Topalov still no. 1 - no, Anand!
31 March 2007 22:03 PM | Last modified: 16:45
Update April 2, 12.32 CET: as was already noted in the comments below, Anand is now indeed the no. 1 on the rating list on the FIDE website!
Update April 1, 12.40 CET: Chessbase claims FIDE will ‘correct’ the April list as soon as possible by including Morelia/Linares and Gibraltar. So I guess we can expect an update on de FIDE website in the coming days.
The FIDE rating list of April 2007 has been published. Surprise, surprise: Veselin Topalov is still the no. 1. He was overtaken by Viswananthan Anand during Morelia/Linares, but this tournament was not calculated. A strange thing, if you consider that this tournament always counted for the April list in recent years. Mark Crowther, who noticed that Gibraltar wasn’t included either, even considers it to be an error. But stricktly speaking, it’s even stranger that Linares was always included in the April list, since the deadline for a rating list is always one month. In other words: FIDE is suddenly stricktly obeying to their own rules. Not. As was remarked on Mig’s blog, some other tournaments that ended after March 1st, were included…
For the first time the FIDE Ratings Server was used. National Federation Rating Officers were able to enter tournament results directly online and perhaps this is where something went wrong in in Gibraltar. Morelia/Linares will simply be included in the July 1st list.
The top hasn’t changed much this time. Aronian climbed from no. 7 to the 4th spot. Radjabov is now a top 10 player. Jakovenko continued his progress and went from 22 to 18.
Rank Name Country Rating Games B-Year 1 Topalov, Veselin BUL 2791 13 1975 2 Anand, Viswanathan IND 2778 13 1969 3 Kramnik, Vladimir RUS 2772 13 1975 4 Aronian, Levon ARM 2759 13 1982 5 Mamedyarov, Shakhriyar AZE 2757 3 1985 6 Morozevich, Alexander RUS 2756 7 1977 7 Leko, Peter HUN 2749 0 1979 8 Radjabov, Teimour AZE 2747 13 1987 9 Ivanchuk, Vassily UKR 2735 10 1969 10 Adams, Michael ENG 2734 1 1971 11 Gelfand, Boris ISR 2733 0 1968 12 Svidler, Peter RUS 2731 13 1976 13 Polgar, Judit HUN 2727 0 1976 14 Navara, David CZE 2720 19 1985 15 Ponomariov, Ruslan UKR 2717 13 1983 16 Grischuk, Alexander RUS 2717 0 1983 17 Bacrot, Etienne FRA 2709 3 1983 18 Jakovenko, Dmitry RUS 2708 32 1983 19 Kamsky, Gata USA 2705 0 1974 20 Shirov, Alexei ESP 2699 20 1972
Here you find the top 100.
The ladies:
Rank Name Country Rating Games B-Year 1 Polgar, Judit HUN 2727 0 1976 2 Koneru, Humpy IND 2575 8 1987 3 Cramling, Pia SWE 2535 11 1963 4 Zhu, Chen QAT 2518 0 1976 5 Kosteniuk, Alexandra RUS 2515 0 1984 6 Hou, Yifan CHN 2513 22 1994 7 Chiburdanidze, Maia GEO 2510 0 1961 8 Stefanova, Antoaneta BUL 2496 9 1979 9 Harika, Dronavalli IND 2491 33 1991 10 Socko, Monika POL 2481 0 1978 11 Sebag, Marie FRA 2479 3 1986 12 Galliamova, Alisa RUS 2477 14 1972 13 Kosintseva, Nadezhda RUS 2475 22 1985 14 Ushenina, Anna UKR 2475 20 1985 15 Muzychuk, Anna SLO 2474 12 1990 16 Hoang Thanh Trang HUN 2472 12 1980 17 Dembo, Yelena GRE 2470 9 1983 18 Khurtsidze, Nino GEO 2469 12 1975 19 Lahno, Kateryna UKR 2467 15 1989 20 Zhao, Xue CHN 2467 9 1985
The full rating list in text format (zipped) can be downloaded here. You can also just use the box in the yellow column of the ChessVibes website, where it says “FIDE RATING?” 
“In other words: FIDE is suddenly stricktly obeying to their own rules. Not. As was remarked on Mig’s blog, some other tournaments that ended after March 1st, were included…”
It’s not even that. FIDE does not at all now obey their own rules. There are PLENTY of tournaments whose reports were submitted after deadline, no matter when they ended, but were still counted.
Now the word is, from Freeman, that the ratings committee made up a completely new rule that nobody had heard of before and that hardly even makes sense.
The questions are 1) WHY did they decide on this new rule, 2) WHEN did they decide on this new rule, 3) WHO made the phone call.
FIDE can say what they want. Anand is the official #1 by fact of (1) precedent of rating Linares despite its time frame and (2) the fact that FIDE rated other events during the March time period this year.
Really, what’s surprising is this came with no warning. I’m sure that deciding not to rate Linares was an irregularity that would have raised some flags somewhere within FIDE’s statistical team, so some type of news pre-release would have been appropriate.
In any case, congratulations to Anand on his new #1 ranking.
How long the chess world will tolerate those clowns in charge of FIDE?
Why is a liar and probably cheater in the first place of the ranking?
But to almost everybody is public and well-known that Anand and Kramnik are the top players now, in contrast with the FIDE NÂş1 who finished almost the last in Morelia-Linares.
So, I will use that FIDE list, to wipe my …
FIDE really can find ways to screw up even the simple things! If one told them to buy a tomato I bet they’d bring you a cucumber… Anyway, this kind of changes in procedures how tournaments are included in calculations should be published well in advance and preferably introduce the change starting Jan. 1st (here January 1st 2008). What they have done now is inconsistent (some March events calculated and some not) and mysterious. Very unprofessional!
I don’t mind who’s first Anand or Topalov, because we all know that V.Kramnik is the strongest.
Well, unless it’s another one of their April Fools jokes, Chessbase reports that FIDE has changed their minds and will include Morella/Linares. Of course, this is only right.
Have you noticed that when one of their own (Nigel Freedman, Georgios Makropoulos, Zurab Azmaiparashvili) speak on FIDEs behalf, their explanations cast FIDE in a worse light than before? Lies will generally do that…
I’m sorry, but I see on the list number 1: Anand with 2786 and number 2: Topalov 2772. Am I wrong?
No Gerard, you’re actually one of the first to discover that FIDE did correct their mistake, first thing Monday morning!
Congratulations, Vishy!
It is still far from clear why the bizarre decision was made to begin with. No good explanation has been given. It’s hard to believe it’s some big conspiracy when they change their minds as soon as people start to protest - which they of course knew would happen. But it’s really odd.
There are few in FIDE , apparantly from the countries who hardly ever have produced any chess player of repute ( may down in the line) who would not like to see a brown face on the top. Whether its in relation to eastern culture which is atleast 5000 years older than any where on the earth or it is the matter of scientist or sports, there are few who are unable to accept the fact. Hey forget to mention that India and China are rising without colonising or using slavery!
Wow Vivek, take it easy. It’s just a list. And it’s just chess.
Peter, I understand that this is just a list and just a chess ; then why was Anand not put on the First FIDE list as No 1. As a journalist have you investigated the reason?
a) Who in FIDE brokethe 15 year traditin to deprive Anand of his legitimate claim?
b) For lots of chess fans,FIDE is no more legitimate and may be its a rascist organisation. It needs to investigated ?
c) The names of FIDE personnel who debutted Anand’s claim in interview should be brought forward so that they are removed from FIDE.
Until thee answers and official statement from FIDE for their rascist poicies come, the chess would remain divided
Vivek, I really didn’t need ‘investigation’ to find out why Anand was not 1st on the 1st list. FIDE just suddenly applied their rules very stricktly. Saying they did this because Anand has a darker colour of skin is just nonsense. I encourage you to criticize FIDE on their many flaws, but calling them racists?? Come on.
Peter, being rascist does not only mean calling some body bad or mistreating but also ( especially presently in many parts of world who boasts of some superiority because they were oppressors and not victims during the age of slavery and colonism) when denying some one an opportunity or using rules in a way to deny some one an opportunity but not others.
So your adjective ‘nonsense’ is not correct. Ask FIDE about its policies, that gentleman from FIDE who gave an interview stating that they preferred to apply the rules this year but not previously in 15 years. So what is ‘nonsense’ , you decide as a journalist , Peter. The cardinal rule of being a journalist is no assumption.
I just read Anand’s comments on Chessbase. He is grateful for those who stood up for him regarding the rating list and, in the several interviews that are either quoted or broadcast, hasn’t a negative word to say about anyone.
It is this quality about Anand, more than his chess, that I’ve always admired. Mr. and Mrs. Viswanathan, you have every right to be very proud of your son - he has turned out to be first, a good man, and second, a great chess player.