September 2017 FIDE ratings: All hail the queen!

by Albert Silver
9/1/2017 – What a month it has been! Maxime Vachier-Lagrave was one of the most prominent names of the month, winning the Sinquefield Cup, and taking the no. 2 spot, and of course there was the return of Garry Kasparov, who joined the Saint Louis Rapid and Blitz, and with it, his first rapid and blitz rating. Then there was Indian prodigy IM Praggnanandhaa who became the youngest ever with 2500, but the one result that overshadowed them all was Hou Yifan's historic win at Biel. | Photo: Pascal Simon

ChessBase 14 Download ChessBase 14 Download

Everyone uses ChessBase, from the World Champion to the amateur next door. Start your personal success story with ChessBase 14 and enjoy your chess even more!


Along with the ChessBase 14 program you can access the Live Database of 8 million games, and receive three months of free ChesssBase Account Premium membership and all of our online apps! Have a look today!

More...

FIDE Top 100 Players

More than just the 15 Elo that he earned. Maxime Vachier-Lagrave scored his greatest tournament victory to date, pulling ahead of the world's best, including World Champion Magnus Carlsen.

Maxime Vachier-Lagrave in Saint Louis | Photo: Lennart Ootes

A special note and congratulations to GM Vidit Santosh, who broke 2700 for the first time, and becomes the 4th Indian to achieve this feat.

Vidit Santosh | Photo: Anastasia Balakhontseva

Rk
Name
Ti.
Fed
Rtg
Gms
B-Year
1 Carlsen, Magnus g NOR 2827 9 1990
2 Vachier-Lagrave, Maxime g FRA 2804 9 1990
3 Kramnik, Vladimir g RUS 2803 0 1975
4 Aronian, Levon g ARM 2802 9 1982
5 Caruana, Fabiano g USA 2799 9 1992
6 Mamedyarov, Shakhriyar g AZE 2797 0 1985
7 Anand, Viswanathan g IND 2794 9 1969
8 So, Wesley g USA 2792 9 1993
9 Grischuk, Alexander g RUS 2788 4 1983
10 Nakamura, Hikaru g USA 2781 9 1987
11 Karjakin, Sergey g RUS 2780 9 1990
12 Giri, Anish g NED 2777 4 1994
13 Ding, Liren g CHN 2771 8 1992
14 Svidler, Peter g RUS 2756 9 1976
15 Yu, Yangyi g CHN 2750 3 1994
16 Topalov, Veselin g BUL 2749 0 1975
17 Wei, Yi g CHN 2748 4 1999
18 Li, Chao b g CHN 2745 4 1989
19 Radjabov, Teimour g AZE 2742 0 1987
20 Harikrishna, P. g IND 2741 9 1986
21 Nepomniachtchi, Ian g RUS 2741 9 1990
22 Wojtaszek, Radoslaw g POL 2739 6 1987
23 Dominguez Perez, Leinier g CUB 2739 0 1983
24 Le, Quang Liem g VIE 2739 0 1991
25 Adams, Michael g ENG 2738 0 1971
26 Gelfand, Boris g ISR 2737 6 1968
27 Eljanov, Pavel g UKR 2734 0 1983
28 Fedoseev, Vladimir g RUS 2731 0 1995
29 Bacrot, Etienne g FRA 2728 22 1983
30 Vitiugov, Nikita g RUS 2728 10 1987
31 Matlakov, Maxim g RUS 2728 0 1991
32 Ivanchuk, Vassily g UKR 2727 12 1969
33 Navara, David g CZE 2720 9 1985
34 Vallejo Pons, Francisco g ESP 2717 0 1982
35 Bu, Xiangzhi g CHN 2714 4 1985
36 Jakovenko, Dmitry g RUS 2710 0 1983
37 Tomashevsky, Evgeny g RUS 2710 0 1987
38 Andreikin, Dmitry g RUS 2708 4 1990
39 Almasi, Zoltan g HUN 2707 0 1976
40 Jobava, Baadur g GEO 2702 17 1983
41 Vidit, Santosh Gujrathi g IND 2702 7 1994
42 Naiditsch, Arkadij g AZE 2702 6 1985
43 Howell, David W L g ENG 2701 9 1990
44 Wang, Hao g CHN 2701 4 1989
45 Amin, Bassem g EGY 2699 14 1988
46 Wang, Yue g CHN 2699 4 1987
47 Short, Nigel D g ENG 2698 19 1965
48 Duda, Jan-Krzysztof g POL 2698 7 1998
49 Cheparinov, Ivan g BUL 2695 12 1986
50 Rodshtein, Maxim g ISR 2695 0 1989
51 Ponomariov, Ruslan g UKR 2694 16 1983
52 Najer, Evgeniy g RUS 2694 12 1977
53 Inarkiev, Ernesto g RUS 2694 6 1985
54 Artemiev, Vladislav g RUS 2692 0 1998
55 Kryvoruchko, Yuriy g UKR 2692 0 1986
56 Malakhov, Vladimir g RUS 2691 4 1980
57 Kuzubov, Yuriy g UKR 2688 19 1990
58 Sadler, Matthew D g ENG 2687 0 1974
59 Rublevsky, Sergei g RUS 2683 0 1974
60 Sutovsky, Emil g ISR 2683 0 1977
61 Onischuk, Alexander g USA 2682 0 1975
62 Leko, Peter g HUN 2679 9 1979
63 Mamedov, Rauf g AZE 2678 19 1988
64 Sasikiran, Krishnan g IND 2676 19 1981
65 Kamsky, Gata g USA 2676 9 1974
66 Morozevich, Alexander g RUS 2676 9 1977
67 Kasimdzhanov, Rustam g UZB 2676 0 1979
68 Rapport, Richard g HUN 2675 0 1996
69 Nisipeanu, Liviu-Dieter g GER 2674 7 1976
70 Moiseenko, Alexander g UKR 2674 4 1980
71 Ni, Hua g CHN 2674 4 1983
72 Movsesian, Sergei g ARM 2671 7 1978
73 Kravtsiv, Martyn g UKR 2670 12 1990
74 Hou, Yifan g CHN 2670 9 1994
75 Adhiban, B. g IND 2670 7 1992
76 Rakhmanov, Aleksandr g RUS 2669 7 1989
77 Jones, Gawain C B g ENG 2668 16 1987
78 Motylev, Alexander g RUS 2668 10 1979
79 Akopian, Vladimir g ARM 2667 0 1971
80 Bareev, Evgeny g CAN 2666 0 1966
81 Dubov, Daniil g RUS 2666 0 1996
82 Riazantsev, Alexander g RUS 2666 0 1985
83 Iturrizaga Bonelli, Eduardo g VEN 2665 24 1989
84 Ganguly, Surya Shekhar g IND 2665 16 1983
85 Saric, Ivan g CRO 2662 21 1990
86 Shankland, Samuel L g USA 2662 18 1991
87 Akobian, Varuzhan g USA 2662 0 1983
88 Berkes, Ferenc g HUN 2661 9 1985
89 Nabaty, Tamir g ISR 2661 9 1991
90 Van Wely, Loek g NED 2661 7 1972
91 Ragger, Markus g AUT 2659 7 1988
92 Ipatov, Alexander g TUR 2659 0 1993
93 Fressinet, Laurent g FRA 2657 9 1981
94 Anton Guijarro, David g ESP 2656 19 1995
95 Negi, Parimarjan g IND 2656 0 1993
96 Laznicka, Viktor g CZE 2654 7 1988
97 Grachev, Boris g RUS 2654 0 1986
98 Grandelius, Nils g SWE 2653 11 1993
99 Granda Zuniga, Julio E g PER 2653 7 1967
100 Korobov, Anton g UKR 2652 21 1985
101 Papaioannou, Ioannis g GRE 2652 0 1976
102 Sargissian, Gabriel g ARM 2652 0 1983

Top climbers and descenders 

The list of players who experienced gains or losses of at least 10 Elo. The biggest winner in the month was the Ukrainin player, Yury Kuzubov, who gained 36 Elo after notable campaigns in both the Turkish League and the Spanish. His teams and teammates were no doubt delighted.

Rk
Old
Name
Fed
Ti.
Rating
Old
Gms
2 8 Vachier-Lagrave, Maxime FRA GM 2804 +15 2789 9
7 10 Anand, Viswanathan IND GM 2794 +11 2783 9
8 2 So, Wesley USA GM 2792 -18 2810 9
10 7 Nakamura, Hikaru USA GM 2781 -11 2792 9
21 15 Nepomniachtchi, Ian RUS GM 2741 -10 2751 9
29 34 Bacrot, Etienne FRA GM 2728 +13 2715 22
33 26 Navara, David CZE GM 2720 -17 2737 9
40 57 Jobava, Baadur GEO GM 2702 +15 2687 17
45 62 Amin, Bassem EGY GM 2699 +19 2680 14
47 55 Short, Nigel D ENG GM 2698 +10 2688 19
52 39 Najer, Evgeniy RUS GM 2694 -13 2707 12
57 98 Kuzubov, Yuriy UKR GM 2688 +36 2652 19
64 54 Sasikiran, Krishnan IND GM 2676 -12 2688 19
69 56 Nisipeanu, Liviu-Dieter GER GM 2674 -13 2687 7
74 100 Hou, Yifan CHN GM 2670 +18 2652 9
85   Saric, Ivan CRO GM 2662 +30 2632 21
90   Van Wely, Loek NED GM 2661 +15 2646 7
96 82 Laznicka, Viktor CZE GM 2654 -10 2664 7
100 76 Korobov, Anton UKR GM 2652 -16 2668 21

FIDE Top 100 Women

What can one say except 'All Hail the Queen'! Hou Yifan was simply imperial as she scored in one game after another, taking clear first at the Biel International, in spite of a loss. Just fantastic.

Happy Hou

Hou Yifan | Photo: Pascal Simon

Rk
Name
Ti.
Fed
Rtg
Gms
B-Year
1 Hou, Yifan g CHN 2670 9 1994
2 Muzychuk, Anna g UKR 2576 12 1990
3 Ju, Wenjun g CHN 2574 4 1991
4 Koneru, Humpy g IND 2557 0 1987
5 Kosteniuk, Alexandra g RUS 2552 0 1984
6 Muzychuk, Mariya g UKR 2544 0 1992
7 Cmilyte, Viktorija g LTU 2542 0 1983
8 Lagno, Kateryna g RUS 2541 4 1989
9 Lei, Tingjie g CHN 2534 17 1997
10 Harika, Dronavalli g IND 2528 9 1991
11 Dzagnidze, Nana g GEO 2519 0 1987
12 Tan, Zhongyi g CHN 2509 4 1991
13 Stefanova, Antoaneta g BUL 2506 4 1979
14 Girya, Olga wg RUS 2505 4 1991
15 Gunina, Valentina g RUS 2505 0 1989
16 Sebag, Marie g FRA 2495 0 1986
17 Zhao, Xue g CHN 2484 3 1985
18 Socko, Monika g POL 2479 0 1978
19 Goryachkina, Aleksandra wg RUS 2478 0 1998
20 Shen, Yang m CHN 2473 3 1989
21 Batsiashvili, Nino m GEO 2472 12 1987
22 Atalik, Ekaterina m TUR 2468 12 1982
23 Pogonina, Natalija wg RUS 2466 0 1985
24 Hoang, Thanh Trang g HUN 2459 0 1980
25 Khotenashvili, Bela g GEO 2459 0 1988
26 Cramling, Pia g SWE 2453 5 1963
27 Paehtz, Elisabeth m GER 2453 5 1985
28 Kashlinskaya, Alina m RUS 2446 9 1993
29 Ushenina, Anna g UKR 2445 12 1985
30 Saduakassova, Dinara m KAZ 2444 18 1996
31 Galliamova, Alisa m RUS 2443 0 1972
32 Shvayger, Yuliya wg ISR 2442 14 1994
33 Javakhishvili, Lela m GEO 2438 0 1984
34 Zhukova, Natalia g UKR 2438 0 1979
35 Gaponenko, Inna m UKR 2437 0 1976
36 Huang, Qian wg CHN 2436 4 1986
37 Krush, Irina g USA 2436 1 1983
38 Khademalsharieh, Sarasadat m IRI 2433 0 1997
39 Bodnaruk, Anastasia m RUS 2432 9 1992
40 Nechaeva, Marina m RUS 2431 9 1986
41 Abdumalik, Zhansaya m KAZ 2428 9 2000
42 Ni, Shiqun wg CHN 2426 15 1997
43 Zatonskih, Anna m USA 2424 0 1978
44 Zhu, Chen g QAT 2424 0 1976
45 Hoolt, Sarah wg GER 2423 14 1988
46 Bulmaga, Irina m ROU 2423 9 1993
47 Zawadzka, Jolanta wg POL 2422 9 1987
48 Ding, Yixin wg CHN 2421 4 1991
49 Assaubayeva, Bibisara wf RUS 2421 0 2004
50 Turova, Irina m RUS 2419 5 1979
51 Danielian, Elina g ARM 2415 9 1978
52 Kovalevskaya, Ekaterina m RUS 2411 0 1974
53 Hoang, Thi Bao Tram wg VIE 2408 0 1987
54 Szczepkowska, Karina m POL 2406 9 1987
55 Daulyte, Deimante m LTU 2404 12 1989
56 Mkrtchian, Lilit m ARM 2401 0 1982
57 Peptan, Corina-Isabela m ROU 2400 9 1978
58 Khurtsidze, Nino m GEO 2400 0 1975
59 Melia, Salome m GEO 2399 0 1987
60 Skripchenko, Almira m FRA 2399 0 1976
61 Batchimeg, Tuvshintugs m MGL 2398 0 1986
62 Bojkovic, Natasa m SRB 2398 0 1971
63 Sukandar, Irine Kharisma m INA 2397 10 1992
64 Munguntuul, Batkhuyag m MGL 2397 0 1987
65 Shuvalova, Polina wm RUS 2397 0 2001
66 Guo, Qi m CHN 2394 15 1995
67 Ordaz Valdes, Lisandra Teresa wg CUB 2394 0 1988
68 Houska, Jovanka m ENG 2393 9 1980
69 Matnadze, Ana m ESP 2393 7 1983
70 Mammadzada, Gunay wg AZE 2393 0 2000
71 Tania, Sachdev m IND 2391 9 1986
72 Cori T., Deysi wg PER 2389 9 1993
73 Rajlich, Iweta m POL 2389 0 1981
74 Voit, Daria f RUS 2387 0 1994
75 Mammadova, Gulnar m AZE 2385 16 1991
76 Zimina, Olga m ITA 2385 9 1982
77 Karavade, Eesha m IND 2384 21 1987
78 Gara, Anita m HUN 2382 0 1983
79 Ovod, Evgenija m RUS 2379 9 1982
80 Arabidze, Meri m GEO 2378 0 1994
81 Brunello, Marina f ITA 2377 9 1994
82 Milliet, Sophie m FRA 2377 9 1983
83 Lujan, Carolina m ARG 2376 0 1985
84 Michna, Marta wg GER 2376 0 1978
85 Bivol, Alina wg RUS 2375 13 1996
86 Aulia, Medina Warda wg INA 2375 0 1997
87 Guramishvili, Sopiko m GEO 2374 0 1991
88 Schleining, Zoya m GER 2374 0 1961
89 Vega Gutierrez, Sabrina m ESP 2373 7 1987
90 Gritsayeva, Oksana wf RUS 2373 0 1980
91 Arakhamia-Grant, Ketevan g SCO 2369 9 1968
92 Foisor, Sabina-Francesca wg USA 2369 9 1989
93 Ryjanova, Julia wg AUS 2369 0 1974
94 Ziaziulkina, Nastassia m BLR 2369 0 1995
95 Kovanova, Baira wg RUS 2368 0 1987
96 Fierro Baquero, Martha L. m ECU 2367 0 1977
97 Peng, Zhaoqin g NED 2366 0 1968
98 Li, Ruofan m SGP 2365 0 1978
99 Ozturk, Kubra wg TUR 2364 18 1991
100 Obolentseva, Alexandra wf RUS 2364 9 2001

FIDE Top 100 Juniors

Five-time World Champion Vishy Anand has been an example and an inspiration to Indians for decades, and super talents such as twelve-year-old IM Praggnanandhaa are the result. The young Indian is now the youngest ever to reach 2500, breaking a record that has held since 1989 (Judit Polgar).

Vishy and Pragg | Photo: Lennart Ootes

Rk
Name
Ti.
Fed
Rtg
Gms
B-Year
1 Wei, Yi g CHN 2748 4 1999
2 Duda, Jan-Krzysztof g POL 2698 7 1998
3 Artemiev, Vladislav g RUS 2692 0 1998
4 Bluebaum, Matthias g GER 2633 7 1997
5 Xiong, Jeffery g USA 2633 0 2000
6 Oparin, Grigoriy g RUS 2616 4 1997
7 Sevian, Samuel g USA 2610 9 2000
8 Van Foreest, Jorden g NED 2607 9 1999
9 Gledura, Benjamin g HUN 2600 9 1999
10 Svane, Rasmus g GER 2595 7 1997
11 Tari, Aryan g NOR 2588 12 1999
12 Antipov, Mikhail Al. g RUS 2578 16 1997
13 Vavulin, Maksim m RUS 2575 0 1998
14 Karthikeyan, Murali g IND 2574 18 1999
15 Rambaldi, Francesco g ITA 2574 9 1999
16 Aravindh,Chithambaram VR. g IND 2573 22 1999
17 Martirosyan, Haik M. m ARM 2570 0 2000
18 Maghsoodloo, Parham g IRI 2569 17 2000
19 Sunilduth Lyna, Narayanan g IND 2568 23 1998
20 Boruchovsky, Avital g ISR 2565 9 1997
21 Pichot, Alan g ARG 2565 0 1998
22 Wagner, Dennis g GER 2564 16 1997
23 Alekseenko, Kirill g RUS 2563 18 1997
24 Vaibhav, Suri g IND 2560 16 1997
25 Donchenko, Alexander g GER 2559 18 1998
26 Petrosyan, Manuel m ARM 2559 13 1998
27 Deac, Bogdan-Daniel g ROU 2559 9 2001
28 Ghosh, Diptayan g IND 2556 13 1998
29 Bai, Jinshi g CHN 2553 4 1999
30 Paravyan, David m RUS 2550 9 1998
31 Xu, Xiangyu m CHN 2549 3 1999
32 Tabatabaei, M.amin m IRI 2548 12 2001
33 Li, Ruifeng g USA 2548 5 2001
34 Schroeder, Jan-Christian g GER 2547 19 1998
35 Tran, Tuan Minh g VIE 2547 0 1997
36 Liang, Awonder g USA 2545 9 2003
37 Ladva, Ottomar g EST 2543 9 1997
38 Sanal, Vahap g TUR 2542 21 1998
39 Sarana, Alexey g RUS 2541 9 2000
40 Esipenko, Andrey f RUS 2540 0 2002
41 Shevchenko, Kirill m UKR 2537 16 2002
42 Ali Marandi, Cemil Can m TUR 2536 23 1998
43 Lei, Tingjie g CHN 2534 17 1997
44 Vetoshko, Volodymyr g UKR 2534 9 1998
45 Aryan Chopra g IND 2529 9 2001
46 Yuffa, Daniil g RUS 2527 13 1997
47 Firouzja, Alireza m IRI 2527 9 2003
48 Steinberg, Nitzan m ISR 2524 16 1998
49 Vorontsov, Pavlo m UKR 2522 12 1998
50 Dastan, Muhammed Batuhan g TUR 2520 21 1997
51 Harutyunian, Tigran K. m ARM 2520 13 1997
52 Lampert, Jonas m GER 2514 0 1997
53 Theodorou, Nikolas m GRE 2512 0 2000
54 Kelires, Andreas g GRE 2510 9 1999
55 Vardan Nagpal f IND 2510 0 2002
56 Mosadeghpour, Masoud m IRI 2509 13 1997
57 Puranik, Abhimanyu m IND 2509 9 2000
58 Smirnov, Anton m AUS 2508 0 2001
59 Lorparizangeneh, Shahin g IRI 2507 9 1999
60 Preotu, Razvan g CAN 2507 9 1999
61 Santos Ruiz, Miguel m ESP 2505 15 1999
62 Khegay, Dmitriy m RUS 2502 9 1997
63 Golubov, Saveliy m RUS 2501 8 2000
64 Kollars, Dmitrij g GER 2500 25 1999
65 Praggnanandhaa R m IND 2500 9 2005
66 Triapishko, Alexandr m RUS 2500 9 2000
67 Moroni, Luca Jr m ITA 2499 16 2000
68 Brown, Michael William m USA 2499 0 1997
69 Kantor, Gergely m HUN 2495 7 1999
70 Bellahcene, Bilel m FRA 2493 25 1998
71 Nguyen, Thai Dai Van m CZE 2493 9 2001
72 Vogel, Roven m GER 2493 0 2000
73 Burke, John M m USA 2490 18 2001
74 Tang, Andrew m USA 2488 18 1999
75 Shtembuliak, Evgeny m UKR 2488 0 1999
76 Sadikhov, Ulvi m AZE 2487 12 1998
77 Abdusattorov, Nodirbek m UZB 2486 18 2004
78 Sorokin, Aleksey f RUS 2486 0 2000
79 Van Foreest, Lucas m NED 2485 27 2001
80 Gazik, Viktor m SVK 2485 9 2001
81 Suarez Gomez, Julio f ESP 2485 9 1998
82 Dragnev, Valentin m AUT 2483 18 1999
83 Nihal Sarin m IND 2483 9 2004
84 Cheng, Bobby m AUS 2483 0 1997
85 Troff, Kayden W g USA 2483 0 1998
86 Gagare, Shardul g IND 2482 9 1997
87 Chandra, Akshat g USA 2481 12 1999
88 Korpa, Bence m HUN 2480 18 1998
89 Zajic, Milan g SRB 2479 16 1999
90 Goryachkina, Aleksandra wg RUS 2478 0 1998
91 Yeoh, Li Tian m MAS 2478 0 1999
92 Lomasov, Semen m RUS 2476 9 2002
93 Salomon, Johan g NOR 2476 8 1997
94 Repka, Christopher m SVK 2475 0 1998
95 Barseghyan, Harutyun   ARM 2474 9 1998
96 Hakobyan, Aram m ARM 2472 13 2001
97 Zanan, Evgeny m ISR 2471 9 1998
98 Gurevich, Daniel m USA 2471 0 1997
99 Albornoz Cabrera, Carlos Daniel f CUB 2470 10 2000
100 Vignesh N R m IND 2470 9 1998

FIDE Top 100 Girls

20-year-old Lei Tingjie continues to rise. Having been the star of the Chinese team at the World Team Championship, and her win of the Chinese Championship, she added 20 Elo to her tally, and is now 2534 FIDE.

Lei Tingjie | Photo: Qipai.org.cn

Rk
Name
Ti.
Fed
Rtg
Gms
B-Year
1 Lei, Tingjie g CHN 2534 17 1997
2 Goryachkina, Aleksandra wg RUS 2478 0 1998
3 Khademalsharieh, Sarasadat m IRI 2433 0 1997
4 Abdumalik, Zhansaya m KAZ 2428 9 2000
5 Ni, Shiqun wg CHN 2426 15 1997
6 Assaubayeva, Bibisara wf RUS 2421 0 2004
7 Shuvalova, Polina wm RUS 2397 0 2001
8 Mammadzada, Gunay wg AZE 2393 0 2000
9 Aulia, Medina Warda wg INA 2375 0 1997
10 Obolentseva, Alexandra wf RUS 2364 9 2001
11 Zhu, Jiner   CHN 2363 14 2002
12 Nomin-Erdene, Davaademberel m MGL 2363 12 2000
13 Garcia Martin, Marta f ESP 2360 12 2000
14 Marjanovic, Annamaria wf HUN 2355 9 2001
15 Tsolakidou, Stavroula wg GRE 2355 9 2000
16 Khomeriki, Nino wm GEO 2347 9 1998
17 Yao, Lan   CHN 2343 18 2000
18 Balajayeva, Khanim wf AZE 2342 5 2001
19 Hojjatova, Aydan wf AZE 2341 10 1999
20 Osmak, Iulija m UKR 2339 12 1998
21 Badelka, Olga wm BLR 2335 9 2002
22 Unuk, Laura wm SLO 2329 19 1999
23 Vaishali R wm IND 2329 9 2001
24 Salimova, Nurgyul f BUL 2329 0 2003
25 Yip, Carissa f USA 2321 17 2003
26 Vantika Agrawal   IND 2315 17 2002
27 Sapale Saloni wc IND 2311 9 1999
28 Aakanksha Hagawane wm IND 2308 9 2000
29 Derakhshani, Dorsa m FID 2306 0 1998
30 Frayna, Janelle Mae wg PHI 2305 35 1997
31 Yu, Jennifer R f USA 2302 18 2002
32 Martynyuk, Elizaveta wf RUS 2302 17 2000
33 Styazhkina, Anna wm RUS 2301 9 1997
34 Tokhirjonova, Gulrukhbegim wg UZB 2300 0 1999
35 Dordzhieva, Dinara wm RUS 2298 18 1999
36 Heinemann, Josefine wm GER 2292 14 1998
37 Drogovoz, Irina wm RUS 2287 0 1999
38 Monnisha G K wm IND 2281 0 1998
39 Martynkova, Olena wf UKR 2278 7 2000
40 Injac, Teodora wf SRB 2277 7 2000
41 Diakonova, Ekaterina   RUS 2276 9 1999
42 Bluhm, Sonja Maria wf GER 2271 9 1998
43 Maltsevskaya, Aleksandra   RUS 2271 0 2002
44 Cvitan, Ena f CRO 2270 18 2001
45 Blagojevic, Tijana wm MNE 2266 0 1997
46 Afonasieva, Anna wf RUS 2263 0 2001
47 Feng, Maggie f USA 2263 0 2000
48 Dimitrova, Aleksandra wf RUS 2262 9 2000
49 Avramidou, Anastasia f GRE 2259 12 2000
50 Antova, Gabriela f BUL 2256 0 2002
51 Amina, Battsooj f MGL 2255 0 2001
52 Peycheva, Gergana wc BUL 2252 9 2003
53 Terbe, Julianna wm HUN 2250 18 1997
54 Sieber, Fiona wm GER 2248 14 2000
55 Solozhenkina, Elizaveta wm RUS 2248 9 2003
56 Di Benedetto, Desiree wm ITA 2246 13 2000
57 Georgescu, Lena wf SUI 2246 0 1999
58 Alinasab, Mobina wm IRI 2245 9 2000
59 Harazinska, Ewa wm POL 2245 9 1998
60 Nicolas Zapata, Irene wm ESP 2244 14 1997
61 Zhou, Qiyu f CAN 2240 5 2000
62 Chernyak, Viktoria wf RUS 2234 9 1997
63 Bykova, Anastasia wf RUS 2234 0 1997
64 Schneider, Jana f GER 2231 16 2002
65 Sliwicka, Alicja wf POL 2230 7 2001
66 Narva, Mai wm EST 2226 23 1999
67 Fisabilillah, Ummi wf INA 2225 9 2000
68 Gorti, Akshita f USA 2224 17 2002
69 Kiolbasa, Oliwia wm POL 2221 16 2000
70 Kubicka, Anna   POL 2221 16 1999
71 Ghukasyan, Siranush wm ARM 2218 0 1998
72 Goltseva, Ekaterina wf RUS 2214 0 2002
73 Uuriintuya, Uurtsaikh wm MGL 2213 0 1998
74 Antolak, Julia wf POL 2212 7 2000
75 Mammadova, Narmin wm AZE 2211 18 1999
76 Keetman, Maaike   NED 2208 9 1999
77 Khokhlova, Daria   RUS 2207 9 1999
78 Velikic, Adela wm SRB 2207 0 1997
79 Srija, Seshadri wm IND 2203 9 1997
80 Bezkorovaina, Mariia   UKR 2201 0 1997
81 Radeva, Viktoria wf BUL 2200 9 2001
82 Lahav, Michal wf ISR 2196 16 1999
83 Yuan, Ye   CHN 2196 10 2000
84 Rozman, Monika wf SLO 2194 7 2000
85 Gu, Tianlu wm CHN 2187 15 1997
86 Potapova, Margarita wf RUS 2187 9 2000
87 Kanakova, Natalie wf CZE 2186 7 1999
88 Mahalakshmi, M wm IND 2185 9 1998
89 Vasova, Maria   BUL 2183 0 1998
90 Gueci, Tea wf ITA 2181 9 1999
91 Kazarian, Anna-Maja f NED 2180 0 2000
92 Gazikova, Veronika wf SVK 2178 0 1999
93 Rodriguez Dominguez, Melissa wm CUB 2178 0 1999
94 Krasnokutskaya, Sofiya   UKR 2175 7 2001
95 Zhang, Lanlin   CHN 2175 2 1999
96 Ning, Kaiyu   CHN 2173 13 2004
97 Vazquez Maccarini, Danitza wm PUR 2173 5 2000
98 Chu, Ruotong   CHN 2173 2 2001
99 Garcia-Castany Musellas, Gal.la wf ESP 2172 0 1997
100 Taghiyeva, Sama   AZE 2172 0 1997

Top 100 Rapid

There is no question that the return of Garry Kasparov overshadowed almost everything that happened in August, and understandably so. Although it wasn't the crushing return many had predicted or hoped for, perhaps the taste of competition will lure the great champion back for a few more, despite his protestations to the contrary. Nevertheless, one small stat does stand out: guess who is the oldest player on both the Rapid and Blitz lists?

Kasparov

Garry Kasparov | Photo: Lennart Ootes

Rk
Name
Ti.
Fed
Rtg
Gms
B-Year
1 Carlsen, Magnus g NOR 2909 0 1990
2 Grischuk, Alexander g RUS 2851 0 1983
3 Mamedyarov, Shakhriyar g AZE 2833 0 1985
4 Nakamura, Hikaru g USA 2830 9 1987
5 Vachier-Lagrave, Maxime g FRA 2824 0 1990
6 So, Wesley g USA 2822 0 1993
7 Aronian, Levon g ARM 2820 9 1982
8 Nepomniachtchi, Ian g RUS 2811 9 1990
9 Dominguez Perez, Leinier g CUB 2796 9 1983
10 Ivanchuk, Vassily g UKR 2796 0 1969
11 Kramnik, Vladimir g RUS 2795 0 1975
12 Yu, Yangyi g CHN 2784 9 1994
13 Kasparov, Garry g RUS 2783 9 1963
14 Giri, Anish g NED 2770 0 1994
15 Inarkiev, Ernesto g RUS 2761 10 1985
16 Karjakin, Sergey g RUS 2759 9 1990
17 Anand, Viswanathan g IND 2758 9 1969
18 Le, Quang Liem g VIE 2756 9 1991
19 Kamsky, Gata g USA 2750 11 1974
20 Korobov, Anton g UKR 2750 0 1985
21 Onischuk, Vladimir g UKR 2748 0 1991
22 Radjabov, Teimour g AZE 2742 0 1987
23 Caruana, Fabiano g USA 2741 9 1992
24 Andreikin, Dmitry g RUS 2740 0 1990
25 Fedoseev, Vladimir g RUS 2734 0 1995
26 Anton Guijarro, David g ESP 2732 9 1995
27 Ponkratov, Pavel g RUS 2731 11 1988
28 Ponomariov, Ruslan g UKR 2731 9 1983
29 Jakovenko, Dmitry g RUS 2730 0 1983
30 Navara, David g CZE 2728 9 1985
31 Nguyen, Ngoc Truong Son g VIE 2721 0 1990
32 Wojtaszek, Radoslaw g POL 2715 0 1987
33 Cheparinov, Ivan g BUL 2713 0 1986
34 Ding, Liren g CHN 2712 0 1992
35 Movsesian, Sergei g ARM 2712 0 1978
36 Harikrishna, P. g IND 2711 0 1986
37 Melkumyan, Hrant g ARM 2710 0 1989
38 Short, Nigel D g ENG 2709 0 1965
39 Artemiev, Vladislav g RUS 2708 11 1998
40 Amonatov, Farrukh g TJK 2708 0 1978
41 Akopian, Vladimir g ARM 2707 0 1971
42 Zhigalko, Sergei g BLR 2707 0 1989
43 Gelfand, Boris g ISR 2703 10 1968
44 Riazantsev, Alexander g RUS 2703 0 1985
45 Dubov, Daniil g RUS 2700 11 1996
46 Fridman, Daniel g GER 2700 7 1976
47 McShane, Luke J g ENG 2697 4 1984
48 Malakhov, Vladimir g RUS 2696 0 1980
49 Meier, Georg g GER 2695 0 1987
50 Fedorchuk, Sergey A. g UKR 2694 17 1981
51 Bortnyk, Olexandr g UKR 2694 0 1996
52 Safarli, Eltaj g AZE 2694 0 1992
53 Topalov, Veselin g BUL 2693 0 1975
54 Wang, Yue g CHN 2690 9 1987
55 Amin, Bassem g EGY 2690 0 1988
56 Tomashevsky, Evgeny g RUS 2689 0 1987
57 Vidit, Santosh Gujrathi g IND 2684 10 1994
58 Wei, Yi g CHN 2684 9 1999
59 Bauer, Christian g FRA 2684 0 1977
60 Kasimdzhanov, Rustam g UZB 2679 0 1979
61 Matlakov, Maxim g RUS 2679 0 1991
62 Li, Chao b g CHN 2678 9 1989
63 Bacrot, Etienne g FRA 2678 0 1983
64 Duda, Jan-Krzysztof g POL 2675 0 1998
65 Mamedov, Rauf g AZE 2674 0 1988
66 Popov, Ivan g RUS 2674 0 1990
67 Iordachescu, Viorel g MDA 2673 0 1977
68 Kovalenko, Igor g LAT 2672 18 1988
69 Alekseev, Evgeny g RUS 2672 11 1985
70 Salgado Lopez, Ivan g ESP 2672 9 1991
71 Frolyanov, Dmitry g RUS 2671 0 1986
72 Khairullin, Ildar g RUS 2671 0 1990
73 Leko, Peter g HUN 2671 0 1979
74 Savchenko, Boris g RUS 2669 0 1986
75 Lysyj, Igor g RUS 2667 11 1987
76 Shirov, Alexei g LAT 2667 4 1972
77 Bernadskiy, Vitaliy g UKR 2667 0 1994
78 Delgado Ramirez, Neuris g PAR 2667 0 1981
79 Volokitin, Andrei g UKR 2666 0 1986
80 Baklan, Vladimir g UKR 2665 0 1978
81 Bartel, Mateusz g POL 2663 0 1985
82 Motylev, Alexander g RUS 2663 0 1979
83 Oparin, Grigoriy g RUS 2663 0 1997
84 Kokarev, Dmitry g RUS 2662 11 1982
85 Zhou, Jianchao g CHN 2661 9 1988
86 Georgiev, Kiril g BUL 2660 0 1965
87 Parligras, Mircea-Emilian g ROU 2660 0 1980
88 Bu, Xiangzhi g CHN 2659 9 1985
89 Istratescu, Andrei g ROU 2659 7 1975
90 Dreev, Aleksey g RUS 2659 0 1969
91 Jones, Gawain C B g ENG 2655 4 1987
92 Nabaty, Tamir g ISR 2655 0 1991
93 Vazquez Igarza, Renier g ESP 2654 9 1979
94 Pantsulaia, Levan g GEO 2654 0 1986
95 Vitiugov, Nikita g RUS 2654 0 1987
96 Ragger, Markus g AUT 2653 9 1988
97 Pridorozhni, Aleksei g RUS 2653 0 1981
98 Salem, A.R. Saleh g UAE 2653 0 1993
99 Socko, Bartosz g POL 2653 0 1978
100 Iturrizaga Bonelli, Eduardo g VEN 2652 9 1989

Women's Top 50 Rapid

Rk
Name
Ti.
Fed
Rtg
Gms
B-Year
1 Hou, Yifan g CHN 2617 0 1994
2 Muzychuk, Anna g UKR 2594 0 1990
3 Lagno, Kateryna g RUS 2577 0 1989
4 Kosteniuk, Alexandra g RUS 2572 11 1984
5 Ju, Wenjun g CHN 2537 0 1991
6 Stefanova, Antoaneta g BUL 2536 0 1979
7 Dzagnidze, Nana g GEO 2528 0 1987
8 Gunina, Valentina g RUS 2528 0 1989
9 Tan, Zhongyi g CHN 2508 9 1991
10 Muzychuk, Mariya g UKR 2498 0 1992
11 Pogonina, Natalija wg RUS 2485 0 1985
12 Ushenina, Anna g UKR 2482 0 1985
13 Koneru, Humpy g IND 2479 0 1987
14 Harika, Dronavalli g IND 2466 0 1991
15 Goryachkina, Aleksandra wg RUS 2462 0 1998
16 Paehtz, Elisabeth m GER 2457 9 1985
17 Turova, Irina m RUS 2456 6 1979
18 Khotenashvili, Bela g GEO 2456 0 1988
19 Zhao, Xue g CHN 2454 0 1985
20 Huang, Qian wg CHN 2453 0 1986
21 Voit, Daria f RUS 2452 11 1994
22 Shen, Yang m CHN 2450 0 1989
23 Bodnaruk, Anastasia m RUS 2448 11 1992
24 Lei, Tingjie g CHN 2446 4 1997
25 Krush, Irina g USA 2445 0 1983
26 Cramling, Pia g SWE 2433 4 1963
27 Mkrtchian, Lilit m ARM 2423 0 1982
28 Matnadze, Ana m ESP 2414 9 1983
29 Cori T., Deysi wg PER 2414 0 1993
30 Nechaeva, Marina m RUS 2414 0 1986
31 Zimina, Olga m ITA 2414 0 1982
32 Zhu, Chen g QAT 2413 0 1976
33 Kashlinskaya, Alina m RUS 2402 0 1993
34 Padmini, Rout m IND 2402 0 1994
35 Pham, Le Thao Nguyen m VIE 2401 0 1987
36 Batsiashvili, Nino m GEO 2400 0 1987
37 Melia, Salome m GEO 2398 0 1987
38 Cmilyte, Viktorija g LTU 2394 13 1983
39 Socko, Monika g POL 2390 0 1978
40 Girya, Olga wg RUS 2389 11 1991
41 Atalik, Ekaterina m TUR 2389 0 1982
42 Zatonskih, Anna m USA 2388 13 1978
43 Javakhishvili, Lela m GEO 2388 0 1984
44 Gaponenko, Inna m UKR 2383 0 1976
45 Khademalsharieh, Sarasadat m IRI 2376 12 1997
46 Milliet, Sophie m FRA 2375 0 1983
47 Berend, Elvira wg LUX 2372 0 1965
48 Abdumalik, Zhansaya m KAZ 2371 0 2000
49 Galliamova, Alisa m RUS 2371 0 1972
50 Khurtsidze, Nino m GEO 2370 0 1975

Top 100 Blitz

Levon Aronian continued his amazing year with a win of the Saint Louis Rapid and Blitz. He gained 69 Blitz rating points, and moved up to world no. 3 as well.

Levon Aronian | Photo: Lennart Ootes

Sergey Karjakin, the reigning World Blitz champion, was also in blistering form as he stormed with a breathtaking run during the blitz phase, making pundits and fans wonder whether he could overcome Aronian. Alas for his fans, it was not to be, but he did gain 82 rating points and is now clear world no.2 in blitz.

Sergey Karjakin | Photo: Lennart Ootes

Rk
Name
Ti.
Fed
Rtg
Gms
B-Year
1 Carlsen, Magnus g NOR 2948 0 1990
2 Karjakin, Sergey g RUS 2889 18 1990
3 Aronian, Levon g ARM 2863 18 1982
4 Nakamura, Hikaru g USA 2857 18 1987
5 Vachier-Lagrave, Maxime g FRA 2853 0 1990
6 Shkuro, Iuri g UKR 2828 0 1982
7 Andreikin, Dmitry g RUS 2815 0 1990
8 Nepomniachtchi, Ian g RUS 2810 18 1990
9 Kasparov, Garry g RUS 2801 18 1963
10 Grischuk, Alexander g RUS 2801 0 1983
11 Svidler, Peter g RUS 2797 0 1976
12 Leko, Peter g HUN 2790 0 1979
13 Kramnik, Vladimir g RUS 2784 0 1975
14 Mamedyarov, Shakhriyar g AZE 2783 0 1985
15 Giri, Anish g NED 2776 0 1994
16 Dubov, Daniil g RUS 2775 11 1996
17 Ivanchuk, Vassily g UKR 2767 0 1969
18 Salem, A.R. Saleh g UAE 2767 0 1993
19 Dominguez Perez, Leinier g CUB 2764 18 1983
20 Le, Quang Liem g VIE 2762 18 1991
21 Korobov, Anton g UKR 2760 11 1985
22 Mamedov, Rauf g AZE 2755 11 1988
23 Andriasian, Zaven g ARM 2755 0 1989
24 Radjabov, Teimour g AZE 2755 0 1987
25 Kasimdzhanov, Rustam g UZB 2750 0 1979
26 So, Wesley g USA 2747 0 1993
27 Gelfand, Boris g ISR 2745 0 1968
28 Wei, Yi g CHN 2740 0 1999
29 Wang, Hao g CHN 2737 0 1989
30 Anand, Viswanathan g IND 2736 18 1969
31 Caruana, Fabiano g USA 2728 18 1992
32 Wojtaszek, Radoslaw g POL 2718 0 1987
33 Artemiev, Vladislav g RUS 2717 10 1998
34 Zubov, Alexander g UKR 2716 0 1983
35 Navara, David g CZE 2712 18 1985
36 Ponomariov, Ruslan g UKR 2711 0 1983
37 Gretarsson, Hjorvar Steinn g ISL 2705 19 1993
38 Petrosian, Tigran L. g ARM 2705 0 1984
39 Topalov, Veselin g BUL 2704 0 1975
40 Kamsky, Gata g USA 2697 0 1974
41 Vitiugov, Nikita g RUS 2696 0 1987
42 Safarli, Eltaj g AZE 2695 0 1992
43 Guseinov, Gadir g AZE 2694 0 1986
44 Ramirez, Alejandro g USA 2694 0 1988
45 Nyzhnyk, Illya g UKR 2692 0 1996
46 Hammer, Jon Ludvig g NOR 2691 11 1990
47 Bachmann, Axel g PAR 2689 0 1989
48 Bu, Xiangzhi g CHN 2688 0 1985
49 Melkumyan, Hrant g ARM 2686 0 1989
50 Tomashevsky, Evgeny g RUS 2686 0 1987
51 Khusnutdinov, Rustam g KAZ 2684 0 1987
52 Adly, Ahmed g EGY 2683 0 1987
53 Bruzon Batista, Lazaro g CUB 2682 9 1982
54 Bortnyk, Olexandr g UKR 2682 0 1996
55 Duda, Jan-Krzysztof g POL 2682 0 1998
56 Laznicka, Viktor g CZE 2681 0 1988
57 Yu, Yangyi g CHN 2680 0 1994
58 Pantsulaia, Levan g GEO 2679 11 1986
59 Jones, Gawain C B g ENG 2679 0 1987
60 Inarkiev, Ernesto g RUS 2677 0 1985
61 Berkes, Ferenc g HUN 2675 0 1985
62 Cheparinov, Ivan g BUL 2672 0 1986
63 Lu, Shanglei g CHN 2672 0 1995
64 Ragger, Markus g AUT 2671 33 1988
65 Predojevic, Borki g BIH 2671 0 1987
66 Pridorozhni, Aleksei g RUS 2671 0 1981
67 Shirov, Alexei g LAT 2670 11 1972
68 Riazantsev, Alexander g RUS 2670 0 1985
69 Bologan, Victor g MDA 2669 0 1971
70 Movsesian, Sergei g ARM 2669 0 1978
71 Li, Chao b g CHN 2668 0 1989
72 Matlakov, Maxim g RUS 2668 0 1991
73 Brunello, Sabino g ITA 2666 0 1989
74 Grigoryan, Karen H. g ARM 2665 0 1995
75 Muzychuk, Anna g UKR 2663 0 1990
76 Vallejo Pons, Francisco g ESP 2662 9 1982
77 Khismatullin, Denis g RUS 2660 11 1984
78 Hou, Yifan g CHN 2659 0 1994
79 Saric, Ivan g CRO 2658 13 1990
80 Khairullin, Ildar g RUS 2657 0 1990
81 Cordova, Emilio g PER 2656 0 1991
82 Fedoseev, Vladimir g RUS 2656 0 1995
83 Malakhov, Vladimir g RUS 2655 0 1980
84 Bogdanovich, Stanislav g UKR 2654 0 1993
85 Morozevich, Alexander g RUS 2654 0 1977
86 Nguyen, Ngoc Truong Son g VIE 2654 0 1990
87 Quparadze, Giga g GEO 2654 0 1987
88 Munoz, Miguel g ESP 2653 9 1975
89 Bocharov, Dmitry g RUS 2653 0 1982
90 Jovanovic, Zoran g CRO 2652 35 1979
91 Sedlak, Nikola g SRB 2651 13 1983
92 Vidit, Santosh Gujrathi g IND 2651 11 1994
93 Iturrizaga Bonelli, Eduardo g VEN 2650 0 1989
94 Lenic, Luka g SLO 2650 0 1988
95 Heimann, Andreas g GER 2649 0 1992
96 Maghsoodloo, Parham g IRI 2647 11 2000
97 Sychev, Klementy m RUS 2647 0 1996
98 Plat, Vojtech g CZE 2646 0 1994
99 Amin, Bassem g EGY 2645 9 1988
100 Mamedov, Nidjat g AZE 2645 0 1985

Women's Top 50 Blitz

Rk
Name
Ti.
Fed
Rtg
Gms
B-Year
1 Muzychuk, Anna g UKR 2663 0 1990
2 Hou, Yifan g CHN 2659 0 1994
3 Lagno, Kateryna g RUS 2622 0 1989
4 Gunina, Valentina g RUS 2612 0 1989
5 Tan, Zhongyi g CHN 2554 0 1991
6 Ju, Wenjun g CHN 2548 0 1991
7 Stefanova, Antoaneta g BUL 2540 0 1979
8 Harika, Dronavalli g IND 2537 0 1991
9 Koneru, Humpy g IND 2499 0 1987
10 Zhao, Xue g CHN 2499 0 1985
11 Krush, Irina g USA 2494 0 1983
12 Paehtz, Elisabeth m GER 2484 50 1985
13 Kosteniuk, Alexandra g RUS 2468 0 1984
14 Charochkina, Daria m RUS 2457 0 1990
15 Ushenina, Anna g UKR 2457 0 1985
16 Lei, Tingjie g CHN 2451 0 1997
17 Dzagnidze, Nana g GEO 2445 0 1987
18 Bodnaruk, Anastasia m RUS 2439 0 1992
19 Javakhishvili, Lela m GEO 2439 0 1984
20 Cmilyte, Viktorija g LTU 2435 13 1983
21 Matnadze, Ana m ESP 2429 9 1983
22 Hoang, Thanh Trang g HUN 2422 0 1980
23 Galliamova, Alisa m RUS 2417 0 1972
24 Gaponenko, Inna m UKR 2416 0 1976
25 Goryachkina, Aleksandra wg RUS 2401 0 1998
26 Pogonina, Natalija wg RUS 2401 0 1985
27 Abdumalik, Zhansaya m KAZ 2395 0 2000
28 Michna, Marta wg GER 2393 49 1978
29 Kashlinskaya, Alina m RUS 2390 0 1993
30 Khotenashvili, Bela g GEO 2382 0 1988
31 Socko, Monika g POL 2380 11 1978
32 Cori T., Deysi wg PER 2379 0 1993
33 Guramishvili, Sopiko m GEO 2379 0 1991
34 Zhukova, Natalia g UKR 2372 0 1979
35 Hoolt, Sarah wg GER 2371 49 1988
36 Khademalsharieh, Sarasadat m IRI 2369 12 1997
37 Buksa, Nataliya wg UKR 2368 0 1996
38 Zatonskih, Anna m USA 2368 0 1978
39 Turova, Irina m RUS 2365 12 1979
40 Arabidze, Meri m GEO 2362 0 1994
41 Padmini, Rout m IND 2362 0 1994
42 Nemcova, Katerina wg USA 2361 0 1990
43 Klek, Hanna Marie   GER 2360 0 1995
44 Reizniece-Ozola, Dana wg LAT 2353 0 1981
45 Benderac, Ana wg SRB 2350 0 1977
46 Lazarne Vajda, Szidonia m HUN 2347 0 1979
47 Lomineishvili, Maia m GEO 2346 0 1977
48 Pham, Le Thao Nguyen m VIE 2346 0 1987
49 Charkhalashvili, Inga wg GEO 2345 0 1983
50 Saduakassova, Dinara m KAZ 2344 0 1996

Links



Born in the US, he grew up in Paris, France, where he completed his Baccalaureat, and after college moved to Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. He had a peak rating of 2240 FIDE, and was a key designer of Chess Assistant 6. In 2010 he joined the ChessBase family as an editor and writer at ChessBase News. He is also a passionate photographer with work appearing in numerous publications.
Discussion and Feedback Join the public discussion or submit your feedback to the editors


Discuss

Rules for reader comments

 
 

Not registered yet? Register

Petrarlsen Petrarlsen 9/7/2017 12:01
@ lajosarpad : Very interesting !! I hope that you will develop this further in the future !!
lajosarpad lajosarpad 9/6/2017 02:30
@Petrarlsen

I believe a system of weighting could be used to approach the real relevance. The idea would be to have a finite set of criteria and each criteria would have a weight. I have developed a small soft using this methodology but for other purposes. It could be easily used to determine relevancy, but the problem is the input. What will be the criteria and what will be the relevance of each criteria? Furthermore, will there be dynamism, that is, will a weight of a criteria serve as a function for a weight of another criteria? I have developed that feature on the weekend (hobby) for my other project. Fortunately the soft is agnostic so you can use it for any weighting calculation.
Petrarlsen Petrarlsen 9/6/2017 03:15
@ lajosarpad : "If we had such a scale, then we could easily compare the relevancy of the evens, but not necessarily the events themselves. An event might be more extraordinary than the other due to several factors, but still less relevant."

Interesting and subtle distinction.

This could probably be developed much further ; have you already thinked about it deeper than this ?
lajosarpad lajosarpad 9/5/2017 07:50
@Petrarlsen

I think your idea to have a scale of relevancy is plausible. If we had such a scale, then we could easily compare the relevancy of the evens, but not necessarily the events themselves. An event might be more extraordinary than the other due to several factors, but still less relevant.

I think we are on consensus that Hou Yifan's success was exagerated.
Petrarlsen Petrarlsen 9/5/2017 03:32
@ lajosarpad : Obviously, when I rate Kasparov's return 95 out of 100, it is only compared with other chess events ! I don't want to say that Kasparov's return to chess is comparable to the throwing of a nuclear bomb or other events of the same magnitude !!
Petrarlsen Petrarlsen 9/5/2017 03:25
@ lajosarpad (2/2) :

II) About the term "historic"

On this, I think that we slightly disagree, but, in my opinion, not very much...

I rather think that, when you say that an event, fact, etc., it relevant, you mean more or less the same thing than when I say than "elements of comparison" are necessary. For example, you said : "The event is historic due to its relevancy on history.". But it would be possible to rate the relevancy of every possible event or fact, for example from 0 to 100. And, in the end, an event who would be considered as really "historic" would be one of the best-rated ones : it would be also a kind of comparison... For example, to use my last example about the returns of GM John Doe, rated 2550 before his retirement, and of GM Garry Kasparov, the return of GM John Doe would perhaps be rated 20 out of 100, for relevancy, while Kasparov's return would be rated 95 out of 100. It would not be that the return of GM John Doe would be completely irrelevant, but only that it would be much less relevant that MANY other events, in the chess world...

When you say : "I do not see how Hou's victory in that tournament would be so relevant that it would shape chess history", there also, I rather think that you mean the same thing that when I ask for elements of comparison : if an event "shapes chess history", it is that it is more important than many other chess events, so that a "comparison dimension" is also present...

And, when you say, about my "comparison idea", "If that would be the case, then the first relevant chess event could not be considered to be historic", for me, this represents indeed in a way a sort of paradoxial summit of the "comparison idea" ! Because, if it isn't possible to find anything comparable, it represents in a way a sort of "infinite superiority" : for example, if an event would be rated 30 on the "relevancy scale", and the next one 90, the second one is rated three times higher than the previous one. But if there is no point of comparison for an event, in a way, it represents an "infinite superiority", as if the first (non-existent) event was rated 0 on the "relevancy scale"...

What is certain is that, using "relevancy", when you gives concrete examples, I agree with the results you obtain... it would rather seems to show that our reasonings should not really be so different one from the other, wouldn't it ???
Petrarlsen Petrarlsen 9/5/2017 03:24
@ lajosarpad (1/2) :

I think that, in fact, we agree more than you think ! In my opinion, there is a "touch of misunderstanding" in our discussion...

I) On Hou Yifan, I think that we agree nearly completely...

- About Judit Polgar, the only reason for which I compared Hou Yifan's Biel tournament with Judit Polgar's results was because of my opinion that to qualify an event as "historic", it is necessary to have "elements of comparison", and Judit Polgar's results seemed, in my opinion, to form a good "element of comparison" ; nothing more... I will go back to the "historic" debate later on...

- About the 18 points gain : In fact, on this, I think we agree completely ; perhaps you didn't understood it like this, but I agree that it is COMPLETELY normal that the monthly article on the rating lists develops such a gain ; the only point with which I disagreed (and not with you, but only with the author of the article), was to make this the center of this article...

- "But, even in this case, I maintain that this result has nothing to do with the ChessBase's monthly article on the rating lists !" (...this is what I said myself...)

On this, what I said wasn't really what I meant !

What I really meant was that for a player to be the center of the montly article about the rating lists, what was necessary wasn't that he played great chess during the given month, but that he gained Elo points ! (...or that he lost so much points that it could justify to make this the center of an article ; I think this can happen too sometimes...) In short, as the article is about RATINGS, RATINGS must be the center of it ; a great performance in a tournament can quite justify a special article about it, but it is only the RATING dimension that can lead to this performance being developed in an article about the rating lists...

And I quite agree that the 18 points gained by Hou Yifan would have explained quite satisfyingly SOME developments on the Biel tournament, in relation to her Elo gain, but not to make this the center of the article.

So, at first view, on this last point too, I don't think there is a significant difference between your opinion and mine...
lajosarpad lajosarpad 9/4/2017 10:40
@Petrarlsen (2/2)


"But the Grand Slam bomb, a conventional weapon, wasn't even comparable, in terms of destructive power, with Little Boy and Fat Man."
The bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were two different bombs, thrown at two different occasions and two different places. My point was that the bomb on Nagasaki will not become not historic due to the bomb on Hiroshima. My point was that an event becomes historic due to relevancy, which might be proven using comparison, but comparison is not a dependency of something to become historic.

"if Fat Man had been only slightly more powerful than the Grand Slam bombs, what would have distinguished the Nagasaki bombing from the 9 previous bombings in which Grand Slam bombs where used ?"
Its relevancy. If a smaller detonation would still be enough to stop the economy of Japan, then that would be the reason of it being historic. There were many atomic detonations and I am sure there were tests before using the bombs, yet, the tests which occur prior to the actual attack are less important and not due to their magnitude, but due to their relevancy on history. Many political murders happened, but the murder of Francisc Ferdinand in 1914 marks the start of WWI. So it is historic due to its relevancy. You can compare the event itself to other events, but you are missing the point if you do that. The event is not historic due to the type of gun Gavrilo used or the way the Black Hand operated. The event is historic due to its relevancy on history.

"But no-one gave any objective elements on this aspect of Hou Yifan's performance in Biel ! "
Agreed. I think we witness a poor choice of article subject to make some sensation.

"But, even in this case, I maintain that this result has nothing to do with the ChessBase's monthly article on the rating lists ! "
Disagreed. If the source of the point changes would have nothing to do with such an article, then the articles would be little more than the lists themselves. But in that case a link to the FIDE page would be enough. An effort to describe the trendings and their reasons is plausible and useful, therefore mentioning the sources of points has a lot to do with such a list.

"And, one more time, in my opinion, it would have been a much better choice to highlight Kasparov or Praggnandhaa instead of Hou Yifan for this article... (Not obviously that Hou Yifan cannot be worthy of praise, just that this wasn't at all the right time and the right place to do it here...) "
I think you are completely right here.
lajosarpad lajosarpad 9/4/2017 10:28
@Petrarlsen (1/2)

"Rather a detail, probably, but I don't understand to which statement you refer in this sentence : "I do not think the statement you have been answering was present in this article." "
Your posts are addressing the idea that Hou Yifan would overcome Polgár and you are accurately showing that this is not the case. However, nobody told us the thought you are so accurately contradicting. As a result, you are answering a statement which was not present in the article, nor in the comment section. I know that some people voiced the opinion you are addressing, but I think you are supporting that idea without wanting to support it by addressing it even when it was not voiced.

"In my opinion, 18 points isn't anything out of the ordinary"
If a change of 18 points is not news, then why do we read articles about rating points ;)

"So I must say I don't agree : a 18 points gain isn't sufficient to make the headlines of the monthly article about the rating lists... "
Again, you are answering something which was not voiced. I did not say Hou Yifan's 18 points make the headlines, so you cannot disagree with my non-existent statement. I said 18 point change at this level is big news. Which means that such a fact must be emphasized somehow in an article. Which not necessarily means they should be highlighted. I agree with you that larger changes in ÉLŐ in an article about ÉLŐ points should be highlighted at least as much as Hou Yifan's gain, but I explained that the reason of putting Hou Yifan into the center must have been sensation and click bait.

You can always compare a historic event to the scenario when that event did not happen, but you can compare an irrelevant event against the scenario when it did not happen as well. My point was that a historic event is not necessarily historic due to a comparison, but can be historic due to its effect. When we decide whether something is historic, the main criteria is its relevancy. I do not see how Hou's victory in that tournament would be so relevant that it would shape chess history, so I think it was an exageration. But if it becomes relevant for some reason, then it will become historic, even if she had a bigger rating before. And yes, you can compare this event to scenarios which happened and scenarios which did not happen, if you do that, you might want to write an article about it, I am sure it would be interesting to do such comparisons. However, that's speculation and it is difficult to determine the probability of such imaginative scenarios.

"So, I do think that, if Kasparov's return can be called "historic", it is indeed in view of several comparison elements. "
You can compare anything with anything else, including itself and you can use virtually infinitely many comparators, but, at least in my opinion something becomes historic due to its relevancy, which might be proven by showing that the relevancy of the event is higher than the relevancy of another historic event, but that is a one-way direction, which means - according to the current rules of boolean algebra - that you cannot assume that something can only be historic in comparison to something else, so I disagree with your statement:

"It seems logical that, if Hou Yifan's performance in Biel in "historic", it must be "historic", compared to something else"

If that would be the case, then the first relevant chess event could not be considered to be historic, at least compared to previous events, so your argument seems to defeat itself.
Petrarlsen Petrarlsen 9/4/2017 06:36
@ lajosarpad (4/4) :

- "Sensation is needed and the writer of this article considered this to be the best candidate."

I think that, even considering the "need" for "sensational news", for chess articles, in my opinion, it would have been quite possible to do something "sensational" with Kasparov's return or Praggnanandhaa's results (probably not for Vachier-Lagrave, or, at least, it would have been much more difficult).

Two examples of imaginary titles :

* For Kasparov, something like :

Kasparov !!!

The lion roars again !

* Or, for Praggnanandhaa :

New World Record : Praggnandhaa did it again !

And, one more time, in my opinion, it would have been a much better choice to highlight Kasparov or Praggnandhaa instead of Hou Yifan for this article... (Not obviously that Hou Yifan cannot be worthy of praise, just that this wasn't at all the right time and the right place to do it here...)
Petrarlsen Petrarlsen 9/4/2017 06:35
@ lajosarpad (3/4) :

II) The throwing of a nuclear bomb on Nagasaki :

The most powerful bomb before Little Boy and Fat Man, the two nuclear bombs used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was probably (...I haven't checked thoroughly...) the English Grand Slam bomb, also from WW II.

But the Grand Slam bomb, a conventional weapon, wasn't even comparable, in terms of destructive power, with Little Boy and Fat Man.

I think that the "right way" to analyze the "historic" importance of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing is to considere them globally : only three days separated the two bombings, and the destructive power of the two bombs used was quite comparable (...in fact, Fat Man's destructive power - Fat Man being the Nagasaki bomb - was a little superior to Little Boy's own destructive power, but this isn't a well-known fact, and hasn't certainly anything to do with the fact that the Nagasaki bombing is an important historic fact...).

But I also think that, even if the two only nuclear bombings in history had been two completely seperated events, the second one would nonetheless have been completely a "historic" event, because of the power of a nuclear bomb, which isn't even comparable with the power of the most powerful conventional weapon. And this is indeed one more time a "comparison element" ; I said "(...) isn't even comparable with (...)" and I don't think that you would disagree : it does show, in my opinion, that, for the Nagasaki bombing, too, it is indeed also a "comparison element" that permit to apply the term "historic" to it ; if Fat Man had been only slightly more powerful than the Grand Slam bombs, what would have distinguished the Nagasaki bombing from the 9 previous bombings in which Grand Slam bombs where used ? Nothing significant... While, with the unique power of the nuclear bombs, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings really completely stood out, in comparison of all the previous bombings in history...

- "Such uniqueness can be something like a woman winning a super GM tournament after a long while without woman winners."

Indeed, IF really, it didn't happen for a long time that a woman player won a tournament against several 2700+ GMs, Hou Yifan's Biel tournament could be considered as "historic", in this respect (...still the "comparison element" : compared to all the other present-day top-level women players, Hou Yifan would, in this case, have obtained a result that these other players couldn't obtained...).

But no-one gave any objective elements on this aspect of Hou Yifan's performance in Biel !

It would indeed be interesting to know exactly when a woman player won for the last time, before the last Biel tournament, a tournament where several 2700+ GMs where participating... The answer to this question would indeed perhaps make Hou Yifan's victory in Biel "historic".

But, even in this case, I maintain that this result has nothing to do with the ChessBase's monthly article on the rating lists !
Petrarlsen Petrarlsen 9/4/2017 06:24
@ lajosarpad (2/4) :

- And now, for the most interesting part, in my opinion : the use of the term "historic"...

What is the difference between my example ("if GM XYZ have a 2650 performance in a given tournament") and your examples (Kasparov's recent performance and the nuclear bomb on Nagasaki) ? I think, precisely, that it is that my example (without any added elements) hasn't any element of comparison with anything else, while your two examples DO have an element of comparison, in my opinion !

I) Kasparov :

1) What would be the difference between the return to professional chess of GM John Doe, rated 2550 before his retirement, born in 1963, and retired from professional chess since 2005, and the return of GM Garry Kasparov, born the same year, who also retired in 2005 ? For the main part, Kasparov's multiple titles, his long-lasting "Elo-domination", his 2851 Elo World Record, etc., etc. And this is indeed a comparison element : Kasparov' statute has very few equals, and it distinguishes him from nearly all other players. And the result is that it is quite a rare thing to see such a supreme player coming back from retirement.

2) What would have been the difference between Kasparov coming back from retirement in 2006 (if he had done it at the time), or coming back from retirement in 2017 ? Answer : only 1 year of retirement on one side, and 12 years on the other side. And I think that, in 2006, after only 1 year of retirement, it wouldn't have been such an enormous sensation if Kasparov would have returned to play in one isolated Rapid and Blitz tournament (...by the way, I say "one isolated" tournament, but I very much hope that he will play again in other tournaments !!...). What makes this return extraordinary is these 12 years that separate his retirement from his return. And this, also, contains an element of comparison : it isn't only that a "mythical champion" returns to professional chess, but also that he returns after 12 years ! And this is nearly unprecedented in chess history. (By the way, I don't think that you would disagree with this affirmation that such a return is "nearly unprecedented in chess history", and the word "unprecedented" clearly goes with a "comparison element" : if something is "unprecedented", it is necessarily that a comparison has been made with other more or less comparable events in the past, and that the object of the comparison has been found unique, in comparison of the others ; in this case, because of the statute of the given player, and because of the length of his retirement.)

So, I do think that, if Kasparov's return can be called "historic", it is indeed in view of several comparison elements.
Petrarlsen Petrarlsen 9/4/2017 06:21
@ lajosarpad (1/4) :

I think the most interesting point in our discussion is about the "content" of the term "historic". I will come back to this a little later...

- Rather a detail, probably, but I don't understand to which statement you refer in this sentence : "I do not think the statement you have been answering was present in this article."

- "Winning 18 points at this level is big news, even if she has been there before."

In my opinion, 18 points isn't anything out of the ordinary ; a good result, but nothing more. For example, this month, in the "2600+ range" (to compare Hou Yifan with other players of her level), Bassem Amin gained 19 points, from 2680 to 2699, Ivan Saric 30 points, from 2632 to 2662, and Yuriy Kuzubov 36 points (!!), from 2652 (lower than Hou Yifan last month) to 2688 (higher than Hou Yifan this month). And Kuzubov's 36 points Elo gain is exactly twice as much as Hou Yifan's 18 points gain ! So I must say I don't agree : a 18 points gain isn't sufficient to make the headlines of the monthly article about the rating lists...
Petrarlsen Petrarlsen 9/4/2017 06:08
@ Thomas Richter :

Sorry, I didn't see your post before now...

I understand your argument about Kasparov's rating, and, indeed, his performance ratings in Saint-Louis are interesting elements.

But, personally, I think that "a rating is a rating", and that it isn't a good idea to use a performance rating in lieu of Blitz rating ; it would "de facto" amount to using a "rating" based on a single tournament, and I wouldn't find this satisfying. And, thus, globally, and even if, obviously, the performance rating is interesting, I prefer the "official ratings" for a comparison between Kasparov and the other top-players.

And, furthermore, you admit yourself that Blitz ratings are "wildly fluctuating" (...I completely agree with you on this point...), so, as Kasparov DID manage nearly completely to avoid a "downward fluctuation" for his Blitz rating (and, overall, "didn't do too bad a job" of keeping a correct Rapid rating), I still consider that Kasparov's results, in terms of ratings, when taking into account the fact that this was his first tournament after a twelve-years' period of retirement, are quite outstanding !
lajosarpad lajosarpad 9/3/2017 12:48
@Petrarlsen

"So, logically, if the article speaks of Hou Yifan, it must have a link with this month's rating ! Or, else, I think that there must be a problem somewhere !"
True. The link is that Hou Yifan's new ÉLŐ points can be attributed to her "historic" tournament win. Her points were not called historic, her win was. I agree with you that it was an exaggeration, but I do not think the statement you have been answering was present in this article.

"And I don't understand why a player who has absolutely done nothing extraordinary in terms of rating this months (...as I said, Hou Yifan's rating for September 2017 isn't even her personal best rating...) is precisely the center of this month's article about the new rating list ! I don't even understand the logic behind this !"
Sensation is needed and the writer of this article considered this to be the best candidate. I fully agree with you that the choice was mistaken.

"one more time, even if Hou Yifan had a really good tournament in Biel, I don't see the link between her results in this tournament and this article on the latest rating list..."
The link is that the source of her rating change was her recent success. Winning 18 points at this level is big news, even if she has been there before.

"It seems logical that, if Hou Yifan's performance in Biel in "historic", it must be "historic", compared to something else (if GM XYZ have a 2650 performance in a given tournament, for example, and someone says that his performance is "historic", it must, in my opinion, be "historic", compared to something else ; there is a necessary element of comparison in the term "historic", in my opinion ; "you can't be "historic" all by yourself"...). And, at first view, I don't see at all any other logical comparison than Judit Polgar. "
Premature assumption. A performance can be historic compared to someone else indeed, but not necessarily. It might be historic in terms of being unique, or trend changing. Such uniqueness can be something like a woman winning a super GM tournament after a long while without woman winners. A change of trends can be historic. Kasparov's performance at a recent tournament was historic due to the fact that he did not play for a long while and that trend was stopped for a moment. He did not beat the field, but he was there and that was historic by itself. Something can be historic without comparing it to something else. The nuclear bomb thrown on Nagasaki was historic, even though a few days earlier another bomb was thrown on Hiroshima. The second nuclear bomb was not historic compared to the first one. It was historic by itself, because it had a large effect on history. The author of this article thinks this tournament win was historic. I think this is exageration, the writer of the article was getting excited, maybe too excited.

"So, globally, I think that it could only be in comparison with Judit Polgar's past results that Hou Yifan's Biel tournament could be "historic"..."
If we searched for a comparison, then this would be the best indeed, but having a comparison is unnecessary for something to become historic.

"What justify to make Hou Yifan the "centre of gravity" of ChessBase's monthly article about the rating list ?"
Sensation. This is a raw material journalists need. Hou Yifan is young, cute and smart. She is interesting by herself. And she is female, so highlighting her would draw feminist readers to the article, who would not necessarily read about chess ratings or even chess otherwise. This is why she was in highlight instead of, for example Kuzubov.

I am among those few, who are immune to the sensations presented by the media, but the majority is fine tuned to those messages and will visit the website due to sensation. Chessbase needs to earn some money and if they get some profit due to their articles, then hopefully they will not charge money for too many features.
Petrarlsen Petrarlsen 9/3/2017 08:26
To explain a little more why I don't agree with the fact that this article is completely centered on Hou Yifan :

1) I think that this gives, de facto, a false view of the importance of Hou Yifan's result in Biel (one more time, a very good result, but absolutely not "historic", and having nearly nothing to do with the monthly article about the rating lists).

2) It has also consequences about the "hierarchy" given between the different results of this month : if one result is abnormally highlighted, the other results of the same month are also much "downgraded", as the following quote from this article shows quite well : "(...) the one result that overshadowed them all was Hou Yifan's historic win at Biel."

The problem is, in my opinion, that the change for the World n° 2 place (with Vachier-Lagrave replacing So), and, more importantly still, probably, Kasparov's return and Praggnanandhaa's record for the obtaining of a 2500 rating are thus relegated very far behind Hou Yifan's performance. And, as I think that these three elements are more important (Kasparov's or Praggnanandhaa's results), or more related to ratings (for example, Vachier-Lagrave's 2nd place isn't probably very important, because, for the moment, there are 6 players in 10 points from the 2nd to the 10th place, and switches are likely to continue to occur frequently in the next months, but it is VERY DIRECTLY linked to ratings, and developments on this theme would have been, in my opinion, much more at their place on this page than developments about Hou Yifan's performance in Biel), I think that it is rather regrettable that it has been chosen to center this article on Hou Yifan, rather than on Vachier-Lagrave, Kasparov, or Praggnanandhaa.
Petrarlsen Petrarlsen 9/3/2017 07:51
@ vinniethepooh : "Will you stop the "historic" posts?" "Why are you clinging on to one word?"

I will answer your questions by another question :

"What justify to make Hou Yifan the "centre of gravity" of ChessBase's monthly article about the rating list ?"

If you have a logical answer to this question, all is well, but if you have NO answer to this question, it will simply mean that you do what many persons do : to criticize negatively, without having any argument to defend your criticism...

As for myself, yes, I don't agree with this article, but it is a "positive criticism" : I gave many arguments. If you can only do "negative criticism" without giving yourself any argument, I don't see how this can be useful. Or are you perhaps the only person to have the right to express an opinion ??
vinniethepooh vinniethepooh 9/3/2017 05:12
Will you stop the "historic" posts? What's wrong if they said it was historic. Why are you clinging on to one word?
Thomas Richter Thomas Richter 9/2/2017 07:24
@Petrarlsen: I agree with you about Hou Yifan (in general) and the status of Biel 2017 in particular. I would add that the 18 rating points she gained were just recovery with a little interest from her disaster at the Geneva Grand Prix, and that she made strictly zero progress towards Elo 2700 since October 2014 (Elo 2673 then, Elo 2670 now). BTW she generally gained Elo from women-only events (which she no longer wants to play) while losing Elo from other events. If she now has a series of results as in Biel, she will do the same as Fedoseev earlier this year - cross 2700 and go beyond to _approach_ the Elo level where male players get supertournament invitations without having to qualify. And that's an if for the time being.

I disagree about Kasparov: his new rapid and blitz ratings are affected by his classical pre-retirement Elo used as starting point. So his tournament performance ratings in Saint Louis would better characterize (what we now know about) his current strength. TPR 2688 in rapid would be world #57, TPR 2768 in blitz world #17 - within 10 points give or take from Giri, Dubov, Ivanchuk, Salem Saleh, Dominguez, Le Quang Liem and Korobov. Unreliable as blitz ratings are - wildly fluctuating for many players as it is possible to gain or lose lots of Elo in single events.

To me, the main story of last month would still be Vachier-Lagrave and (mirror image) So. "Hou Yifan's 'historic' result overshadowed everything" reflects the author's urgent desire to praise Hou Yifan and/or to please her fans.
Petrarlsen Petrarlsen 9/2/2017 05:50
@ lajosarpad :

"(...) the article calls the tournament win historic, not Hou Yifan's rating." Yes, but is this article about the Biel tournament, or about this month's ratings ? Answer : About this months ratings !!

So, logically, if the article speaks of Hou Yifan, it must have a link with this month's rating ! Or, else, I think that there must be a problem somewhere !

And I don't understand why a player who has absolutely done nothing extraordinary in terms of rating this months (...as I said, Hou Yifan's rating for September 2017 isn't even her personal best rating...) is precisely the center of this month's article about the new rating list ! I don't even understand the logic behind this ! (Perhaps there IS indeed some sort of logic behind this, but, at first view, I really can't see it... one more time, even if Hou Yifan had a really good tournament in Biel, I don't see the link between her results in this tournament and this article on the latest rating list...)

"(...) at this article I did not see anyone from the comment section and the writer of this article telling us that due to this win Hou Yifan is better than Polgár, so I do not really understand the reason why you emphasize that the tournament win would be imaginable by Polgár at her best."

It seems logical that, if Hou Yifan's performance in Biel in "historic", it must be "historic", compared to something else (if GM XYZ have a 2650 performance in a given tournament, for example, and someone says that his performance is "historic", it must, in my opinion, be "historic", compared to something else ; there is a necessary element of comparison in the term "historic", in my opinion ; "you can't be "historic" all by yourself"...). And, at first view, I don't see at all any other logical comparison than Judit Polgar. Compared to what else than Judit Polgar's past performances Hou Yifan's result in Biel could be historic ? To Hou Yifan's own past performances ? But I don't think it is sufficient for using the word "historic" to compare someone's new achievements with his own past achievements (or perhaps, if he is the best ever in his field ?)... So, globally, I think that it could only be in comparison with Judit Polgar's past results that Hou Yifan's Biel tournament could be "historic"...
lajosarpad lajosarpad 9/2/2017 11:10
@Benedictralph

Carlsen has won 5 points, so this is either an exception from the trend of losing points or a new trending. Let's see next month.

@Petrarlsen

I agree with you that calling Hou Yifan's win historic might be an exageration, but at this article I did not see anyone from the comment section and the writer of this article telling us that due to this win Hou Yifan is better than Polgár, so I do not really understand the reason why you emphasize that the tournament win would be imaginable by Polgár at her best. Besides, the article calls the tournament win historic, not Hou Yifan's rating. I think you are right that Hou Yifan's performance might still be far from Polgár's best, but not too far.
Petrarlsen Petrarlsen 9/2/2017 05:05
"Let me know when Carlsen drops to 2700. It shouldn't be long." (benedictralph)

To answer seriously to this - rather provocative !... - post, according to my calculations (taking into account Carlsen's points-losing rate from his peak rating - 2882 in May 2014 - until his present rating - 2827), he should be 2800 in 1 year and 8 months, 2750 in 4 years and 8 months, and 2700 in 7 years and 8 months... this, obviously, if he continues to lose points at the same rate !! It will take time for Carlsen to attain 2700... but, if I was him, I would nonetheless be quite worried to see "my" points leave me at such an alarming rate !
benedictralph benedictralph 9/2/2017 02:36
Let me know when Carlsen drops to 2700. It shouldn't be long.
Petrarlsen Petrarlsen 9/1/2017 07:03
What I find personally the most significant, for this month, is Kasparov's return : in Blitz, he is at 2801 - World n° 9 !! He comes back, and, just like that, re-enter directly the "2800+ club" and the top-ten, in Blitz ! Rather incredible... and he is above Kramnik, Anand, and Topalov, who are MUCH younger ! Quite impressive, for someone who retired 12 years from competitve chess, and for whom this was his first tournament after going out of retirement. Even in Rapid, he is ahead of Anand and Topalov, even if he didn't succeed quite as well in the Rapid phase of the tournament... And Anand, Kramnik, and Topalov aren't "ordinary players" : they are either ex-undisputed World Champions (Anand and Kramnik) or ex-World n° 1 (Topalov)... I also note that Kasparov has - in Blitz - the exact same rating as Grischuk, who has quite a reputation as a very strong blitz player... Really, Kasparov isn't an ordinary champion !!
Petrarlsen Petrarlsen 9/1/2017 06:54
I have absolutely nothing against Hou Yifan (and I follow regularly her games), but I think that, objectively, much to much is made out of her victory in Biel.

Hou Yifan isn't even 2700 on the September 2017 list (she is 2670, for a World n° 74 place - not at all comparable to Judit Polgar's n° 8 place in July 2005), and, yes, the lineup of the Biel tournament was good, but not THAT impressive : the two best-rated players where Navara (World n° 21) and Harikrishna (World n° 22), who where both under 2750 (2737 exactly, for both of them) ; they were only 71 points above Hou Yifan (who was 2666, at this time...).

And Hou Yifan's new 2670 rating isn't even her personal best : from March to June 2015, she was 2686, 16 points above her present rating.

To win a tournament against two players rated 71 points above oneself is a good result, but not, in my opinion, a "historic win" : it would be, for example, as if Eljanov won a tournament against Kramnik and Vachier-Lagrave ; this would be a very good performance, but certainly not a "historical" one... And, one more time, we musn't forget that, when Judit Polgar was at her best level, she would have been a clear favorite, with her World n° 8 statute, against players like Navara and Harikrishna, and their World n° 21 and 22 places in the world rankings...

Yes, Hou Yifan's Biel tournament was a good performance, but, all in all, in my opinion, certainly not a "historical" one ; only a significant step in her progress in the direction of a 2700+ rating...
basler88 basler88 9/1/2017 06:03
Bravo Hou Yifan! That’s the best way to silence the critics. From no stamina, yea right. Go Hou show them again what a woman can do!
RayLopez RayLopez 9/1/2017 01:54
Woo-HOU! Hou Yifan!
Mamedyarov, Shakhriyar did not break 2800? He was robbed...
blueflare blueflare 9/1/2017 11:55
SO disappointing
1