July 2017 FIDE ratings: Redistribution of wealth

by Albert Silver
6/30/2017 – This month's ratings list brings a number of remarkable results, all worthy of commentary. First and foremost is Levon Aronian's deserved return to the 2800-club after great wins at the Grenke Classic, and now at Norway Chess. Also worth noting is that the group of players rated 2800 or more has grown to six, but before concluding 'ratings inflation' read the commentary in the article to see if you still think that way after.

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!

More...

FIDE July 2017 – Top 100 Players

Looking at the new ratings list with no fewer than six players rated 2800, the words ‘ratings inflation’ might readily come to mind, but a closer examination shows that it is most likely a consequence of the redistribution of Elo than actual inflation.

To explain this better, let’s look at the ratings list of July 2016, exactly one year ago, when only three players could claim the mantle of 2800 or more. In second place was Kramnik, just as now, with exactly the same rating as this month, 2812. Part of the difference is that a year ago, Magnus Carlsen stood head and shoulders above with 2855, a full 43 Elo more. This month he stands at 2822, just 10 Elo above. Since the Elo system is a zero-sum equation, those 33 Elo lost did not just go up in smoke, they were passed on to other players below him. When he, or any player, loses 4 Elo to one player, that player gains the exact same amount.

The concentration at the top has also never been tighter, and reveals a group of players who are distinctly pulling away, at least for now, from the rest of the field. While Magnus Carlsen remains no.1 with 2822, the no. 10 is Ding Liren with 2781 just 41 Elo behind. A year ago Magnus Carlsen's advantage over just the no. 2 was more with 43 Elo.

A couple of other points to note, a year ago, the difference in rating between the no. 10 and the no.15 was just 12 Elo, today, a year later, the no.10 is rated 32 Elo more than the no. 15 further emphasizing how the top 10 are distancing themselves from the rest. The bottom rating and minimum to enter the Top 100 today is 2653, whereas in July 2016 it was 2654.

There can be no question the biggest name of the month was Levon Aronian, who scored a fantastic win at the Norway Chess tournament, and raced back into the 2800-club where he so obviously belongs.

Rk
Name
Ti.
Fed
Rtg
Gms
B-Year
1 Carlsen, Magnus g NOR 2822 9 1990
2 Kramnik, Vladimir g RUS 2812 9 1975
3 So, Wesley g USA 2810 9 1993
4 Aronian, Levon g ARM 2809 9 1982
5 Caruana, Fabiano g USA 2807 9 1992
6 Mamedyarov, Shakhriyar g AZE 2800 0 1985
7 Nakamura, Hikaru g USA 2792 9 1987
8 Vachier-Lagrave, Maxime g FRA 2791 9 1990
9 Anand, Viswanathan g IND 2783 9 1969
10 Ding, Liren g CHN 2781 8 1992
11 Giri, Anish g NED 2775 9 1994
12 Karjakin, Sergey g RUS 2773 9 1990
13 Grischuk, Alexander g RUS 2761 0 1983
14 Yu, Yangyi g CHN 2753 18 1994
15 Svidler, Peter g RUS 2749 6 1976
16 Topalov, Veselin g BUL 2749 0 1975
17 Nepomniachtchi, Ian g RUS 2742 8 1990
18 Dominguez Perez, Leinier g CUB 2739 0 1983
19 Eljanov, Pavel g UKR 2739 0 1983
20 Wei, Yi g CHN 2738 18 1999
21 Navara, David g CZE 2737 11 1985
22 Harikrishna, P. g IND 2737 0 1986
23 Wojtaszek, Radoslaw g POL 2736 9 1987
24 Adams, Michael g ENG 2736 0 1971
25 Li, Chao b g CHN 2735 18 1989
26 Matlakov, Maxim g RUS 2730 18 1991
27 Ivanchuk, Vassily g UKR 2729 10 1969
28 Gelfand, Boris g ISR 2728 0 1968
29 Fedoseev, Vladimir g RUS 2726 19 1995
30 Le, Quang Liem g VIE 2726 0 1991
31 Vitiugov, Nikita g RUS 2724 7 1987
32 Radjabov, Teimour g AZE 2724 0 1987
33 Malakhov, Vladimir g RUS 2722 0 1980
34 Vallejo Pons, Francisco g ESP 2717 0 1982
35 Bacrot, Etienne g FRA 2715 10 1983
36 Jobava, Baadur g GEO 2714 11 1983
37 Andreikin, Dmitry g RUS 2712 11 1990
38 Naiditsch, Arkadij g AZE 2712 11 1985
39 Bu, Xiangzhi g CHN 2711 4 1985
40 Tomashevsky, Evgeny g RUS 2710 11 1987
41 Duda, Jan-Krzysztof g POL 2707 20 1998
42 Almasi, Zoltan g HUN 2707 0 1976
43 Inarkiev, Ernesto g RUS 2707 0 1985
44 Najer, Evgeniy g RUS 2706 0 1977
45 Cheparinov, Ivan g BUL 2703 11 1986
46 Jakovenko, Dmitry g RUS 2703 11 1983
47 Howell, David W L g ENG 2702 11 1990
48 Ponomariov, Ruslan g UKR 2699 18 1983
49 Wang, Yue g CHN 2699 0 1987
50 Wang, Hao g CHN 2698 2 1989
51 Artemiev, Vladislav g RUS 2695 11 1998
52 Rodshtein, Maxim g ISR 2695 11 1989
53 Rapport, Richard g HUN 2694 0 1996
54 Vidit, Santosh Gujrathi g IND 2693 9 1994
55 Kryvoruchko, Yuriy g UKR 2690 7 1986
56 Sasikiran, Krishnan g IND 2688 17 1981
57 Short, Nigel D g ENG 2688 0 1965
58 Sadler, Matthew D g ENG 2687 7 1974
59 Sutovsky, Emil g ISR 2683 11 1977
60 Nisipeanu, Liviu-Dieter g GER 2683 0 1976
61 Rublevsky, Sergei g RUS 2683 0 1974
62 Onischuk, Alexander g USA 2682 7 1975
63 Mamedov, Rauf g AZE 2680 11 1988
64 Motylev, Alexander g RUS 2680 11 1979
65 Leko, Peter g HUN 2678 11 1979
66 Kamsky, Gata g USA 2678 0 1974
67 Movsesian, Sergei g ARM 2677 11 1978
68 Adhiban, B. g IND 2677 9 1992
69 Kasimdzhanov, Rustam g UZB 2676 0 1979
70 Morozevich, Alexander g RUS 2675 0 1977
71 Van Wely, Loek g NED 2675 0 1972
72 Ni, Hua g CHN 2674 0 1983
73 Amin, Bassem g EGY 2672 0 1988
74 Markus, Robert g SRB 2672 0 1983
75 Moiseenko, Alexander g UKR 2671 19 1980
76 Rakhmanov, Aleksandr g RUS 2670 11 1989
77 Laznicka, Viktor g CZE 2669 0 1988
78 Korobov, Anton g UKR 2668 17 1985
79 Akopian, Vladimir g ARM 2667 0 1971
80 Shankland, Samuel L g USA 2666 18 1991
81 Bareev, Evgeny g CAN 2666 0 1966
82 Hou, Yifan g CHN 2666 0 1994
83 Iturrizaga Bonelli, Eduardo g VEN 2664 11 1989
84 Negi, Parimarjan g IND 2664 8 1993
85 Bachmann, Axel g PAR 2662 20 1989
86 Akobian, Varuzhan g USA 2662 6 1983
87 Jones, Gawain C B g ENG 2660 11 1987
88 Kovalenko, Igor g LAT 2659 11 1988
89 Ipatov, Alexander g TUR 2659 0 1993
90 Mareco, Sandro g ARG 2659 0 1987
91 Berkes, Ferenc g HUN 2658 11 1985
92 Dubov, Daniil g RUS 2658 11 1996
93 Ganguly, Surya Shekhar g IND 2658 0 1983
94 Kravtsiv, Martyn g UKR 2657 18 1990
95 Ragger, Markus g AUT 2656 9 1988
96 Granda Zuniga, Julio E g PER 2656 0 1967
97 Shirov, Alexei g LAT 2656 0 1972
98 Grachev, Boris g RUS 2655 20 1986
99 Anton Guijarro, David g ESP 2654 11 1995
100 Riazantsev, Alexander g RUS 2654 11 1985
101 Bruzon Batista, Lazaro g CUB 2653 20 1982

Top climbers and descenders 

The list of players who experienced gains or losses of at least 10 Elo.

The two biggest Elo gainers in this month's list were also the two rising stars in Russia's list of players: Maxim Matlakov and Vladimir Fedoseev. Fedoseev has had a fantastic year, and represented Russia in the recent World Team Championship, where he scored 6.0/8 with a 2782 performance. This helped him gain 23 Elo.

Maxim Matlakov not only performed strongly for the Russian team in Khanty-Mansiysk, but also won the European Indivdiual Championship

Rk
Old
Name
Fed
Ti.
Rating
Old
Gms
  1 1 Carlsen, Magnus NOR GM 2822 -10 2832 9
4 7 Aronian, Levon ARM GM 2809 +16 2793 9
17 23 Nepomniachtchi, Ian RUS GM 2742 +10 2732 8
20 25 Wei, Yi CHN GM 2738 +10 2728 18
25 30 Li, Chao b CHN GM 2735 +15 2720 18
26 43 Matlakov, Maxim RUS GM 2730 +23 2707 18
29 47 Fedoseev, Vladimir RUS GM 2726 +23 2703 19
45 56 Cheparinov, Ivan BUL GM 2703 +13 2690 11
47 53 Howell, David W L ENG GM 2702 +10 2692 11
48 36 Ponomariov, Ruslan UKR GM 2699 -13 2712 18
55 38 Kryvoruchko, Yuriy UKR GM 2690 -19 2709 7
56 83 Sasikiran, Krishnan IND GM 2688 +19 2669 17
65 55 Leko, Peter HUN GM 2678 -13 2691 11
78 37 Korobov, Anton UKR GM 2668 -43 2711 17
80 70 Shankland, Samuel L USA GM 2666 -10 2676 18
86 76 Akobian, Varuzhan USA GM 2662 -11 2673 6
95 65 Ragger, Markus AUT GM 2656 -21 2677 9

FIDE Top 100 Women

Lei Tingje was also a big star this month, as she scored a staggering 8.0/9 for China at the Women's World Team Championship and a 2687 performance

Rk
Name
Ti.
Fed
Rtg
Gms
B-Year
1 Hou, Yifan g CHN 2666 0 1994
2 Ju, Wenjun g CHN 2572 13 1991
3 Muzychuk, Anna g UKR 2572 0 1990
4 Koneru, Humpy g IND 2557 0 1987
5 Kosteniuk, Alexandra g RUS 2552 8 1984
6 Muzychuk, Mariya g UKR 2544 0 1992
7 Cmilyte, Viktorija g LTU 2542 0 1983
8 Lagno, Kateryna g RUS 2535 8 1989
9 Harika, Dronavalli g IND 2526 8 1991
10 Lei, Tingjie g CHN 2522 18 1997
11 Dzagnidze, Nana g GEO 2519 8 1987
12 Tan, Zhongyi g CHN 2517 18 1991
13 Stefanova, Antoaneta g BUL 2512 0 1979
14 Gunina, Valentina g RUS 2505 8 1989
15 Girya, Olga wg RUS 2502 17 1991
16 Sebag, Marie g FRA 2495 0 1986
17 Paehtz, Elisabeth m GER 2486 13 1985
18 Zhao, Xue g CHN 2481 9 1985
19 Socko, Monika g POL 2480 8 1978
20 Goryachkina, Aleksandra wg RUS 2478 16 1998
21 Batsiashvili, Nino m GEO 2475 12 1987
22 Pogonina, Natalija wg RUS 2469 0 1985
23 Shen, Yang m CHN 2468 13 1989
24 Galliamova, Alisa m RUS 2459 11 1972
25 Khotenashvili, Bela g GEO 2459 8 1988
26 Hoang, Thanh Trang g HUN 2459 0 1980
27 Ushenina, Anna g UKR 2458 8 1985
28 Krush, Irina g USA 2451 9 1983
29 Danielian, Elina g ARM 2451 0 1978
30 Huang, Qian wg CHN 2446 9 1986
31 Atalik, Ekaterina m TUR 2445 5 1982
32 Saduakassova, Dinara m KAZ 2444 9 1996
33 Cramling, Pia g SWE 2444 2 1963
34 Bodnaruk, Anastasia m RUS 2443 0 1992
35 Hoolt, Sarah wg GER 2439 0 1988
36 Zhukova, Natalia g UKR 2438 8 1979
37 Javakhishvili, Lela m GEO 2438 7 1984
38 Kashlinskaya, Alina m RUS 2438 0 1993
39 Gaponenko, Inna m UKR 2437 7 1976
40 Khademalsharieh, Sarasadat m IRI 2437 0 1997
41 Garcia Martin, Marta f ESP 2435 0 2000
42 Shvayger, Yuliya wg ISR 2434 0 1994
43 Ni, Shiqun wg CHN 2432 9 1997
44 Zatonskih, Anna m USA 2424 7 1978
45 Zhu, Chen g QAT 2424 0 1976
46 Daulyte, Deimante m LTU 2419 2 1989
47 Ding, Yixin wg CHN 2416 9 1991
48 Guo, Qi m CHN 2414 12 1995
49 Cori T., Deysi wg PER 2413 0 1993
50 Turova, Irina m RUS 2413 0 1979
51 Zawadzka, Jolanta wg POL 2412 19 1987
52 Bulmaga, Irina m ROU 2412 14 1993
53 Kovalevskaya, Ekaterina m RUS 2411 0 1974
54 Mkrtchian, Lilit m ARM 2409 0 1982
55 Sukandar, Irine Kharisma m INA 2409 0 1992
56 Vega Gutierrez, Sabrina m ESP 2408 13 1987
57 Hoang, Thi Bao Tram wg VIE 2408 7 1987
58 Nechaeva, Marina m RUS 2408 0 1986
59 Pustovoitova, Daria f RUS 2406 11 1994
60 Tania, Sachdev m IND 2404 7 1986
61 Houska, Jovanka m ENG 2402 0 1980
62 Abdumalik, Zhansaya m KAZ 2400 8 2000
63 Khurtsidze, Nino m GEO 2400 0 1975
64 Melia, Salome m GEO 2399 5 1987
65 Skripchenko, Almira m FRA 2399 0 1976
66 Batchimeg, Tuvshintugs m MGL 2398 0 1986
67 Bojkovic, Natasa m SRB 2398 0 1971
68 Munguntuul, Batkhuyag m MGL 2397 9 1987
69 Peptan, Corina-Isabela m ROU 2397 9 1978
70 Karavade, Eesha m IND 2397 7 1987
71 Szczepkowska, Karina m POL 2396 14 1987
72 Ordaz Valdes, Lisandra Teresa wg CUB 2394 10 1988
73 Mammadzada, Gunay wg AZE 2393 9 2000
74 Zimina, Olga m ITA 2390 0 1982
75 Matnadze, Ana m ESP 2389 11 1983
76 Rajlich, Iweta m POL 2389 0 1981
77 Babiy, Olga wg UKR 2388 0 1989
78 Assaubayeva, Bibisara wf RUS 2386 11 2004
79 Peng, Zhaoqin g NED 2386 0 1968
80 Arabidze, Meri m GEO 2384 11 1994
81 Shuvalova, Polina wm RUS 2383 0 2001
82 Gara, Anita m HUN 2381 0 1983
83 Kulon, Klaudia wg POL 2380 17 1992
84 Bivol, Alina wg RUS 2379 0 1996
85 Michna, Marta wg GER 2377 0 1978
86 Lujan, Carolina m ARG 2376 9 1985
87 Aulia, Medina Warda wg INA 2375 0 1997
88 Guramishvili, Sopiko m GEO 2374 0 1991
89 Nomin-Erdene, Davaademberel m MGL 2373 7 2000
90 Kovanova, Baira wg RUS 2373 0 1987
91 Gritsayeva, Oksana wf RUS 2372 0 1980
92 Vijayalakshmi, Subbaraman m IND 2370 6 1979
93 Videnova, Iva m BUL 2370 4 1987
94 Majdan, Joanna wg POL 2369 7 1988
95 Ryjanova, Julia wg RUS 2369 7 1974
96 Schleining, Zoya m GER 2369 7 1961
97 Ziaziulkina, Nastassia m BLR 2369 0 1995
98 Brunello, Marina f ITA 2367 0 1994
99 Fierro Baquero, Martha L. m ECU 2367 0 1977
100 Tsolakidou, Stavroula wg GRE 2365 1 2000
101 Li, Ruofan m SGP 2365 0 1978
102 Vasilevich, Tatjana m UKR 2365 0 1977

FIDE Top 100 Juniors

 

Rk
Name
Ti.
Fed
Rtg
Gms
B-Year
1 Wei, Yi g CHN 2738 18 1999
2 Duda, Jan-Krzysztof g POL 2707 20 1998
3 Artemiev, Vladislav g RUS 2695 11 1998
4 Bluebaum, Matthias g GER 2642 11 1997
5 Xiong, Jeffery g USA 2642 7 2000
6 Sevian, Samuel g USA 2633 20 2000
7 Van Foreest, Jorden g NED 2606 0 1999
8 Oparin, Grigoriy g RUS 2605 11 1997
9 Gledura, Benjamin g HUN 2600 11 1999
10 Tari, Aryan g NOR 2595 8 1999
11 Vavulin, Maksim m RUS 2595 0 1998
12 Aravindh,Chithambaram VR. g IND 2593 0 1999
13 Maghsoodloo, Parham g IRI 2584 0 2000
14 Svane, Rasmus g GER 2583 11 1997
15 Antipov, Mikhail Al. g RUS 2580 11 1997
16 Deac, Bogdan-Daniel g ROU 2579 11 2001
17 Karthikeyan, Murali g IND 2579 3 1999
18 Alekseenko, Kirill g RUS 2575 11 1997
19 Donchenko, Alexander g GER 2570 11 1998
20 Pichot, Alan g ARG 2570 11 1998
21 Ghosh, Diptayan g IND 2569 20 1998
22 Li, Ruifeng g USA 2568 9 2001
23 Rambaldi, Francesco g ITA 2568 9 1999
24 Sunilduth Lyna, Narayanan g IND 2564 0 1998
25 Wagner, Dennis g GER 2563 11 1997
26 Bai, Jinshi g CHN 2559 9 1999
27 Boruchovsky, Avital g ISR 2558 11 1997
28 Vaibhav, Suri g IND 2558 0 1997
29 Petrosyan, Manuel m ARM 2553 11 1998
30 Tran, Tuan Minh m VIE 2549 9 1997
31 Martirosyan, Haik M. m ARM 2544 11 2000
32 Steinberg, Nitzan m ISR 2543 11 1998
33 Schroeder, Jan-Christian g GER 2539 7 1998
34 Liang, Awonder m USA 2536 9 2003
35 Sanal, Vahap g TUR 2533 17 1998
36 Xu, Xiangyu m CHN 2532 9 1999
37 Ladva, Ottomar g EST 2531 20 1997
38 Paravyan, David m RUS 2531 9 1998
39 Dastan, Muhammed Batuhan g TUR 2529 15 1997
40 Esipenko, Andrey f RUS 2523 11 2002
41 Yuffa, Daniil g RUS 2523 0 1997
42 Lei, Tingjie g CHN 2522 18 1997
43 Harutyunian, Tigran K. m ARM 2517 11 1997
44 Golubov, Saveliy m RUS 2516 18 2000
45 Lorparizangeneh, Shahin g IRI 2516 0 1999
46 Ali Marandi, Cemil Can m TUR 2515 11 1998
47 Lampert, Jonas m GER 2514 0 1997
48 Zajic, Milan g SRB 2513 0 1999
49 Sarana, Alexey m RUS 2510 11 2000
50 Vorontsov, Pavlo m UKR 2510 10 1998
51 Kollars, Dmitrij m GER 2510 0 1999
52 Tabatabaei, M.amin m IRI 2509 0 2001
53 Brown, Michael William m USA 2508 9 1997
54 Triapishko, Alexandr m RUS 2506 0 2000
55 Vetoshko, Volodymyr g UKR 2505 9 1998
56 Kelires, Andreas g GRE 2505 1 1999
57 Shevchenko, Kirill m UKR 2502 22 2002
58 Firouzja, Alireza m IRI 2499 0 2003
59 Theodorou, Nikolas m GRE 2498 11 2000
60 Korpa, Bence m HUN 2497 0 1998
61 Preotu, Razvan g CAN 2496 0 1999
62 Smirnov, Anton m AUS 2495 13 2001
63 Dragnev, Valentin m AUT 2495 11 1999
64 Kobo, Ori m ISR 2494 11 1997
65 Sadikhov, Ulvi m AZE 2494 9 1998
66 Aryan Chopra g IND 2491 0 2001
67 Salomon, Johan m NOR 2488 18 1997
68 Khegay, Dmitriy f RUS 2484 20 1997
69 Chandra, Akshat g USA 2484 15 1999
70 Lomasov, Semen m RUS 2483 11 2002
71 Cheng, Bobby m AUS 2483 6 1997
72 Kantor, Gergely m HUN 2481 0 1999
73 Praggnanandhaa R m IND 2479 9 2005
74 Burke, John M m USA 2479 4 2001
75 Puranik, Abhimanyu m IND 2479 0 2000
76 Goryachkina, Aleksandra wg RUS 2478 16 1998
77 Tang, Andrew m USA 2478 11 1999
78 Moroni, Luca Jr m ITA 2476 11 2000
79 Hakobyan, Aram m ARM 2475 22 2001
80 Vogel, Roven m GER 2475 9 2000
81 Shtembuliak, Evgeny m UKR 2474 0 1999
82 Suarez Gomez, Julio f ESP 2474 0 1998
83 Nguyen, Thai Dai Van m CZE 2473 11 2001
84 Van Foreest, Lucas m NED 2473 9 2001
85 Gurevich, Daniel m USA 2472 18 1997
86 Troff, Kayden W g USA 2472 9 1998
87 Gagare, Shardul g IND 2472 0 1997
88 Pechac, Jergus f SVK 2472 0 2001
89 Christiansen, Johan-Sebastian m NOR 2471 9 1998
90 Nihal Sarin f IND 2471 9 2004
91 Yeoh, Li Tian m MAS 2471 0 1999
92 Visakh N R m IND 2470 0 1999
93 Santos Ruiz, Miguel m ESP 2469 11 1999
94 Harmon-Vellotti, Luke m USA 2469 9 1998
95 Li, Di m CHN 2469 9 1999
96 Mosadeghpour, Masoud m IRI 2469 0 1997
97 Sorokin, Aleksey f RUS 2469 0 2000
98 Kuybokarov, Temur m UZB 2468 9 2000
99 Albornoz Cabrera, Carlos Daniel f CUB 2467 19 2000
100 Abdusattorov, Nodirbek m UZB 2467 9 2004

FIDE Top 100 Girls

13-year-old WFM Bibisara Assaubayeva scored a solid 11-round IM-norm at the European Individual Championship facing five full-fledged grandmasters and four IMs, and earned a whopping 140 Elo points as a result. Since this was a FIDE continental event, this norm was worth double!

Rk
Name
Ti.
Fed
Rtg
Gms
B-Year
1 Lei, Tingjie g CHN 2522 18 1997
2 Goryachkina, Aleksandra wg RUS 2478 16 1998
3 Khademalsharieh, Sarasadat m IRI 2437 0 1997
4 Garcia Martin, Marta f ESP 2435 0 2000
5 Ni, Shiqun wg CHN 2432 9 1997
6 Abdumalik, Zhansaya m KAZ 2400 8 2000
7 Mammadzada, Gunay wg AZE 2393 9 2000
8 Assaubayeva, Bibisara wf RUS 2386 11 2004
9 Shuvalova, Polina wm RUS 2383 0 2001
10 Aulia, Medina Warda wg INA 2375 0 1997
11 Nomin-Erdene, Davaademberel m MGL 2373 7 2000
12 Tsolakidou, Stavroula wg GRE 2365 1 2000
13 Osmak, Iulija wg UKR 2353 7 1998
14 Unuk, Laura wm SLO 2343 0 1999
15 Tokhirjonova, Gulrukhbegim wg UZB 2334 18 1999
16 Aakanksha Hagawane wm IND 2334 0 2000
17 Salimova, Nurgyul f BUL 2332 9 2003
18 Marjanovic, Annamaria wf HUN 2331 9 2001
19 Vaishali R wm IND 2327 17 2001
20 Zhu, Jiner   CHN 2322 18 2002
21 Yu, Jennifer R wm USA 2313 7 2002
22 Derakhshani, Dorsa m IRI 2312 9 1998
23 Badelka, Olga   BLR 2309 11 2002
24 Dordzhieva, Dinara wm RUS 2308 0 1999
25 Hojjatova, Aydan wf AZE 2308 0 1999
26 Khomeriki, Nino wm GEO 2305 0 1998
27 Feng, Maggie wc USA 2304 8 2000
28 Obolentseva, Alexandra wf RUS 2300 9 2001
29 Heinemann, Josefine wm GER 2294 9 1998
30 Diakonova, Ekaterina   RUS 2292 0 1999
31 Injac, Teodora wf SRB 2290 0 2000
32 Sieber, Fiona wf GER 2287 14 2000
33 Drogovoz, Irina wm RUS 2287 0 1999
34 Nicolas Zapata, Irene wm ESP 2287 0 1997
35 Zhou, Qiyu f CAN 2287 0 2000
36 Balajayeva, Khanim wf AZE 2282 3 2001
37 Gajcin, Marina wf SRB 2282 3 2001
38 Monnisha G K wm IND 2281 0 1998
39 Yao, Lan   CHN 2273 0 2000
40 Harazinska, Ewa wm POL 2269 0 1998
41 Blagojevic, Tijana wm MNE 2266 0 1997
42 Zhang, Lanlin   CHN 2262 0 1999
43 Yip, Carissa wf USA 2261 0 2003
44 Terbe, Julianna wm HUN 2260 7 1997
45 Schneider, Jana f GER 2258 14 2002
46 Velikic, Adela   SRB 2256 9 1997
47 Bluhm, Sonja Maria wf GER 2255 0 1998
48 Maltsevskaya, Aleksandra   RUS 2254 9 2002
49 Di Benedetto, Desiree wm ITA 2253 14 2000
50 Kiolbasa, Oliwia wm POL 2253 0 2000
51 Styazhkina, Anna wm RUS 2252 0 1997
52 Chernyak, Viktoria wf RUS 2251 0 1997
53 Avramidou, Anastasia f GRE 2247 0 2000
54 Antova, Gabriela f BUL 2242 9 2002
55 Kazarian, Anna-Maja f NED 2242 0 2000
56 Cvitan, Ena f CRO 2240 0 2001
57 Georgescu, Lena wf SUI 2239 1 1999
58 Khokhlova, Daria   RUS 2237 0 1999
59 Pratyusha, Bodda wm IND 2236 0 1997
60 Frayna, Janelle Mae wg PHI 2235 0 1997
61 Bykova, Anastasia wf RUS 2234 0 1997
62 Mammadova, Narmin wm AZE 2234 0 1999
63 Gorti, Akshita f USA 2232 18 2002
64 Dimitrova, Aleksandra wf RUS 2231 0 2000
65 Vantika Agrawal   IND 2230 0 2002
66 Afonasieva, Anna wf RUS 2223 9 2001
67 Pychova, Nela wf CZE 2219 6 1999
68 Chu, Ruotong   CHN 2217 17 2001
69 Goltseva, Ekaterina wf RUS 2214 0 2002
70 Uuriintuya, Uurtsaikh wm MGL 2213 9 1998
71 Virkud, Apurva wf USA 2213 8 1998
72 Kanakova, Natalie wf CZE 2212 11 1999
73 Narva, Mai wm EST 2210 7 1999
74 Amina, Battsooj f MGL 2209 9 2001
75 Yuan, Ye   CHN 2206 18 2000
76 Radeva, Viktoria wf BUL 2205 4 2001
77 Wozniak, Mariola wm POL 2204 0 1998
78 Potapova, Margarita wf RUS 2203 0 2000
79 Vazquez Maccarini, Danitza wm PUR 2203 0 2000
80 Dmochowska, Agnieszka wc POL 2202 9 1999
81 Srija, Seshadri wf IND 2200 0 1997
82 Solozhenkina, Elizaveta wm RUS 2198 0 2003
83 Lahav, Michal wf ISR 2197 7 1999
84 Gueci, Tea wf ITA 2192 9 1999
85 Ghukasyan, Siranush wm ARM 2192 0 1998
86 Abdusattorova, Bakhora wm UZB 2186 18 1999
87 Gu, Tianlu wm CHN 2186 9 1997
88 Vasova, Maria   BUL 2183 0 1998
89 Lysenko, Margarita wf RUS 2182 0 1999
90 Harshita Guddanti   IND 2180 22 2001
91 Keetman, Maaike   NED 2180 6 1999
92 Terbe, Zsuzsanna wf HUN 2180 0 1997
93 Martynkova, Olena wf UKR 2179 0 2000
94 Rodriguez Dominguez, Melissa wm CUB 2178 19 1999
95 Gazikova, Veronika wf SVK 2178 0 1999
96 Krasnokutskaya, Sofiya   UKR 2177 0 2001
97 Bezkorovaina, Mariia   UKR 2173 0 1997
98 Hrescak, Ivana wf SLO 2173 0 2000
99 Taghiyeva, Sama   AZE 2172 16 1997
100 Garcia-Castany Musellas, Gal.la wf ESP 2172 0 1997

Top 100 Rapid

Magnus Carlsen's win at the Paris event of the Grand Chess Tour was entirely due to his superb play in rapid games, not only winning the Rapid stage, but also the rapid play playoff he defeated Maxime Vachier-Lagrave in for the title.

Rk
Name
Ti.
Fed
Rtg
Gms
B-Year
1 Carlsen, Magnus g NOR 2919 11 1990
2 Grischuk, Alexander g RUS 2851 9 1983
3 Mamedyarov, Shakhriyar g AZE 2833 9 1985
4 Ivanchuk, Vassily g UKR 2827 10 1969
5 Nakamura, Hikaru g USA 2822 9 1987
6 Nepomniachtchi, Ian g RUS 2819 0 1990
7 Dominguez Perez, Leinier g CUB 2803 0 1983
8 Kramnik, Vladimir g RUS 2798 0 1975
9 Aronian, Levon g ARM 2797 0 1982
10 Yu, Yangyi g CHN 2795 0 1994
11 Vachier-Lagrave, Maxime g FRA 2790 11 1990
12 Anand, Viswanathan g IND 2789 0 1969
13 Karjakin, Sergey g RUS 2765 9 1990
14 So, Wesley g USA 2765 9 1993
15 Gelfand, Boris g ISR 2755 0 1968
16 Korobov, Anton g UKR 2750 0 1985
17 Kamsky, Gata g USA 2749 0 1974
18 Onischuk, Vladimir g UKR 2748 0 1991
19 Radjabov, Teimour g AZE 2742 0 1987
20 Andreikin, Dmitry g RUS 2740 0 1990
21 Riazantsev, Alexander g RUS 2735 0 1985
22 Fedoseev, Vladimir g RUS 2734 0 1995
23 Jakovenko, Dmitry g RUS 2730 0 1983
24 Svidler, Peter g RUS 2729 0 1976
25 Navara, David g CZE 2728 19 1985
26 Nguyen, Ngoc Truong Son g VIE 2721 0 1990
27 Ponkratov, Pavel g RUS 2720 0 1988
28 Artemiev, Vladislav g RUS 2719 0 1998
29 Vidit, Santosh Gujrathi g IND 2718 0 1994
30 Anton Guijarro, David g ESP 2715 0 1995
31 Petrosian, Tigran L. g ARM 2715 0 1984
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 Ponomariov, Ruslan g UKR 2711 0 1983
36 Melkumyan, Hrant g ARM 2710 0 1989
37 Inarkiev, Ernesto g RUS 2709 0 1985
38 Short, Nigel D g ENG 2709 0 1965
39 Amonatov, Farrukh g TJK 2708 0 1978
40 Akopian, Vladimir g ARM 2707 9 1971
41 Zhigalko, Sergei g BLR 2707 0 1989
42 Movsesian, Sergei g ARM 2703 9 1978
43 Caruana, Fabiano g USA 2700 9 1992
44 Wang, Yue g CHN 2699 0 1987
45 Bu, Xiangzhi g CHN 2698 0 1985
46 Li, Chao b g CHN 2697 0 1989
47 Malakhov, Vladimir g RUS 2696 0 1980
48 Shirov, Alexei g LAT 2696 0 1972
49 Meier, Georg g GER 2695 0 1987
50 Safarli, Eltaj g AZE 2694 7 1992
51 Bortnyk, Olexandr g UKR 2694 0 1996
52 Topalov, Veselin g BUL 2693 9 1975
53 Howell, David W L g ENG 2690 0 1990
54 Tomashevsky, Evgeny g RUS 2689 0 1987
55 Dubov, Daniil g RUS 2688 0 1996
56 McShane, Luke J g ENG 2686 0 1984
57 Amin, Bassem g EGY 2684 18 1988
58 Socko, Bartosz g POL 2680 18 1978
59 Bacrot, Etienne g FRA 2680 9 1983
60 Pantsulaia, Levan g GEO 2680 0 1986
61 Kasimdzhanov, Rustam g UZB 2679 0 1979
62 Matlakov, Maxim g RUS 2679 0 1991
63 Kokarev, Dmitry g RUS 2678 11 1982
64 Delgado Ramirez, Neuris g PAR 2678 0 1981
65 Duda, Jan-Krzysztof g POL 2675 0 1998
66 Mamedov, Rauf g AZE 2674 7 1988
67 Fedorchuk, Sergey A. g UKR 2674 0 1981
68 Popov, Ivan g RUS 2674 0 1990
69 Rublevsky, Sergei g RUS 2673 11 1974
70 Iordachescu, Viorel g MDA 2673 9 1977
71 Morozevich, Alexander g RUS 2672 11 1977
72 Istratescu, Andrei g ROU 2672 7 1975
73 Fridman, Daniel g GER 2672 0 1976
74 Frolyanov, Dmitry g RUS 2671 11 1986
75 Khairullin, Ildar g RUS 2671 0 1990
76 Leko, Peter g HUN 2671 0 1979
77 Savchenko, Boris g RUS 2669 9 1986
78 Bauer, Christian g FRA 2667 0 1977
79 Bernadskiy, Vitaliy g UKR 2667 0 1994
80 Salgado Lopez, Ivan g ESP 2666 0 1991
81 Volokitin, Andrei g UKR 2666 0 1986
82 Wei, Yi g CHN 2664 0 1999
83 Motylev, Alexander g RUS 2663 0 1979
84 Oparin, Grigoriy g RUS 2663 0 1997
85 Salem, A.R. Saleh g UAE 2662 18 1993
86 Georgiev, Kiril g BUL 2660 9 1965
87 Parligras, Mircea-Emilian g ROU 2660 0 1980
88 Dreev, Aleksey g RUS 2659 0 1969
89 Bartel, Mateusz g POL 2658 0 1985
90 Rodshtein, Maxim g ISR 2658 0 1989
91 Lysyj, Igor g RUS 2657 0 1987
92 Nyzhnyk, Illya g UKR 2657 0 1996
93 Kovalenko, Igor g LAT 2654 0 1988
94 Vitiugov, Nikita g RUS 2654 0 1987
95 Pridorozhni, Aleksei g RUS 2653 20 1981
96 Potkin, Vladimir g RUS 2653 0 1982
97 Lenic, Luka g SLO 2651 0 1988
98 Roiz, Michael g ISR 2649 6 1983
99 Jobava, Baadur g GEO 2649 0 1983
100 Demchenko, Anton g RUS 2648 0 1987

Women's Top 50 Rapid

Rk
Name
Ti.
Fed
Rtg
Gms
B-Year
1 Hou, Yifan g CHN 2611 0 1994
2 Muzychuk, Anna g UKR 2594 0 1990
3 Lagno, Kateryna g RUS 2577 0 1989
4 Kosteniuk, Alexandra g RUS 2552 0 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 Muzychuk, Mariya g UKR 2498 0 1992
10 Tan, Zhongyi g CHN 2488 0 1991
11 Pogonina, Natalija wg RUS 2485 11 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 Khotenashvili, Bela g GEO 2456 9 1988
17 Zhao, Xue g CHN 2454 0 1985
18 Huang, Qian wg CHN 2453 0 1986
19 Shen, Yang m CHN 2450 0 1989
20 Krush, Irina g USA 2445 4 1983
21 Paehtz, Elisabeth m GER 2444 0 1985
22 Pustovoitova, Daria f RUS 2438 0 1994
23 Bodnaruk, Anastasia m RUS 2436 0 1992
24 Matnadze, Ana m ESP 2436 0 1983
25 Cramling, Pia g SWE 2433 0 1963
26 Mkrtchian, Lilit m ARM 2423 0 1982
27 Khademalsharieh, Sarasadat m IRI 2419 0 1997
28 Zatonskih, Anna m USA 2418 0 1978
29 Zimina, Olga m ITA 2414 9 1982
30 Nechaeva, Marina m RUS 2414 0 1986
31 Zhu, Chen g QAT 2413 0 1976
32 Kashlinskaya, Alina m RUS 2402 0 1993
33 Padmini, Rout m IND 2402 0 1994
34 Pham, Le Thao Nguyen m VIE 2401 0 1987
35 Batsiashvili, Nino m GEO 2400 9 1987
36 Cori T., Deysi wg PER 2398 9 1993
37 Melia, Salome m GEO 2398 0 1987
38 Girya, Olga wg RUS 2397 0 1991
39 Socko, Monika g POL 2390 0 1978
40 Atalik, Ekaterina m TUR 2389 0 1982
41 Javakhishvili, Lela m GEO 2388 9 1984
42 Gaponenko, Inna m UKR 2383 0 1976
43 L'Ami, Alina m ROU 2375 0 1985
44 Lujan, Carolina m ARG 2375 0 1985
45 Milliet, Sophie m FRA 2375 0 1983
46 Berend, Elvira wg LUX 2372 0 1965
47 Abdumalik, Zhansaya m KAZ 2371 0 2000
48 Galliamova, Alisa m RUS 2371 0 1972
49 Khurtsidze, Nino m GEO 2370 0 1975
50 Charkhalashvili, Inga wg GEO 2368 9 1983

Top 100 Blitz

Maxime Vachier-Lagrave moved up to world no. 2 in the Blitz ratings list thanks to his superlative bltiz performance at Paris, and he is now just nine rating points behind Magnus Carlsen

Rk
Name
Ti.
Fed
Rtg
Gms
B-Year
1 Carlsen, Magnus g NOR 2899 27 1990
2 Vachier-Lagrave, Maxime g FRA 2890 27 1990
3 Nakamura, Hikaru g USA 2868 27 1987
4 Shkuro, Iuri g UKR 2828 0 1982
5 Andreikin, Dmitry g RUS 2815 0 1990
6 Karjakin, Sergey g RUS 2814 27 1990
7 Caruana, Fabiano g USA 2806 27 1992
8 Grischuk, Alexander g RUS 2801 18 1983
9 Svidler, Peter g RUS 2797 0 1976
10 Dominguez Perez, Leinier g CUB 2796 0 1983
11 Mamedov, Rauf g AZE 2796 0 1988
12 Nepomniachtchi, Ian g RUS 2793 0 1990
13 Leko, Peter g HUN 2790 0 1979
14 Aronian, Levon g ARM 2786 9 1982
15 Dubov, Daniil g RUS 2784 0 1996
16 Mamedyarov, Shakhriyar g AZE 2783 18 1985
17 Korobov, Anton g UKR 2782 0 1985
18 Ivanchuk, Vassily g UKR 2768 0 1969
19 Salem, A.R. Saleh g UAE 2767 32 1993
20 Anand, Viswanathan g IND 2766 9 1969
21 Kramnik, Vladimir g RUS 2760 9 1975
22 Andriasian, Zaven g ARM 2755 0 1989
23 Radjabov, Teimour g AZE 2755 0 1987
24 Kasimdzhanov, Rustam g UZB 2750 0 1979
25 Navara, David g CZE 2748 0 1985
26 Artemiev, Vladislav g RUS 2746 0 1998
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 Jobava, Baadur g GEO 2734 0 1983
31 So, Wesley g USA 2724 27 1993
32 Giri, Anish g NED 2723 9 1994
33 Wojtaszek, Radoslaw g POL 2718 0 1987
34 Petrosian, Tigran L. g ARM 2717 0 1984
35 Zubov, Alexander g UKR 2716 25 1983
36 Ponomariov, Ruslan g UKR 2711 0 1983
37 Safarli, Eltaj g AZE 2711 0 1992
38 Bruzon Batista, Lazaro g CUB 2706 0 1982
39 Topalov, Veselin g BUL 2704 18 1975
40 Kamsky, Gata g USA 2697 0 1974
41 Vitiugov, Nikita g RUS 2696 0 1987
42 Guseinov, Gadir g AZE 2694 0 1986
43 Ramirez, Alejandro g USA 2694 0 1988
44 Pantsulaia, Levan g GEO 2693 0 1986
45 Ragger, Markus g AUT 2693 0 1988
46 Kravtsiv, Martyn g UKR 2692 0 1990
47 Socko, Bartosz g POL 2689 29 1978
48 Bachmann, Axel g PAR 2689 0 1989
49 Bu, Xiangzhi g CHN 2688 0 1985
50 Melkumyan, Hrant g ARM 2686 0 1989
51 Tomashevsky, Evgeny g RUS 2686 0 1987
52 Kovalenko, Igor g LAT 2684 0 1988
53 Hammer, Jon Ludvig g NOR 2683 0 1990
54 Wang, Yue g CHN 2683 0 1987
55 Adly, Ahmed g EGY 2682 16 1987
56 Bortnyk, Olexandr g UKR 2682 0 1996
57 Duda, Jan-Krzysztof g POL 2682 0 1998
58 Matlakov, Maxim g RUS 2682 0 1991
59 Laznicka, Viktor g CZE 2681 0 1988
60 Yu, Yangyi g CHN 2680 0 1994
61 Jones, Gawain C B g ENG 2679 0 1987
62 Vallejo Pons, Francisco g ESP 2677 0 1982
63 Berkes, Ferenc g HUN 2675 0 1985
64 Bocharov, Dmitry g RUS 2674 9 1982
65 Stevic, Hrvoje g CRO 2673 9 1980
66 Cheparinov, Ivan g BUL 2672 0 1986
67 Khusnutdinov, Rustam g KAZ 2672 0 1987
68 Lu, Shanglei g CHN 2672 0 1995
69 Pridorozhni, Aleksei g RUS 2671 9 1981
70 Predojevic, Borki g BIH 2671 0 1987
71 Amonatov, Farrukh g TJK 2670 0 1978
72 Riazantsev, Alexander g RUS 2670 0 1985
73 Bologan, Victor g MDA 2669 0 1971
74 Movsesian, Sergei g ARM 2669 0 1978
75 Li, Chao b g CHN 2668 0 1989
76 Brunello, Sabino g ITA 2666 0 1989
77 Grigoryan, Karen H. g ARM 2665 0 1995
78 Meier, Georg g GER 2665 0 1987
79 Shirov, Alexei g LAT 2665 0 1972
80 Muzychuk, Anna g UKR 2663 0 1990
81 Gretarsson, Hjorvar Steinn g ISL 2662 0 1993
82 Grachev, Boris g RUS 2661 9 1986
83 Hou, Yifan g CHN 2659 0 1994
84 Munoz, Miguel g ESP 2659 0 1975
85 Khairullin, Ildar g RUS 2657 0 1990
86 Cordova, Emilio g PER 2656 0 1991
87 Fedoseev, Vladimir g RUS 2656 0 1995
88 Akobian, Varuzhan g USA 2655 0 1983
89 Malakhov, Vladimir g RUS 2655 0 1980
90 Christiansen, Johan-Sebastian m NOR 2654 21 1998
91 Bogdanovich, Stanislav g UKR 2654 13 1993
92 Nguyen, Ngoc Truong Son g VIE 2654 0 1990
93 Morozevich, Alexander g RUS 2653 0 1977
94 Khismatullin, Denis g RUS 2651 0 1984
95 Lenic, Luka g SLO 2650 13 1988
96 Iturrizaga Bonelli, Eduardo g VEN 2650 0 1989
97 Amin, Bassem g EGY 2649 9 1988
98 Heimann, Andreas g GER 2649 0 1992
99 Ponkratov, Pavel g RUS 2647 9 1988
100 Sychev, Klementy m RUS 2647 0 1996

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 24 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 2478 0 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 9 1992
19 Javakhishvili, Lela m GEO 2429 9 1984
20 Arabidze, Meri m GEO 2426 0 1994
21 Hoang, Thanh Trang g HUN 2422 0 1980
22 Matnadze, Ana m ESP 2422 0 1983
23 Galliamova, Alisa m RUS 2417 0 1972
24 Gaponenko, Inna m UKR 2416 0 1976
25 Socko, Monika g POL 2408 0 1978
26 Goryachkina, Aleksandra wg RUS 2401 0 1998
27 Pogonina, Natalija wg RUS 2401 0 1985
28 Khademalsharieh, Sarasadat m IRI 2396 0 1997
29 Abdumalik, Zhansaya m KAZ 2395 0 2000
30 Nemcova, Katerina wg USA 2392 0 1990
31 Kashlinskaya, Alina m RUS 2390 0 1993
32 Khotenashvili, Bela g GEO 2382 9 1988
33 Guramishvili, Sopiko m GEO 2379 0 1991
34 Khukhashvili, Sopiko m GEO 2374 9 1985
35 Zhukova, Natalia g UKR 2372 0 1979
36 Zatonskih, Anna m USA 2368 18 1978
37 Buksa, Nataliya wg UKR 2368 0 1996
38 Cori T., Deysi wg PER 2362 0 1993
39 Padmini, Rout m IND 2362 0 1994
40 Girya, Olga wg RUS 2361 0 1991
41 Klek, Hanna Marie   GER 2360 0 1995
42 Lubbe, Melanie wg GER 2359 0 1990
43 Turova, Irina m RUS 2354 0 1979
44 Pustovoitova, Daria f RUS 2353 0 1994
45 Benderac, Ana wg SRB 2350 0 1977
46 Michna, Marta wg GER 2348 0 1978
47 Lazarne Vajda, Szidonia m HUN 2347 0 1979
48 Lomineishvili, Maia m GEO 2346 0 1977
49 Pham, Le Thao Nguyen m VIE 2346 0 1987
50 Reizniece-Ozola, Dana wg LAT 2344 0 1981

Source: FIDE


Topics Elo ratings, FIDE

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

mdamien mdamien 7/5/2017 02:36
@brabo_hf: "The pool of opponents are only changing very slowly over time. In fact everybody is connected to each other."

Agreed, yes, otherwise it would be even harder (impossible?) to talk about rating inflation. I concede on that one.
brabo_hf brabo_hf 7/4/2017 07:15
@mdamien
"across different pools of opponents."
That is not entirely correct. The pool of opponents are only changing very slowly over time. In fact everybody is connected to each other. Calculate for yourself the connection-number with any former world-champion. I played against A. A played against B. B played against the former world-champion.
It is also perfectly possible to retro-active calculate ratings of the past. Something like that has been done by ELo Arpad (the inventor of the rating system). He put e.g. Capablanca at 2725 over a period of 5 years see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_top_chess_players_throughout_history
mdamien mdamien 7/4/2017 05:11
@brabo_hf: "You have to look up the formula how ratings are calculated. If you do that then you will see that somebodies rating depends in the first place of the rating of the opponents. If that is low then your rating won't be much higher or lower either."

I am quite familiar with the rating formula, and agree that the rating depends on the rating of a player's opponents. That is precisely what I have already said here (hence, the "pay attention" comment which was not meant to be entirely flippant). The topic is rating inflation, which is a rise in rating over time, across different pools of opponents. If you want to say that 2800 now versus 2700 then is almost meaningless, since they are ratings coming from entirely different pools of opponents, then I would be inclined to agree with you.
brabo_hf brabo_hf 7/4/2017 09:27
@ Bojan KG
"As far as I am concern, FIDE can give 30 points for victory and relatively soon some players can break 3000 pts or even challenge Komodo or SF rating ("converted" into human rating)."
Kasparov achieved 2851 already 18 years ago. Today Carlsen has 2822. Relatively soon just looks completely off the mark.
"Right now we have 6 2800+ players (highest number in history) and their chess knowledge is absolutely huge dwarfing those of all ex world champions combined."
The 6 2800+ players won't care what your opinion is about them. It fits with the comments of many viewers online upon live broadcasting where respect is very often absent.
"Give me a break please. Bye."
After almost 20 years of experience with chess-forums I wasn't expecting anything else.
Bojan KG Bojan KG 7/4/2017 07:51
@brabo_hf Ok, this discussion is becoming boring. You stick with your opinion, I stick with mine. Otherwise this will be endless and I have more important things to do. As far as I am concern, FIDE can give 30 points for victory and relatively soon some players can break 3000 pts or even challenge Komodo or SF rating ("converted" into human rating). Right now we have 6 2800+ players (highest number in history) and their chess knowledge is absolutely huge dwarfing those of all ex world champions combined. Give me a break please. Bye.
brabo_hf brabo_hf 7/3/2017 11:27
@mdamien:
You have to look up the formula how ratings are calculated. If you do that then you will see that somebodies rating depends in the first place of the rating of the opponents. If that is low then your rating won't be much higher or lower either.
mdamien mdamien 7/3/2017 03:46
@brabo_hf: "Rating has nothing to do with dominance. By claiming that you simply have no idea how and what rating is about."

Dominance is your (good) performance over your opponents, which is exactly what rating has to do with. Pay attention.
Petrarlsen Petrarlsen 7/2/2017 08:28
@ Bojan KG :

"It is completely different when someone makes ground-breaking discovery in any field, something completely new never existed before and, on the other hand, when someone using that foundation makes some improvements or builds something new but based on that ground-breaking discovery."

I don't see at all what you mean by that.

I don't know if what you say is linked with my example, but if the Douglas DC-3 was indeed completely groundbreaking as a whole, it wasn't because of the use of new technologies, etc., but essentially because, generally speaking, it was much more satisfyingly designed than his predecessors in multiple aspects. So I rather think that this example shows exactly the opposite of what you explained : something groundbreaking that isn't fundamentally based on anything new. And, as for the Airbus A380, it simply isn't at all a groundbreaking plane (the only really new element about it is that it is bigger that any other previous passenger plane - not even bigger than ANY plane, because the Antonov An-225, an older cargo plane, is bigger still - but this certainly doesn't make it a "groundbreaking plane").

And, for the rest, I don't see at all how on earth your post can be meant to answer my own post. Either, for example, you consider Capablanca as someone who made "groundbreaking discoveries" in chess, and it goes quite well with my own example - Capablanca was a genius, and the modern players that play as well a him, as they didn't invent but only used his inventions (as well as many other elements), weren't geniuses, but only good followers. Or either you don't consider Capablanca as someone who made "groundbreaking discoveries" (depending on what you exactly mean by "groudbreaking discoveries"), but, taking into account his results and games, he was anyway a real genius, and as the modern top-level players who use what he and the other great players of the past brought to chess, as well as the computer's contribution to the game, don't necessarily at all invent anything new, they don't have to be geniuses, even if their chess play is intrinsically and globally of the same level as Capablanca's play.

So, all in all, I don't understand either the link between your post and my own post, nor with exactly what you disagree in my last post.
brabo_hf brabo_hf 7/2/2017 06:48
@mdamien"Carlsen is far stronger than Morphy, but Morphy's rating would (and should) be far higher since Morphy was far more dominant."
Rating has nothing to do with dominance. By claiming that you simply have no idea how and what rating is about.
@Bojan KG" how most people are deceived by just looking at someone's rating."
How do you know that most people are deceived? Did you ask the millions of players their opinion?
In my club many players don't even know how much points Carlsen has. They don't care. They do a little about their own rating compared with their friends.
"Pure statistics means nothing or very little. Just because, due to rating inflation"
Statistics are used everywhere so it is nonsense to state that they have no value. If you talk about rating inflation then you always need to add against what. Is it against originality, pure playing strength, number of players, toprankings,... Today our ratings are used to compare playing strength and mathematicians have proven there was no rating inflation lately. For links to their papers see the previous thread earlier mentioned here.
Bojan KG Bojan KG 7/2/2017 06:05
brabo_hf I am not talking about fide ranking itself but how most people are deceived by just looking at someone's rating. Pure statistics means nothing or very little. Just because, due to rating inflation, Carlsen surpassed Garry's 2851 some "experts" consider him better or greater or called it however you want than Garry is completely wrong. In every other aspect Garry has significant edge over Carlsen and time will tell can Norwegian be close to Garry by the end of career (youngest ever WC - he can not surpassed that of course, number of consecutive tournaments won, time spent as number 1, and myriad of others).

@Petrarlsen I do not have any problem, thank you for interest. You mix apples and oranges. It is completely different when someone makes ground-breaking discovery in any field, something completely new never existed before and, on the other hand, when someone using that foundation makes some improvements or builds something new but based on that ground-breaking discovery. Typical proof of this statement is you do not have any mathematician, physicist, chemist, engineer even close to Euler, Newton, Maria Curie, Tesla respectively... and all possible technology is at their disposal. Creating something completely NEW is far more impressing and harder than IMPROVING existing. That's why people mentioned above are immortal, among many others.

It was much harder to construct and produce first ever internal combustion or jet engine than improve these later. When you do not have anything is much harder than when you have something which needs improving.
mdamien mdamien 7/2/2017 05:30
@Petrarlsen: "But it seems, in my opinion, that the increase in strength is more or less similar to the global increase in rating. Is it just a coincidence? Couldn't there be some sort of a link between the increase in strength and the global increase in rating?"

When you see a rise in both, it's natural to look for a correlation, so fair enough. Perhaps someone could argue that Carlsen's high rating, relative to the pool he plays against, is much higher than Fischer's, relative to the pool he played against, because ... OK, I can't even think of any way to get to absolute playing strength. The ratings simple do not measure that at all. You could win every single one of your games, 1000 wins against the top players in the world, and have the highest possible rating (and even this would have an asterisk because a rating has no upper bound when you win all your games), but even then you could have the playing strength of a gerbil as far as the rating itself is concerned. We can say, obviously you are considerably stronger than a gerbil winning all those games, but that's not what's measured.

My guess is that there has been a lot of rating inflation, which is to say that these 2800+ players are not so much more dominant over their opponents as the players of the past were dominant over their opponents. Instead, there are more rating points to fish for in modern pools, perhaps because there are more players coming in at the bottom, or because of rating floors, or whatever. In terms of objective playing strength (given advancements in theory, computer training, and everything else), Carlsen is far stronger than Morphy, but Morphy's rating would (and should) be far higher since Morphy was far more dominant.

So perhaps you say, "Ah, but Carlsen should have more rating points to fish for because his opposition is stronger!" But new players just come into the system with points; they're not given some computer evaluation at the onset, that awards a starting rating of 23 to one player, and 1230 to another.
Petrarlsen Petrarlsen 7/2/2017 03:28
@ Bojan KG : I don't understand your problem. It isn't belittling the achievements of the most legendary grandmasters of the past to say that many top-players of today would beat them. And, obviously, when I or other say "would beat them", we mean that they would beat them IF these grandmasters of the past were playing with the exact knowledge, etc., that they had at their time. For example, we can't know precisely what a "computer-era-Capablanca" would be like. Perhaps even THIS sort of chess, very computer-dependant, wouldn't have interested him at all, and he would have done something completely different with his life.

What we mean is, precisely, that, to play at Capablanca's level at his time, a real genius was needed. Nowadays, I think that there must be quite a handful of players that can play at this level. But, between the enormous contributions of all the great players of the past and what a top-player of today can gain from computers, it seems obvious that no genius is needed to play at this level today : a very well-gifted and very dedicated player is sufficient for that. Today, hard work and good gifts give the same result as genius 100 years ago.

An example in another domain, aviation : when, in 1936, Douglas introduced the DC-3, this plane was a complete groundbreaker, with a 300+ km/h speed, a range of nearly 2500 km, and its 20+ passengers capacity. But nowadays, when an Airbus A380 has a 900+ km/h speed, a 15,000+ km range, and a 500+ passengers capacity, if a team of engineers would design a plane with the DC-3 characteristics no-one would take them seriously (and for good reasons). This, because knowledge has enormously progressed in the aviation field.

In my opinion, in chess, we find the same phenomenom (less markedly, but still, the idea is the same). Too be World Champion, today, the global level of play (including the openings, because, quite obviously, the final result of a game depends also much on the opening phase) must necessarily be significantly higher than at Capablanca's time. But this doesn't mean at all that a modern day World Champion is necessarily a greater genius than a World Champion in the twenties or the thirties, for example. It simply means that chess has evolved through years, which doesn't seems to me to be particularly surprising...
brabo_hf brabo_hf 7/2/2017 02:19
@Bojan KG
"Which chess knowledge? They just memorize positions with engine help with almost no imagination or brilliant new ideas."
A win is a win irrespective if it was just memorizing or imagination or brilliant ideas. A fide-rating has nothing to do about how brilliant, how much class, how much originality , how much impact.... somebody has. A fide-rating just looks at how much wins/ draws/ losses somebodies scores.

It is completely wrong to deduct that today's higher ratings are underrating the performances of the past. We only know that today's players are likely further ahead from the rating of pure beginners than yesterday's players were.
Bojan KG Bojan KG 7/2/2017 01:28
@brabo_hf I do not have intentions to argue with anyone here. Thinking of today's players as some chess masters while underrating former greats I will never buy. Which chess knowledge? They just memorize positions with engine help with almost no imagination or brilliant new ideas. Of top 10 players right now only Levon has made some brilliances lately while others play computer-like chess. Impact on chess Bobby or Kaspy for instance had on chess was much much bigger. Alekhine's or Tal's style of play and beautiful games they played through out careers are out of reach for modern players. Engines make players "learn by heart" machines and genius is something completely different.
brabo_hf brabo_hf 7/2/2017 12:26
@Bojan KG
"Class is eternal."
Nobody denies that. What we want to know if rating should be linked to knowledge or to class. Jeff Sonas is of the opinion that it should be class as many others. If you claim it should be class then the discussion is finished. Today's rating is not linked to class so obviously then todays ratings are not working properly.

However I am convinced a rating should be linked to knowledge and then it is just natural that today's grandmasters know more than yesterday's grandmasters. I know 2 reasons to prefer this:
1) We want to have a fixed starting level for pure beginners. The knowledge of pure beginners is not depending of the time. Their knowledge is close to 0.
2) A rating has as only function to predict results in the future. So the mechanism should be reflecting what more experienced players will score against these pure beginners. The same applies for higher ratings.
Bojan KG Bojan KG 7/2/2017 11:29
When someone is a genius and Capa, Alekhine, Fischer, Karpov, Kasparov were/are in that category, then they would have adapted easily to today's chess in very short period of time and beat others. You have all these machines to help you improving chess nowadays and these former 2 giants did not have a chance to even see a computer but still they produced top chess unachievable for most players even today. Chess knowledge of former greats is so underrated - these giants will be remembered and praised forever - something that can not be said about many of today's 2800+ players. Comparison of sport and mathematics is the interesting one. Today's mathematicians work quantity and quality is questionable (compared to old masters) and claiming some of today's best mathematicians are greater than i.e. Euler or Gauss is too silly even to comment. Imagine Euler living today with all technology at his disposal!!! Man was blind and produced top notch math!!!! The best mathematician of our time is nothing compared to great blind genius. Math surely advanced after Euler's death but that does not impact his legendary status of most prolific and greatest mathematician to have ever lived. Class is eternal. Speaking of chess that goes for Jose, Alexander, Bobby, Anatoly and Garry. In the end big Vlad said: "Garry's capacity for study is second to none" and Vlad knows very well both Garry and top players today and their strength.
brabo_hf brabo_hf 7/2/2017 10:11
"If I understand well, your opinion is that, if the level of many players decreases after the age of forty, it is rather because they start to work less (high level chess being extremely demanding in workload), and not because a forty years old player will necessarily begin to decline."
In fact between 20 and 30 a majority of the chessplayers quit chess see my article http://schaken-brabo.blogspot.be/2016/08/vakantie-deel-2.html based on real membership-figures of clubplayers in Belgium. It is just one step further to realize that the stayers will neither put the same effort at chess compared with earlier. Between 30 - 50 most amateurs have the most busy time of their lives which leaves very little time to study and play chess.
Petrarlsen Petrarlsen 7/2/2017 09:36
@ brabo_hf : Very interesting observations.

If I understand well, your opinion is that, if the level of many players decreases after the age of forty, it is rather because they start to work less (high level chess being extremely demanding in workload), and not because a forty years old player will necessarily begin to decline.

If this is indeed what you think, I think that your conclusions and mine go quite in the same direction.

In my opinion, this would indeed be something rather logical : it is quite possible to be, for example, a top-engineer at 50+ ; why would a chess player always cease to be a top-player at 40+ ??
brabo_hf brabo_hf 7/2/2017 07:20
@ RayLopez
"but I would ask you to consider that there may be both ratings inflation at the top end and ratings deflation for everybody else."
Jeff Sonas claims that the whole rating system is inflated so not only at the top but also at the bottom. His claim is nonsense of course and I am happy to read that at least you don't follow that track.

Still remains the effect of changing mean/ kurtosis upon the top ratings. However also that I very much doubt for the simple reason that I don't see any change of the ratingcalculation-method in the last decades which can explain such effect. I mean a 2700 needs to score 75% today against a 2500 just like a 2700 (not necessarily the same person) had to do more than 20 years ago already.

I achieved my peakrating in 2005. I played in that year 58 fide-rated games. Last 10 years I have played maximum 11 fide-rated games (only Belgium interclub) per year. My last big open rated tournament dates from 2006. I lost today about 70 points compared with my peakrating which I find perfectly normal if you consider how little I play.

I notice most amateurs from my age experience the same. You get married, buy a house and get children so you can't spend so much anymore time at chess.

For professional players it is a very different picture. Anand, Kramnik,... are not almost inactive like many amateurs of the same age as chess is their income. So it is just natural that those players can much better keep their level.

Besides I very often see amateurs when they retire, that they are able again to increase their playing-strength. We had such player in our club. He retired around 60 and picked up the game after he quit more than 20 years ago. At the age of 67 he became IM see https://ratings.fide.com/card.phtml?event=200050
Petrarlsen Petrarlsen 7/2/2017 02:20
@ RayLopez : In my opinion, the explanation is probably that chess evolves quite quickly (Anand himself, for example, explained in a ChessBase interview how quickly chess evolved these last years), and that only the top-players, who devote nearly all their time to chess, can follow these changes when they approach 40. And those who don't continue to work as hard as that fall quite quickly by the wayside (as, for example, Shirov, who is younger than Anand, or Morozevich and Leko, who are younger than Kramnik).
Petrarlsen Petrarlsen 7/1/2017 10:55
@ RayLopez : You seem to consider it impossible that some players as Anand or Kramnik keep approximately the same level after 40.

But I think that, objectively, the facts really show that their level hasn't significantly decreased since their peak.

For Kramnik (who is currently 42), I have already stated my arguments on this page.

For Anand, I think the best example are the 2014 Candidates (Anand was 44, at the time).

A comparison with the 2007 World Championship Tournament is very instructive. Yes, the 2007 Tournament was a World Championship and not the 2014 Candidates, but, apart from the tournament's designation, these two events are quite comparable.

And the apparent difference that, in a Candidates event, the World Champion isn't participating hadn't a real impact in this case, because, for different reasons, in both of these events, the world's highest ranked player besides Anand didn't participate, in the 2007 tournament, because only the winner of the 2006 World Championship match could participate (and, as Topalov lost this match, even if, in September 2007, he was the best ranked player besides Anand, he couldn't participate in the World Championship Tournament), and in the 2014 tournament, because the best ranked player besides Anand was Carlsen - who was World N° 1 at the time -, and that, as the World Champion, he couldn't participate in the Candidates Tournament.

And Anand results in 2007 are quite similar to his results in 2014 : for example, Anand was the only undefeated player in both tournaments, and he won with a full-point margin. In 2007, Anand won one more game than every one else (4 victories against 3 for Kramnik, Gelfand, and Morozevich), which wasn't the case in 2014, but in 2014, he didn't lost any game while each one of his rivals lost at least 2 games (for Karjakin and Andreikin) - in 2007, Kramnik and Gelfand lost only 1 game (Anand being undefeated in the tournament).

The only significant difference, and this difference is in favor of the Anand of 2014 and not the Anand of 2007, is that, in the 2014 tournament, he won the event with a one-day margin (in 2007, he won the last day).

So, in 2014 as in 2017, Anand demonstrated that, in a tournament where the best-ranked player besides him wasn't participating, he could quite convincingly dominate the whole field.

Taking this into account, I think we can conclude that Anand wasn't significantly better in 2007, compared to 2014.
Petrarlsen Petrarlsen 7/1/2017 09:33
@ mdamien : "ELO ratings DO NOT MEASURE OBJECTIVE PLAYING STRENGTH."

Yes, I know this. But it seems, in my opinion, that the increase in strength is more or less similar to the global increase in rating. Is it just a coincidence ? Couldn't there be some sort of a link between the increase in strength and the global increase in rating ? I am not a mathematician, and, therefore, I couldn't check this, but, anyway, I find this coincidence (supposing that the increase in strenght is really more or less similar to the global increase in rating, which is obviously quite debatable) quite interesting.
daftarche daftarche 7/1/2017 08:36
just look at online chess and see super gms crush normal gms on a regular basis.
RayLopez RayLopez 7/1/2017 06:05
@brabo_hf - nice observations, I had to use Google Translate to read them, but I would ask you to consider that there may be both ratings inflation at the top end and ratings deflation for everybody else. As the number of players N increases, the bell-shaped curve will 'spread' like a pile of sand, and, the ends will get higher (farther away from the center or mean), but the mean (average) may also shift, and shift down (the evidence seems to support this) or shift up. Without knowing anything about your Elo other than you're an FM, ask yourself: is it getting harder to get Elo points in open tournaments the older you get? I bet it is. So at your level (FM) there's rating deflation. However, at the Top 100 level, it seems the older guys are actually increasing their Elos as time progresses (ratings inflation). What are they doing different from you? How are they defying Father Time? Are they studying more? No. Their peer group is different. You are getting "kurtosis"at the top end and a shift in the mean, which can go up or down, for everybody else (see the suggestion here: https://www.isixsigma.com/topic/shift-in-mean/) I would say that analogous to athletics, where the more modern athlete is better than yesterday's athlete (e.g., the great US sprinter Jesse Owens record has been broken by US high schoolers) that today's chess player is better than before, which is causing ratings deflation (since the players start strong, having trained vs PCs before entering open competitions) but at the top level, due to the 'closed' nature of the pool, you are getting some non-linear spreading 'kurtosis' effects. But I'm not an expert in statistics, just having a basic uni understanding, so I can't prove it. Then again math experts like IM Ken Regan and Jeff Sonas seem to also struggle to answer this phenomena, so I think it is not easy to prove.
brabo_hf brabo_hf 7/1/2017 05:35
There was exactly the same discussion about 1 year ago here: https://en.chessbase.com/post/august-2016-ratings-monster-maxime-reaches-2819-fide/
People lack patience and interest to really try to understand things. It is why today we see fake news spreading not only very fast but it is also very sticky with often destructive consequences.
KevinC KevinC 7/1/2017 05:11
@Petrarlsen, ahh, got it. I did not read the entire discussion since it is very repetitive. I just happened to see your last comment "in a vacuum", so to speak.
mdamien mdamien 7/1/2017 03:35
Many people come into discussions about ELO rating inflation with this notion that players are just objectively stronger as time goes by, with advancements in theory, technique, or whatever, and so naturally their ratings are higher. It may be true that players are objectively stronger now than players of the past, but ELO ratings DO NOT MEASURE OBJECTIVE PLAYING STRENGTH. A player's rating measures his (or her) results against the pool of opponents played, determined by an algorithm and useful only in showing the strength of players relative to each other.

Whatever we may find about rating inflation, or deflation, or otherwise over time, this false notion (that higher ratings are justified because players are objectively stronger) serves only to distract from an otherwise well-informed discussion.
Petrarlsen Petrarlsen 7/1/2017 02:45
@ KevinC : Yes, I know that other commentators already developped this argumentation before.

But I never affirmed to be the "inventor" of this theory ; I simply stated that MortalWombat's assertion "What, no one has thought of that?" was just completely of the mark !...
Petrarlsen Petrarlsen 7/1/2017 02:40
@ RayLopez : I agree that, very probably (I only say "very probably", because I think it would be nearly impossible to prove completely), Kasparov in 2000 was clearly better than Carlsen in 2017.

But I think that we can't really say at all how much better he was.

So I don't think that it is possible to conclude that Kramnik in 2000 was stronger than Kramnik in 2017.

And, objectively, the fact is that, today, Kramnik is only 10 (or 11...) points away from being the World N° 1, and this is a very significant fact. And it is still an objective fact that, in 2000, he wasn't so near of the first rank in the world rankings...

So, I wouldn't say that Kramnik is better in 2017 than in 2000, but, as for Elo ratings, his objective results are really somewhat better today.
KevinC KevinC 7/1/2017 02:31
@Petrarlsen, I agree with you, but I have stated MANY times on the monthly rating report that players are just simply getting stronger due to having chess databases, engines, and the ability to play strong competition with the click of a mouse online.
Petrarlsen Petrarlsen 7/1/2017 02:24
@ Bojan KG : I think that it is not at all the same thing to be BETTER and to be STRONGER. As I regularly say, a modern-time Nobel prize laureate in mathematics has a considerably deeper and wider knowledge than Archimedes, but, very probably, Archimedes was intrinsically a much better mathematician than most Nobel prize laureates.

It is the same in chess : Mamedyarov would probably beat soundly Capablanca, but, also, he is very probably intrinsically infinitely less gifted than Capablanca. It's just that chess knowledge has grown since Capablanca's time...
Petrarlsen Petrarlsen 7/1/2017 02:15
@ MortalWombat : "One consideration that is missing in all of these "rating inflation" debates is that players may actually be getting stronger.... What, no one has thought of that?" I don't think that your reading of the previous posts on this page was exactly what can be called a "careful reading" ! This was precisely one of the two hypothesis that I envisaged !...
Bojan KG Bojan KG 7/1/2017 02:13
@fgkdjlkag Then we all should stop discussing who is the GOAT in any sport and agree that the GOAT is always the present best - Ronaldo is better than Pele and Maradona, LeBron James is better than Jordan, Carlsen is better than Garry ... since each sport is making progress meaning it is faster, more physical or using engines which was not the case in Karpov's prime. I will never buy that. Comparing for instance Mamedyarov and Karpov or Fischer purely based on rating and claiming Mame is better than two chess legends is completely insane. Ask Shak what does he think about that and he as honest man would certainly tell you he is miles behind Anatoly and Bobby.
Mark S Mark S 7/1/2017 11:11
@turok I have seen many top 10 who kept on competing in open tournaments and they just proved stronger and would win most of their games against weaker players. Giri, So, Nakamura and other elites were competing in open tourns and their rating didn't change much, some elites even increased their ratings at open tourns. We really can't argue with the math behind rating calculation. Become a mathematician first before you argue about unfair distribution of ratings at the top.

On the topic of rating inflation, I am convinced there is some kind of inflation happening with elo. It is like the US dollar distribution. The more paper money is printed the weaker the dollar becomes. Today's USD is different than yesteryears. Same is possible with ELO rating, because the more players are hooked and the more players become rated by FIDE, the weaker ELO becomes. Notice that 10 USD of yesteryear might be worth 20 USD in todays exchange rate, and 2600 ELO of yesteryears could be around 2780 ELO by todays standards. Just as simple as that.
fgkdjlkag fgkdjlkag 7/1/2017 10:11
How can it be that all the discussion on ratings inflation centers on the top players in the world? One should look at the bottom players as well, if their ratings are lower than ever before, then is there still inflation?

@Bojan KG, yes it is possible that all these players are better now than Fischer and Karpov were, but that is because of advances in opening theory, databases, and the ability to learn from engines. If those tools were available to Fischer and Karpov, they might be better than all today's players.

@MortalWombat, yes I agree, it is a perfectly plausible explanation that players overall are stronger, hence ratings are higher. I am not sure why this doesn't get more discussion, and would be interested to hear relevant points.
brabo_hf brabo_hf 7/1/2017 08:56
On my blog I wrote several articles for which I did some research about inflation and peakrating.
http://chess-brabo.blogspot.be/2016/06/peakrating.html
http://chess-brabo.blogspot.be/2016/07/peakrating-part-2.html
http://schaken-brabo.blogspot.be/2012/12/elo-inflatie.html
Bojan KG Bojan KG 7/1/2017 08:56
Of course rating inflation is main factor here. Karpov and Fischer for instance have never crossed 2800 mark so does that mean all today's 2800+ players are better than these two legends? Give me a break. Old guard masters like Vlad, Vishy and Topa all reached their highest ranking points number in their 40's and nobody can tell me that Kramnik today is better player than in early 2000's. The same goes for the other two. You do not need more proofs that rating inflation can deceive many chess fans. Kasparov's 2851 from 2000 was worth maybe 2900+ translated into points today, Fischer's 2785 from 1972 the same story.
RayLopez RayLopez 7/1/2017 08:07
@Petrarlsen - "About Kramnik : Yes, in July 2000, Kramnik was World N° 2, as in July 2017, but there is one difference, the gap between the World N° 1 and the World N° 2 : in July 2000, Kramnik was 79 points behind Kasparov ; in July 2017, he is only 10 points behind Carlsen. So, yes, Kramnik is a 40+ player, but he really seems to be still quite a force to reckon with !! " - yes Kramnik is strong now, but if you want to be cynical, you could say Kramnik version 2000 >> Kramnik version 2017 in strength, so in fact Kramnik as rated in 2000 was in fact stronger, despite his lower rating, than Kramnik as rated in 2017. This would imply Kasparov ver 2000 >> Carlsen ver 2017, which of course is blasphemy... ;-)
Aighearach Aighearach 7/1/2017 07:54
Great to see Cheparinov on the rise again! His win against Ivanchuck during the 2005 WCC is one of my favorite games.
MortalWombat MortalWombat 7/1/2017 07:07
One consideration that is missing in all of these "rating inflation" debates is that players may actually be getting stronger.... What, no one has thought of that? With opening theory expanding, the body of games growing, there is no other way to go but to learn from others mistakes and improve.