113 ( +1 | -1 ) Garry Kasparov - now 2830FIDE Top - Top Players April 2003
Rank Name Title Country Rating Games B-Day 1 Kasparov, Garry g RUS 2830 12 1963-04-13 2 Kramnik, Vladimir g RUS 2789 25 1975-06-25 3 Anand, Viswanathan g IND 2764 25 1969-12-11 4 Leko, Peter g HUN 2746 12 1979-09-08 5 Shirov, Alexei g ESP 2735 22 1972-07-04 6 Topalov, Veselin g BUL 2735 13 1975-03-15 7 Bareev, Evgeny g RUS 2734 13 1966-11-21 8 Adams, Michael g ENG 2723 9 1971-11-17 9 Ponomariov, Ruslan g UKR 2718 25 1983-10-11 10 Polgar, Judit (GM) wg HUN 2715 13 1976-07-23
Youngest player Ponomariov, only 19 years Oldest player Kasparov, 40 years One woman Polgar, Judith; on 10th place ----------------------------------------------
FIDE Top - Women April 2003
Rank Name Title Country Rating Games B-Day 1 Polgar, Judit (GM) wg HUN 2715 13 1976-07-23 2 Stefanova, Antoaneta (GM) wg BUL 2550 17 1979-04-19 3 Skripchenko, Almira wg FRA 2501 0 1976-02-17 4 Chiburdanidze, Maia (GM) wg GEO 2497 0 1961-01-17 5 Koneru, Humpy (GM) wg IND 2496 13 1987-03-31
Number 5 on Women's list, Koneru IND, is only 16 years old
46 ( +1 | -1 ) to anywell my opinion is fide rating system is not perfect and it has been inflated over the years , . while i admire judit polgar her being over 2700 right in fischers range of play come on give me a break. it simply has to be inflated in comparison to the old system used in the past . my dad says it has been corrupted by political pressure from various sources . as much as i would like for her rating to be true i just do not believe it --yours BBG
34 ( +1 | -1 ) Whywould Judit Polgar's rating be anymore inflated, that the rest of the list? She is very consistent in her play and always playing, very strong opposition. By the way, I believe that Robert Fischer's at his peak, was rated 2780 in ELO.
76 ( +1 | -1 ) FIDE ratingsThe only reason Fischer's peak rating is only 2780 is that the rating list came out infrequently in his era. He lost about 40 points for beating Spassky in the World Championship.
It seems to me that the FIDE ratings must be inflated as compared to earlier times. Does anyone really believe that there are 25 or more players playing today that are better than Spassky, Petrosian, Botvinnik, Smyslov, Bronstein, Keres or Larsen at their peaks? I certainly don't. I suspect that if any of the players from my list were playing at their peak today they would be rated over 2750 and that if Fischer were playing at his peak today his rating would be over 2900.
54 ( +1 | -1 ) RATINGSIt is general knowledge that in the last ten years or so the ELO ratings have been inflated by about 100 points. I don't know why.
So anyone who says that there can't be 10 Bobby Fischers in the world now are right.
Incidentaly, when Elo devised his system he intended players around the 2600-mark to be world candidates whereas now the level for that is 2700. I don't really believe that there is that much difference in the standard of play now at the very top in comparison to three decades ago but one does get the impression there is a lot more talent-in-depth,
52 ( +1 | -1 ) 16?!?a 19 year old in the top 10, an 16 year old in the top 5 ladies, and the youngest ever grandmaster was (i think) 9. chess players seem to be getting younger and younger-and these teenagers are probubly pushed and pressurised by their parents into studying chess? i mean-i would hate it, and they probubly do, and are just numb to it now. imagine having to work as hard as they do for your teenage years, then be doing that for the rest of your life. you might turn out to be the greatest ever chess player, but you won't be much of a person...
134 ( +1 | -1 ) Then againThe overall level of chess players increases year after year. Top players are stronger, there are more GMs etc etc. But of course ELO rating only shows the relative differences between players of certain era. 2500 today may not be the same thing as 2500 ten years ago or 2500 ten years from now.
"while i admire judit polgar her being over 2700 right in fischers range of play come on give me a break. it simply has to be inflated in comparison to the old system used in the past."
It simply has to be? :-)
"my dad says it has been corrupted by political pressure from various sources."
Russian conspiracy to make Kasparov & Kramnik look better then they really are? :-)
Fischer...I refuse to comment on Fischer because based on my previous experiences all comments (by non-Americans at least) that are not praising Fischer, are bashing :-)
Bogg asked a good question,
"Does anyone really believe that there are 25 or more players playing today that are better than Spassky, Petrosian, Botvinnik, Smyslov, Bronstein, Keres or Larsen at their peaks?"
Actually, why not? There are more chess players nowadays, more chess players who study hours per day, more tournaments, more information, more trainers...you name it. The result is there are more top players.
103 ( +1 | -1 ) Iam also convinced, that there are many very good players today, also compare to earlier masters. If there are 25 better players today, than the named masters by bogg I don't know, but I'm pretty convinced that the earlier masters, would have significant troubles in beating todays masters like: Kramnik, Kasparov, Anand, Ponomariov, Polgar, Ivanchuck, Topalev, Shirov, just to mention few.
This is not at all a defence for the ELO-system. But as pointed out by peppe_i, there are many more there is playing chess today, on a higher average level than before. But I guess we can never get the ultimate answer to this Quest :-)) Who knows what my personal favorite Johannes Zukertort could have been, if he had live today :-))
13 ( +1 | -1 ) Look at Kramnik's ratingIt decreased from something slightly above 2800 to this. Interesting how he beat Kasparov but couldn't beat the other GM's.
919 ( +1 | -1 ) ratings...look at this website... chessmetrics.com it has some comparisons between players ratings and such. it also shows how two rating systems benefit different people.
according to this website Peak 1-year ratings: top 100 players all-time: 1 Capablanca, José R 2921 31-Dec-1921 2 Fischer, Robert J 2914 31-Dec-1971 3 Kasparov, Garry K 2895 31-Dec-1999 4 Lasker, Emanuel 2886 31-Dec-1919 5 Morphy, Paul C 2840 31-Dec-1864 6 Anand, Viswanathan 2836 31-Dec-1997 7 Steinitz, Wilhelm 2834 31-Dec-1877 8 Kramnik, Vladimir 2831 31-Dec-2000 9 Botvinnik, Mikhail M 2828 31-Dec-1949 10 Alekhine, Alexander A 2827 31-Dec-1930 11 Karpov, Anatoly E 2815 31-Dec-1995 12 Ivanchuk, Vassily 2804 31-Dec-1995 13 Shirov, Alexei 2787 31-Dec-1999 14 Zukertort, Johannes H 2776 31-Dec-1884 15 Korchnoi, Viktor L 2776 31-Dec-1978 16 Staunton, Howard 2770 31-Dec-1852 17 Kolisch, Ignatz 2768 31-Dec-1867 18 Paulsen, Louis 2766 31-Dec-1865 19 Spassky, Boris V 2764 31-Dec-1972 20 Kamsky, Gata 2764 31-Dec-1995 21 Fine, Reuben 2759 31-Dec-1948 22 Adams, Michael 2756 31-Dec-2000 23 Salov, Valery B 2756 31-Dec-1994 24 Leko, Peter 2755 31-Dec-2000 25 Topalov, Veselin 2754 31-Dec-1997 26 Smyslov, Vassily V 2751 31-Dec-1957 27 Gelfand, Boris 2744 31-Dec-2000 28 Petrosian, Tigran V 2742 31-Dec-1963 29 Short, Nigel D 2740 31-Dec-1991 30 Kieseritzky, Lionel A 2738 31-Dec-1853 31 Morozevich, Alexander 2738 31-Dec-2000 32 Keres, Paul 2738 31-Dec-1947 33 Tal, Mikhail 2737 31-Dec-1960 34 Timman, Jan H 2733 31-Dec-1989 35 Maróczy, Géza 2730 31-Dec-1905 36 Tarrasch, Siegbert 2729 31-Dec-1905 37 Vidmar, Milan Sr 2728 31-Dec-1926 38 Beliavsky, Alexander G 2728 31-Dec-1984 39 Reshevsky, Samuel H 2727 31-Dec-1949 40 Bronstein, David I 2722 31-Dec-1951 41 Bareev, Evgeny 2721 31-Dec-1999 42 Polugaevsky, Lev A 2720 31-Dec-1972 43 Svidler, Peter 2719 31-Dec-2000 44 Polgar, Judit 2713 31-Dec-1995 45 Neumann, Gustav R 2713 31-Dec-1872 46 Georgiev, Kiril 2712 31-Dec-1999 47 Portisch, Lajos 2712 31-Dec-1980 48 Dreev, Alexey 2711 31-Dec-1995 49 Geller, Efim P 2710 31-Dec-1962 50 Nimzowitsch, Aron 2709 31-Dec-1934 51 Larsen, Bent 2708 31-Dec-1970 52 Marshall, Frank J 2706 31-Dec-1917 53 Stein, Leonid Z 2705 31-Dec-1971 54 Vaganian, Rafael A 2705 31-Dec-1984 55 Chigorin, Mikhail I 2704 31-Dec-1903 56 Rublevsky, Sergei 2700 31-Dec-2000 57 Yudasin, Leonid G 2699 31-Dec-1990 58 von der Lasa, Tassilo 2699 31-Dec-1853 59 Gurevich, Mikhail N 2699 31-Dec-2000 60 Rubinstein, Akiba K 2699 31-Dec-1922 61 Krasenkow, Michal 2697 31-Dec-1999 62 Jussupow, Artur M 2697 31-Dec-1991 63 Kashdan, Isaac 2696 31-Dec-1931 64 Pillsbury, Harry N 2696 31-Dec-1901 65 Boleslavsky, Isaak E 2696 31-Dec-1949 66 Anderssen, Adolf 2695 31-Dec-1856 67 Makogonov, Vladimir A 2693 31-Dec-1943 68 Saint-Amant, Pierre C 2693 31-Dec-1853 69 Najdorf, Miguel 2692 31-Dec-1947 70 Kotov, Alexander A 2692 31-Dec-1952 71 Sokolov, Andrey Y 2690 31-Dec-1986 72 Hübner, Robert 2689 31-Dec-1985 73 Khalifman, Alexander 2689 31-Dec-2000 74 Euwe, Machgielis 2688 31-Dec-1935 75 Dolmatov, Sergey V 2687 31-Dec-1984 76 Tseshkovsky, Vitaly V 2687 31-Dec-1978 77 Ljubojevic, Ljubomir 2687 31-Dec-1986 78 Epishin, Vladimir 2687 31-Dec-1993 79 Mecking, Henrique 2687 31-Dec-1977 80 Harrwitz, Daniel 2684 31-Dec-1852 81 Andersson, Ulf 2684 31-Dec-1983 82 Sokolov, Ivan 2683 31-Dec-1995 83 Akopian, Vladimir 2683 31-Dec-1999 84 Gligoric, Svetozar 2682 31-Dec-1958 85 Agzamov, Georgy T 2681 31-Dec-1984 86 Bogoljubow, Efim D 2681 31-Dec-1926 87 Flohr, Salo 2680 31-Dec-1935 88 Ribli, Zoltán 2680 31-Dec-1984 89 Oll, Lembit 2678 31-Dec-1995 90 Romanishin, Oleg M 2678 31-Dec-1980 91 Psakhis, Lev B 2678 31-Dec-1981 92 Szabó, László 2678 31-Dec-1946 93 Ehlvest, Jaan 2678 31-Dec-1989 94 Speelman, Jonathan S 2678 31-Dec-1988 95 Nikolic, Predrag 2677 31-Dec-1994 96 Taimanov, Mark E 2677 31-Dec-1970 97 Teichmann, Richard 2676 31-Dec-1921 98 Kholmov, Ratmir D 2676 31-Dec-1960 99 Byrne, Robert E 2675 31-Dec-1973 100 Stċhlberg, Gideon 2675 31-Dec-1947
and according to this website Peak 15-year ratings: top 100 players all-time: 1 Kasparov, Garry K 2853 31-Dec-1986 to 31-Dec-2000 2 Capablanca, José R 2841 31-Dec-1914 to 31-Dec-1928 3 Fischer, Robert J 2794 31-Dec-1960 to 31-Dec-1974 4 Karpov, Anatoly E 2788 31-Dec-1976 to 31-Dec-1990 5 Botvinnik, Mikhail M 2770 31-Dec-1943 to 31-Dec-1957 6 Alekhine, Alexander A 2762 31-Dec-1921 to 31-Dec-1935 7 Steinitz, Wilhelm 2733 31-Dec-1882 to 31-Dec-1896 8 Korchnoi, Viktor L 2732 31-Dec-1967 to 31-Dec-1981 9 Ivanchuk, Vassily 2728 31-Dec-1986 to 31-Dec-2000 10 Anand, Viswanathan 2724 31-Dec-1986 to 31-Dec-2000 11 Petrosian, Tigran V 2719 31-Dec-1960 to 31-Dec-1974 12 Lasker, Emanuel 2716 31-Dec-1891 to 31-Dec-1905 13 Spassky, Boris V 2716 31-Dec-1961 to 31-Dec-1975 14 Smyslov, Vassily V 2712 31-Dec-1949 to 31-Dec-1963 15 Reshevsky, Samuel H 2711 31-Dec-1945 to 31-Dec-1959 16 Keres, Paul 2707 31-Dec-1943 to 31-Dec-1957 17 Gelfand, Boris 2704 31-Dec-1986 to 31-Dec-2000 18 Polugaevsky, Lev A 2697 31-Dec-1970 to 31-Dec-1984 19 Tal, Mikhail 2692 31-Dec-1965 to 31-Dec-1979 20 Timman, Jan H 2690 31-Dec-1978 to 31-Dec-1992 21 Beliavsky, Alexander G 2689 31-Dec-1980 to 31-Dec-1994 22 Zukertort, Johannes H 2688 31-Dec-1874 to 31-Dec-1888 23 Portisch, Lajos 2685 31-Dec-1972 to 31-Dec-1986 24 Short, Nigel D 2684 31-Dec-1986 to 31-Dec-2000 25 Bareev, Evgeny 2683 31-Dec-1986 to 31-Dec-2000 26 Salov, Valery B 2681 31-Dec-1986 to 31-Dec-2000 27 Bronstein, David I 2679 31-Dec-1947 to 31-Dec-1961 28 Geller, Efim P 2675 31-Dec-1956 to 31-Dec-1970 29 Boleslavsky, Isaak E 2672 31-Dec-1941 to 31-Dec-1955 30 Larsen, Bent 2669 31-Dec-1967 to 31-Dec-1981 31 Tarrasch, Siegbert 2668 31-Dec-1902 to 31-Dec-1916 32 Jussupow, Artur M 2665 31-Dec-1985 to 31-Dec-1999 33 Hübner, Robert 2664 31-Dec-1972 to 31-Dec-1986 34 Maróczy, Géza 2662 31-Dec-1898 to 31-Dec-1912 35 Ljubojevic, Ljubomir 2661 31-Dec-1975 to 31-Dec-1989 36 Khalifman, Alexander 2659 31-Dec-1986 to 31-Dec-2000 37 Vaganian, Rafael A 2658 31-Dec-1975 to 31-Dec-1989 38 Euwe, Machgielis 2656 31-Dec-1929 to 31-Dec-1943 39 Dreev, Alexey 2656 31-Dec-1986 to 31-Dec-2000 40 Andersson, Ulf 2655 31-Dec-1979 to 31-Dec-1993 41 Dolmatov, Sergey V 2654 31-Dec-1979 to 31-Dec-1993 42 Najdorf, Miguel 2653 31-Dec-1946 to 31-Dec-1960 43 Nikolic, Predrag 2653 31-Dec-1986 to 31-Dec-2000 44 Gurevich, Mikhail N 2650 31-Dec-1986 to 31-Dec-2000 45 Georgiev, Kiril 2649 31-Dec-1986 to 31-Dec-2000 46 Kotov, Alexander A 2649 31-Dec-1944 to 31-Dec-1958 47 Ribli, Zoltán 2647 31-Dec-1978 to 31-Dec-1992 48 Rubinstein, Akiba K 2647 31-Dec-1918 to 31-Dec-1932 49 Romanishin, Oleg M 2647 31-Dec-1974 to 31-Dec-1988 50 Hort, Vlastimil 2646 31-Dec-1969 to 31-Dec-1983 51 Ehlvest, Jaan 2644 31-Dec-1986 to 31-Dec-2000 52 Taimanov, Mark E 2644 31-Dec-1956 to 31-Dec-1970 53 Gligoric, Svetozar 2642 31-Dec-1951 to 31-Dec-1965 54 Gulko, Boris F 2642 31-Dec-1975 to 31-Dec-1989 55 Chernin, Alexander M 2641 31-Dec-1984 to 31-Dec-1998 56 Seirawan, Yasser 2641 31-Dec-1985 to 31-Dec-1999 57 Psakhis, Lev B 2639 31-Dec-1980 to 31-Dec-1994 58 Chigorin, Mikhail I 2638 31-Dec-1889 to 31-Dec-1903 59 Schlechter, Carl 2638 31-Dec-1904 to 31-Dec-1918 60 Azmaiparashvili, Zurab A 2637 31-Dec-1986 to 31-Dec-2000 61 Bogoljubow, Efim D 2635 31-Dec-1924 to 31-Dec-1938 62 Blackburne, Joseph H 2634 31-Dec-1873 to 31-Dec-1887 63 Balashov, Yury S 2634 31-Dec-1976 to 31-Dec-1990 64 Vidmar, Milan Sr 2633 31-Dec-1926 to 31-Dec-1940 65 Kholmov, Ratmir D 2632 31-Dec-1957 to 31-Dec-1971 66 Nunn, John D M 2631 31-Dec-1982 to 31-Dec-1996 67 Lputian, Smbat G 2631 31-Dec-1982 to 31-Dec-1996 68 Speelman, Jonathan S 2631 31-Dec-1986 to 31-Dec-2000 69 Szabó, László 2630 31-Dec-1946 to 31-Dec-1960 70 Stċhlberg, Gideon 2629 31-Dec-1938 to 31-Dec-1952 71 Eingorn, Viacheslav S 2629 31-Dec-1983 to 31-Dec-1997 72 Tukmakov, Vladimir B 2629 31-Dec-1975 to 31-Dec-1989 73 Tseshkovsky, Vitaly V 2629 31-Dec-1974 to 31-Dec-1988 74 Adams, Michael 2627 31-Dec-1986 to 31-Dec-2000 75 Yudasin, Leonid G 2625 31-Dec-1982 to 31-Dec-1996 76 Marshall, Frank J 2625 31-Dec-1905 to 31-Dec-1919 77 Anderssen, Adolf 2625 31-Dec-1862 to 31-Dec-1876 78 Gavrikov, Victor N 2623 31-Dec-1983 to 31-Dec-1997 79 Sveshnikov, Evgeny E 2621 31-Dec-1979 to 31-Dec-1993 80 Vasiukov, Evgeny A 2621 31-Dec-1972 to 31-Dec-1986 81 Vyzmanavin, Alexey 2621 31-Dec-1983 to 31-Dec-1997 82 Miles, Anthony J 2620 31-Dec-1980 to 31-Dec-1994 83 Averbakh, Yury L 2620 31-Dec-1951 to 31-Dec-1965 84 Dautov, Rustem 2619 31-Dec-1986 to 31-Dec-2000 85 Malaniuk, Vladimir P 2619 31-Dec-1983 to 31-Dec-1997 86 Dorfman, Iosif D 2617 31-Dec-1977 to 31-Dec-1991 87 Smirin, Ilia 2617 31-Dec-1986 to 31-Dec-2000 88 Epishin, Vladimir 2613 31-Dec-1986 to 31-Dec-2000 89 Savon, Vladimir A 2612 31-Dec-1970 to 31-Dec-1984 90 Sokolov, Ivan 2612 31-Dec-1986 to 31-Dec-2000 91 Rozentalis, Eduardas 2612 31-Dec-1984 to 31-Dec-1998 92 Kuzmin, Gennady P 2611 31-Dec-1972 to 31-Dec-1986 93 Sax, Gyula 2610 31-Dec-1978 to 31-Dec-1992 94 Lerner, Konstantin Z 2610 31-Dec-1977 to 31-Dec-1991 95 Janowsky, Dawid M 2610 31-Dec-1896 to 31-Dec-1910 96 Gipslis, Aivars 2609 31-Dec-1967 to 31-Dec-1981 97 Dvoiris, Semen I 2607 31-Dec-1983 to 31-Dec-1997 98 Smejkal, Jan 2606 31-Dec-1970 to 31-Dec-1984 99 Oll, Lembit 2606 31-Dec-1984 to 31-Dec-1998 100 Krogius, Nikolay V 2606 31-Dec-1964 to 31-Dec-1978
91 ( +1 | -1 ) re anyI agree with bogg 100 percent!!! if there are 25 or more players today better than those great players he listed , then i will eat my shoe!! thats how sure I am about that . of course if i do have to eat it I will bake it til tender then cover it with a generous helping of Tabasco sauce and chew very very slowly . of course no danger of that happening because I just happen to be right!!Also if fischer's peak performance was properly rated in todays over inflated system I think it would exceed 3000. now all you Fischer bashers can have a field day with this , I simply do not care to worry over statements trying to trash his fantastic play! yes I said trying because really trashing it is impossible . His chess play stands for itself. !! again fide current rating system is inflated yours BBG
11 ( +1 | -1 ) You realizeThat if your statement is true that would make Capablanca the best player of all time.
154 ( +1 | -1 ) Kramnikbeats other GMs all the time--look at how he totally crushed Radjabov and Ponomariov at Linares. Kramnik's rating tends to decrease because he is not particularly adverse to drawing, especially with Black, even if the opponent is rated 200 points or more below him. Kasparov, on the other hand, is generally more combative, but that hasn't done much for his recent tournament and match results, which have mostly been equaled or bettered by Kramnik.
Ultimately, I think that the general talent level of the chess playing pool has not significantly increased over the past 30, 60, or 200 years, but two factors have contributed to an inflation in ELO ratings: 1) more chessplayers in the pool, which makes it easier to gain rating points, and 2) a general increase of chess knowledge. This 'influx of knowledge' does not particularly increase the talent level, or the ability to calculate or create innovative ideas, but mostly appears in opening play and in 'new' strategical ideas like rampantly sacrificing exchanges. It is possible, for example, that Topalov could have beaten Botvinnik in the 50s-60s simply due to his unfathomable opening preparation (at the time). However, I don't consider Topalov to be a better player than Botvinnik, given the knowledge available to each in their respective time periods. My opinion is that probably the first factor--a significant increase in the number of players--contributes more to the rating inflation than the general increase in knowledge, but it's difficult to ascertain what degree either affects the inflation.
12 ( +1 | -1 ) So if there wereMore players in the 20s then Capablanca and Alekhine, and Lasker would've been the best players of all time according to you?
20 ( +1 | -1 ) Nothey would have been rated higher (not that they were rated, but if they had been). It's easier to gain rating points with more people to play.
17 ( +1 | -1 ) studySince today's players have the benefit of studying and comprehending the games of past GMs up until the present, wouldn't that by defenition make today's GMs stronger?
74 ( +1 | -1 ) Of courseBut ratings can never tell the absolute strength of players from different eras. For example Capablanca being number one on Chessmetrics Peak 1-year list (December 1921) suggests he was more superior compared to his (contemporary) peers than anyone has ever been. But it doesnt mean he was stronger than Kasparov for example, because the general level of chess players is much higher nowadays.
If you measure absolute playing strength ratings have deflated, not inflated (obvious really). But comparing absolute playing strength is not the purpose of ELO or Chessmetrics rating anyway. If you compare relative playing strength (for example how strong Capablanca was compared to his opponents) we have more complex case...
32 ( +1 | -1 ) FUTILEIt's an interesting topic but it'll never get anywhere. Similar discussions have taken place for centuries relating to different games and activities. We'll never know how good Capa was compared to, say, Fischer.
I reckon all any player can possibly be is the best in his time; he can do no more,
The Great Blatman(reason is an over-rated thing)
16 ( +1 | -1 ) I agreeit is futile. The rating system will only represent your skill based on all the other people using the rating system at that time.
85 ( +1 | -1 ) bon apetit bluebabygirland i hope you have small feet:) Today play chess more people than 20 years ago. more people mean bigger scale of rating and from this reason nowadays players has higher ratings (and ratings will be higher and higher, because fide lowered limit for FIDE rating to 1800 and in future it will be 1600!). It is simply mathematics and statistics - do you know Gauss curve? And, of course, if is more players so there must be more better players. You cant compare Fisher or other great players in past with todays best players because theory is much larger and computers bring more ideas.
80 ( +1 | -1 ) You knowwhat made fischer great? he just lifted chess to a new level. I sometimes read comments on Spassky saying: creative player but he was too lazy in opening preparation. I don't think that this can apply to any of the players in the top 10 now (being lazy that is). As mentioned before elo is only a relative system not an absolute. It just says when your elo is worse than mine I'm better than you. It doesn't say: well Kasparov has 2800+ and fisher didn't so Kasparov is better =). Comparing Kasparov with Fischer, Alekhine, Capablanca... isn't very usefull. Different times, different players. I think Kasparov will be name with the other greats within a couple of years. On the subject of Kramnik: I think he's a better match-player than tournament player
24 ( +1 | -1 ) schaakhamster, What is the difference between match-player and tournament player? Match-player is one-on-one based while tournament is based on the point achieved from a pool of players, is that it? Then how come he can be good at one and worse at the other one?
26 ( +1 | -1 ) match vs. tourneybecause if you play match you must achieve more wins than your opponent - draws arent count. if you play tournament you must achieve more points - you cant draw every game and wait for one victory. And it is different.
102 ( +1 | -1 ) So the key is the draw? If one plays a match then he will naturally not seek a draw, because a win is better than a draw and a draw is not better than a lost. This doesn't automatically say that when a player has less draw record then he is a better player at match because it could be just part of a strategy. The difference should be around positional or tactical capability of the player. This is because more victory (in term of wins) seems to belong to players with better attacking/combination capability, and the chance is even higher when the opponent is weaker. Kasparov is very good at this, but to some extent this is just a style of play or even just a strategy.
One strategy I'm thinking is to play like Kasparov against weak players and to play like Petrosian against strong players. This is the case when I cannot find out the detail of the opponent's weaknesses.
BTW, is it true that such "match" game does exist?
29 ( +1 | -1 ) you are wrong. If you play match than you play safety first style unless aou are loosing. One mistake in match can mean you will lose whole maatch. if you lead 2-0 you wont risk. If you lost one game in tournament you have still chance beause others can lost too.
29 ( +1 | -1 ) you are wrong. If you play match than you play safety first style unless aou are loosing. One mistake in match can mean you will lose whole maatch. if you lead 2-0 you wont risk. If you lost one game in tournament you have still chance beause others can lost too.
25 ( +1 | -1 ) lukulus, Do you mean that if we lose it means somebody else must have won? So we have to be carefull when playing with opponents with competitive points?
I understand about swiss system etc, but I don't understand this "match" concept.
59 ( +1 | -1 ) DrawsIt's a lot more complex in either situation, tournament and match, than 'win if losing, draw if winning'. It's very difficult to come back from -1 (or -2, even worse) to win a tournament with +3 or +4. Wins count 'twice as much' in a match because not only have you won, but the other person has lost..but early in the match still leaves plenty of time to come back, as evidenced by, say, the first Karpov-Kasparov and Fischer-Spassky matches. At any rate, it's very difficult to get wins at such a high level, and and whatever few you get can make a big difference, either in tournament or match play.
22 ( +1 | -1 ) From atrifix statements above now I know what this "match" is all about :D
Anyhow, I think there is no substantial difference between the two.
33 ( +1 | -1 ) Kramnik.....Is a great player period, match or tournamnet.
He beat the highest rated player in the world in a match, and he came in first place in the Super GM, Linares tournament this year...I think he is just about the best player in the world right now, though he has been very inactive since the Linares event.
134 ( +1 | -1 ) to lukulusyou said bon apetit then commented on my feet. well yes I have small feet and a big head . why often my head gets stuck in the doorway to the kitchen. I however will not be baking them shoes . you argument was weak. not convincing at all. only thing it convinced me of was yes I have small feet. logic says that pool being larger -more players -more higher ratings. so rating if it is inflated just means more higher rated players not BETTER players . and fide rating system is inflated . bogg named those players and I stand with my original position on it . Look at my original comment I said BETTER than not more high rated . Fide rating system is flawed was inflated to accomadate larger pool of players . and it was increased by 100 points when rating women players long ago. why I do not know. to cairo -- about judit polgar i used her because i admire her very much I meant not just her but everybody rated is rated using an inflated rating . she is exceptional player fully deserving of admiration!!! but I compared her rating being in Fischer's range as an example . to illustrate the inflation, come on does anybody but the Fischer haters really believe she is that strong in comparison to him??? Certainly not me and im a great admirer of her!!!!! yours bluebabygirl
53 ( +1 | -1 ) BBGJust for curiosity, how do you know FIDE ratings are inflated? Is your claim about 100 points based on statistical evidence, deep analysis of GM games or mere belief that no one can ever be as strong as Fischer was? :-)
P.S you are forgetting simple formula
bigger talent pool + more information & knowledge + more strong tournaments + more strong opponents = better players
Chess players are becoming better year after year, and its not like all progress ended when Bobby quit playing :-)
27 ( +1 | -1 ) ActuallyJudit polgar is 65 - 85 points below fischer. Anyway she has a good performance record, and really fischer was all so great because he was way way way beyond his time. Now people are getting better and are able to play as well as if not better than fischer. So her rating may be quite justified.
75 ( +1 | -1 ) Most likelyDue the general improvement of chess players ratings have deflated, not inflated, so in fact Judit should be CLOSER to Fischer in terms of FIDE rating. But Fischer quit at his peak so it is possible he would have improved his rating had he kept playing. Then again, like already explained ratings from different eras are not comparable.
Still...for the sake of discussion, BBG can you please explain why Judit cant be 65-85 points from Fischer in the terms of playing strength?
BTW speaking of women and chess, we all remember Fischer claiming he could give any female player knight odds etc. But after playing few blitz games with Polgar sisters when he was visiting them in Hungary, he took his words back :-)
28 ( +1 | -1 ) Differencebetween match and tournament play: the preparation: example: Kramnik selected the Berlin Defence against Kasparov in order to get the queens off the board rapidly to nullify Kasparov fantastic tactical ability. In a tournament you will a best play the same opponent twice;
107 ( +1 | -1 ) Jeff Sonas Site for RatingI can really recommend a visit to Jeff Sonas website. chess_champion has already mentioned it.
13000 players from 1850-2001 have there own page with Calculated ratings at any given age or date.
Three players Stand Out on these ALL TIME TOPLISTS:
- Capablanca - Kasparov - Fischer also Lasker is at that very top
Even a swedish player, which I played in a Real life simultan game, has his own statistical page!
....... GO THERE .......
60 ( +1 | -1 ) to anyon ELO BEING INFLATED AS I SAID IT IS . TAKE 1970 FOR EXAMPLE . SPASSKY,THE WORLDS CHAMP WAS RATED 2670. YOU KNOW WHAT 2670 WILL BUY YOU IN THE OVERINFLATED ELO RATED TOP 100 TODAY-- A TIE FOR 28TH PLACE WITH RUBLEVSKY BEHIND SUCH GREATS AS MALAKHOV, VAN WELY, ALMASI ETC. ETC, - AND WHAT OF TAL ,KERES AND PETROSIAN-- THEY WOULD BE DRAGGING THIER HEELS BEHIND GUYS LIKE BOLOGAN,ZVIAGINSEV,,ZHANG ZHONG .!!..- IF THATS NOT INFLATION IT WILL MORE THAN DO TIL THE REAL THING COMES ALONG.. LAUGH OUT LOUD TAL BEHIND VAN WELY - COME ON WHAT A JOKE !!! -- YOURS -BBG
231 ( +1 | -1 ) Ratings have inflatedIt seems both sides are right in part. On the one hand, ratings HAVE inflated, but on the other, chess knowledge has gone up too, so a "lowly rated" Spassky (2670!!!) playing an 'inflated' rated master as Rublevsky, would have more trouble than expected beating Rublevsky, because CHESS KNOWLEDGE HAS EVOLVED. But, this doesn't mean that the ratings are not inflated, because of how the system works.
As the system is done, that 'strange' Bell curve that is ELO, the general improvement of chess players due to chess improvement means there are more good players (good as in IM or candidate GM, not rating, strength!)
Those players get their ELO, and now we have more players with a certain ELO than before. The system, as published in an article by Sonnas, has a small flaw when you try to predict a result (which, after all, is what the rating given is based, inversely): at the top end of the scale, someone like Kasparov, has to do better than he really should have due to his strength, just to keep his ELO.
Up until here, if anyone is still reading this bore ;-), it may seem to prove a deflation in ratings, but then, we get to take into account the fact that THERE ARE many more players with relatively high ELOs (2400-2500).
Another thing to remember is the lower limit to have elo in olden times was a lot higher than now! So, those 2400-2500 players now play in tournaments against 'weak' players (2000-2100) that in the old times would have had NO elo, so beating them didn't bring anything to those players. It reminds me a bit of the food chain, or big fish eats little fish. Now there are many more little fish, so the medium fish can eat more, and grow more, and be eaten by the bigger fish.
The system gets inflated slowly over time, because now, the top players have it easier to perform over their expected rating to gain some ELO than in the old times, as in the old times they had less players with a decent ELO on which to beat with a good performance. Yes, it is very circular, and yes, it is very slow. The system is feeding itself.
Basically it is a question of numbers.
So, the conclussion is: "who would have thought that chess players where fish?" :-)
32 ( +1 | -1 ) just an ideais it possible that ELO will converge to a range of ratings given the size of the pool? like if the amount of chess players stayed the same now and we gave it a few decades.. things would reach an equilibrium. it would still be inflated relative to ELo ratingso f past.. but it would be static for this amount of players...
13 ( +1 | -1 ) Correctionof 2 previous statements: Fischer's top was 2785. In his title match vs. Spassky he lost 5 points, ending his career at 2780.