)
   16  16  Wang, Hao  g  CHN  2738 (0)  0 (-6)
   17  17  Gashimov, Vugar  g  AZE  2737 (0)  0 (-5)
   18  18  Jakovenko, Dmitry  g  RUS  2736 (0)  0 (-17)
 19  15  Tomashevsky, Evgeny  g  RUS  2733 (-5)  9 (+3)
 20  28  Bologan, Viktor  g  MDA  2732 (+16)  9 (-21)
 21  25  Jobava, Baadur  g  GEO  2730 (+9)  10 (-14)
 22  24  Leko, Peter  g  HUN  2730 (+7)  7 (+1)
 23  22  Mamedyarov, Shakhriyar  g  AZE  2726 (0)  0 (-8)
 24  21  Ponomariov, Ruslan  g  UKR  2726 (0)  0 (-11)
 25  23  Dominguez Perez, Leinier  g  CUB  2725 (0)  10 (+3)
 26  19  Adams, Michael  g  ENG  2723 (-5)  14 (+5)
 27  26  Sasikiran, Krishnan  g  IND  2720 (0)  0 (-17)
   28  29  Nepomniachtchi, Ian  g  RUS  2718 (+2)  10 (+3)
 29  31  Riazantsev, Alexander  g  RUS  2717 (+3)  9 (-9)
 30  27  Wojtaszek, Radoslaw  g  POL  2717 (0)  0 (-20)
 31  30  Fressinet, Laurent  g  FRA  2714 (-1)  9 (-18)
 32  52  Bacrot, Etienne  g  FRA  2713 (+18)  14 (-19)
 33  39  McShane, Luke J  g  ENG  2713 (+7)  10 (0)
 34  32  Almasi, Zoltan  g  HUN  2713 (0)  0 (-9)
 35  33  Malakhov, Vladimir  g  RUS  2712 (0)  0 (-18)
 36  34  Bruzon Batista, Lazaro  g  CUB  2711 (0)  0 (-8)
 37  36  Polgar, Judit  g  HUN  2709 (0)  0 (0)
 38  37  Inarkiev, Ernesto  g  RUS  2707 (0)  0 (-16)
 39  48  Shirov, Alexei  g  LAT  2706 (+8)  10 (-3)
 40  35  Moiseenko, Alexander  g  UKR  2706 (-5)  5 (-1)
 41  40  Short, Nigel D  g  ENG  2704 (-1)  5 (-4)
 42  41  Volokitin, Andrei  g  UKR  2704 (0)  0 (-28)
 43  42  Vitiugov, Nikita  g  RUS  2703 (0)  0 (-24)
 44  46  Naiditsch, Arkadij  g  GER  2700 (+2)  15 (-21)
   45  45  Andreikin, Dmitry  g  RUS  2700 (0)  0 (-17)
   46  47  Movsesian, Sergei  g  ARM  2698 (0)  0 (-28)
 47  43  Le, Quang Liem  g  VIE  2697 (-6)  19 (+10)
 48  50  Vallejo Pons, Francisco  g  ESP  2697 (0)  0 (-20)
 49  54  Giri, Anish  g  NED  2696 (+3)  14 (-8)
 50  62  Efimenko, Zahar  g  UKR  2694 (+5)  15 (-9)
 51  57  Eljanov, Pavel  g  UKR  2693 (0)  0 (-11)
 52  56  Harikrishna, P.  g  IND  2693 (0)  0 (-16)
 53  58  Rublevsky, Sergei  g  RUS  2693 (0)  0 (-6)
 54  44  Li, Chao b  g  CHN  2692 (-11)  7 (+7)
 55  66  Van Wely, Loek  g  NED  2691 (+9)  12 (-7)
 56  59  Areshchenko, Alexander  g  UKR  2691 (0)  0 (-22)
 57  61  Kasimdzhanov, Rustam  g  UZB  2690 (0)  0 (-10)
 58  60  Wang, Yue  g  CHN  2690 (0)  0 (-11)
 59  49  Akopian, Vladimir  g  ARM  2688 (-9)  18 (-2)
 60  64  Sutovsky, Emil  g  ISR  2687 (0)  4 (-19)
 61  69  Vachier-Lagrave, Maxime  g  FRA  2686 (+6)  11 (-7)
 62  51  Berkes, Ferenc  g  HUN  2685 (-11)  20 (-9)
 63  71  Sargissian, Gabriel  g  ARM  2685 (+6)  9 (-2)
 64  72  Korobov, Anton  g  UKR  2683 (+5)  14 (-11)
 65  55  Laznicka, Viktor  g  CZE  2683 (-10)  10 (-8)
 66  65  Zvjaginsev, Vadim  g  RUS  2683 (0)  0 (-5)
 67  82  Bauer, Christian  g  FRA  2681 (+9)  29 (+12)
 68  63  Georgiev, Kiril  g  BUL  2680 (-9)  13 (-7)
 69  38  Navara, David  g  CZE  2679 (-27)  26 (-14)
 70  78  Cheparinov, Ivan  g  BUL  2677 (+4)  29 (+9)
 71  53  Dreev, Aleksey  g  RUS  2677 (-17)  10 (-7)
 72  75  Alekseev, Evgeny  g  RUS  2677 (0)  0 (-7)
   73  74  Kobalia, Mikhail  g  RUS  2677 (0)  0 (-11)
 74  70  Ding, Liren  g  CHN  2676 (-3)  9 (-9)
 75  67  Sokolov, Ivan  g  NED  2676 (-4)  7 (-30)
 76  97  Tiviakov, Sergei  g  NED  2675 (+19)  23 (+6)
 77  -  Gyimesi, Zoltan  g  HUN  2674 (+)  14 (+)
 78  68  Grachev, Boris  g  RUS  2674 (-6)  9 (-24)
 79  73  Bartel, Mateusz  g  POL  2674 (-3)  8 (-30)
 80  79  Motylev, Alexander  g  RUS  2673 (0)  0 (-10)
 81  76  Kryvoruchko, Yuriy  g  UKR  2672 (-4)  8 (-20)
   82  83  Ragger, Markus  g  AUT  2671 (+1)  8 (-32)
   83  84  Khenkin, Igor  g  GER  2669 (-1)  9 (-28)
 84  77  Ni, Hua  g  CHN  2668 (-5)  9 (-20)
 85  80  Balogh, Csaba  g  HUN  2668 (-4)  7 (-23)
 86  85  Matlakov, Maxim  g  RUS  2668 (0)  0 (-22)
 87  91  Onischuk, Alexander  g  USA  2666 (+6)  11 (+2)
 88  99  Zhigalko, Sergei  g  BLR  2666 (+10)  10 (-1)
 89  87  Nielsen, Peter Heine  g  DEN  2665 (0)  0 (-17)
 90  89  Khismatullin, Denis  g  RUS  2664 (0)  0 (-15)
 91  88  Najer, Evgeniy  g  RUS  2664 (0)  0 (-37)
 92  81  Gharamian, Tigran  g  FRA  2663 (-9)  10 (-9)
 93  90  Kurnosov, Igor  g  RUS  2663 (0)  0 (-14)
   94  94  Petrosian, Tigran L.  g  ARM  2661 (+4)  18 (-11)
 95  -  Gareev, Timur  g  UZB  2658 (+)  6 (+)
 96  92  Azarov, Sergei  g  BLR  2658 (0)  0 (-29)
 97  95  Granda Zuniga, Julio E  g  PER  2657 (0)  0 (-16)
   98  98  Bu, Xiangzhi  g  CHN  2656 (0)  0 (-11)
 99  96  Mchedlishvili, Mikheil  g  GEO  2656 (0)  0 (-38)
 100  93  Jones, Gawain C B  g  ENG  2655 (-2)  14 (-20)
 101  -  Fridman, Daniel  g  GER  2655 (+)  3 (+)

FIDE JULY 2012 RATING LIST: TOP 100 WOMEN

Rank   Old    Name Title Country Rating Games
   1  1  Polgar, Judit  g  HUN  2709 (0)  0 (0)
   2  2  Hou, Yifan  g  CHN  2621 (-2)  11 (-18)
   3  3  Muzychuk, Anna  g  SLO  2606 (+8)  14 (-4)
   4  4  Koneru, Humpy  g  IND  2598 (+9)  11 (+11)
   5  6  Dzagnidze, Nana  g  GEO  2547 (0)  0 (-11)
 6  5  Zhao, Xue  g  CHN  2540 (-9)  9 (0)
   7  7  Lahno, Kateryna  g  UKR  2536 (-10)  11 (-2)
   8  8  Kosintseva, Tatiana  g  RUS  2530 (-2)  11 (0)
   9  9  Gunina, Valentina  m  RUS  2530 (0)  0 (-16)
 10  15  Cmilyte, Viktorija  g  LTU  2525 (+17)  11 (-4)
   11  12  Sebag, Marie  g  FRA  2521 (0)  0 (-11)
 12  10  Ju, Wenjun  wg  CHN  2520 (-9)  9 (-11)
 13  11  Kosintseva, Nadezhda  g  RUS  2516 (-12)  11 (-5)
   14  14  Zatonskih, Anna  m  USA  2512 (+2)  9 (-10)
   15  16  Harika, Dronavalli  g  IND  2508 (0)  0 (-5)
 16  13  Stefanova, Antoaneta  g  BUL  2505 (-13)  16 (-5)
   17  17  Khotenashvili, Bela  m  GEO  2505 (+5)  11 (-9)
 18  20  Danielian, Elina  g  ARM  2495 (+11)  11 (0)
 19  18  Paehtz, Elisabeth  m  GER  2493 (+2)  5 (-25)
 20  19  Zhu, Chen  g  QAT  2491 (0)  0 (0)
 21  24  Cramling, Pia  g  SWE  2486 (+8)  3 (0)
   22  23  Ruan, Lufei  wg  CHN  2483 (0)  0 (0)
 23  21  Socko, Monika  g  POL  2481 (-3)  3 (-5)
 24  29  Kosteniuk, Alexandra  g  RUS  2472 (+15)  11 (-6)
   25  26  Moser, Eva  m  AUT  2471 (+2)  20 (+4)
 26  22  Galliamova, Alisa  m  RUS  2465 (-19)  11 (+6)
   27  27  Xu, Yuhua  g  CHN  2465 (0)  0 (0)
   28  28  Krush, Irina  m  USA  2464 (+7)  9 (-9)
 29  35  Hoang, Thanh Trang  g  HUN  2463 (+14)  19 (+8)
   30  30  Dembo, Yelena  m  GRE  2457 (0)  0 (-3)
   31  32  Khurtsidze, Nino  m  GEO  2456 (0)  0 (-11)
 32  31  Muzychuk, Mariya  m  UKR  2456 (0)  0 (-20)
   33  33  Ushenina, Anna  m  UKR  2452 (-2)  9 (-2)
 34  -  Hunt, Harriet V  m  ENG  2450 (+)  7 (+)
 35  40  Zaiatz, Elena  m  RUS  2449 (+3)  4 (+4)
   36  36  Javakhishvili, Lela  m  GEO  2449 (0)  0 (-11)
   37  37  Mkrtchian, Lilit  m  ARM  2449 (0)  0 (-11)
 38  25  Atalik, Ekaterina  m  TUR  2448 (-26)  17 (+17)
 39  38  Pogonina, Natalija  wg  RUS  2447 (0)  0 (-17)
 40  39  Matnadze, Ana  m  ESP  2446 (0)  0 (-11)
 41  43  Skripchenko, Almira  m  FRA  2442 (+2)  10 (-5)
 42  41  Zhukova, Natalia  g  UKR  2442 (0)  0 (-17)
 43  34  Munguntuul, Batkhuyag  m  MGL  2441 (-10)  9 (+9)
   44  45  Tan, Zhongyi  wg  CHN  2437 (+7)  9 (-11)
 45  44  Batsiashvili, Nino  wg  GEO  2434 (-2)  11 (0)
 46  48  Peptan, Corina-Isabela  m  ROU  2420 (0)  0 (0)
   47  47  Romanko, Marina  m  RUS  2420 (0)  0 (-16)
 48  42  Rajlich, Iweta  m  POL  2419 (-22)  13 (-5)
   49  49  Shen, Yang  wg  CHN  2419 (0)  0 (-9)
 50  54  Alexandrova, Olga  m  ESP  2417 (0)  0 (-7)
   51  51  Huang, Qian  wg  CHN  2417 (0)  0 (-20)
 52  55  Kovalevskaya, Ekaterina  m  RUS  2417 (0)  0 (-6)
 53  46  Arakhamia-Grant, Ketevan  g  SCO  2416 (-10)  10 (+5)
 54  56  Girya, Olga  wg  RUS  2414 (0)  0 (-27)
 55  58  Peng, Zhaoqin  g  NED  2414 (0)  0 (-3)
 56  60  Ovod, Evgenija  m  RUS  2412 (+2)  9 (-11)
 57  62  Turova, Irina  m  RUS  2410 (0)  0 (0)
 58  67  Bodnaruk, Anastasia  m  RUS  2407 (+13)  8 (-12)
   59  59  Houska, Jovanka  m  ENG  2406 (-5)  12 (+3)
 60  52  Tania, Sachdev  m  IND  2405 (-12)  9 (-5)
 61  64  Gaponenko, Inna  m  UKR  2404 (0)  0 (-18)
 62  65  Vasilevich, Tatjana  m  UKR  2404 (0)  0 (-14)
 63  61  Melia, Salome  m  GEO  2403 (-7)  11 (0)
 64  73  Milliet, Sophie  m  FRA  2401 (+14)  20 (+19)
 65  53  Foisor, Cristina-Adela  m  ROU  2401 (-16)  9 (-3)
 66  63  Guramishvili, Sopiko  m  GEO  2399 (-9)  11 (0)
 67  66  Wang, Pin  wg  CHN  2397 (0)  0 (0)
 68  83  Gomes, Mary Ann  wg  IND  2396 (+18)  9 (+3)
 69  77  Bojkovic, Natasa  m  SRB  2392 (+7)  7 (-4)
 70  57  Khukhashvili, Sopiko  m  GEO  2391 (-23)  11 (+2)
 71  68  Kovanova, Baira  wg  RUS  2391 (0)  0 (-17)
 72  70  Zdebskaja, Natalia  wg  UKR  2389 (0)  0 (0)
 73  99  Gara, Ticia  wg  HUN  2388 (+23)  25 (+21)
 74  72  Vijayalakshmi, Subbaraman  m  IND  2387 (0)  0 (-12)
 75  74  Cori T., Deysi  wg  PER  2386 (0)  0 (0)
 76  84  Fierro Baquero, Martha L.  m  ECU  2384 (+7)  12 (+7)
 77  75  Michna, Marta  wg  GER  2383 (-2)  1 (-27)
 78  80  Majdan-Gajewska, Joanna  wg  POL  2383 (0)  0 (-13)
 79  82  Tsereteli, Tamar  wg  GEO  2383 (0)  0 (0)
 80  69  Pham, Le Thao Nguyen  wg  VIE  2382 (-8)  9 (-24)
 81  79  Paikidze, Nazi  m  GEO  2381 (-3)  11 (-11)
 82  100  Wang, Jue    CHN  2380 (+16)  9 (-2)
 83  -  Arabidze, Meri  wm  GEO  2379 (+)  11 (+)
 84  78  Repkova, Eva  m  SVK  2378 (-6)  7 (-16)
 85  91  Kashlinskaya, Alina  wg  RUS  2377 (+5)  9 (-7)
 86  85  Matveeva, Svetlana  m  RUS  2377 (0)  0 (0)
 87  71  Szczepkowska-Horowska, Karina  wg  POL  2376 (-11)  8 (-26)
   88  89  Vasilevich, Irina  m  RUS  2375 (0)  0 (-9)
 89  87  Vojinovic, Jovana  wg  MNE  2375 (0)  0 (-11)
 90  88  Wang, Yu A.  m  CHN  2375 (0)  0 (-11)
 91  90  Kononenko, Tatiana  m  UKR  2374 (0)  0 (-11)
 92  76  Zhang, Xiaowen  wg  CHN  2373 (-12)  18 (-2)
 93  81  L'Ami, Alina  wg  ROU  2372 (-11)  17 (+8)
 94  -  Ding, Yixin  wg  CHN  2372 (+)  9 (+)
 95  93  Bulmaga, Irina  wm  ROU  2371 (+1)  9 (-14)
 96  92  Charochkina, Daria  wg  RUS  2371 (0)  0 (-14)
 97  94  Stockova, Zuzana  m  SVK  2368 (0)  0 (-10)
 98  95  Lujan, Carolina  m  ARG  2367 (0)  0 (-19)
 99  -  Schleining, Zoya  wg  GER  2365 (+)  21 (+)
 100  -  Iljushina, Olga  wg  RUS  2365 (+)  9 (+)

FIDE JULY 2012 RATING LIST: TOP 20 JUNIORS

Rank   Old    Name Title Country Rating Games
   1  1  Caruana, Fabiano  g  ITA  2775 (+5)  22 (-4)
   2  2  Giri, Anish  g  NED  2696 (+3)  14 (-8)
   3  3  Ding, Liren  g  CHN  2676 (-3)  9 (-9)
   4  5  Negi, Parimarjan  g  IND  2652 (+12)  9 (-16)
 5  4  So, Wesley  g  PHI  2650 (-3)  19 (+15)
   6  7  Yu, Yangyi  g  CHN  2641 (+15)  9 (-9)
   7  8  Sjugirov, Sanan  g  RUS  2625 (0)  0 (-18)
 8  6  Zherebukh, Yaroslav  g  UKR  2624 (-8)  14 (-2)
   9  10  Safarli, Eltaj  g  AZE  2623 (+3)  9 (0)
 10  9  Hou, Yifan  g  CHN  2621 (-2)  11 (-18)
   11  11  Kovalyov, Anton  g  ARG  2614 (-5)  9 (+9)
 12  14  Shimanov, Aleksandr  g  RUS  2606 (+6)  20 (+1)
 13  12  Robson, Ray  g  USA  2601 (-13)  17 (+7)
 14  17  Rapport, Richard  g  HUN  2601 (+24)  16 (-24)
 15  13  Nyzhnyk, Illya  g  UKR  2599 (-11)  9 (-16)
 16  15  Swiercz, Dariusz  g  POL  2595 (+10)  17 (-21)
 17  -  Ipatov, Alexander  g  TUR  2581 (+)  18 (+)
   18  18  Ter-Sahakyan, Samvel  g  ARM  2577 (0)  0 (-11)
 19  16  Durarbayli, Vasif  g  AZE  2576 (-3)  9 (-11)
 20  -  Grandelius, Nils  g  SWE  2570 (+)  7 (+)

FIDE JULY 2012 RATING LIST: TOP 20 GIRLS

Rank   Old    Name Title Country Rating Games
   1  1  Hou, Yifan  g  CHN  2621 (-2)  11 (-18)
   2  2  Muzychuk, Mariya  m  UKR  2456 (0)  0 (-20)
   3  3  Bodnaruk, Anastasia  m  RUS  2407 (+13)  8 (-12)
   4  4  Cori T., Deysi  wg  PER  2386 (0)  0 (0)
   5  5  Paikidze, Nazi  m  GEO  2381 (-3)  11 (-11)
 6  9  Wang, Jue    CHN  2380 (+16)  9 (-2)
 7  13  Arabidze, Meri  wm  GEO  2379 (+28)  11 (0)
 8  7  Kashlinskaya, Alina  wg  RUS  2377 (+5)  9 (-7)
 9  6  Vojinovic, Jovana  wg  MNE  2375 (0)  0 (-11)
 10  8  Bulmaga, Irina  wm  ROU  2371 (+1)  9 (-14)
   11  12  Goryachkina, Aleksandra  wg  RUS  2354 (+1)  8 (-16)
 12  10  Guo, Qi  wg  CHN  2344 (-16)  9 (-2)
 13  11  Ziaziulkina, Nastassia  wg  BLR  2342 (-12)  5 (-15)
 14  -  Sukandar, Irine Kharisma  wg  INA  2338 (+)  9 (+)
 15  20  Papp, Petra  wm  HUN  2325 (+33)  18 (+9)
 16  14  Padmini, Rout  wg  IND  2324 (-21)  28 (+28)
 17  19  Soloviova, Liza  wg  UKR  2309 (+15)  7 (+7)
 18  16  Savina, Anastasia  m  RUS  2304 (+3)  8 (-18)
 19  15  Pustovoitova, Daria  f  RUS  2303 (-4)  9 (-1)
 20  18  Schut, Lisa  wm  NED  2299 (0)  0 (-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

B L's picture

Hi Peter,

Great report.

Maybe you should consider making your links opening in a new page so people can stay on chessvibes.com!

Cheers

B L's picture

Referring to the links you publish in articles.

Anonymous's picture

+1

Creemer's picture

right click - open in new tab (also an option)

RG's picture

re: "Magnus Carlsen reached his peak rating of 2837 and is only 15 points shy of passing Garry Kasparov's all-time high of 2851."

Well yes and no. It is like comparing the salaries that people earned long ago with those of today. We have to adjust for inflation and we must take into account the average of other top earners/players of the time.

That is why Gary Kasparov said that he did not think that Magnus Carlsen's rating achievements compare with Bobby Fischer's. So let's not set things up for a big whoop if Carlsen's inflated rating actually passes Kasparov. Historically, he would still have not proven himself as dominant (over his contemporaries) as Kasparov or Fischer (however maybe Fischer's performance should be punished with an asterisk because he quit before facing Karpov; he would have lost major rating points with each draw with Karpov - as happened to Anand).

please reference:

http://www.thechessmind.net/blog/2012/5/25/the-highest-ratings-ever-adju...

boardgame's picture

True, there certainly is inflation. But you also need to consider that players simply got better due to the huge advancements in information technology, just listen to Anand's recent lecture at Accenture. So part of the increase of the top 100 players is actually backed up by better performance. In a way Kasparov was playing much weaker players than Magnus is nowadays partially because for him it was much easier to keep his information edge than it is nowadays! So maybe Kasparov benefited even more from the inflation characteristic of the ELO-calculation.

RG's picture

@ boardgame, it is true that "players simply got better due to the huge advancements in information technology" but ratings measure a players performance against his peers (who all have access to IT) and Carlsen has not dominated his peers in the way Fischer or Kasparov did.

Note the huge gap between Fischer in his prime and the number 2 player in his day and Kasparov in his prime and the number 2 player in his day.
Carlsen has not separated himself from Aronian by those margins.

PircAlert's picture

First of all, if you want to use rating to show your dominance, you should at least have huge differences consistently together for couple of years. Not in just one rating list. It could be a fluke but it also could very well be from buying some games in your favor. Second of all, computers have increased the strength of competition many fold. One former US champion while praising another GM for his training ability said with 1 days training from him he was able to play a completely new opening in a day's preparation and could win US championship. The so called dominance by Fischer and Kasparov was when 63 year old Smyslov was playing for challengership and when some of them had affordability of numerous seconds when the other did not have (in case of Kasparov). What we have is true competition. The fact that this generation has kicked so called greats like Kasparov, Karpov into retirement at a too early stage speaks volume of their greatness. No need to write books or keep repeating they are great to prove this generation greatness. I believe Nakamura said of Kasparov like without his opening Kasparov is nothing in chess or on similar lines. So for the so called greats' greatness.

redivivo's picture

Huh?

egiovannotti's picture

Yes, nice point!

egiovannotti's picture

Nice point!

Peter Smith's picture

Kasparov 2851 dominance in January 2000 FIDE Rating list!

82 points difference vs number 2,
93 points differencevs number 3,
100 points difference vs number 4,
103 points difference vs number 5,

January 2000 - FIDE Rating List
1 . Kasparov, Garry : 2851
2 . Anand, Viswanathan : 2769
3 . Kramnik, Vladimir : 2758
4 . Shirov, Alexei : 2751
5 . Morozevich, Alexander : 2748

Carslen needs between 2888 and 2898 to show similar dominance among pars!

PircAlert's picture

Topalov had 60 point rating difference when Kramnik played for their title. What good is this rating dominance when you can't beat your opponent in not even once or could come close to win in 16 games?? What good is this dominance when the new computer generation could kick so called dominant greats into early retirements. Anand, Carlsen can also likewise dominate today if a 63 old GM is challenging them for title.

PircAlert's picture

Topalov had 60 point rating difference when Kramnik played for their title. What good is this rating dominance when you can't beat your opponent in not even once or could come close to win in 16 games?? What good is this dominance when the new computer generation could kick so called dominant greats into early retirements. Anand, Carlsen can also likewise dominate today if a 63 old GM is challenging them for title.

S3's picture

The 2000 match with Kramnik showed exactly what is wrong with such an interpretation of rating.

But anyway, why the fuss? IF Carlsen breaks the record he does just that. This "dominance" thing has nothing to do with it.

Chess Fan's picture

Good Point.
Chess Ratings stand for something, but it is neither definitive, nor absolute.

PircAlert's picture

Absolutely S3!

Kramnik dominates Kasparov in 2000 coupled Anand's dominance as world champion in title matches have made Kasparov fans who don't believe in a rating system - that has inherent flaws from how its calculated or from where it is obtained - new believers in rating system, it looks.

boardgame's picture

Exactly, Magnus does not dominate his opponents in a way Fischer or Kasparov did. One reason for that (besides the relative strenght of the player) is that it is much harder nowadays to build up an information edge like Kasporaov with his infamous database obviously did. Nowadays everybody has access to IT which narrows the information gap dramatically, especially since Houdini etc. are way stronger than any human. Thus, (theoretic) knowledge is more evenly distributed, which makes it way more difficult to dominate like Fischer or Kasparov did. Because the average rating of Kasparov's opponents was much lower than the average rating of Carlsen's opponents, it is likely that Kasparov benefited much more from the 400-point rule than Carlsen (http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=7941). Thus, Kasparov's rating might be more inflated than Carlson's.

RG's picture

Kasparov made his mark in the Soviet days. Why are you implying that he had an "information edge"?Trainers were provided by the Soviet Chess Federation. Are you saying that the Soviets liked Kasparov better than Karpov.

Also Fischer didn't have an information edge over the Soviet players, in fact he learned Russian just to read THEIR books. What he did have was a photographic memory and more talent than any other player of his time.

brabo's picture

I can't remember Kasparov playing against opponents more than 400-points below himself.
I agree that a person can inflate his rating by playing against much weaker opponents than himself but I dont'see any proof of this in Kasparovs rating.

S3's picture

In addition, "access to IT" also takes away part of the advantage of being able to analyze and devise creative opening ideas.

But once again, why this discussion about who dominates the most when we are talking about completely different eras and circumstances.
It's kinda childish imo.

..After all, it's obvious that the Karpov and Kasparov of the 80's would trash anyone today (except Kramnik) :-)

PircAlert's picture

Well put, boardgame!

Anonymous's picture

Excellent point...Check out GK's notes in "My Great Predecessors" to see how much chess knowledge has advanced deep into the middlegame, if not the endgame.

boardgaim's picture

Well, if performance is a function of available knowledge, raw talent, and memory, I would say that available knowledge is much more evenly distributed nowadays than ever before (Anand mentioned this point also during his lecture). The fact that engines play much stronger than any human, has a negative influence on the importance of raw talent. Thus, I think the importance of available knowledge and raw talent has decreased a bit. Instead, memory has become much more important. Still Carlson manages to stick out. Even if it is not as much as Kasparov, this might be at least partially attributed to the diminshed importance of available knowledge and raw talent.

Guest's picture

We can hardly imagine something new like this with no big rating calc. errors coming with it.

Anonymous's picture

We cannot let the rating list dominate us like this!

Krishnan's picture

We cannot let the rating list dominate us like this!

The Devil's picture

Get Judit Polgar off the ratings list, tired of seeing her on it, she doesn't even compete

Martin Matthiesen's picture

Actually she was rated for games played i 2012.

Thomas's picture

I tried to find out which events were actually rated for the rapid and blitz "lists" - these are the results of a rather rough survey:

- in rapid the tiebreak games of the Anand-Gelfand match and the rapid games between Karpov and Seirawan (but not the blitz games from the same match!?).
Unrated: French GP Series (Vachier-Lagrave won the first two of five events), Vladimir Petrov Memorial (won by Morozevich ahead of, among others, Shirov, Ivanchuk and Mamedyarov), Topalov-Vallejo match.
- blitz: Dutch Open Championship - that's how Speelman got his blitz rating, other GM participants included Fressinet, Seirawan, van Wely, Sadler, Timman, Naiditsch. Funnily winner Fressinet lost 40 rating points compared to his classical rating, this could well be a record for a tournament winner.
Unrated: Aeroflot Blitz won by Karjakin ahead of, among others, Grischuk, Caruana, Mamedyarov. The Chessvibes report stated "As we understand, this tournament will be calculated for the FIDE blitz ratings" - I don't blame Chessvibes at all, but what's going on??

What's going on in general? Are some time controls not acceptable, or did many organizers fail to submit rating reports for whichever reason(s)? If this seemingly random pattern continues, I will find it hard to take rapid and blitz ratings seriously.

hansie's picture

+1

RealityCheck's picture

If Elo Rating is ever to be taken seriously it will have to be measured more consistently. f.e. How can we rate a game played at 40 moves 150 minutes against one played at 40 moves 90 minutes against one played at 40 moves 120 minutes against one played in 100 minutes without creating confusion? There are just too many different time controls being lumped together to come up with the NoOne.

RUSSIANCHESSFAN's picture

Kasprov will always try to put down anybody who even hints at dominance. i am not surprised he doesnt think Carlsen is dominant enough. Carlsen's tournament winning streak is arguablyas impressive, if not more than Kasparov's.

Unless Anand shows otherwise in his next few tournament games, #5 appears a bit high for him. Before the pro-Anand brigade jumps in to attack me, let me add that i think Anand is a top 3 All-Time player along with Fisher and Kasparov. He was 2817 a year ago and has fallen to 2780 having played a relatively few number of games. So, my criticism of his ranking is based on current playing strength (which is what the rating is supposed to measure). Oh, and if only rapid ratings were in vogue the last two decades, Anand would have been even more dominant than a Kasparov (longevity) or a Fisher (peak). Of course, that is all in the past - now both Aronian and Carlsen will be easily ahead of him even in rapid.

Kramnik would be first even today if there was a blindfold rating.

I expect Karjakin to move up towards 2800 in the next few lists.

Niima's picture

Anand is great of course, but no Holly Trinity list would be complete without Karpov.

S3's picture

Based on numbers alone Carlsens tournament record over 2-3 years is definitely better than anything Kasparov can show. But then there are differences in how the tournaments where won, in the participants, and Kaspy also had to play wch matches in that time so it's apples and oranges again.
Which brings me to Anand-do you really think he is much weaker than anyone in the top 5? Playing the title match hurt him ratingwise yet that's almost the nature of such a match.

Chess Fan's picture

"Which brings me to Anand-do you really think he is much weaker than anyone in the top 5? Playing the title match hurt him ratingwise yet that's almost the nature of such a match."
Very good point by S3. I agree with him - the second point is especially very astute observation on his part.

Chess Fan's picture

I know you are being sincere and fair in your comments, but again, none of us can judge Anand's or any one of these great players strengths and one-to-one results based on ratings and recent tournament performances.
Could we have predicted Kasparov-Kramnik, Kramnik-Anand, Anand-Topolov (I expected Anand to lose playing against such odds in Bulgaria, in such adverse situations), and lastly Anand-Gelfand? I also say that it would be difficult to predict Anand-Aronian (in spite of Aronian's record against Anand) and Anand-Carlsen. That is both the beauty and complexity of the WCh as I understand.
But I appreciate your very informed points -views very typical of a fan from that part of the world.

Chess Fan's picture

Again wrongly positioned! Really sorry. I was writing in response to the "RussianChessFan" comments.
It seemed properly positioned when posting, but seems different after posting. Will take care next time and try to figure out what is happening - maybe my mistake.

redivivo's picture

"Kramnik would be first even today if there was a blindfold rating"

Far from it, in the only blindfold event he has played the last two years he finished 11th of 12 (Amber 2011), and in 2010 he shared second in the blindfold section. He wouldn't be anywhere close to be "first even today" in an overall rating including blindfold since he hasn't finished ahead of Carlsen once in a blindfold event for over four years.

S3's picture

So what, maybe RussianCF thinks that Kramnik had such an enormous score before those 2 years that he'd still be on top.
It's not a difficult concept to grasp; f.i. Carlsen is leading the rating list for some years yet there have been several years with people performing better tpr-wise. Still MC remains ahead on the list because of earlier results. Just taking 2 events proves nothing (although your conclusion seems to be right;)

Thomas's picture

There were 19 editions of Amber blindfold (the first event in 1992 had blitz rather than blindfold). Kramnik was six times sole first and three times shared first - so he should have had a comfortable lead in bllindfold ratings, and it's impossible to overtake him just by scoring the same number of points (as Carlsen did). Then there came the last edition when Kramnik was unrecognizable, which makes redivivo happy ... .
BTW in the rapid event, Anand showed exactly the same long-term dominance as Kramnik (6 clear and 3 shared wins) which also doesn't suddenly become irrelevant because he wasn't as impressive in the last edition.

Anonymous's picture

"it's impossible to overtake him just by scoring the same number of points (as Carlsen did). Then there came the last edition when Kramnik was unrecognizable, which makes redivivo happy ... ."

If Carlsen is the annoying part just compare Kramnik with Aronian, who won the blindfold section three of the last four times Amber was played. In 2011 Kramnik scored -3 and Aronian +6, something that would have given Aronian 50 points plus compared to Kramnik. That's the only blindfold event played in more than two years, so the "Kramnik is still number 1" thing seems like wishful thinking going by the actual results.

Thomas's picture

Maybe you are right and a single bad result means that Kramnik lost his hypothetical #1 spot - one would need to calculate in detail how big his lead (built up over many years) was before the last edition.
Regardless of what it means for (non-existing) blindfold ratings, Kramnik's last Amber result is a bit reminiscent of a marathon runner who has nine good races, and the tenth time drops out with an injury.
"Aronian, who won the blindfold section three of the last four times Amber was played" - pretty suggestive writing: He was clear first in 2011. In 2008, he shared first place with Kramnik(!), Morozevich and Topalov. In 2009, he shared first place with Carlsen and Kramnik(!).

Anonymous's picture

The thing is that Russianchessfan writes about Anand that

"my criticism of his ranking is based on current playing strength (which is what the rating is supposed to measure)"

and then goes on to say that Kramnik still would be #1 if blindfold was rated, so it's at the very least selective to reason like that if you only refer to Kramnik's blindfold results more than five years ago and criticise Anand only for much later results in classical.

S3's picture

But rating doesn't measure current playing strength as it's obviously heavily dependend on earlier performance. Only TPR measures current performance but it's not the same as strength.
So ratings are of limited use in predicting results. But people still like to focus on the numbers and silly comparisons, probably because it's easier to do than to try and understand a game. That's why the live rating list is so popular and why we see these discussions:)

tobacco's picture

Who is this Carlson anyway?

Chess Fan's picture

Can someone please tell me Magnus's head-head score with Vishy Anand in the classical games? I remember that he has beaten Anand just once and lost more than a couple of times.

Chess Fan's picture

Sorry, wrongly positioned. I did not mean to be critical of Magnus in any way, and greatly admire his chess accomplishments, especially in such a young age.

Thomas's picture

I guess tobacco just didn't understand the hype around Swedish GM Pontus Carlsson - combined with the rudeness of misspelling his name :)

MJul's picture

Carlsen - Anand: 1 - 6, and 16 draws.

2007:
1/2-1/2 (Corus)
0-1 (Linares)
0-1 (Linares)
1/2-1/2 (Dormund)
2008:
0-1 (Corus)
1/2-1/2 (Linares)
0-1 (Linares)
1/2-1/2 (Bilbao)
1/2-1/2 (Bilbao)
2009:
1-0 (Linares)
1/2-1/2 (Linares)
1/2-1/2 (Tal Memorial)
2010:
1/2-1/2 (Corus)
1/2-1/2 (Bilbao)
0-1 (Bilbao)
1/2-1/2 (Nanjing)
1/2-1/2 (Nanijng)
0-1 (London)
2011:
1/2-1/2 (Tata)
1/2-1/2 (Bilbao)
1/2-1/2 (Bilbao)
1/2-1/2 (Tal Memorial)
1/2-1/2 (London)

Pages

Latest articles