January 02, 2013 23:42

Carlsen's highest ever rating now official

Carlsen's highest ever rating now official

Since January 1st Magnus Carlsen is officially the highest rated player in the history of chess. As we know, already on Saturday, December 8th the Norwegian broke Garry Kasparov's record rating of 2851 by drawing with Hikaru Nakamura at the London Chess Classic. The world's number one has a new official rating of 2861.

Carlsen gained 13 points compared to the previous FIDE rating list which was published only a month ago. And for everyone who thinks that breaking Kasparov's 13-year record doesn't mean much, let us just share one more number with you. The video we made with Carlsen on the day he drew with Nakamura (see below) has been watched a staggering 44,338 times on YouTube! We'll embed it below once more - do help us to get it to 50K! :-)

The other significant change in the top 10 is Vladimir Kramnik getting back to number 2, passing Levon Aronian with 8 points (the former World Champ took home 15 points while Aronian lost 13).

Hikaru Nakamura won 9 points and is both back in the top 10 and the highest rated player in the U.S. again as Gata Kamsky lost 22 points.

Despite losing her world title, Hou Yifan is back on the second spot in the women's list, passing Humpy Koneru. The Chinese is 93 points behind Judit Polgar, who lost 9 points in London to get under 2700 again.

Fabiano Caruana is still the world's number 5, but not a junior player anymore. Anish Giri is now topping this list as the only 2700 player. It's hard to believe that Hou Yifan is still falling into the girls category - on this list she has a 169-point lead over Cori Deysi of Peru.

January 2013 FIDE ratings

Rank Old rank Name Country Title Rating Old rating Games
1 1 Carlsen, Magnus NOR GM 2861 +13 2848 8
2 3 Kramnik, Vladimir RUS GM 2810 +15 2795 8
3 2 Aronian, Levon ARM GM 2802 -13 2815 8
4 4 Radjabov, Teimour AZE GM 2793 2793 0
5 5 Caruana, Fabiano ITA GM 2781 -1 2782 11
6 7 Karjakin, Sergey RUS GM 2780 +5 2775 11
7 6 Anand, Viswanathan IND GM 2772 -3 2775 8
8 8 Topalov, Veselin BUL GM 2771 2771 0
9 13 Nakamura, Hikaru USA GM 2769 +9 2760 8
10 11 Mamedyarov, Shakhriyar AZE GM 2766 +2 2764 11
11 10 Grischuk, Alexander RUS GM 2764 2764 0
12 15 Morozevich, Alexander RUS GM 2758 +10 2748 11
13 9 Ivanchuk, Vassily UKR GM 2758 -8 2766 4
14 19 Wang, Hao CHN GM 2752 +15 2737 13
15 16 Svidler, Peter RUS GM 2747 2747 11
16 14 Gelfand, Boris ISR GM 2740 -11 2751 11
17 12 Kamsky, Gata USA GM 2740 -22 2762 11
18 18 Gashimov, Vugar AZE GM 2737 2737 0
19 23 Leko, Peter HUN GM 2735 +3 2732 11
20 17 Jakovenko, Dmitry RUS GM 2734 -7 2741 10
21 22 Ponomariov, Ruslan UKR GM 2733 +1 2732 11
22 25 Andreikin, Dmitry RUS GM 2727 +4 2723 6
23 33 Adams, Michael ENG GM 2725 +15 2710 8
24 24 Tomashevsky, Evgeny RUS GM 2725 2725 0
25 20 Dominguez Perez, Leinier CUB GM 2723 -11 2734 11
26 21 Wojtaszek, Radoslaw POL GM 2723 -11 2734 11
27 26 Volokitin, Andrei UKR GM 2722 2722 4
28 28 Areshchenko, Alexander UKR GM 2720 2720 0
29 27 Giri, Anish NED GM 2720 2720 0
30 31 Vachier-Lagrave, Maxime FRA GM 2711 2711 0
31 32 Moiseenko, Alexander UKR GM 2710 2710 0
32 34 Navara, David CZE GM 2710 2710 0
33 50 Kasimdzhanov, Rustam UZB GM 2709 +13 2696 11
34 45 Ding, Liren CHN GM 2709 +7 2702 4
35 36 Malakhov, Vladimir RUS GM 2709 2709 4
36 35 Cheparinov, Ivan BUL GM 2709 2709 0
37 38 Naiditsch, Arkadij GER GM 2708 2708 0
38 37 Shirov, Alexei LAT GM 2708 2708 0
39 40 Le, Quang Liem VIE GM 2705 2705 0
40 42 Riazantsev, Alexander RUS GM 2705 2705 0
41 43 Akopian, Vladimir ARM GM 2704 2704 0
42 39 Nepomniachtchi, Ian RUS GM 2703 -4 2707 6
43 44 Bacrot, Etienne FRA GM 2703 2703 0
44 54 Berkes, Ferenc HUN GM 2702 +9 2693 9
45 30 Jobava, Baadur GEO GM 2702 -9 2711 4
46 56 Bruzon Batista, Lazaro CUB GM 2701 +9 2692 9
47 47 Fressinet, Laurent FRA GM 2700 2700 0
48 29 McShane, Luke J ENG GM 2698 -15 2713 8
49 48 Harikrishna, P. IND GM 2698 2698 0
50 41 Polgar, Judit HUN GM 2696 -9 2705 8
51 57 Short, Nigel D ENG GM 2696 +4 2692 3
52 49 Efimenko, Zahar UKR GM 2696 2696 0
53 51 Wang, Yue CHN GM 2696 2696 0
54 53 Vallejo Pons, Francisco ESP GM 2694 2694 0
55 52 Vitiugov, Nikita RUS GM 2694 2694 0
56 58 Alekseev, Evgeny RUS GM 2691 2691 0
57 46 Korobov, Anton UKR GM 2690 -12 2702 11
58 59 Almasi, Zoltan HUN GM 2689 2689 0
59 55 Inarkiev, Ernesto RUS GM 2688 -5 2693 6
60 70 Yu, Yangyi CHN GM 2688 +7 2681 4
61 60 Grachev, Boris RUS GM 2688 2688 0
62 61 Movsesian, Sergei ARM GM 2688 2688 0
63 62 Rublevsky, Sergei RUS GM 2688 2688 0
64 64 Edouard, Romain FRA GM 2686 2686 0
65 65 Sutovsky, Emil ISR GM 2684 2684 0
66 66 So, Wesley PHI GM 2682 2682 0
67 69 Bologan, Viktor MDA GM 2681 2681 0
68 71 Van Wely, Loek NED GM 2679 +1 2678 1
69 63 Eljanov, Pavel UKR GM 2678 -9 2687 4
70 72 Nisipeanu, Liviu-Dieter ROU GM 2677 2677 0
71 73 Motylev, Alexander RUS GM 2676 -1 2677 3
72 74 Sasikiran, Krishnan IND GM 2676 2676 0
73 67 Bu, Xiangzhi CHN GM 2675 -7 2682 4
74 78 Li, Chao b CHN GM 2674 +4 2670 4
75 75 Gyimesi, Zoltan HUN GM 2674 2674 0
76 76 Laznicka, Viktor CZE GM 2674 2674 0
77 77 Kryvoruchko, Yuriy UKR GM 2671 2671 0
78 79 Fridman, Daniel GER GM 2667 2667 0
79 81 Sargissian, Gabriel ARM GM 2666 2666 0
80 85 Gareev, Timur USA GM 2665 +2 2663 2
81 82 Potkin, Vladimir RUS GM 2665 2665 0
82 80 Sokolov, Ivan NED GM 2663 -4 2667 1
83 88 Gharamian, Tigran FRA GM 2661 2661 0
84 90 Onischuk, Alexander USA GM 2660 2660 0
85 92 Khenkin, Igor GER GM 2659 2659 0
86 93 Zvjaginsev, Vadim RUS GM 2658 2658 0
87   Melkumyan, Hrant ARM GM 2656   9
88 94 Nielsen, Peter Heine DEN GM 2656 2656 0
89 84 Tiviakov, Sergei NED GM 2655 -8 2663 22
90 95 Ragger, Markus AUT GM 2655 2655 0
91 96 Dreev, Aleksey RUS GM 2654 2654 0
92 97 Istratescu, Andrei FRA GM 2654 2654 0
93 83 Matlakov, Maxim RUS GM 2653 -10 2663 9
94   Khismatullin, Denis RUS GM 2652   17
95 99 Filippov, Anton UZB GM 2652 2652 0
96 100 Kobalia, Mikhail RUS GM 2652 2652 0
97 98 Smirin, Ilia ISR GM 2652 2652 0
98 68 Zhigalko, Sergei BLR GM 2651 -31 2682 13
99   Khairullin, Ildar RUS GM 2650   12
100   Iturrizaga, Eduardo VEN GM 2650   0
101   Tkachiev, Vladislav FRA GM 2650   0

 

xxx

January 2013 FIDE ratings (women)

Rank Old rank Name Country Title Rating Old rating Games
1 1 Polgar, Judit HUN GM 2696 -9 2705 8
2 3 Hou, Yifan CHN GM 2603 -3 2606 4
3 2 Koneru, Humpy IND GM 2597 -13 2610 4
4 4 Muzychuk, Anna SLO GM 2582 -4 2586 8
5 6 Dzagnidze, Nana GEO GM 2555 2555 0
6 5 Zhao, Xue CHN GM 2554 -11 2565 12
7 7 Lagno, Kateryna UKR GM 2547 -6 2553 4
8 8 Kosintseva, Nadezhda RUS GM 2531 -8 2539 8
9 10 Sebag, Marie FRA GM 2530 +9 2521 8
10 12 Cramling, Pia SWE GM 2518 +2 2516 4
11 13 Kosintseva, Tatiana RUS GM 2517 +2 2515 6
12 19 Stefanova, Antoaneta BUL GM 2516 +25 2491 14
13 9 Cmilyte, Viktorija LTU GM 2515 -9 2524 4
14 14 Harika, Dronavalli IND GM 2514 +2 2512 10
15 16 Ju, Wenjun CHN WGM 2505 +4 2501 14
16 18 Ruan, Lufei CHN WGM 2501 2501 0
17 15 Khotenashvili, Bela GEO IM 2498 -6 2504 2
18 17 Kosteniuk, Alexandra RUS GM 2495 -6 2501 4
19 20 Zhu, Chen QAT GM 2491 2491 8
20 21 Zatonskih, Anna USA IM 2491 +2 2489 4
21 11 Gunina, Valentina RUS IM 2490 -27 2517 16
22 22 Paehtz, Elisabeth GER IM 2482 2482 0
23 29 Huang, Qian CHN WGM 2478 +13 2465 11
24 37 Ushenina, Anna UKR GM 2477 +25 2452 14
25 23 Pogonina, Natalija RUS WGM 2475 -3 2478 6
26 25 Muzychuk, Mariya UKR IM 2471 -5 2476 6
27 38 Zhukova, Natalia UKR GM 2471 +20 2451 6
28 26 Hoang, Thanh Trang HUN GM 2469 -1 2470 4
29 24 Danielian, Elina ARM GM 2466 -10 2476 8
30 30 Tan, Zhongyi CHN WGM 2466 +2 2464 3
31 34 Javakhishvili, Lela GEO IM 2461 +6 2455 10
32 31 Atalik, Ekaterina TUR IM 2461 2461 0
33 27 Galliamova, Alisa RUS IM 2459 -9 2468 6
34 33 Mkrtchian, Lilit ARM IM 2458 +1 2457 8
35 32 Krush, Irina USA IM 2458 -1 2459 6
36 36 Munguntuul, Batkhuyag MGL IM 2453 2453 0
37 39 Hunt, Harriet V ENG IM 2450 2450 0
38 35 Dembo, Yelena GRE IM 2448 -6 2454 2
39 41 Socko, Monika POL GM 2445 2445 6
40 40 Peptan, Corina-Isabela ROU IM 2443 -4 2447 7
41 42 Moser, Eva AUT IM 2443 2443 0
42 28 Girya, Olga RUS WGM 2441 -26 2467 14
43 47 Khurtsidze, Nino GEO IM 2437 +9 2428 4
44 43 Skripchenko, Almira FRA IM 2436 -5 2441 2
45 44 Cori T., Deysi PER WGM 2434 -4 2438 2
46 45 Guo, Qi CHN WGM 2431 -1 2432 6
47 46 Bodnaruk, Anastasia RUS IM 2430 +1 2429 2
48 50 Ding, Yixin CHN WGM 2427 +1 2426 4
49 48 Alexandrova, Olga ESP IM 2427 2427 0
50 49 Zaiatz, Elena RUS IM 2427 2427 0
51 52 Pham, Le Thao Nguyen VIE WGM 2426 +1 2425 4
52 67 Houska, Jovanka ENG IM 2416 +20 2396 9
53 54 Shen, Yang CHN WGM 2415 +2 2413 6
54 60 Guramishvili, Sopiko GEO IM 2414 +11 2403 9
55 56 Kovalevskaya, Ekaterina RUS IM 2411 +2 2409 2
56 63 Matnadze, Ana ESP IM 2408 +7 2401 22
57 51 Batsiashvili, Nino GEO WGM 2407 -18 2425 18
58 55 Rajlich, Iweta POL IM 2407 -3 2410 2
59 53 Arakhamia-Grant, Ketevan SCO GM 2405 -9 2414 2
60 57 Gaponenko, Inna UKR IM 2405 2405 0
61 59 Vasilevich, Tatjana UKR IM 2404 2404 0
62 64 Tania, Sachdev IND IM 2403 +3 2400 19
63 58 Milliet, Sophie FRA IM 2403 -2 2405 4
64 61 Bojkovic, Natasa SRB IM 2403 2403 0
65 62 Melia, Salome GEO IM 2403 2403 0
66 66 Goryachkina, Aleksandra RUS WGM 2402 +5 2397 6
67 69 Peng, Zhaoqin NED GM 2398 +4 2394 1
68 70 Li, Ruofan SIN IM 2396 +2 2394 2
69 80 Gomes, Mary Ann IND WGM 2394 +12 2382 22
70 65 Vijayalakshmi, Subbaraman IND IM 2393 -7 2400 11
71 73 Zawadzka, Jolanta POL WGM 2391 +2 2389 12
72 74 Karavade, Eesha IND IM 2391 +6 2385 11
73 71 Paikidze, Nazi GEO IM 2391 2391 0
74 76 Foisor, Cristina-Adela ROU IM 2389 +6 2383 10
75 84 Kovanova, Baira RUS WGM 2387 +9 2378 4
76 77 Khukhashvili, Sopiko GEO IM 2386 +3 2383 2
77 78 Majdan-Gajewska, Joanna POL WGM 2383 2383 0
78 79 Michna, Marta GER WGM 2383 2383 0
79   Matveeva, Svetlana RUS IM 2380   2
80 83 Szczepkowska-Horowska, Karina POL WGM 2378 2378 0
81 72 L'Ami, Alina ROU WGM 2376 -14 2390 6
82 86 Zhang, Xiaowen CHN WGM 2376 2376 0
83 81 Wang, Jue CHN   2375 -4 2379 4
84 87 Shadrina, Tatiana RUS WGM 2372 2372 0
85   Ordaz Valdes, Lisandra Teresa CUB WGM 2371   16
86 82 Yildiz, Betul Cemre TUR WGM 2370 -9 2379 9
87 88 Vasilevich, Irina RUS IM 2370 2370 0
88 90 Melamed, Tatjana GER WGM 2368 2368 0
89 91 Repkova, Eva SVK IM 2368 2368 0
90 89 Lujan, Carolina ARG IM 2366 -2 2368 2
91 93 Kachiani-Gersinska, Ketino GER IM 2366 2366 0
92 92 Ziaziulkina, Nastassia BLR WGM 2364 -3 2367 11
93 97 Kononenko, Tatiana UKR IM 2364 2364 0
94 98 Mammadova, Gulnar AZE WGM 2363 2363 0
95   Sukandar, Irine Kharisma INA WGM 2362   4
96 99 Vajda, Szidonia HUN IM 2362 2362 0
97 75 Ovod, Evgenija RUS IM 2361 -23 2384 10
98 100 Ubiennykh, Ekaterina RUS WIM 2360 2360 0
99   Vojinovic, Jovana MNE WGM 2359   0
100   Wang, Yu A. CHN IM 2359   0

 

xxx

January 2013 FIDE ratings (juniors)

Rank Old rank Name Country Title Rating Old rating Games
1 2 Giri, Anish NED GM 2720 2720 0
2 5 Yu, Yangyi CHN GM 2688 +7 2681 4
3 4 So, Wesley PHI GM 2682 2682 0
4 6 Sjugirov, Sanan RUS GM 2643 2643 0
5 7 Negi, Parimarjan IND GM 2641 2641 0
6 8 Nyzhnyk, Illya UKR GM 2637 2637 0
7 10 Swiercz, Dariusz POL GM 2627 2627 0
8 12 Zherebukh, Yaroslav UKR GM 2623 2623 0
9 13 Rapport, Richard HUN GM 2621 2621 0
10 14 Robson, Ray USA GM 2615 2615 0
11 16 Hou, Yifan CHN GM 2603 -3 2606 4
12 17 Dubov, Daniil RUS GM 2600 2600 0
13 18 Ipatov, Alexander TUR GM 2587 2587 2
14 22 Van Kampen, Robin NED GM 2581 +11 2570 10
15 20 Grandelius, Nils SWE GM 2572 -11 2583 3
16 24 Ter-Sahakyan, Samvel ARM GM 2567 2567 0
17 42 Sethuraman, S.P. IND GM 2556 +36 2520 22
18 26 Belous, Vladimir RUS IM 2554 2554 0
19 25 Anton Guijarro, David ESP IM 2550 -8 2558 8
20 28 Bogdanovich, Stanislav UKR IM 2548 2548 0
21 37 Vidit, Santosh Gujrathi IND IM 2546 +19 2527 11
22 29 Cori, Jorge PER GM 2542 2542 0
23 38 Lalith, Babu M.R. IND GM 2541 +15 2526 21
24 32 Salem, A.R. Saleh UAE GM 2538 +2 2536 3
25 33 Lu, Shanglei CHN GM 2526 -6 2532 3
26 40 Gabuzyan, Hovhannes ARM GM 2525 +1 2524 10
27 39 Eliseev, Urii RUS IM 2525 2525 0
28 41 Bok, Benjamin NED IM 2522 2522 0
29 43 Popilski, Gil ISR IM 2518 2518 0
30 50 Lagarde, Maxime FRA IM 2517 +9 2508 4
31 45 Fedoseev, Vladimir RUS GM 2514 2514 0
32 46 Grigoryan, Karen H. ARM IM 2513 2513 0
33 48 Bukavshin, Ivan RUS GM 2510 2510 0
34 56 Vaibhav, Suri IND GM 2503 +9 2494 11
35 52 Predke, Alexandr RUS   2503 2503 0
36 76 Artemiev, Vladislav RUS IM 2502 +28 2474 10
37 47 Indjic, Aleksandar SRB IM 2502 -9 2511 9
38 61 Wei, Yi CHN FM 2501 +16 2485 12
39 53 Bernadskiy, Vitaliy UKR IM 2500 2500 0
40 55 Holt, Conrad USA GM 2494 2494 0
41 58 Stukopin, Andrey RUS IM 2492 2492 9
42 60 Zeng, Chongsheng CHN IM 2490 +4 2486 4
43 71 Zierk, Steven C USA IM 2485 +8 2477 9
44 68 Wang, Chen CHN IM 2483 +4 2479 13
45 64 Naroditsky, Daniel USA IM 2483 2483 0
46 63 Plat, Vojtech CZE IM 2483 2483 0
47 66 Kanarek, Marcel POL IM 2482 2482 0
48 65 Kovalev, Vladislav BLR IM 2482 2482 0
49 57 Yang, Darwin USA IM 2481 -12 2493 18
50 92 Pavlidis, Antonios GRE IM 2481 +18 2463 9
51 70 Oparin, Grigoriy RUS IM 2478 2478 0
52 69 Pakhomov, Egor RUS IM 2478 2478 0
53 72 Arribas Lopez, Angel ESP IM 2477 2477 0
54 74 Perez Ponsa, Federico ARG GM 2476 2476 0
55 75 Idani, Pouya IRI IM 2475 2475 0
56 86 Debashis, Das IND IM 2474 +10 2464 11
57 77 Moiseenko, Vadim RUS   2474 2474 0
58 97 Kadric, Denis BIH IM 2473 +15 2458 9
59 49 Grover, Sahaj IND GM 2472 -37 2509 22
60   Antipov, Mikhail Al. RUS IM 2472   9
61 93 Dragun, Kamil POL IM 2470 +9 2461 9
62 82 Graf, Felix GER   2469 2469 0
63 81 Raznikov, Danny ISR IM 2469 2469 0
64 83 Urkedal, Frode NOR IM 2469 2469 0
65 85 Abasov, Nijat AZE GM 2468 2468 0
66 84 Duda, Jan-Krzysztof POL IM 2468 2468 0
67 80 Forcen Esteban, Daniel ESP IM 2467 -2 2469 9
68   Stella, Andrea ITA IM 2465   14
69 99 Ringoir, Tanguy BEL IM 2465 +8 2457 5
70 88 Chigaev, Maksim RUS IM 2464 2464 0
71 91 Iermito, Sebastian ARG IM 2463 2463 0
72 87 Andersen, Mads DEN IM 2462 -2 2464 10
73 95 Mammadov, Zaur AZE IM 2459 2459 0
74 101 Petenyi, Tamas SVK IM 2457 2457 0
75 98 Wagner, Dennis GER IM 2457 2457 0
76   Stany, G.A. IND IM 2454   11
77   Bluebaum, Matthias GER IM 2454   0
78   Sadzikowski, Daniel POL IM 2453   9
79   Atabayev, Maksat TKM IM 2452   0
80   Javakhadze, Zurab GEO IM 2449   11
81   Boruchovsky, Avital ISR IM 2447   8
82   Alekseenko, Kirill RUS FM 2446   0
83   Klein, David NED IM 2445   1
84   Aghasaryan, Robert ARM FM 2443   0
85   Ghosh, Diptayan IND FM 2442   11
86   Mihok, Oliver HUN IM 2442   9
87   Zhou, Yang-Fan ENG IM 2439   12
88   Moussard, Jules FRA IM 2437   0
89   Gordievsky, Dmitry RUS FM 2436   9
90   Narayanan, Srinath IND IM 2434   22
91   Cori T., Deysi PER WGM 2434   2
92   Strzemiecki, Zbigniew POL IM 2434   0
93   Shumyatsky, Victor BRA FM 2433   0
94   Guo, Qi CHN WGM 2431   6
95   Drozdowski, Kacper POL FM 2426   0
96   Priyadharshan, K. IND IM 2425   9
97   Bajarani, Ulvi AZE IM 2425   0
98   Shen, Victor C USA IM 2422   9
99   Song, Julien FRA FM 2422   9
100   Nagy, Gabor HUN   2422   0

 

xxx

January 2013 FIDE ratings (girls)

Rank Old rank Name Country Title Rating Old rating Games
1 1 Hou, Yifan CHN GM 2603 -3 2606 4
2 3 Cori T., Deysi PER WGM 2434 -4 2438 2
3 4 Guo, Qi CHN WGM 2431 -1 2432 6
4 6 Goryachkina, Aleksandra RUS WGM 2402 +5 2397 6
5 7 Paikidze, Nazi GEO IM 2391 2391 0
6 8 Wang, Jue CHN   2375 -4 2379 4
7 9 Ziaziulkina, Nastassia BLR WGM 2364 -3 2367 11
8 10 Bulmaga, Irina ROU WGM 2355 -9 2364 9
9 13 Arabidze, Meri GEO WGM 2355 2355 0
10 14 Kashlinskaya, Alina RUS WGM 2350 +6 2344 8
11 19 Saduakassova, Dinara KAZ WGM 2312 +14 2298 9
12 17 Medina, Warda Aulia INA WIM 2309 -4 2313 13
13 20 Schut, Lisa NED WIM 2295 2295 0
14 16 Padmini, Rout IND WGM 2288 -25 2313 21
15 22 Soloviova, Liza UKR WGM 2287 2287 0
16 23 Khademalsharieh, Sarasadat IRI WIM 2282 2282 0
17 32 Papp, Petra HUN WGM 2280 +26 2254 9
18 26 Nguyen, Thi Mai Hung VIE WIM 2272 2272 0
19 28 Rakhmangulova, Anastasiya UKR WIM 2266 2266 0
20 25 Sihite, Chelsie Monica INA WIM 2264 -13 2277 4
21 30 Brunello, Marina ITA WIM 2257 2257 0
22 31 Pustovoitova, Daria RUS FM 2257 2257 0
23 33 Danelia, Mariam GEO WIM 2252 2252 0
24 50 Aranaz Murillo, Amalia ESP WF 2251 +33 2218 5
25 29 Zhai, Mo CHN WF 2249 -9 2258 12
26 41 Haast, Anne NED WIM 2248 +9 2239 1
27 34 Hakimifard, Ghazal IRI WIM 2247 2247 0
28 35 Hoang, Thi Nhu Y VIE WIM 2245 2245 0
29 36 Baciu, Diana MDA WF 2243 2243 0
30 37 Hejazipour, Mitra IRI WIM 2241 2241 0
31 38 Olsarova, Karolina CZE WIM 2241 2241 0
32 40 Klek, Hanna-Marie GER   2239 2239 0
33 46 Petrova, Olga RUS   2237 +6 2231 8
34 42 Lei, Tingjie CHN   2232 -3 2235 2
35 45 Severina, Maria RUS   2232 +1 2231 0
36 43 Shvayger, Yuliya ISR WF 2232 2232 0
37 47 Salazar, Aura Cristina COL WIM 2225 2225 0
38 51 Nicolas Zapata, Irene ESP WIM 2224 +7 2217 9
39 48 Butuc, Maria RUS WIM 2224 2224 0
40 49 Abdulla, Khayala AZE WIM 2223 2223 0
41 59 Foisor, Mihaela-Veronica ROU WIM 2219 +11 2208 8
42 74 Pavlidou, Ekaterini GRE WIM 2218 +33 2185 9
43 54 Petrukhina, Irina RUS WF 2218 +4 2214 9
44 55 Kazimova, Narmin AZE WIM 2213 2213 0
45 56 Chumpitaz, Ann PER WF 2212 2212 0
46 58 Varga, Melinda HUN   2208 2208 0
47 57 Varga, Klara HUN WIM 2207 -3 2210 9
48 60 Stetsko, Lanita BLR FM 2203 2203 0
49 63 Bivol, Alina RUS WF 2200 +2 2198 3
50 61 Belenkaya, Dina RUS WF 2200 2200 0
51 62 Osmanodja, Filiz GER WF 2199 2199 0
52 65 Vo, Thi Kim Phung VIE WIM 2193 2193 0
53 70 Iwanow, Anna POL WIM 2192 +4 2188 9
54 68 Suslova, Alena RUS WF 2189 2189 0
55 69 Gvanceladze, Anna RUS WF 2188 2188 0
56 71 Wisniowska, Klaudia POL   2188 2188 0
57 96 Baraeva, Marina RUS WIM 2187 +29 2158 8
58 79 Rodriguez Rueda, Paula Andrea COL WIM 2183 +6 2177 18
59 67 Rjanova, Valery RUS WF 2183 -6 2189 6
60 75 Efroimski, Marsel ISR WIM 2183 2183 0
61 76 Camacho, Chardine Cheradee PHI WIM 2182 2182 0
62 77 Bochis, Julia GER WF 2181 2181 0
63 91 Samigullina, Diana RUS WF 2180 +18 2162 10
64 93 Dewi, Aa Citra INA WF 2180 +19 2161 4
65 78 Osmak, Iulija UKR WF 2180 2180 0
66 66 Xu, Huahua CHN   2177 -16 2193 9
67 80 Bezgodova, Maria RUS WIM 2177 2177 0
68 81 Lach, Aleksandra POL WF 2176 2176 0
69   Grigoryeva, Olga A. RUS WF 2175   8
70 82 Khlichkova, Tatiana RUS WF 2171 2171 0
71 97 Miturova, Magdalena CZE WF 2170 +13 2157 9
72 83 Bukhteeva, Viktoria RUS WF 2170 2170 0
73 84 Krasiuk, Kateryna UKR WF 2170 2170 0
74 85 Abdumalik, Zhansaya KAZ WIM 2169 2169 0
75   Chandika Divyasree IND WF 2167   11
76 89 Tantsiura, Maria UKR   2166 2166 0
77 92 Styazhkina, Anna RUS WF 2161 2161 0
78 88 Baraeva, Irina RUS WF 2159 -7 2166 8
79 95 Pujari, Rucha IND WF 2158 2158 0
80 94 Castrillon Gomez, Melissa COL WIM 2156 -3 2159 2
81 98 Petrova, Irina UKR WF 2156 2156 0
82 99 Mona, Khaled EGY WGM 2153 -2 2155 2
83   Asgarizadeh, Minoo IRI WF 2153   0
84   Enkhtuul, Altanulzii MGL WIM 2153   0
85   Saranya, J IND WF 2152   11
86   Collado Barbas, Laura ESP WF 2151   0
87 90 Nandhidhaa, PV IND   2150 -15 2165 11
88 86 Xiao, Yiyi CHN WF 2148 -21 2169 9
89   Buksa, Nataliya UKR   2147   0
90   Baekelant, Eva BEL WF 2144   0
91   Purgar, Ivona CRO WF 2144   0
92   Eryshkanova, Anastasiya RUS WF 2143   0
93   Makarenko, Alexandra RUS WF 2142   11
94   Cerrato Torrijos, Maria ESP WF 2135   7
95   Kats, Alena USA WF 2135   0
96   Kurbonboeva, Sarvinoz UZB   2135   0
97   Tomnikova, Lidia RUS WF 2134   7
98   Sun, Fanghui CHN   2134   0
99   Smirnova, Ekaterina RUS WF 2130   0
100   Ibrahimova, Sabina AZE   2129   0
101   Zizlova, Sofia RUS   2129   0

 

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

Comments

The Golden Knight's picture

Carlsen for president, king and WC :)

support,'s picture
Christian's picture

It's Deysi Cori, not Cori Deysi. (By the way, Deysi is a Spanish [misspelled] version of Daisy).

Jambow's picture

Almost 90pts higher than Anand and yet the two haven't played for the title amazing really.

RG13's picture

Not that really amazing IMO. The WC is once every two years so that it doesn't get cheapened (think how much less the Olympics would mean if it was every year).

redivivo's picture

"The WC is once every two years so that it doesn't get cheapened"

The WC was held in 2012 and will be held again in 2013, I wonder if that cheapens it more than having a knockout qualification last time did though.

RG13's picture

I thought the entire cycle to select a challenger was normally meant to be at least 2 years. Is this perhaps a case of unintentionally clumping?

redivivo's picture

The latest cycle started out as far back as five years ago. After sharing first in the Baku Grand Prix in the beginning of 2008 Carlsen (together with Adams) withdrew from the cycle after FIDE changed the rules. So it's not that strange that Carlsen hasn't played a title match, in his only previous chance he was 16 and lost his Candidates match as last ranked participant against first ranked Aronian (it was 5-5 before the blitz tiebreak though).

Anonymous's picture

Your information is incomplete. Carlsen was seeded directly into the Candidates matches 2011, but he refused to play. His substitute made it to the finals where he lost to Gelfand. So Carlsens last qualifying chance was 2011, not 2006. Quite a difference.

redivivo's picture

Considering that Carlsen withdrew from the latest cycle after FIDE changed the rules I just find it hard to agree with the statement I responded to (that it's amazing that Carlsen hasn't played a title match yet). To have played a title match he would either have had to beat Aronian et al as lowest ranked Candidate when he was 16 years old, or finished and won the latest cycle that was five years long.

Of course, long before Carlsen withdrew from the Grand Prix after the rule change that made the whole endless 2008-10 series meaningless several players refused to participate already from the start, among them Morozevich:

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4477

Morozevich complains about the cycle being four years long (that was when the title match was supposed to be held in 2011, this was one of the many changes FIDE made later, making the cycle five years long, after the qualifications had started).

As we know Carlsen didn't finish the latest cycle (and even if he had a knockout lottery can be won by anyone so no guarantees that Carlsen would have won it).

Anonymous's picture

That's a lot of text to admit that his last chance to qualify was indeed in 2012 and not some 4 years earlier.

redivivo's picture

I thought it might be a good idea to explain it more in detail but it doesn't seem to have worked. I disagree about it being amazing that Carlsen hasn't played a title match yet since his latest chances were 1. the one when he was 16 years old, and 2. the 2008-12 cycle he withdrew from after the cycle change.

In an alternative reality where Carlsen didn't withdraw from the 2008-12 cycle he might of course have won it, but considering the knockout system I wouldn't have found it amazing if he had failed to win even in case he had participated.

Maybe you got it this time, but I wouldn't bet on it :-)

Anonymous's picture

What is it so hard for you to understand the phrase "chance to qualify"? This means to play in the candidates. He could have done so in 2011, and not just in 2008 like you said.

redivivo's picture

Huh? Try reading the actual posts once again. Carlsen could have played Kazan 2011, in the 2008-12 cycle, but didn't. Regardless if he refused to play to protect his rating, as you state, or because he was unhappy with FIDE, going on about it being amazing that he didn't qualify for the title match seems as pointless as repeating that it's amazing that Kramnik didn't win the Grand Slam final he declined to play in 2011. It isn't amazing that an absent player doesn't win an event.

Anonymous's picture

The actual posts are very clear. You were either misinformed or not telling the truth on purpose by stating that his last chance was effectively in 2008. Nor are you telling the truth about me; I never stated that Carlsen protected his rating by not playing the candidates. It's another matter that it's likely that he would have lost some points in matches with the elite, were draws are common as well.

redivivo's picture

As has been pointed out several times by now the cycle was 2008-12 with Candidates in 2011. Carlsen withdrew from the cycle in 2008 and refused the spot he was given in 2011, as a result of the rule change that made him withdraw from the cycle three years earlier.

It would have been less convincing if he had withdrawn in 2008 to return to the cycle in 2011 after being given one of the free spots demanded by the players that refused to participate in the qualifications.

Anonymous's picture

Funnily the part about the candidates spot in 2011 was pointed out indeed, but not by you.
Anyway, we weren't debating what is "convincing" but when it was his last chance to qualify. I'm glad you now agree that it was in 2011.

FIDE nonsense aside Carlsen had good chances to win the 2011 event.

Now for a little non related comparison with the much criticized Anand.

When he wasn't wch yet he participated in knockouts that were far more risky and far more unfair (with other particpants getting big privileges).
F.I. he particpated in the FIDE wch were he had to defeat 6 (!!) top players in 2 game matches in order to play the well rested Karpov.
He aired his objections against FIDE but he still played.
And just like at later occasions he managed to win the knockouts. Pretty classy in my opinion.

redivivo's picture

"I'm glad you now agree that it was in 2011."

So where did I ever state anything else?

An objective mind's picture

Well, frankly, Wch title ads nothing to Carlsen commercial value, but a lot to Fides'. Dont mind he didnt compete 2008-12, he doesnt need that title.

Hagen's picture

Did Carlsen withdraw from the Grand Prix or from the cycle in 2008? According to chessbase he withdrew from the cycle in november 2010.

redivivo's picture

He withdrew from the Grand Prix in 2008, but not from the rest of the cycle until in 2010.

Hagen's picture

So why did you write "After sharing first in the Baku Grand Prix in the beginning of 2008 Carlsen withdrew from the cycle" when you were talking about qualification cycles?

redivivo's picture

Carlsen didn't play in the cycle after withdrawing from the Grand Prix series in 2008, later he was given a spot in the Candidates 2011 anyway but refused it, so technically speaking he withdrew from the cycle first when not accepting the spot he was given in the Candidates.

What was said in 2008 after FIDE changed the rules and Carlsen declared his quitting the qualifications was just that: "We are currently considering alternative measures in response to this highly significant change, which includes legal action and the withdrawal from the cycle". The actual and final withdrawal took place first in 2010 though.

Anonymous's picture

The rating difference wasn't that big when the qualifying cycle started. Although it may have been smart ratingwise, it's a pity Carlsen didn't participate. But we can't blame Anand for that.

redivivo's picture

"Although it may have been smart ratingwise, it's a pity Carlsen didn't participate. But we can't blame Anand for that."

In what way was it smart ratingwise not to play Kazan? With a minimatch knockout decided in rapid and blitz the participants can be certain not to lose many points. One blitz loss and you're out and can't lose more points (and won't even lose any points from the blitz game).

If Radjabov had managed to draw Carlsen just as well as he drew Kramnik in all classical games, but won the blitz, Carlsen would have lost a couple of points. Much less than one single lost game would cost him.

One might just as well say that it was smart ratingwise of Kramnik and Topalov to refuse to participate in the qualifications cycle and demand to be given a spot in a Candidates (something they also succeeded in getting, and it might be worth noting that Carlsen never made any such demands but played the qualification from the start, until the rule change that ended up giving Kramnik and Topalov their free spots.

I don't know why you would blame Anand for FIDE's cycle, the only thing one might blame him for would be that he never has disagreed with FIDE about anything. As he has said more than once the knockout title of year 2000 is worth just as much to him as the "match title" of today.

I don't think Carlsen's decision not to play Kazan had to anything do with him wanting to protect his rating, I think it had more to do with what FIDE did to the cycle (as he stated himself).

Anonymous's picture

" the only thing one might blame him for would be that he never has disagreed with FIDE about anything."

What an ignorance. Anand has disagreed openly with FIDE many times, a decade ago already. But even though he didn't always agree with FIDE, he still managed to win the wch title in all the formats they came up with.

So what's next redivivo? Are you gonna tell us that Gelfand was never top 5 or how Moro can only win against sub 2600 players? Your misinformation and fallacies are getting tiresome.

redivivo's picture

Anand is very loyal to FIDE, and between 1995 and 2007 he didn't even participate for the Kasparov-Kramnik title but saw the FIDE knockout as what counted.

Also as unified World Champion Anand has pointed out many times that to him the FIDE knockout title won by him, Khalifman and Kasimdzhanov is no less valuable as the World Championship of chess than the match title once held by Kasparov that he himself holds now.

Some of course agree with him, but Kasparov had won the title fair and square in a match against Karpov and beaten all opposition in matches. It had more tradition and wasn't decided in blitz knockouts. If Anand had beaten Kasparov in 1995 I would certainly see that as more of an achievement than his winning a knockout without the best players. Anand is of another opinion and nothing wrong with that, but it's hard to agree with him that Kasimdzhanov and Khalifman are no less World Champions than Kasparov and Fischer.

Anand didn't say a thing about FIDE's changing rules and regulations during the latest cycles. The World Champion does have the position to give his opinion, instead of just playing for the title without complaining in 2007, 2008, 2010, 2012 and 2013 (that's five times in six years, with ever changing formats and qualification systems).

Anonymous's picture

Once again a lot of text just to admit you were wrong.

Even if Anand was quiet about changes during the latest cycles it would be of no importance. You stated that he NEVER disagreed with FIDE when in fact he has complained many times, starting in the early 90's.
Now it's not his task to battle with FIDE (again) when young Carlsen is unwilling to play.

Furthermore I should point out that you once again use data selectively (Anand did participate in the PCA wch cycle outside FIDE until 95 and was in negotiation with Kasparov in 99). And that preference for one title over another has nothing to do with loyalty towards FIDE. But the point is clear already.

Your statement: (Anand) "has never disagreed with Fide about anything" was a new peak in your constant fountain of utter b**sh*t.

redivivo's picture

So what are all these disagreements Anand had with FIDE in the early 90's, can you give some examples?

Anonymous's picture

He criticized both FIDE and PCA in the early 90s and signed several protests about qualifiers and conditions along with other GM's. He and Shirov even complained to FIDE about Kasparov's rating being deleted from the FIDE rating list (93?).
Later on in the '98 he criticized FIDE for not just seeding Karpov directly into the finals but also for the ridiculous conditions in which the qualifier had to play.

redivivo's picture

OK, but Kramnik refused to play for the 1998 title since he thought the system was too unfair (and Kasparov naturally refused to play too). Anand obeyed FIDE's rules as always and played, and then indeed complained about it being unfair afterwards, but whatever disagreements he indeed may have had never lead to him taking action (or being particularly vocal until after he lost).

There are many other examples of players refusing to play for the FIDE title or taking action against their decisions: Kasparov refused to play for the FIDE title during the split years, and withdrew from the reunification in protest against FIDE never arranging his Candidates match, Kramnik refused not only in 1998 but also in 2001-02, 2004 and 2005, Adams and Carlsen withdrew in 2008, Aronian wrote an open letter urging FIDE to retract the cycle change, Topalov and Kramnik criticised the entire cycle publicly, as Morozevich when he refused to play Grand Prix (as did Shirov).

Karpov refused to defend his FIDE title after 1998, Botvinnik and Fischer refused to play Candidates, Kramnik said after Kazan that FIDE must abolish the knockout system, several top players complained about the old rating lists used for rating qualifiers, many complained about the constant moving around of the Candidates in 2007, not to mention Kasparov and Karpov being highly critical of FIDE repeatedly about everything from the termination in 1985 until today etc.

I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that Anand is (by far) the top player that has been most loyal to FIDE over the last 15 years.

Thomas's picture

Carlsen's refusal to play in Kazan might not matter ratingwise, but it could matter reputation-wise: not winning was a distinct possibility, and would have been under ANY format. Coincidence or not, he decided (or announced) to skip the candidates event right after two consecutive bad results, Olympiad and Bilbao 2010 - his last bad results for the time being, but that's something he couldn't know back then. Then he, his management and his fans turned this controversial decision into a rebel against FIDE saga ... .

Kramnik didn't get a free spot (the wildcard went to Mamedyarov) but qualified by rating - doing well in the critical period July2009 - January 2010: winning Dortmund and Tal Memorial (both ahead of Carlsen) and second place in London (behind Carlsen). It doesn't make sense to make lots of noise about Carlsen's rating while considering other players' Elo irrelevant!? Kramnik may have been "lucky" that Topalov and Aronian (both along with Carlsen still ahead of him at the time) qualified by other means - hence Topalov's spot wasn't "free" either (he would have otherwise qualified). Or he was next in line according to the rules.

redivivo's picture

"he, his management and his fans turned this controversial decision into a rebel against FIDE saga"

How did Carlsen turn his decision into a rebel against FIDE saga?

"With your decision are you making a special point against FIDE?

No, it is a personal decision based on what I think is best for me."

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=6789

Thomas's picture

That's an isolated statement - maybe he was honest for a moment? Not as honest as "given that I might not win, it's better not to play" but coming close (this can be read between the lines). Moreover, his decision was interpreted as rebellion against FIDE - he knew it and was well aware of his status.

Compare this to what you wrote earlier today:
"I don't think Carlsen's decision not to play Kazan had to anything do with him wanting to protect his rating, I think it had more to do with what FIDE did to the cycle (as he stated himself)."
Or to passages from Carlsen's open letter in the same Chessbase article:
"After careful consideration I’ve reached the conclusion that the ongoing 2008–2012 cycle does not represent a system, sufficiently modern and fair, to provide the motivation I need ..."

redivivo's picture

"maybe he was honest for a moment? Not as honest as "given that I might not win, it's better not to play""

You do know that the honest answer would be "given that I might not win, it's better not to play"? Why did he play the cycle from the start instead of sitting it out together with Kramnik and Topalov then? Was he just hoping that FIDE would change the rules of the ongoing cycle so he would have an excuse not to risk failing to win?

As I said I think Carlsen withdrew because of what FIDE did to the cycle, both changing the format after it started and introducing the minimatch knockout in the end. Here it's worth noting that (not only) Kramnik praised the format, stating that four game matches were long enough. As soon as he had been eliminated he stated that the format must be abolished and that Gelfand had been lucky with the draw.

I find Carlsen's approach less hypocritical. Carlsen just said that he didn't want to play and that the format didn't motivate him. If Carlsen had said what he really thought I think he would have been much more critical of the knockout than he was, but that's just what I think. And I certainly don't agree with you that his aim was to turn a "given that I might not win, it's better not to play" into praise for being a rebel. I think he was quite honest in his statements both in 2008 and 2010, even if he may have understated his criticism against the knockout in 2010 since the other players supported it.

Thomas's picture

The cycle started in May 2008, when the players you name were in different situations than today. Kramnik and Topalov both had WCh matches ahead of them (Topalov still had to qualify against Kamsky, not too surprising at the time that he managed). Then - even if they could squeeze the GP events into their schedules - it might be considered a sign of weakness or insecurity: "I might lose the WCh match, thus I should already think about qualifying for another one".

Carlsen, on the other hand, was "just" world #5 and, for example, his cooperation with Kasparov started only in March 2009 (revealed in September 2009).

As far as I remember Kramnik didn't "praise" the Kazan format, he called it 'acceptable' (not the same as "perfect"). Anyone had to make up his mind about playing in Kazan or not regardless of whether the format was perfect or just the best available or realistic one. I certainly don't remember Kramnik diminishing or putting question marks behind Gelfand's success, do you have a quote? Others did, including Carlsen ... .

As to Carlsen's real motivations, we all speculate - and those who like or "love" him will come to different conclusions than those with a neutral or critical attitude.

redivivo's picture

Kramnik before Kazan:

"everything seems to be more or less under control -- this candidate tournament seems to be fixed, and everything is there, it's a pretty nice tournament"

"we've seen worse with knockouts"

"I think it's totally OK"

"it's quite OK, it's pretty long, it's four games"

"Magnus is stating that he would prefer a tournament, but basically I don't see any differences. Basically it IS like a tournament"

http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/carlsens-withdrawal-reactions-from-can...

Kramnik after Kazan:

"I can only agree with the critics who said that the system is not suitable for today’s classical World Championship candidates"

"I personally have always preferred the tournament format"

"somehow FIDE for some reason, which I do not know, changed it into a match format. Well, not really a match format – I would rather call it a kind of knockout, because four games are not a real match"

"the Kazan tournament was not very interesting from a chess point of view"

"Maybe he [Gelfand] was a bit lucky with the pairings"

"this was not a very fortunate cycle"

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=7262

To me Carlsen's withdrawal from the Grand Prix made sense. Instead of competing for one of two places in a longer Candidates final match the rules were changed abruptly after the cycle already had begun. The GP series was both made pointless and prolonged into a third year, the contracts with the participants were broken, and lots of players were suddenly given spots in a knockout Candidates without playing the qualification. Aronian also complained a lot about this change and threatened to withdraw even if only Adams followed Carlsen's example.

That Carlsen later withdrew also from the Candidates, as had been suggested by himself already when he withdrew from the GP in 2008, was just logical. I don't see where all the negative interpretations concerning him wanting to protect his rating, lying about his reasons, falsely turning his fear of playing into a rebel attitude etc come from.

Thomas's picture

On "Kramnik before Kazan", I basically agree with john early in the comments section:
"Kramnik seems to sum the situation up well, its not a perfect system but it is the best in a while and was going in the right direction again."
Others may disagree, and in hindsight it was far from perfect - but how predictable was Grischuk's (and Radjabov's) approach to more or less skip the classical games and try your luck in tiebreaks?

On "Kramnik after Kazan", the quote about Gelfand's lucky pairings is a wonderful example of selective quoting - wonderfully bad, maybe worst-ever from redivivo who doesn't like either player. At least he now includes the little word "maybe" but this is the full quote:
" I think that the winner, Boris Gelfand, is a totally legitimate challenger. Maybe he was a bit lucky with the pairings, but that is not his fault. Everything that was in his hands he did perfectly, and I am very glad for him and look forward to see his match against Anand. ... He has the unique ability to play his very best at the most important moments."
Not the slightest sign of animosity between Kramnik and Gelfand (of course that's known for years, Kramnik wrote a rather nice preface to Gelfand's book).

redivivo's picture

"Kramnik seems to sum the situation up well, its not a perfect system but it is the best in a while"

He didn't think that after having been eliminated though. As can be seen from the above quotes he took the opposite view compared to what he had before in many things, both concerning what formats he always had preferred, Carlsen's criticism, the length of the matches etc. And if the knockout was the best qualification system in a while, which qualification systems have been worse?

"the quote about Gelfand's lucky pairings is a wonderful example of selective quoting"

Well, you asked for Kramnik's quote on Gelfand being lucky with the draw, not for all the other sweet nothings about him being a great player etc.

Thomas's picture

Would you truncate a quote from Carlsen to make it sound like the exact opposite of what he said? Would you call it "sweet nothings" if anyone praises Carlsen's play? One thing I know: you always show allergic reactions whenever anyone suggests that Carlsen may have been lucky.

redivivo's picture

"you always show allergic reactions whenever anyone suggests that Carlsen may have been lucky"

The constantly repeated comments about Carlsen being lucky (and others playing better in the events where Carlsen for some reason still wins) are just shallow and tiresome. I would certainly never claim that the winner was lucky, didn't deserve to win etc as is said after every game or tournament Carlsen wins.

As for truncating quotes, you questioned that Kramnik ever had said that Gelfand had been lucky with the draw when he won Kazan, and I provided the quote (and Kramnik hardly meant the exact opposite). Anyway, if you had questioned if Kramnik ever said that Gelfand was the legitimate challenger I would have truncated the quote from the same passage like this:

"I think that the winner, Boris Gelfand, is a totally legitimate challenger"

without including the part about him being lucky with the pairings. Maybe it's telling that Kramnik feels the need to say that he considers Gelfand to be the legitimate challenger though, considering how critical he and others were of the format and the outcome after the event was finished.

Corrector's picture

Thomas, Carlsen announced that he would not play the 2011 Candidates in November 2010 after winning Nanjing 2010 with +4 and a 2900-performance. As usual you are getting a highly relevant fact wrong. Let's hope it is another coincidence and not done on purpose.

Thomas's picture

OK, then it wasn't right after, but soon after two consecutive bad events. Noone knows (or only a few insiders, obviously including Carlsen himself) when exactly he made his decision. Some people thought he already knew during the Olympiad, but delayed the press release as it could hurt Tromso's chances to organize the forthcoming one.

guncha's picture

This is sort of rating list because only group A from World Cities Championship is rated. Other groups and knockout stage aren't. Either they rate whole tournament or leave it for February list.

columbo's picture

just watched the video twice for my pleasure :)

Congratulations Magnus !

PeterV's picture

So did I !

Theo's picture

Magnus is the best. A match with Anand isn't really necessary. To most players, Carlsen is the world champ anyway. A match would be entertaining tho! No doubt about that!

Anonymous's picture

More than entertaining ! It would show to everyone if Carlsen can make it against Anand in a match...

Chess Fan's picture

Good point.

Chess Fan's picture

Good point.

Pages

Latest articles