Reports | July 01, 2011 8:47

July ratings: Carlsen first again

On the new FIDE ratings list of July 1st, 2011 Magnus Carlsen holds the number 1 position. Thanks to his victory at the Kings' Tournament in Romania, the Norwegian passed World Champion Vishy Anand (India) again. Sergey Karjakin from Russia is now the world's 4th player while Ruslan Ponomariov (Ukraine) is on 7th place.

Finishing on 6.5/10 at the Kings' Tournament in Romania yielded Magnus Carlsen 6 ratings points to reach 2821, 4 more points than Vishy Anand who didn't play rated games in this period. (Update: the Norwegian just tweeted 'Very happy to be back at the top on the World Chess Ranking.') Sergey Karjakin scored the same in the same tournament and thus overtook Vladimir Kramnik's 4th place in the world rankings - Karjakin is now Russia's number one player.

Thanks to good results at the Russian Team Championship and the Ukrainian Championship, Ruslan Ponomariov is back in the world's top 10 - the Ukrainian now occupies 7th place. His compatriot Alexander Moiseenko climbed from spot 57 to 26. Le Quang Liem (Vietnam) is now the world's 27th player. The Netherlands has a player rated over 2700 again: Anish Giri climbed to spot 40 with 2701. There are now 42 players with a rating of 2700 or higher.

In the women's list, neither Judit Polgar nor Humpy Koneru played rated games. Hou Yifan is still third, despite dropping 37 rating points in two months. Viktorija Cmilyte is back in the top 10, now at 9th place.

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

FIDE JULY 2011 RATING LIST: TOP 100 PLAYERS

Legend:

black color - player remained on the same position

green color - player moved up in the list

red color - player moved down in the list

blue color - player is new to the current Top list

Old represents player's position in the previous period list

Rank   Old    Name Title Country Rating Games
 1  2  Carlsen, Magnus  g  NOR  2821 (+6)  10 (+10)
 2  1  Anand, Viswanathan  g  IND  2817 (0)  0 (0)
 3  3  Aronian, Levon  g  ARM  2805 (-3)  4 (+4)
 4  6  Karjakin, Sergey  g  RUS  2788 (+12)  10 (+10)
 5  4  Kramnik, Vladimir  g  RUS  2781 (-4)  8 (+8)
 6  5  Ivanchuk, Vassily  g  UKR  2768 (-8)  20 (+11)
 7  11  Ponomariov, Ruslan  g  UKR  2768 (+14)  11 (+1)
 8  7  Topalov, Veselin  g  BUL  2768 (-7)  4 (+4)
 9  8  Nakamura, Hikaru  g  USA  2766 (-8)  10 (+10)
 10  9  Mamedyarov, Shakhriyar  g  AZE  2765 (-7)  4 (+4)
 11  10  Gashimov, Vugar  g  AZE  2760 (0)  0 (-6)
 12  16  Gelfand, Boris  g  ISR  2746 (+13)  14 (+10)
 13  12  Grischuk, Alexander  g  RUS  2746 (-1)  14 (+14)
 14  13  Radjabov, Teimour  g  AZE  2744 (0)  14 (+14)
 15  18  Kamsky, Gata  g  USA  2741 (+9)  12 (+5)
 16  14  Svidler, Peter  g  RUS  2739 (0)  0 (-28)
 17  17  Jakovenko, Dmitry  g  RUS  2736 (+4)  6 (-14)
 18  15  Vitiugov, Nikita  g  RUS  2733 (0)  0 (-31)
 19  25  Almasi, Zoltan  g  HUN  2726 (+7)  8 (+8)
 20  23  Vallejo Pons, Francisco  g  ESP  2724 (+2)  18 (-12)
 21  39  Navara, David  g  CZE  2722 (+20)  30 (+6)
 22  20  Vachier-Lagrave, Maxime  g  FRA  2722 (-9)  13 (+8)
 23  21  Dominguez Perez, Leinier  g  CUB  2719 (-7)  10 (-2)
 24  19  Wang, Hao  g  CHN  2718 (-14)  15 (+9)
 25  26  Leko, Peter  g  HUN  2717 (0)  0 (0)
 26  57  Moiseenko, Alexander  g  UKR  2715 (+36)  24 (-6)
 27  49  Le, Quang Liem  g  VIE  2715 (+28)  22 (+21)
 28  22  Adams, Michael  g  ENG  2715 (-11)  14 (+5)
 29  32  Shirov, Alexei  g  ESP  2714 (+5)  12 (+6)
 30  36  Jobava, Baadur  g  GEO  2713 (+9)  13 (+2)
 31  38  Dreev, Aleksey  g  RUS  2711 (+8)  12 (-7)
 32  28  Caruana, Fabiano  g  ITA  2711 (-3)  9 (-12)
 33  31  Nepomniachtchi, Ian  g  RUS  2711 (0)  0 (-20)
 34  34  Bacrot, Etienne  g  FRA  2710 (+5)  11 (-10)
 35  29  Wang, Yue  g  CHN  2709 (-5)  24 (+13)
 36  33  Tomashevsky, Evgeny  g  RUS  2707 (0)  0 (-10)
 37  27  Naiditsch, Arkadij  g  GER  2706 (-10)  24 (-11)
 38  40  Efimenko, Zahar  g  UKR  2706 (+5)  12 (-8)
 39  37  Malakhov, Vladimir  g  RUS  2706 (+2)  3 (-7)
 40  47  Giri, Anish  g  NED  2701 (+14)  12 (-10)
 41  50  Sutovsky, Emil  g  ISR  2700 (+14)  15 (+4)
 42  35  Movsesian, Sergei  g  ARM  2700 (-5)  6 (-14)
 43  41  Polgar, Judit  g  HUN  2699 (0)  0 (-11)
 44  65  Fressinet, Laurent  g  FRA  2698 (+21)  14 (-10)
 45  30  Eljanov, Pavel  g  UKR  2697 (-15)  21 (+7)
 46  46  Berkes, Ferenc  g  HUN  2696 (+3)  20 (+13)
 47  48  Andreikin, Dmitry  g  RUS  2696 (+9)  10 (+1)
 48  44  Morozevich, Alexander  g  RUS  2694 (0)  0 (0)
 49  58  Zhigalko, Sergei  g  BLR  2689 (+10)  7 (-22)
 50  59  Riazantsev, Alexander  g  RUS  2688 (+9)  11 (-11)
 51  54  Short, Nigel D  g  ENG  2687 (+5)  9 (0)
 52  42  Motylev, Alexander  g  RUS  2685 (-11)  3 (-20)
 53  53  Rublevsky, Sergei  g  RUS  2684 (+2)  2 (-19)
 54  68  Van Wely, Loek  g  NED  2683 (+8)  16 (+7)
 55  24  Wojtaszek, Radoslaw  g  POL  2683 (-38)  16 (-6)
 56  64  Volokitin, Andrei  g  UKR  2683 (+6)  11 (-19)
 57  43  Areshchenko, Alexander  g  UKR  2682 (-12)  11 (-11)
 58  52  Potkin, Vladimir  g  RUS  2682 (0)  0 (-24)
 59  66  Sasikiran, Krishnan  g  IND  2681 (+5)  25 (+16)
 60  56  Laznicka, Viktor  g  CZE  2681 (0)  0 (-17)
 61  55  Nielsen, Peter Heine  g  DEN  2681 (0)  0 (-26)
 62  72  Grachev, Boris  g  RUS  2680 (+11)  7 (-12)
 63  60  Inarkiev, Ernesto  g  RUS  2679 (0)  0 (-21)
 64  61  Kobalia, Mikhail  g  RUS  2679 (0)  0 (-11)
 65  62  Mamedov, Rauf  g  AZE  2679 (0)  0 (-11)
 66  63  Bologan, Viktor  g  MDA  2678 (0)  0 (-20)
 67  85  Smirin, Ilia  g  ISR  2676 (+15)  20 (+9)
 68  80  Bu, Xiangzhi  g  CHN  2675 (+13)  24 (+4)
 69  67  Onischuk, Alexander  g  USA  2675 (0)  0 (-15)
 70  45  Bruzon Batista, Lazaro  g  CUB  2673 (-20)  19 (+7)
 71  -  Yu, Yangyi  g  CHN  2672 (+)  33 (+)
 72  -  Sokolov, Ivan  g  NED  2672 (+)  14 (+)
 73  88  Korobov, Anton  g  UKR  2671 (+11)  25 (+14)
 74  74  McShane, Luke J  g  ENG  2671 (+4)  4 (-32)
 75  83  Gharamian, Tigran  g  FRA  2670 (+9)  10 (-10)
 76  76  Harikrishna, P.  g  IND  2669 (+3)  25 (+16)
 77  90  Li, Chao b  g  CHN  2669 (+13)  24 (-10)
 78  86  Roiz, Michael  g  ISR  2669 (+9)  18 (-14)
 79  51  Kasimdzhanov, Rustam  g  UZB  2669 (-16)  9 (-1)
 80  73  Cheparinov, Ivan  g  BUL  2669 (0)  0 (-11)
 81  71  Akopian, Vladimir  g  ARM  2667 (-3)  9 (-2)
 82  87  Feller, Sebastien  g  FRA  2666 (+6)  6 (-15)
 83  77  Timofeev, Artyom  g  RUS  2665 (0)  0 (0)
 84  79  Sargissian, Gabriel  g  ARM  2663 (0)  0 (-11)
 85  84  Ni, Hua  g  CHN  2662 (+1)  15 (-2)
 86  82  Fridman, Daniel  g  GER  2659 (-2)  8 (-24)
 87  70  Alekseev, Evgeny  g  RUS  2659 (-14)  7 (-12)
 88  89  Zvjaginsev, Vadim  g  RUS  2659 (0)  0 (-20)
 89  75  So, Wesley  g  PHI  2658 (-9)  23 (+23)
 90  97  Meier, Georg  g  GER  2656 (+6)  13 (-3)
 91  91  Khismatullin, Denis  g  RUS  2656 (0)  9 (-11)
 92  93  Sandipan, Chanda  g  IND  2656 (0)  0 (-6)
 93  92  Georgiev, Kiril  g  BUL  2654 (-2)  21 (+10)
 94  78  Ding, Liren  g  CHN  2654 (-10)  15 (-18)
 95  -  Markus, Robert  g  SRB  2652 (+)  25 (+)
 96  -  Kryvoruchko, Yuriy  g  UKR  2652 (+)  20 (+)
 97  69  Ragger, Markus  g  AUT  2651 (-23)  20 (-17)
 98  100  Milov, Vadim  g  SUI  2651 (+3)  16 (+13)
 99  -  Lupulescu, Constantin  g  ROU  2650 (+)  10 (+)
 100  98  Khairullin, Ildar  g  RUS  2649 (0)  0 (-24)



FIDE JULY 2011 RATING LIST: TOP 100 WOMEN

Rank   Old    Name Title Country Rating Games
 1  1  Polgar, Judit  g  HUN  2699 (0)  0 (-11)
 2  2  Koneru, Humpy  g  IND  2614 (0)  0 (-11)
 3  3  Hou, Yifan  g  CHN  2575 (-37)  24 (+4)
 4  4  Kosintseva, Nadezhda  g  RUS  2560 (-7)  11 (+11)
 5  5  Kosintseva, Tatiana  g  RUS  2557 (-2)  11 (+11)
 6  8  Muzychuk, Anna  m  SLO  2538 (+1)  12 (-8)
 7  6  Dzagnidze, Nana  g  GEO  2537 (-20)  11 (0)
 8  9  Lahno, Kateryna  g  UKR  2536 (+6)  11 (+1)
 9  15  Cmilyte, Viktorija  g  LTU  2528 (+24)  11 (-10)
 10  13  Stefanova, Antoaneta  g  BUL  2524 (+18)  11 (-5)
 11  7  Zatonskih, Anna  m  USA  2522 (-15)  11 (-16)
 12  14  Danielian, Elina  g  ARM  2521 (+15)  14 (+3)
 13  12  Ju, Wenjun  wg  CHN  2515 (+4)  6 (-23)
 14  11  Harika, Dronavalli  m  IND  2513 (-7)  12 (-6)
 15  16  Sebag, Marie  g  FRA  2510 (+6)  11 (0)
 16  17  Chiburdanidze, Maia  g  GEO  2500 (0)  0 (-11)
 17  10  Kosteniuk, Alexandra  g  RUS  2497 (-25)  11 (+4)
 18  18  Galliamova, Alisa  m  RUS  2492 (0)  0 (-7)
 19  19  Socko, Monika  g  POL  2490 (+3)  3 (-17)
 20  28  Krush, Irina  m  USA  2487 (+18)  26 (+22)
 21  27  Khotenashvili, Bela  m  GEO  2487 (+17)  11 (-6)
 22  20  Gunina, Valentina  wg  RUS  2487 (0)  0 (-15)
 23  21  Zhu, Chen  g  QAT  2485 (0)  0 (-11)
 24  23  Ruan, Lufei  wg  CHN  2479 (0)  0 (-3)
 25  22  Xu, Yuhua  g  CHN  2477 (-3)  2 (-9)
 26  29  Cramling, Pia  g  SWE  2472 (+4)  14 (-4)
 27  26  Dembo, Yelena  m  GRE  2471 (0)  0 (-10)
 28  34  Skripchenko, Almira  m  FRA  2470 (+8)  11 (+9)
 29  24  Zhao, Xue  g  CHN  2470 (-5)  5 (-15)
 30  38  Javakhishvili, Lela  m  GEO  2469 (+15)  11 (+1)
 31  25  Muzychuk, Mariya  m  UKR  2469 (-4)  11 (-3)
 32  33  Arakhamia-Grant, Ketevan  g  SCO  2464 (+2)  21 (+15)
 33  31  Mkrtchian, Lilit  m  ARM  2463 (-5)  11 (0)
 34  35  Paehtz, Elisabeth  m  GER  2463 (+3)  3 (-12)
 35  36  Hoang, Thanh Trang  g  HUN  2459 (+3)  20 (+20)
 36  30  Ushenina, Anna  m  UKR  2459 (-9)  11 (-5)
 37  42  Shen, Yang  wg  CHN  2459 (+12)  6 (-23)
 38  32  Munguntuul, Batkhuyag  m  MGL  2457 (-6)  8 (-10)
 39  37  Gaponenko, Inna  m  UKR  2442 (-13)  18 (-11)
 40  41  Pogonina, Natalija  wg  RUS  2442 (-6)  11 (+4)
 41  48  Khurtsidze, Nino  m  GEO  2440 (+4)  11 (+11)
 42  45  Melia, Salome  m  GEO  2437 (-7)  11 (-5)
 43  43  Rajlich, Iweta  m  POL  2436 (-10)  3 (+3)
 44  47  Atalik, Ekaterina  m  TUR  2436 (0)  0 (-5)
 45  44  Moser, Eva  m  AUT  2432 (-13)  11 (-7)
 46  57  Bodnaruk, Anastasia  m  RUS  2431 (+12)  11 (-6)
 47  52  Matnadze, Ana  m  GEO  2428 (-1)  2 (-9)
 48  60  Foisor, Cristina-Adela  m  ROU  2427 (+13)  11 (0)
 49  54  Kovalevskaya, Ekaterina  m  RUS  2427 (0)  0 (0)
 50  56  Khukhashvili, Sopiko  m  GEO  2426 (+5)  19 (+19)
 51  61  Repkova, Eva  m  SVK  2423 (+10)  5 (-14)
 52  55  Peptan, Corina-Isabela  m  ROU  2421 (0)  0 (-9)
 53  65  Ovod, Evgenija  m  RUS  2420 (+16)  11 (-5)
 54  59  Tania, Sachdev  m  IND  2419 (+3)  21 (+15)
 55  -  Li, Ruofan  m  SIN  2419 (+)  9 (+)
 56  50  Zaiatz, Elena  m  RUS  2419 (-11)  7 (-5)
 57  51  Houska, Jovanka  m  ENG  2418 (-11)  17 (+6)
 58  58  Vasilevich, Tatjana  m  UKR  2417 (0)  0 (-11)
 59  63  Paikidze, Nazi  wg  GEO  2416 (+8)  11 (+4)
 60  49  Vijayalakshmi, Subbaraman  m  IND  2415 (-19)  3 (-3)
 61  46  Turova, Irina  m  RUS  2413 (-29)  15 (-1)
 62  53  Zhukova, Natalia  g  UKR  2412 (-16)  11 (-6)
 63  68  Zawadzka, Jolanta  wg  POL  2405 (+5)  11 (-2)
 64  67  Huang, Qian  wg  CHN  2404 (+4)  14 (-15)
 65  77  Romanko, Marina  m  RUS  2402 (+15)  11 (+5)
 66  62  Wang, Yu A.  m  CHN  2399 (-10)  2 (-26)
 67  74  Savina, Anastasia  wg  RUS  2398 (+9)  11 (-12)
 68  72  Michna, Marta  wg  GER  2397 (+4)  7 (-8)
 69  66  Tan, Zhongyi  wg  CHN  2396 (-5)  15 (-14)
 70  64  Madl, Ildiko  m  HUN  2396 (-9)  14 (-5)
 71  73  Alexandrova, Olga  m  ESP  2393 (0)  0 (-10)
 72  87  Galojan, Lilit  m  ARM  2389 (+12)  20 (+20)
 73  81  Zhang, Xiaowen  wg  CHN  2389 (+9)  5 (-22)
 74  82  Matveeva, Svetlana  m  RUS  2388 (+8)  11 (+11)
 75  78  Majdan-Gajewska, Joanna  wg  POL  2386 (0)  0 (-17)
 76  80  Zdebskaja, Natalia  wg  UKR  2384 (0)  0 (0)
 77  69  Batsiashvili, Nino  wg  GEO  2381 (-18)  20 (+3)
 78  94  Zozulia, Anna  m  BEL  2381 (+10)  9 (0)
 79  76  Fierro Baquero, Martha L.  m  ECU  2381 (-7)  4 (-12)
 80  84  Tsereteli, Tamar  wg  GEO  2379 (0)  0 (0)
 81  86  Bojkovic, Natasa  m  SRB  2378 (0)  0 (-9)
 82  79  Cori T., Deysi  wg  PER  2376 (-10)  9 (+9)
 83  -  Gara, Ticia  wg  HUN  2375 (+)  13 (+)
 84  89  Kononenko, Tatiana  m  UKR  2375 (0)  0 (-11)
 85  83  Stockova, Zuzana  m  SVK  2374 (-5)  1 (-9)
 86  70  Shadrina, Tatiana  wg  RUS  2373 (-24)  11 (+11)
 87  90  Peng, Zhaoqin  g  NED  2372 (-3)  1 (0)
 88  71  Girya, Olga  wg  RUS  2371 (-23)  11 (-3)
 89  96  Gara, Anita  m  HUN  2369 (-1)  10 (+3)
 90  -  Guo, Qi  wg  CHN  2368 (+)  15 (+)
 91  -  Vasilevich, Irina  m  RUS  2367 (+)  12 (+)
 92  97  Vajda, Szidonia  m  HUN  2367 (+2)  5 (+5)
 93  99  Sukandar, Irine Kharisma  wg  INA  2366 (+4)  34 (+26)
 94  88  Lomineishvili, Maia  m  GEO  2366 (-10)  11 (+11)
 95  -  Purtseladze, Maka  m  GEO  2364 (+)  11 (+)
 96  -  Foisor, Sabina-Francesca  wg  USA  2363 (+)  7 (+)
 97  98  Melamed, Tetyana  wg  GER  2362 (0)  0 (-20)
 98  -  Gaprindashvili, Nona  g  GEO  2360 (+)  0 (+)
 99  -  Kashlinskaya, Alina  wg  RUS  2360 (+)  0 (+)
 100  -  Pham, Le Thao Nguyen  wm  VIE  2359 (+)  12 (+)


FIDE JULY 2011 RATING LIST: TOP 20 JUNIORS

Rank Name Title Country Rating Games B-Year
 1  Le, Quang Liem  g  VIE  2715  22  1991
 2  Caruana, Fabiano  g  ITA  2711  9  1992
 3  Giri, Anish  g  NED  2701  12  1994
 4  Yu, Yangyi  g  CHN  2672  33  1994
 5  Feller, Sebastien  g  FRA  2666  6  1991
 6  So, Wesley  g  PHI  2658  23  1993
 7  Ding, Liren  g  CHN  2654  15  1992
 8  Negi, Parimarjan  g  IND  2642  18  1993
 9  Matlakov, Maxim  g  RUS  2632  0  1991
 10  Sjugirov, Sanan  g  RUS  2629  0  1993
 11  Salgado Lopez, Ivan  g  ESP  2626  7  1991
 12  Safarli, Eltaj  g  AZE  2622  9  1992
 13  Kovalyov, Anton  g  ARG  2612  9  1992
 14  Hess, Robert L  g  USA  2609  13  1991
 15  Zherebukh, Yaroslav  g  UKR  2590  15  1993
 16  Nyzhnyk, Illya  g  UKR  2589  9  1996
 17  Shimanov, Aleksandr  g  RUS  2586  11  1992
 18  Nabaty, Tamir  g  ISR  2584  11  1991
 19  Hou, Yifan  g  CHN  2575  24  1994
 20  Cordova, Emilio  g  PER  2567  18  1991


FIDE JULY 2011 RATING LIST: TOP 20 GIRLS

Rank Name Title Country Rating Games B-Year
 1  Hou, Yifan  g  CHN  2575  24  1994
 2  Ju, Wenjun  wg  CHN  2515  6  1991
 3  Harika, Dronavalli  m  IND  2513  12  1991
 4  Muzychuk, Mariya  m  UKR  2469  11  1992
 5  Bodnaruk, Anastasia  m  RUS  2431  11  1992
 6  Paikidze, Nazi  wg  GEO  2416  11  1993
 7  Savina, Anastasia  wg  RUS  2398  11  1992
 8  Tan, Zhongyi  wg  CHN  2396  15  1991
 9  Cori T., Deysi  wg  PER  2376  9  1993
 10  Girya, Olga  wg  RUS  2371  11  1991
 11  Guo, Qi  wg  CHN  2368  15  1995
 12  Sukandar, Irine Kharisma  wg  INA  2366  34  1992
 13  Kashlinskaya, Alina  wg  RUS  2360  0  1993
 14  Padmini, Rout  wg  IND  2348  9  1994
 15  Soloviova, Liza  wg  UKR  2330  10  1993
 16  Ding, Yixin  wg  CHN  2330  5  1991
 17  Guramishvili, Sopiko  wg  GEO  2329  20  1991
 18  Tsatsalashvili, Keti  wm  GEO  2318  20  1992
 19  Kulkarni Bhakti  c  IND  2317  27  1992
 20  Arabidze, Meri  wm  GEO  2311  20  1994

All data courtesy of FIDE


Share |
Peter Doggers's picture
Author: Peter Doggers

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

Chess.com

Comments

gg's picture

"To my mind rating is overrated. I know that some grandmasters are willing to get themselves literally killed to gain two rating points. I simply don’t care, and never did. I like to play and not protect every rating point"

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=7304

Gelfand doesn't "protect every rating point" and isn't "willing to get killed" to gain them as some other players, and it's obvious that he means that he too could have a higher rating with the same approach if he wanted to.

S3's picture

Exactly, Kramnik and Topalov had priveleges because of the existence of two wch titles and Kasparov's arbitrariness. Just when Fide managed to unify the titles and give all players a shot at it, unethical fans, or maybe marketeers, are pressuring for a rogue match that would destroy all that.
Unsportive and unwise.

p.s. I also don't remember the Kramnik/Topa fans ever arguing for a rogue match without qualification, although both players had shown a lot more than MC has so far. It makes me really curious on why MC appears to have so many hardcore groupies. Even a comparable chessplayer like Giri has far fewer fans, or maybe audible fans, at the same age.
Blueofnoon and frogbert are acquainted with the Carlsen family, but I can't understand the motives of the others.

ChessGirl's picture

Dear Chess Fan:
1. I am not from Ukraine but from Spain. What made you think I am Ukrainian?
2. As a chess spectator rather than a player, I can only give you some information I have read or heard from real chess experts: Apparently, two would be the main factors for chess being a "men´s game": a) Parents/grandparents usually teach boys, not girls, to play chess, since it has traditionally been stereotyped as a game for men. b) Some coaches for children say that in childhood genders are not so defined and quality is equal, even better in girls, since they usually develop a bit faster. However, when children reach puberty, apparently there is a tendency of girls to get distracted by other things in life or to lose the "thirst for blood" on the board. Also, I once heard Grischuk´s wife, Zhukova, that women are frequently more affected by details such as the weather or external conditions when they play (she said that Hou Yifan is like a man in this aspect since nothing since to upset her).

kaboom's picture

The top 5 on this list are probably the indisputed best players for the time being.
Followed by the next 10 rated players, who are a little inferior, but superior to the rest.

jussu's picture

Well, I can spot Ivanchuk, Topalov, Gelfand and Grischuk below, so I don't think one can draw any meaningful line behind the fifth.

S3's picture

Karjakin's overall performance last year was around 2830,probably the best performance of the year ratingwise (f.e. the current number 1 had around 2820).
If he continues like that he might be 2800+ after the team championships in China this month.

mort's picture

Performance is connected to your current rating. So that statement makes no sense. Not sure if you are just a troll or serious.

S3's picture

As far as I know, TPR isn't really related to your own rating.
If you think rating says it all, well, then karjakin has played better than Carlsen this year.

known1's picture

the biggest news is Anish Giri crossing officially the 2700 mark right? congrats to him and Magnus for back to #1 spot. :)

The Golden Knight's picture

We all take Magnus for granted these days. But thinking about that he comes from a small country without many great chessplayers (Norway is # 32 in FIDEs country ranking) tells me that the title "Mozart of chess" is very appropriate. He is a unique talent! Hope he one day will beat Kasparovs top rating :)

columbo's picture

oh yes he will !

Thomas's picture

"thinking about that he [Carlsen] comes from a small country without many great chessplayers ..."

Fair point, but in that respect he isn't as unique as you claim: there are ten or eleven countries with just one 2700er - besides/after Norway those are India, Bulgaria, Spain (if we discard import Shirov, thus ten or eleven), Czech Republic, Cuba, Vietnam, Georgia, Italy, Germany and the Netherlands. Each case is different, e.g. some countries (Germany, Netherlands) don't lack quantity of chess players, but top quality, some countries have a chess tradition which has basically "expired" (Cuba when Capablanca was alive, India when the game was invented).

Moreover, from an early stage of his career Carlsen was western European rather than just Norwegian - what I mean is that he got invitations abroad starting with Corus C in 2004. By comparison, it's a mixed chess blessing to be Russian: 10 2700ers, no lack of trainers and training partners for rising talents - but how many invitations do Vitiugov and Tomashevsky get??

bhabatosh's picture

Moro is now 2707 in live rating , fide only shows 2694! total crap...

Eduardo's picture

Moro won this points last week

this is why Moro hasnt 2707 on fide yet.

bhabatosh's picture

But that's the point , he won it last week.
And today is July 1st and this rating says its July 1st rating !!
Are we living in 1970's ? ........

brein2000's picture

The commentators of the Nakamura-Ponomariov match stated several times, it would be FIDE rated...
That's not funny as the standings will count for the next world championship cycle.
http://www.fide.com/FIDE/handbook/regscandidates2012.pdf

Chess Fan's picture

Good observation and comments Thomas.
But what is unique about Magnus is that he is so good. Just like a very few like Fischer, Anand etc.

Chess Fan's picture

To RealityCheck:
I think the order of comments confused you. I was actually agreeing with you and answering someone else who was saying Gelfand was not good enough to be a World Champion challenger.
Again, I agree with you that Gelfand has won his right to challenge the World Champion in 2012 and is a very worthy challenger.

Chess Fan's picture

The thing about Magnus and Gelfand going head-to-head is that there are so many things about psychology and personal style of playing that makes head-to-head matches so unpredictable, even though ratings are a close indicator of relative strength.
Aronian-Anand, Kramnik-Kasparov, Kasparov-Shirov, and Shirov-Kramnik (till very recently) are all good examples.
Right now Anand has a better record in classical matches than Magnus, but Magnus has been dominating Anand last many years in rapid chess - probably the only one to do so.
All this makes for very interesting chess. We can speculate and even mathematically model the outcomes for all we want.

Chess Fan's picture

Two questions for you ChessGirl:
1. What country are you from? I would speculate that you are from Ukraine.
2. In a mental/intellectual sport like Chess, why do women lag so much behind men?

I would appreciate your answers.

brein2000's picture

The commentators of the Nakamura Ponomariov match stated several times, it would be FIDE rated...
That's not funny as the standings will count for the next world championship cycle.
http://www.fide.com/FIDE/handbook/regscandidates2012.pdf

rob's picture

According to chess.com
the USCF didn't send in the scores from the Pono / Naka match to FIDE in time for them to be counted. I wonder if FIDE will recognize that error or if they will stick to the number 9 ranking.

ChessGirl's picture

You are right, the match was supposed to be rated, in which case Nakamura would be 6th, if I am not mistaken. I wonder what happened.

Solomon's picture

If we were waiting for a Carlsen - Anand match I don't think there would be any difficulty finding sponsors. It is hard to get excited about the World Champion playing against the #12 for the title. Gelfand is a nice guy - but is he ready for Anand? I don't think so.

CAL|Daniel's picture

In fact its very easy to get excited about Anand-Gelfand. have you heard either Anand or Gelfand speak about the silliness of ratings once you get this high up the list?

gg's picture

"have you heard either Anand or Gelfand speak about the silliness of ratings"

Gelfand said that he could have a higher rating if he wanted to, but I always doubt players saying such things. It's not as if he has had bad results in Linares, Wijk, Grand Prix tournaments etc on purpose, and if so it would probably be a better idea to invite other players to such events. But I don't think Gelfand ever could get close to 2800, he just isn't good enough for that and I even doubt that he ever will return to the top ten of the rating list.

To me Anand-Gelfand is one of the least exciting title matches ever since I started following chess many decades ago, together with Karpov-Korchnoi 1981, just ahead of Kramnik-Leko. Knockouts against players below the top five is one thing but against the best players Gelfand has disappointed, just look at his many winless years against Kasparov, Kramnik, Anand and Topalov, it may be 15 at the time of the title match. I think most people just know that Gelfand doesn't really belong in a title match nowadays, he got there thanks to the format and naturally deserved to win since he did win. But hardly exciting compared to other possible title matches.

mishanp's picture

"Gelfand said that he could have a higher rating if he wanted to" - Where did he say that? The closest I recall is his saying he doesn't bother too much about ratings, but that's not quite the same thing. He's also acknowledged there's a group of players (the top-4/5) who are consistently higher rated, while saying that for the next group of 10 or so players the positions aren't significant.

Thomas's picture

Gelfand-bashing is a new hobby for some people, misquoting him part of their debating technique ... . What did Gelfand do wrong? He won the candidates event - which may have had an imperfect system, but there's no perfect system - and he gave his opinions in interviews, anything else? Statements about "no sponsors for Anand-Gelfand" have already been refuted, or do only western (and maybe Bulgarian) sponsors count?? As to "Anand-Gelfand is [sic, present tense] one of the least exciting title matches" - can anyone really say so before it has even started?

Actually, if Carlsen got to play a title match - either by playing and winning the qualifier or (what some people suggested and may prefer) because FIDE had cancelled or now ignores the qualifier and simply nominates a fan favorite with a high rating - one could still say that he isn't a worthy challenger, because the most worthy one would be ... Garry Kasparov. This isn't my opinion, I just follow the 'logic' presented here.

gg's picture

"As to “Anand-Gelfand is [sic, present tense] one of the least exciting title matches” – can anyone really say so before it has even started?"

Of course, Gelfand 2012 just can't be compared to recent challengers like Kramnik and Topalov, or legendary challengers like Fischer, Karpov and Kasparov. He is just the most underwhelming challenger in a very long time, thanks to the knockout system. Either Anand wins and everyone says that it proved absolutely nothing since Gelfand has showed for almost 15 years that he is totally incapable of beating any of the top players, or Gelfand wins (don't see how that could happen but you never know, Anand could get sick or something), and people will say that we have the without comparison weakest World Champion in the history of the game. The latter would actually be rather fun considering all the abuse directed against Anand and Kramnik for their "horrible" results as World Champions, Gelfand would probably continue struggling to avoid last place in Linares and Wijk and maybe also continue failing with avoiding it.

S's picture

I think it would be relevant to compute Gelfand's tpr in the latest wch-cycle, or even earlier wch cycles. He DID say that he usually plays better and more focused there, and I think you will find that his rating based on wch-cycles is very high..

gg's picture

Hardly, he didn't even reach a total plus score in the Grand Prix series (four tournaments), while Aronian scored +11 in the three tournaments he played.

S's picture

He already qualified in the world cup.

S's picture

Anyway I'll calculate it later today with all results included and post it for you.
Maybe you are right, we will see..

gg's picture

"He already qualified in the world cup."

No, the world cup was played several months after the fifth of six GP tournaments were already finished.

S's picture

By the way, it's only now that I see that Carlsen, before he so righteously abstained from further participation in the qualification cycle/ grand prix, had the same number of points as Gashimov and Wang Yue..
Hmmm ;)

realitycheck's picture

Reggio Emilia 1991/2, is one of the strongest tournaments ever played and the winners were:

(1) GM Viswanathan Anand (2) GM Boris Gelfand (3) GM Garry Kasparov

Chess Fan's picture

You can't have it both ways - he won the right to challenge against the world champion. So how is he not good enough for it?
No one expected Kramnik to do well against 2849 rated Kasparov in 1999, but he blanked him 2-0 by the 15th game. What are the odds of that?!
What would you say, if, GOD forbid (as I am an Anand;s fan) Gelfand beat Anand in the title game? Will you feel sorry for your comments against Gelfand?
You are also discounting Gelfand's will to win this match, the support that he would get from his country of Israel, the help from Deep Junior, and last but not the least. he is truly an elite player. I want Anand to win (I had predicted long back that he would win against anyone in 2012, but I feel Gelfand could be most dangerous), but I am not going to bet against Gelfand based purely on his statistics of the last 15 years against Anand. That is what makes Chess so unpredictable and interesting (remember Kasparov-Kramnik 2000 again).

realitycheck's picture

@ Chess Fan

I was hoping the Reggio Emila stat' would shed a little more light on who's actualy contesting the world championship in 2012.

Both Anand's and Gelfand's participation in this event are beyond reproach.

I wish all the nay-sayers would just shut-up-already.

realitycheck's picture

One thing for sure we'll never know if a world championship match was exciting or not until it's been played.

How dare we compare playing for the World Championship Title, a hundreds year old tradition, to playing for ambiguous ELO points birthed in the 1970's. It's dumb.

It's about as smart as 245 year old (belated happy birthday America) USA preaching culture to India, Iraq, Iran, China, Europe....

ronny's picture

when did gelfand say that gg?

Excalibur's picture

Nice to see Le Quang Liem (with his unique style of opening/strategy/playing) and Yu Yangyi doing so well.

Excalibur's picture

Solomon: If you understand chess, Gelfand is just as strong as anybody. Its not the people playing, its the quality of the games and openings being used. The clash of styles and experience of both players should make for a wonderful match. For instance everybody thought Anand-Topalov would have been the most exciting world championship due to their style but Anand-Kramnik was much more enjoyable.

calvin amari's picture

I am somewhat perplexed by the comment that "Gelfand is just as strong as anybody." Presumably what is meant is that Gelfand is just as strong as the 11 players rated higher than he is (most of whom did not participate in the Kazan event that FIDE itself characterizes as a debacle). Does this flexible logic extend so far as to permit me to say that I am "just as strong anybody" or "just as strong as" the thousand players rated higher than me? Or, alternatively, does it mean that I am just as strong as those with an elo rating 75 points higher than mine, which is the substantial spread between Carlsen and Gelfand? Just wondering whether I have been missing out on some serious bragging rights that I never knew I deserved.

And once we come to understand the assertion that Gelfand is just as strong as anybody, perhaps we then can turn to your koan that "its not the people playing" that makes a difference in a match. Fascinating.

S's picture

Carlsen has NEVER won a classical game against Gelfand.
Gelfand won one against Carlsen.

The last event with both was Bazna Kings 2010 where they drew twice.
There really is little evidence that Carlsen can take Gelfand head on.
Maybe your case would have been more convincing if Carlsen had actually played the candidates. And if you insist on having a non qualified player battling Anand I would pick Aronian, he at least made the effort of trying.

gg's picture

"There really is little evidence that Carlsen can take Gelfand head on."

There's little evidence that Kasparov can take Radjabov head on or that Kramnik can take Bacrot head on.

S's picture

But unfortunately Bacrot and Radjabov never qualified for a wch-match.
I would have loved to see Radjabov-Kasparov though.

Chess Fan's picture

Yes, I would have also loved to see more of Radjabov againt mighty Kasparov during that "how cool is this kid" 14-year old Radjabov phase when he beat both Kasparov and Anand with black at the prestigious Linares tournament.
That mighty Radjabov seems to have taken a backseat now to Magnus, Aronian, and Karjakin.

calvin amari's picture

elo IS evidence -- the difference between players' sustained performance rating over broad and comparable competition.

S3's picture

Whatever. If Carlsen is so much stronger you'd think he would have beaten Gelfand by now. But he didn't, and with that Gelfand has better recent results (2007/8/9-2011) against Anand than Carlsen.

And if you really think that elo is the only thing that matters you should consider a match Karjakin-Anand; after all Karjakin is performing better for over a year according to elo.

Last but not least. Even if there was a "chessical" justification it would be wrong to have a "rogue" wch match. It would be an insult to all the players who participated in the wch-cycle and it would reward inactivity.
Unpincipled fanboys might like to see such a match, but I doubt that Anand and Carlsen would .

S3's picture

Common sense suggests that a qualifier is better than a random match where the opponent is picked by the title holder.
The shortcomings of Fide don't change that. Besides, I think the Fide did a reasonable job considering the circumstances. Not perfect, but quite ok and promising for the future. At least everyone got the chance to qualify by playing chess, for a united and undisputed title.
A rogue match would put an end to that. It would be insulting to the players who did participate. It would undoubtedly result in 2 wch titles again, and all the b** around it. Anyone with a bit chess-historical knowledge knows it to be true.

Pages

Latest articles