February 02, 2013 16:25

Carlsen hires Nielsen and is rated 2872 - reactions by Kasparov, Kavalek and Rowson

Carlsen 2872 on February Elo list - reactions by Kasparov, Kavalek and Rowson

Winning 11 more points at the Tata Steel tournament in January, Magnus Carlsen improved his record rating of 2861 to 2872 on the February FIDE rating list. The world's number one chess player is now 62 points ahead of his closest rival, #2 Vladimir Kramnik (whose son Vadim Vladimirovich was born on January 29th in Paris!). Meanwhile, the Norwegian newspaper VG published the news that Danish grandmaster Peter Heine Nielsen will assist Carlsen during his preparation for the Candidates Tournament.

Levon Aronian also played a good tournament in Wijk aan Zee, and by winning 7 points the Armenian is now just 1 point behind Kramnik. Anand and Karjakin also took home a few rating points from the Tata tournament but for Fabiano Caruana it could hardly have gone worse. The Italian lost 24 points and dropped from the 5th to the 13th place in the rankings. (Below we'll give the new rating lists.)

Reactions

Much as been said about Carlsen's continuous rise in the world rankings. We'd like to take the opportunity to quote three grandmasters. Let's start with Garry Kasparov, who saw his rating record broken a month ago. After the Tata Steel tournament, the 13th World Champion wrote on his Facebook page:

Congratulations to Magnus Carlsen for his huge victory at the Tata Steel Chess tournament in Wijk aan Zee! He matched my record score of 10/13 there and without losing a game, and he pushed his record rating up even higher. I would like to say he owes his success to my year of coaching him, but it was already clear then and even clearer now that Magnus is a very special talent with no limits on what he can achieve.

Carlsen's next step is obvious, but not easy: winning the March candidates tournament in London to become Vishy Anand's challenger in a world championship match later this year. I try to root for good chess and big fighting spirit, not for players, but of course it will be hard for me not to support my three Russian compatriots in London: Kramnik, Svidler, and Grischuk. How can the world chess title move from sunny India to frigid Norway without stopping by in its traditional home of Russia?

Some say world championship matches are old-fashioned, or that a sport with a rating list and top tournaments doesn't need a world champion at all. But I still believe that head-to-head combat is the most exciting and fairest way to decide the title, and that our legacy of great champions is one of the most potent elements in chess as a global sport. Magnus is destined to join these ranks. It only remains for him to win when it matters most, a true test of a champion.

In his column for the Huffington Post, Lubosh Kavalek  wrote:

After triumphing in two major tournaments, in London in December and in Wijk aan Zee in January, Magnus Carlsen is a clear favorite to win the eight-player Candidates event in London (March 15-April 1). (...) However, Carlsen shines in the middlegame and endgame. That's where the fun begins for him and sets him apart from the rest. He plays with great determination, exploiting every possible chance to win. "I was happy I got the maximum out of every game," he said in Wijk aan Zee. Not everybody is capable of playing like this every single game. He is cool under pressure and very patient. 

In his January 26th column for The Herald in Scotland, Jonathan Rowson summed up Carlsen's qualities:

I believe the core of Magnus’s strength is his capacity to out-last his opponents, and that this quality depends upon several other skills and dispositions coalescing in a way that is hard to match. First, and perhaps most important, he doesn’t really blunder. Second, he enjoys the competitive tension of being at the board and is in no rush to get away. Third, he manages to be deeply self-confident while retaining both objectivity and a good feeling for the fallibility and vulnerability of the opponent. Fourth, he is extremely versatile- there are no positions that he doesn’t like. Fifth, he has an excellent sense of timing, of knowing when to change the nature of the position to pose practical problems. Sixth, he has the energy of youth, and makes the most of it by carefully managing his diet and lifestyle. This energy allows him to stay alert in the final moments of the game while others begin to fade.

Peter Heine Nielsen

Before we give the FIDE rating lists, we'll also mention the report in the Norwegian newspaper VG that informs the transfer of Peter Heine Nielsen, a long time second of World Champion Vishy Anand, to Carlsen's team. Nielsen, who worked with the Norwegian before, will travel with him to the Canary Island and prepare for the Candidates Tournament in March in London.

February 2013 FIDE ratings

Lists compared: Top 100 Players February 2013 - Top 100 Players January 2013
 
Rank Old
Rank
Name Country Title Rating Old
Rating
Games
  1 1 Carlsen, Magnus NOR GM 2872 +11 2861 13
  2 2 Kramnik, Vladimir RUS GM 2810   2810 0
  3 3 Aronian, Levon ARM GM 2809 +7 2802 13
  4 4 Radjabov, Teimour AZE GM 2793   2793 0
5 6 Karjakin, Sergey RUS GM 2786 +6 2780 13
6 7 Anand, Viswanathan IND GM 2780 +8 2772 13
7 8 Topalov, Veselin BUL GM 2771   2771 0
8 9 Nakamura, Hikaru USA GM 2767 -2 2769 13
9 10 Mamedyarov, Shakhriyar AZE GM 2766   2766 0
10 11 Grischuk, Alexander RUS GM 2764   2764 0
11 13 Ivanchuk, Vassily UKR GM 2758   2758 0
  12 12 Morozevich, Alexander RUS GM 2758   2758 0
13 5 Caruana, Fabiano ITA GM 2757 -24 2781 13
14 15 Svidler, Peter RUS GM 2747   2747 0
15 19 Leko, Peter HUN GM 2744 +9 2735 13
16 14 Wang, Hao CHN GM 2743 -9 2752 13
17 16 Gelfand, Boris ISR GM 2740   2740 0
18 17 Kamsky, Gata USA GM 2740   2740 0
19 18 Gashimov, Vugar AZE GM 2737   2737 0
  20 20 Jakovenko, Dmitry RUS GM 2734   2734 0
  21 21 Ponomariov, Ruslan UKR GM 2733   2733 0
  22 22 Andreikin, Dmitry RUS GM 2727   2727 0
23 24 Adams, Michael ENG GM 2725   2725 0
24 25 Dominguez Perez, Leinier CUB GM 2723   2723 6
25 23 Giri, Anish NED GM 2722 -4 2726 13
26 27 Tomashevsky, Evgeny RUS GM 2722   2722 0
27 28 Volokitin, Andrei UKR GM 2722   2722 0
28 29 Areshchenko, Alexander UKR GM 2720   2720 0
29 36 Naiditsch, Arkadij GER GM 2716 +8 2708 13
  30 30 Vachier-Lagrave, Maxime FRA GM 2715 +2 2713 12
31 26 Wojtaszek, Radoslaw POL GM 2710 -13 2723 10
32 31 Navara, David CZE GM 2710   2710 0
33 37 Shirov, Alexei LAT GM 2709 +1 2708 7
34 35 Cheparinov, Ivan BUL GM 2709   2709 0
35 33 Ding, Liren CHN GM 2709   2709 0
36 32 Kasimdzhanov, Rustam UZB GM 2709   2709 0
37 34 Malakhov, Vladimir RUS GM 2709   2709 0
38 48 Bruzon Batista, Lazaro CUB GM 2707 +6 2701 15
39 46 Wang, Yue CHN GM 2706 +4 2702 4
40 38 Fressinet, Laurent FRA GM 2706   2706 0
41 50 Harikrishna, P. IND GM 2705 +7 2698 13
42 39 Le, Quang Liem VIE GM 2705   2705 0
43 40 Riazantsev, Alexander RUS GM 2705   2705 0
  44 44 Bacrot, Etienne FRA GM 2704 +1 2703 7
45 41 Akopian, Vladimir ARM GM 2704   2704 0
46 43 Moiseenko, Alexander UKR GM 2703   2703 0
47 42 Nepomniachtchi, Ian RUS GM 2703   2703 0
48 56 Korobov, Anton UKR GM 2702 +12 2690 10
49 45 Berkes, Ferenc HUN GM 2702   2702 0
50 47 Jobava, Baadur GEO GM 2702   2702 0
51 49 McShane, Luke J ENG GM 2698   2698 0
  52 52 Efimenko, Zahar UKR GM 2696   2696 0
53 51 Polgar, Judit HUN GM 2696   2696 0
54 62 Movsesian, Sergei ARM GM 2695 +7 2688 13
  55 55 Alekseev, Evgeny RUS GM 2695 +4 2691 10
56 53 Vallejo Pons, Francisco ESP GM 2694   2694 0
57 54 Vitiugov, Nikita RUS GM 2694   2694 0
58 61 Grachev, Boris RUS GM 2693 +5 2688 14
59 57 Short, Nigel D ENG GM 2690   2690 0
60 58 Almasi, Zoltan HUN GM 2689   2689 0
61 59 Inarkiev, Ernesto RUS GM 2688   2688 0
62 63 Rublevsky, Sergei RUS GM 2688   2688 0
63 60 Yu, Yangyi CHN GM 2688   2688 0
64 74 Li, Chao b CHN GM 2686 +12 2674 21
65 68 Van Wely, Loek NED GM 2684 +5 2679 13
  66 66 So, Wesley PHI GM 2684 +2 2682 4
67 65 Sutovsky, Emil ISR GM 2684   2684 0
68 81 Gareev, Timur USA GM 2682 +17 2665 9
69 67 Bologan, Viktor MDA GM 2681   2681 0
70 64 Edouard, Romain FRA GM 2680 -6 2686 25
71 69 Eljanov, Pavel UKR GM 2678   2678 0
  72 72 Sasikiran, Krishnan IND GM 2677 +1 2676 10
73 70 Nisipeanu, Liviu-Dieter ROU GM 2677   2677 0
74 71 Motylev, Alexander RUS GM 2676   2676 0
75 73 Bu, Xiangzhi CHN GM 2675   2675 0
76 75 Gyimesi, Zoltan HUN GM 2674   2674 0
77 76 Laznicka, Viktor CZE GM 2674   2674 0
  78 78 Fridman, Daniel GER GM 2667   2667 0
  79 79 Kryvoruchko, Yuriy UKR GM 2666   2666 0
  80 80 Sargissian, Gabriel ARM GM 2666   2666 0
81 82 Potkin, Vladimir RUS GM 2665   2665 0
82   Petrosian, Tigran L. ARM GM 2663     9
83 84 Onischuk, Alexander USA GM 2663 +3 2660 5
84 83 Gharamian, Tigran FRA GM 2661   2661 0
85 86 Zvjaginsev, Vadim RUS GM 2658   2658 0
86 92 Istratescu, Andrei FRA GM 2657 +3 2654 14
87 99 Zhigalko, Sergei BLR GM 2656 +5 2651 10
88 89 Nielsen, Peter Heine DEN GM 2656   2656 0
89 94 Khismatullin, Denis RUS GM 2655 +3 2652 9
  90 90 Ragger, Markus AUT GM 2655   2655 0
91 97 Smirin, Ilia ISR GM 2654 +2 2652 9
92 91 Dreev, Aleksey RUS GM 2654   2654 0
  93 93 Matlakov, Maxim RUS GM 2653   2653 0
94 95 Filippov, Anton UZB GM 2652   2652 0
95 96 Kobalia, Mikhail RUS GM 2652   2652 0
96 98 Mamedov, Rauf AZE GM 2651   2651 0
97 87 Tiviakov, Sergei NED GM 2650 -7 2657 13
98 100 Khairullin, Ildar RUS GM 2650   2650 0
99 102 Tkachiev, Vladislav FRA GM 2650   2650 0
100   Kurnosov, Igor RUS GM 2649    

February 2013 FIDE ratings (women)

Lists compared: Top 100 Women February 2013 - Top 100 Women January 2013
 
Rank Old
Rank
Name Country Title Rating Old
Rating
Games
  1 1 Polgar, Judit HUN GM 2696   2696 0
  2 2 Hou, Yifan CHN GM 2617 +14 2603 13
  3 3 Koneru, Humpy IND GM 2597   2597 0
  4 4 Muzychuk, Anna SLO GM 2582   2582 0
  5 5 Dzagnidze, Nana GEO GM 2555   2555 0
  6 6 Zhao, Xue CHN GM 2554   2554 0
  7 7 Lagno, Kateryna UKR GM 2547   2547 0
  8 8 Kosintseva, Nadezhda RUS GM 2531   2531 0
  9 9 Sebag, Marie FRA GM 2530   2530 0
  10 10 Cramling, Pia SWE GM 2523 +5 2518 9
  11 11 Kosintseva, Tatiana RUS GM 2517   2517 0
  12 12 Stefanova, Antoaneta BUL GM 2516   2516 0
  13 13 Cmilyte, Viktorija LTU GM 2515   2515 0
  14 14 Harika, Dronavalli IND GM 2514   2514 0
  15 15 Ju, Wenjun CHN WGM 2505   2505 0
  16 16 Ruan, Lufei CHN WGM 2501   2501 0
  17 17 Khotenashvili, Bela GEO IM 2499 +1 2498 9
  18 18 Kosteniuk, Alexandra RUS GM 2495   2495 0
19 20 Zatonskih, Anna USA IM 2491   2491 0
20 19 Zhu, Chen QAT GM 2491   2491 0
  21 21 Gunina, Valentina RUS IM 2490   2490 0
  22 22 Paehtz, Elisabeth GER IM 2482   2482 0
  23 23 Huang, Qian CHN WGM 2478   2478 0
  24 24 Ushenina, Anna UKR GM 2477   2477 0
  25 25 Pogonina, Natalija RUS WGM 2475   2475 0
  26 26 Muzychuk, Mariya UKR IM 2471   2471 0
  27 27 Zhukova, Natalia UKR GM 2471   2471 0
  28 28 Hoang, Thanh Trang HUN GM 2469   2469 0
  29 29 Danielian, Elina ARM GM 2466   2466 0
  30 30 Tan, Zhongyi CHN WGM 2466   2466 0
  31 31 Javakhishvili, Lela GEO IM 2461   2461 0
32 35 Krush, Irina USA IM 2460 +2 2458 9
  33 33 Galliamova, Alisa RUS IM 2459   2459 0
  34 34 Mkrtchian, Lilit ARM IM 2458   2458 0
35 32 Atalik, Ekaterina TUR IM 2455 -6 2461 9
  36 36 Munguntuul, Batkhuyag MGL IM 2453   2453 0
37 39 Socko, Monika POL GM 2452 +7 2445 9
38 37 Hunt, Harriet V ENG IM 2450   2450 0
39 38 Dembo, Yelena GRE IM 2448   2448 0
40 41 Moser, Eva AUT IM 2446 +3 2443 7
41 40 Peptan, Corina-Isabela ROU IM 2443   2443 0
  42 42 Girya, Olga RUS WGM 2441   2441 0
  43 43 Khurtsidze, Nino GEO IM 2437   2437 0
  44 44 Skripchenko, Almira FRA IM 2436   2436 0
45 46 Guo, Qi CHN WGM 2431   2431 0
46 50 Zaiatz, Elena RUS IM 2430 +3 2427 9
  47 47 Bodnaruk, Anastasia RUS IM 2430   2430 0
48 49 Alexandrova, Olga ESP IM 2427   2427 0
49 48 Ding, Yixin CHN WGM 2427   2427 0
50 51 Pham, Le Thao Nguyen VIE IM 2426   2426 0
51 45 Cori T., Deysi PER WGM 2423 -11 2434 9
  52 52 Houska, Jovanka ENG IM 2416   2416 0
  53 53 Shen, Yang CHN IM 2415   2415 0
  54 54 Guramishvili, Sopiko GEO IM 2414   2414 0
  55 55 Kovalevskaya, Ekaterina RUS IM 2411   2411 0
  56 56 Matnadze, Ana ESP IM 2409 +1 2408 9
57 63 Milliet, Sophie FRA IM 2408 +5 2403 12
58 57 Batsiashvili, Nino GEO WGM 2407   2407 0
59 58 Rajlich, Iweta POL IM 2406 -1 2407 9
  60 60 Gaponenko, Inna UKR IM 2405   2405 9
61 59 Arakhamia-Grant, Ketevan SCO GM 2405   2405 0
62 61 Vasilevich, Tatjana UKR IM 2404   2404 0
63 64 Bojkovic, Natasa SRB IM 2403   2403 0
64 65 Melia, Salome GEO IM 2403   2403 0
65 80 Szczepkowska-Horowska, Karina POL WGM 2398 +20 2378 7
66 67 Peng, Zhaoqin NED GM 2398   2398 0
67 62 Tania, Sachdev IND IM 2397 -6 2403 6
  68 68 Li, Ruofan SIN IM 2396   2396 0
  69 69 Gomes, Mary Ann IND WGM 2394   2394 0
70 73 Paikidze, Nazi GEO IM 2392 +1 2391 7
71 72 Karavade, Eesha IND IM 2391   2391 0
72 74 Foisor, Cristina-Adela ROU IM 2389   2389 0
73 75 Kovanova, Baira RUS WGM 2387   2387 0
74 66 Goryachkina, Aleksandra RUS WGM 2386 -16 2402 13
75 76 Khukhashvili, Sopiko GEO IM 2386   2386 0
76 77 Majdan-Gajewska, Joanna POL WGM 2383   2383 0
77 91 Kachiani-Gersinska, Ketino GER IM 2381 +15 2366 9
78 79 Matveeva, Svetlana RUS IM 2380   2380 0
79 82 Zhang, Xiaowen CHN WGM 2376   2376 0
80 83 Wang, Jue CHN WGM 2375   2375 0
81 71 Zawadzka, Jolanta POL WGM 2374 -17 2391 9
82 84 Shadrina, Tatiana RUS WGM 2372   2372 0
83 78 Michna, Marta GER WGM 2371 -12 2383 9
84 85 Ordaz Valdes, Lisandra Teresa CUB WGM 2371   2371 0
85 87 Vasilevich, Irina RUS IM 2370   2370 0
86 94 Mammadova, Gulnar AZE WGM 2369 +6 2363 9
87   Nemcova, Katerina CZE WGM 2368     11
88 86 Yildiz, Betul Cemre TUR WGM 2368 -2 2370 9
89 88 Melamed, Tatjana GER WGM 2368   2368 0
90 89 Repkova, Eva SVK IM 2368   2368 0
91 95 Sukandar, Irine Kharisma INA WGM 2367 +5 2362 11
92 90 Lujan, Carolina ARG IM 2366   2366 0
93 70 Vijayalakshmi, Subbaraman IND IM 2365 -28 2393 10
94 93 Kononenko, Tatiana UKR IM 2364   2364 0
95 81 L'Ami, Alina ROU WGM 2362 -14 2376 9
  96 96 Vajda, Szidonia HUN IM 2362   2362 0
  97 97 Ovod, Evgenija RUS IM 2361   2361 0
  98 98 Ubiennykh, Ekaterina RUS WIM 2360   2360 0
  99 99 Vojinovic, Jovana MNE WGM 2359   2359 0
  100 100 Wang, Yu A. CHN IM 2359   2359

February 2013 FIDE ratings (juniors)

Lists compared: Top 100 Juniors February 2013 - Top 100 Juniors January 2013
 
Rank Old
Rank
Name Country Title Rating Old
Rating
Games
  1 1 Giri, Anish NED GM 2722 -4 2726 13
  2 2 Yu, Yangyi CHN GM 2688   2688 0
  3 3 So, Wesley PHI GM 2684 +2 2682 4
4 9 Rapport, Richard HUN GM 2646 +25 2621 13
5 4 Sjugirov, Sanan RUS GM 2646 +3 2643 9
6 5 Negi, Parimarjan IND GM 2638 -3 2641 10
7 6 Nyzhnyk, Illya UKR GM 2637   2637 0
8 7 Swiercz, Dariusz POL GM 2627   2627 0
9 8 Zherebukh, Yaroslav UKR GM 2623   2623 0
  10 10 Robson, Ray USA GM 2618 +3 2615 10
  11 11 Hou, Yifan CHN GM 2617 +14 2603 13
  12 12 Dubov, Daniil RUS GM 2614 +14 2600 13
13 14 Van Kampen, Robin NED GM 2596 +15 2581 29
14 13 Ipatov, Alexander TUR GM 2569 -18 2587 13
  15 15 Grandelius, Nils SWE GM 2566 -12 2578 13
  16 16 Ter-Sahakyan, Samvel ARM GM 2563 -4 2567 9
17 23 Lalith, Babu M.R. IND GM 2559 +18 2541 21
  18 18 Belous, Vladimir RUS IM 2553 -1 2554 9
19 25 Lu, Shanglei CHN GM 2552 +26 2526 21
20 22 Cori, Jorge PER GM 2551 +9 2542 9
21 20 Bogdanovich, Stanislav UKR IM 2548   2548 0
22 19 Anton Guijarro, David ESP IM 2546 -4 2550 7
23 21 Vidit, Santosh Gujrathi IND IM 2546   2546 0
24 17 Sethuraman, S.P. IND GM 2538 -18 2556 6
25 24 Salem, A.R. Saleh UAE GM 2538   2538 0
26 32 Grigoryan, Karen H. ARM IM 2531 +18 2513 18
27 30 Lagarde, Maxime FRA IM 2529 +12 2517 10
  28 28 Bok, Benjamin NED IM 2526 +4 2522 9
29 27 Eliseev, Urii RUS IM 2525   2525 0
30 33 Bukavshin, Ivan RUS GM 2522 +12 2510 9
31 29 Popilski, Gil ISR GM 2518   2518 0
32 26 Gabuzyan, Hovhannes ARM GM 2517 -8 2525 9
33 34 Vaibhav, Suri IND GM 2513 +10 2503 10
34 31 Fedoseev, Vladimir RUS GM 2510 -4 2514 9
35 39 Bernadskiy, Vitaliy UKR IM 2503 +3 2500 9
  36 36 Artemiev, Vladislav RUS IM 2502   2502 0
  37 37 Indjic, Aleksandar SRB IM 2502   2502 0
  38 38 Wei, Yi CHN IM 2501   2501 0
39 48 Kovalev, Vladislav BLR IM 2500 +18 2482 9
  40 40 Holt, Conrad USA GM 2500 +6 2494 3
  41 41 Stukopin, Andrey RUS IM 2495 +3 2492 9
42 61 Dragun, Kamil POL IM 2492 +22 2470 9
43 42 Zeng, Chongsheng CHN IM 2490   2490 0
44 43 Zierk, Steven C USA IM 2485   2485 0
45 44 Wang, Chen CHN IM 2483   2483 0
46 47 Kanarek, Marcel POL IM 2482   2482 0
47 75 Wagner, Dennis GER IM 2481 +24 2457 18
48 49 Yang, Darwin USA IM 2481   2481 0
49 35 Predke, Alexandr RUS   2480 -23 2503 9
  50 50 Pavlidis, Antonios GRE IM 2479 -2 2481 6
51 53 Arribas Lopez, Angel ESP IM 2478 +1 2477 6
52 51 Oparin, Grigoriy RUS IM 2478   2478 0
53 52 Pakhomov, Egor RUS IM 2478   2478 0
54 68 Stella, Andrea ITA IM 2477 +12 2465 15
  55 55 Idani, Pouya IRI IM 2476 +1 2475 12
56 54 Perez Ponsa, Federico ARG GM 2476   2476 0
57 56 Debashis, Das IND IM 2474   2474 0
58 57 Moiseenko, Vadim RUS IM 2474   2474 0
59 64 Urkedal, Frode NOR IM 2473 +4 2469 9
60 58 Kadric, Denis BIH IM 2473   2473 0
61 45 Naroditsky, Daniel USA IM 2472 -11 2483 18
62 60 Antipov, Mikhail Al. RUS IM 2472   2472 0
63 67 Forcen Esteban, Daniel ESP IM 2469 +2 2467 9
64 62 Graf, Felix GER   2469   2469 0
65 66 Duda, Jan-Krzysztof POL IM 2468   2468 9
66 69 Ringoir, Tanguy BEL IM 2468 +3 2465 9
67 65 Abasov, Nijat AZE GM 2468   2468 0
68 59 Grover, Sahaj IND GM 2467 -5 2472 10
69 70 Chigaev, Maksim RUS IM 2464   2464 0
70 63 Raznikov, Danny ISR IM 2463 -6 2469 9
  71 71 Iermito, Sebastian ARG IM 2463   2463 0
72 77 Bluebaum, Matthias GER IM 2462 +8 2454 9
73 72 Andersen, Mads DEN IM 2462   2462 0
  74 74 Petenyi, Tamas SVK IM 2457   2457 0
75 83 Klein, David NED IM 2456 +11 2445 13
  76 76 Stany, G.A. IND IM 2456 +2 2454 10
77 46 Plat, Vojtech CZE IM 2452 -31 2483 17
78 79 Atabayev, Maksat TKM IM 2452   2452 0
79 78 Sadzikowski, Daniel POL IM 2449 -4 2453 9
  80 80 Javakhadze, Zurab GEO IM 2449   2449 0
  81 81 Boruchovsky, Avital ISR IM 2447   2447 0
  82 82 Alekseenko, Kirill RUS FM 2446   2446 0
83 92 Strzemiecki, Zbigniew POL IM 2445 +11 2434 8
84 89 Gordievsky, Dmitry RUS FM 2442 +6 2436 9
85 86 Mihok, Oliver HUN IM 2442   2442 0
86 97 Bajarani, Ulvi AZE IM 2441 +16 2425 18
  87 87 Zhou, Yang-Fan ENG IM 2437 -2 2439 10
88 90 Narayanan, Srinath IND IM 2434   2434 0
89 93 Shumyatsky, Victor BRA FM 2433   2433 0
90 95 Drozdowski, Kacper POL FM 2432 +6 2426 9
91 94 Guo, Qi CHN WGM 2431   2431 0
92 85 Ghosh, Diptayan IND FM 2427 -15 2442 10
93 88 Moussard, Jules FRA IM 2427 -10 2437 9
94   Meribanov, Vitaly BLR FM 2426     11
95   Prasanna Raghuram Rao IND IM 2425     11
96   Cheng, Bobby AUS FM 2425     10
97 84 Aghasaryan, Robert ARM FM 2425 -18 2443 9
98   Karthikeyan, Murali IND   2424     27
99 73 Mammadov, Zaur AZE IM 2424 -35 2459 18
100 91 Cori T., Deysi PER WGM 2423 -11 2434

February 2013 FIDE ratings (girls)

Lists compared: Top 100 Girls February 2013 - Top 100 Girls January 2013
 
Rank Old
Rank
Name Country Title Rating Old
Rating
Games
  1 1 Hou, Yifan CHN GM 2617 +14 2603 13
2 3 Guo, Qi CHN WGM 2431   2431 0
3 2 Cori T., Deysi PER WGM 2423 -11 2434 9
4 5 Paikidze, Nazi GEO IM 2392 +1 2391 7
5 4 Goryachkina, Aleksandra RUS WGM 2386 -16 2402 13
  6 6 Wang, Jue CHN WGM 2375   2375 0
7 9 Arabidze, Meri GEO WGM 2355   2355 0
  8 8 Bulmaga, Irina ROU WGM 2355   2355 0
9 10 Kashlinskaya, Alina RUS WGM 2350   2350 0
10 7 Ziaziulkina, Nastassia BLR WGM 2345 -19 2364 9
  11 11 Saduakassova, Dinara KAZ WGM 2312   2312 0
  12 12 Medina, Warda Aulia INA WIM 2309   2309 0
13 14 Padmini, Rout IND WGM 2307 +19 2288 21
14 15 Soloviova, Liza UKR WGM 2300 +13 2287 9
15 13 Schut, Lisa NED WIM 2283 -12 2295 16
16 20 Sihite, Chelsie Monica INA WIM 2282 +18 2264 9
  17 17 Papp, Petra HUN WGM 2280   2280 0
18 24 Aranaz Murillo, Amalia ESP WF 2275 +24 2251 18
19 18 Nguyen, Thi Mai Hung VIE WIM 2272   2272 0
20 26 Haast, Anne NED WIM 2268 +20 2248 3
21 16 Khademalsharieh, Sarasadat IRI WIM 2267 -15 2282 11
22 31 Olsarova, Karolina CZE WIM 2259 +18 2241 9
23 30 Hejazipour, Mitra IRI WIM 2257 +16 2241 11
24 22 Pustovoitova, Daria RUS FM 2257   2257 0
25 23 Danelia, Mariam GEO WIM 2252   2252 0
26 38 Nicolas Zapata, Irene ESP WIM 2250 +26 2224 16
  27 27 Hakimifard, Ghazal IRI WIM 2250 +3 2247 11
28 25 Zhai, Mo CHN WIM 2249   2249 0
29 28 Hoang, Thi Nhu Y VIE WIM 2245   2245 0
30 29 Baciu, Diana MDA WF 2243   2243 0
31 35 Severina, Maria RUS   2241 +9 2232 9
32 33 Petrova, Olga RUS   2238 +1 2237 0
33 32 Klek, Hanna-Marie GER   2235 -4 2239 9
34 19 Rakhmangulova, Anastasiya UKR WIM 2232 -34 2266 10
35 52 Osmanodja, Filiz GER WF 2232 +33 2199 9
36 34 Lei, Tingjie CHN   2232   2232 0
37 36 Shvayger, Yuliya ISR WF 2232   2232 0
38 21 Brunello, Marina ITA WIM 2227 -30 2257 9
  39 39 Butuc, Maria RUS WIM 2224   2224 0
40 41 Foisor, Mihaela-Veronica ROU WIM 2219   2219 0
41 43 Petrukhina, Irina RUS WF 2218   2218 0
42 54 Iwanow, Anna POL WIM 2216 +24 2192 9
43 50 Bivol, Alina RUS WF 2214 +14 2200 9
44   Tjolsen, Katrine NOR WIM 2214     3
45 42 Pavlidou, Ekaterini GRE WIM 2211 -7 2218 7
46 51 Belenkaya, Dina RUS WF 2208 +8 2200 16
47 46 Varga, Melinda HUN   2208   2208 0
48 47 Varga, Klara HUN WIM 2207   2207 0
49 48 Ni, Shiqun CHN WIM 2204   2204 0
50 40 Abdulla, Khayala AZE WIM 2203 -20 2223 8
51 37 Salazar, Aura Cristina COL WIM 2202 -23 2225 14
52 58 Baraeva, Marina RUS WIM 2196 +9 2187 9
  53 53 Vo, Thi Kim Phung VIE WIM 2193   2193 0
54 55 Suslova, Alena RUS WF 2189   2189 0
55 56 Gvanceladze, Anna RUS WF 2188   2188 0
56 57 Wisniowska, Klaudia POL   2187 -1 2188 8
57 49 Stetsko, Lanita BLR FM 2184 -19 2203 9
58 75 Abdumalik, Zhansaya KAZ WIM 2184 +15 2169 8
59 61 Efroimski, Marsel ISR WIM 2183   2183 0
  60 60 Rjanova, Valery RUS WF 2183   2183 0
61 59 Rodriguez Rueda, Paula Andrea COL WIM 2183   2183 0
62 45 Chumpitaz, Ann PER WF 2182 -30 2212 8
63 70 Grigoryeva, Olga A. RUS WF 2181 +6 2175 9
64 63 Bochis, Julia GER WF 2181   2181 0
  65 65 Dewi, Aa Citra INA WF 2180   2180 0
  66 66 Osmak, Iulija UKR WF 2180   2180 0
67 64 Samigullina, Diana RUS WF 2180   2180 0
68 78 Styazhkina, Anna RUS WF 2179 +18 2161 9
69 62 Camacho, Chardine Cheradee PHI WIM 2179 -3 2182 4
70 79 Baraeva, Irina RUS WIM 2177 +18 2159 8
71 68 Bezgodova, Maria RUS WIM 2177   2177 0
72 44 Kazimova, Narmin AZE WIM 2176 -37 2213 8
73 76 Chandika Divyasree IND WF 2172 +5 2167 4
74 71 Khlichkova, Tatiana RUS WF 2171   2171 0
75 73 Bukhteeva, Viktoria RUS WF 2170   2170 0
76 74 Krasiuk, Kateryna UKR WF 2170   2170 0
  77 77 Tantsiura, Maria UKR WIM 2166   2166 0
78   Ivanenko, Olga I. UKR WF 2164     20
79 69 Lach, Aleksandra POL WF 2161 -15 2176 9
80   Ibrahimova, Sabina AZE   2156     9
  81 81 Castrillon Gomez, Melissa COL WIM 2156   2156 0
  82 82 Petrova, Irina UKR WF 2156   2156 0
83 84 Asgarizadeh, Minoo IRI WF 2153   2153 0
84 83 Mona, Khaled EGY WGM 2153   2153 0
85 86 Saranya, J IND WF 2152   2152 0
86 87 Collado Barbas, Laura ESP WF 2151   2151 0
87 88 Nandhidhaa, PV IND   2150   2150 0
88 85 Enkhtuul, Altanulzii MGL WIM 2148 -5 2153 17
  89 89 Xiao, Yiyi CHN WF 2148   2148 0
  90 90 Buksa, Nataliya UKR   2147   2147 0
  91 91 Baekelant, Eva BEL WF 2144   2144 0
  92 92 Purgar, Ivona CRO WF 2144   2144 0
  93 93 Eryshkanova, Anastasiya RUS WF 2143   2143 0
94   Gevorgyan, Maria ARM WF 2142     18
95 94 Makarenko, Alexandra RUS WF 2142   2142 0
96 72 Miturova, Magdalena CZE WF 2135 -35 2170 9
97 96 Kats, Alena USA WF 2135   2135 0
98 99 Sun, Fanghui CHN   2134   2134 0
99 98 Tomnikova, Lidia RUS WF 2134   2134 0
100   Endress, Anna GER   2133    

All data courtesy of FIDE

Peter Doggers's picture
Author: Peter Doggers
Chess.com

Comments

Thomas Oliver's picture

Now this (becoming father again) might have been a reason for Kramnik to skip Wijk aan Zee - though it still seems he simply wasn't invited.

Aronian is playing in the German Bundesliga this weekend, today against his second Melkumyan(!?) tomorrow probably against GM Prusikin (Elo 2545). Trying to catch Kramnik on the live rating list? Another reason might be that he needs to play two league games to be allowed to represent Baden-Baden at the European Club Cup.

Epic's picture

Too much praise, let's change the subject, eh?

Michael's picture

Or maybe he just likes to play chess.

Thomas Oliver's picture

This might be off-topic but could still be interesting. It's at least a bit surprising that Baden-Baden had one of their top players for the first time this season facing two teams that struggle against relegation, and SF Berlin is actually Aronian's former club (he may or may not have known that he would play his second). The other top players are Anand, Carlsen and to a lesser extent Svidler. So far, "weaker players" such as Adams, Bacrot, Shirov, Naiditsch and Movsesian were enough to dominate the league.

Maybe Aronian played because the match was in Berlin (where he lives), or maybe because Adams and Shirov didn't want to play straight after Gibraltar.

Actually today's match was surprisingly close: Berlin held draws on five boards (including board 1) where they were about 150-200 points lower-rated. Naiditsch won convincingly, Bacrot benefitted from a blunder by GM Kraemer (2520) in a drawn endgame, and Nisipeanu survived a lost position against Dennes Abel (2437).

Epic's picture

Off-topic yes, but that's necessary if you need to change the subject, eh?

Thomas Oliver's picture

The article was (also) about the February rating list, including the sentence
"Levon Aronian also played a good tournament in Wijk aan Zee, and by winning 7 points the Armenian is now just 1 point behind Kramnik."
With 2/2 during the Bundesliga weekend, Aronian could have overtaken Kramnik on the live rating list - 1.5/2 (assuming a win tomorrow) won't be enough.

Epic's picture

Hey, you said it was off-topic, not me.

Yeah, let's talk about Bundesliga.

Anonymous's picture

Carlsen in a nutshell: He's a stronger chessplayer than anyone else.

PircAlert's picture

The tournament format for the challenger selection is sort of dubious, much like tournament wins or rating achievements can be, due to game fixing possibilities. The wins are achievements nevertheless but you shouldn't give too much to it. Nothing can take the place of a series of one-on-one knockouts, where you alone prove yourself, where external factors have less influence when proper security measures are to be taken. I agree the knock-out matches should be of reasonable length, like 6 games. Anyway now that tournament challengership is fixed, I don't mind Carlsen winning it. In fact, I want him to win because I like him. Also because it would give the world's greatest player ever Anand a chance to knock him out in the championship before he gets too old! What I don't like is the politics played using him. The propaganda and misrepresentation that Carlsen is the very best even before he is even there concerns me. OK better than Kasparov but better than Anand?? Forget title, take quality of his games, and does that suggest him better than Anand? Because like any other gaters, chess gaters know how public perception is important and once swung in their favor, they will be free to do whatever to achieve their ends.

Here is how it went with global warming. Let me quote a piece involving NASA's GISS director Dr Hansen from Investor's Business Daily.

**How many people, for instance, know that James Hansen, a man billed as a lonely "NASA whistleblower" standing up to the mighty U.S. government, was really funded by [George] Soro's Open Society Institute (OSI), which gave him "legal and media advice"? That's right, Hansen was packaged for the media by Soro's flagship "philanthropy" by as much as $720,000, most likely under the OSI's "politicization of science" program.**

elgransenor1's picture

if he's better than kasparov, he's better than anand. check history.

PircAlert's picture

Here is a few..

History shows:

1. Anand won chess championship title in knock-out and tournament formats that Kasparov would even be afraid to play.
2. Anand held chess champion title for 5 times officially whereas Kasparov held it for 4 times, 2 times officially and 2 times unofficially.
3. Competition Anand faces is far stronger than Kasparov faces that drove some "great predecessors" into early retirement.
4. In an official one-on-one match Anand thoroughly dominated Kramnik, who is none other than the one who had thoroughly dominated Kasparov in a match previously organized by Kasparov and co.
5. Kasparov ducked Anand in couple of one-on-one match proposals - after "fall-out" of Shirov match, and when Kramink asked Kasparov to face Anand before he faces him for rematch.
6. Kasparov constantly ducked shorter time control versions of chess, blindfolds, random chess, advanced chess etc. which are good indicators of one's true chess talent.
7. Kasparov can only boast on individual encounter results but they do not always reflect who is better. Case in point, Anand vs Aronian.
8. Many top people who have no way related to Anand or can in no way be possibly influenced by Anand have commended Anand's talent. "Wow" type of statements from Kramnik, Topalov, Carlsen, Ubilova (Anand's former coach).

The list goes on an on..

redivivo's picture

As some type of alternative reality study this is an interesting post. One of the more fascinating statements is the one about Kasparov ducking Anand after the Shirov match was cancelled. The truth is of course that Anand was offered a match but declined to play:

http://www.mark-weeks.com/chess/a0a1gkix.htm

Kasparov didn't constantly duck chess with shorter time controls, and how Kasparov held the title only twice officially is another interesting thing. How on earth did you arrive at that number? He won it against Karpov in 1985, defended it in 1986 and again in 1987 and 1990 (followed by 1993 and 1995). How does that add up to holding the title only "2 times officially" is difficult to fathom. Well, the other "facts" are naturally of the same sort, but those were especially funny :-)

S3's picture

As for Kasparov ducking Anand.. I don't think it was the case, but it's a matter of interpretation. Kasparov offered Anand the match but did not give financial guaranteees (same problem he had with Shirov).
This, and Anands stand towards fide were probably the main obstacles for that match.

redivivo's picture

"As for Kasparov ducking Anand.. I don't think it was the case, but it's a matter of interpretation. Kasparov offered Anand the match but did not give financial guaranteees"

Kasparov offered Anand a title match, Anand refused said match = it is hardly a matter of interpretation if the correct description is that Kasparov ducked Anand.

S3's picture

One could argue that the offer (and Kasparov's track record) was so bad that it wasn't a serious offer.

Anonymous's picture

Thanks for the reality check.

PircAlert's picture

OK I stand corrected and the official title count for Kasparov is 3, against the same player though, but how 4? Also, the Kasparov's ducking count is 3 and not 2 as I mentioned as Anand challenged him for a million or couple of million dollar match after the title was unified.

Anonymous's picture

Some people know Dr. Hansen is a global warming nut. He's been this for decades, even before the UN realized "global climate change" was an extraordinary opportunity to transfer TRILLIONS of dollars from the first world to the third world, with the elites taking their cut from the scam.

Bert de Bruut's picture

Yawn. We heard it all before. A million times. Any chess matters to share?

Anonymous's picture

Yes: "Magnus is a very special talent with no limits on what he can achieve.", Gary K.

Andreas's picture

PircAlert is really funny. Anand 'the greatest player ever' ... well, whenever top players, all players, journalists, insiders and so on are being asked, who is/was best, Anand never appears among the first three. Hmm. Anand's chess isn't exciting, in fact it is boring. Unless he gets a better position out of the opening (preparation - thanks to his seconds) it is draw. Remember the worst WCC ever - against Gelfand.

PircAlert's picture

Are you from a different planet? Don't you know mostly journalists, insiders tell a story of what you want to hear and not what actually is. Maybe they are afraid or unwilling to tell the truth for whatever reasons. Btw, truth is not popular!

uncheck's picture

fantastic comment!!!.I would rate this to be in all time top 5 comments ever posted in chessvibes.

RealityCheck Sr.'s picture

So, Carlsen get's PH, Anand's long time second in command. No Biggie. Carlsen was also on Anand's payroll as a Sparring-Partner in 2010. So what.

Kramnik or Svidler or Gritschuk get GK's support. Ooooh, which one will it be? My guess would be Gritschuk.

We'll soon see what Carlsen is really made of. Until now, Anand and Fischer are the only men, when it comes to chess, who've been able to crash through the Iron Curtain.

Yep, now it's the Norwegian, carlsen, against the former U.S.S.R.

Reshevsky, Timman, Hubner, Larsen, Short, to name a few, did not have what it takes. Some came close, but coming close only counts when throwing horse shoes.

Greco's picture

+1

Superstes's picture

"See what Carlsen is made out of?" Are you serious? I don't think you are understanding the difference in the curve between someone at the level of 2800 and someone who is in the 2870's. Anand will be crushed like an ant beneath a boot -- annihilated so utterly that it will not even be funny -- and so, for that matter, will anyone else. Such is the simple prediction of mathematics stemming from how incredibly consistent someone needs to be before they get to Carlsen's level.

Anonymous's picture

Let's see what Radjabov has prepared for the candidates ... Also, Kramnik's games lately were stunning, and being the father of his son, i suspect mother nature to give him extra power ...

Ruben's picture

Yes I also would like to see the non-playing nr 4 of the world in action!

chesshire cat's picture

Personally I want Radjabov to win, just because he is rarely the one being talked about lol

guncha's picture

If Kramnik or Aronian wins Candidates convincingly and Carlsen is having bad tournament then this gap will reduce significantly. This 2872 after the tournament where MC scored 100% against 2600 players does not mean anything for the Candidates tournament. MC is the favorite but it won't surprising if Kramnik, Radjabov or Aronian wins it.

eric's picture

so in the end, you said nothing! everybody can win the candidates. carlsen may not, this may not be surprising etc.

Guillaume's picture

Would you have preferred if he had told us what will happen? There's no shortage of such prophetic statements here, unfortunately. It will happen again, "mark my words".

redivivo's picture

"Would you have preferred if he had told us what will happen? There's no shortage of such prophetic statements here, unfortunately"

Well, he declared that if Carlsen loses points and those behind him gains points Carlsen's gap will become smaller. Just like it will become bigger if Carlsen gains points and those behind him loses them. Neither statement sounds particularly breathtaking.

NOSTRADAMUS's picture

"The best (kid) shall win and shall stay on top for 1000 years"............

Lee's picture

I'd be pretty surprised if Radjabov wins, even though he's an exceptional player.

He's a bit too much like Anand in that unless he gets an advantage out of the opening, he's happy to accept an early draw. His fighting spirit is not often in evidence.

redivivo's picture

"I'd be pretty surprised if Radjabov wins"

Me too, his only win in a top tournament was more than six years ago, in Wijk 2007. The favourites in the Candidates are used to winning such events and have won lots of them long after 2007.

S3's picture

"He's a bit too much like Anand in that unless he gets an advantage out of the opening, he's happy to accept an early draw."

Obvious nonsense for Anand has already won such a tournament in the past. And Radjabovs attitude in a candidates tournament will defenitely be agressive if that gives him better chances to win. Which brings us to one of the great downsides of tournaments opposed to matches: guys who are out of contention might switch playing style and thus play less ambitious against other contenders.

Lee's picture

It's hard to argue with a zealot, so I won't try.

I still think Radjabov's lack of ambition in equal positions will put him at a big disadvantage. I can't see him pulling a rabbit out of the hat and taking the tournament out.

S3's picture

Yeah yeah yeah. you say he hasn't got it in him and in order to prove it you compare him to someone who has won exactly such a tournament. That's pretty stupid.
I don't think Radja will win the tourney either but it's naive to think he will go there to draw.

Lee's picture

I'm pretty sure he's going there to win. It would be ludicrous to suggest he's going there just to draw games, which is not what I said.

As for being stupid, I cannot deny this charge. Carry on.

Thomas Oliver's picture

For Radjabov, I also have the impression that he often lacks that last bit of ambition. He seems often happy with second place in a tournament and a little Elo gain even when he could fight for first place (which involves some risks).

But this doesn't have to be the case for the candidates event which, unlike or more than any other event, will have "one winner and seven losers". Also it could play a role that Radjabov got a wildcard, not a typical one (a chance for a relatively weak player to gain experience against stronger ones) but the idea is that he should do well. He may want to please those who support him (plausible rumors say the money comes from Azerbaijan).

BTW I am missing one name in the list of potential winners: dark horse Ivanchuk. If he is in form, anything can happen. He wasn't exactly in form in Gibraltar, but for him - more than for anyone else - this can change from one event to the next one.

redivivo's picture

Radjabov does have rather good head to head scores against many of the participants. The last five years he has scored 3-0 against Aronian (no wins after 2009 though), 4-0 against Gelfand, he has a career plus against Svidler and is close to equal against Ivanchuk and Grischuk. To add to that Radjabov hasn't lost against Kramnik in ten years, but then Carlsen has been the big problem for him (1-6). Maybe a +1 score of something like that but I don't see Radjabov winning.

redivivo's picture

"This 2872 after the tournament where MC scored 100% against 2600 players does not mean anything for the Candidates tournament"

Well, if he had scored less than 100% it would probably have been repeated in many posts here that the result of those games meant a lot for the Candidates tournament. The usual conclusion is that Carlsen playing well and being in a class of his own in a tournament means nothing while his playing badly in one game means very much.

S3's picture

You are speculating redivivo. Searching for new straw men.

redivivo's picture

Every article about some achievement by Carlsen can always be commented with statements about Carlsen's achievements being of no consequence for his next event. This has also been done the last four-five years and will surely go on for at least the following four-five years as well.

S3's picture

It can also be commented with statements about Carlsen being the best of the universe ever oh my gosh. Also been done for years. So what? The guy above just meant that there are no 2600's at the candidates, can't see why you get hung up about it.

Anonymous's picture

There were no 2600's at Tata Steel or London either. Magnus won both. I guess that means nothing...

Thomas Oliver's picture

I would say Kavalek at least exaggerates a bit with "After triumphing in two major tournaments, in London in December and in Wijk aan Zee in January, Magnus Carlsen is a CLEAR [emphasis added] favorite to win the eight-player Candidates event in London".
Scoring against weaker opponents doesn't mean much about how you will do against stronger ones. In both London and Wijk aan Zee, Carlsen had several inferior positions which he saved or even won - this may not happen next time against stronger opponents. So while Carlsen is favorite by rating (and the rating edge has increased), he didn't become clearer favorite due to London and Wijk aan Zee IMHO.

In New in Chess, Kramnik was quoted on London with something like (can't find it back right now) "luck is just a small part of it, but the part that made the difference for Carlsen. Maybe I will be lucky next time."
For Kramnik, Aronian (and Ivanchuk) it will be a matter of form. For Carlsen form matters less - "he never shows good form because he never shows bad form". So if noone else is in good form, Carlsen should win 'easily' - if one or several other players can show their best game, it will at least be a race.

redivivo's picture

"luck is just a small part of it, but the part that made the difference for Carlsen"

That does sound like Kramnik :-)

Thomas Oliver's picture

Sounds like an objective statement?
Found back that NIC issue and can quote a bit more:
"[ten Geuzendam] Kramnik readily admitted that Carlsen was the deserved winner, but saw no reason to be gloomy about his own chances in the Candidates'."
Kramnik first praised Carlsen, along the lines of what Rowson wrote, and then "Of course, he is also a little bit lucky, but that's just a small part of it. But I believe that if this little part of luck was on my side next time, and if I maintain the level of play I showed here, then I will be able to do it. I don't think it's been decided who will win the Candidates', although it is true that he is the main favorite."

Later in the same article Carlsen on Kramnik in London:
"In the Candidates' it will be a different level of resistance. I think he can do extremely well there, but we'll see."
This should also apply to Carlsen himself, they faced the same level of resistance ... .

Pages

Latest articles