Here are the live ratings after 3 rounds in Biel. Magnus has pulled within 1.6 point of Anand and he has 7 more rounds to make history.
1 Anand 2798.0
2 Carlsen 2796.4
3 Ivanchuk 2791.5
4 Morozevich 2788.0
5 Topalov 2777.0
6 Kramnik 2772.9
Source: http://chess.liverating.org/
Will he break 2800 after Biel?
Chess Daily News from Susan Polgar
Susan Polgar
July 24, 2008
Chess Improvement, Daily News, General News, Major Tournaments
17 Comments
From my experience you will get a lot of complaints for writing a virtual rating list here.
Also as has been mentioned before- Carlsen will be precisely 2800.0 if he wins his next game.
But will need 2 more wins after that to maintain his rating.
King Magnus!
King Magnus!
King Magnus!
Beyond their practical effect on invitations, I could not care less about the ratings of the GMs.
Tell me who wins the big games, the tournaments, and the matches.
Virtual rating lists are fraudulent. A message to all rating addicts: go examine yourself in the nearest psychiatric clinic.
It is not fraud as it is not pretending to be the official rating list.
What I don’t like though is the way it is so easy to calculate, yet people seem to not accept it unless it is on that live rating list website. Posts here don’t seem to count. People calculated ratings long before the live rating list- it is not official.
Equal credit should be given to others who calculate it. Or just don’t give credit as it is no-one’s commodity anyone can calculate it. You can calculate it yourself in 15 seconds if you are just following the top 6 on the list as only Carlsen is playing.
A live rating is more official to me. Would you rather have an ‘established’ rating from 1-2 months ago…or today’s?
“Beyond their practical effect on invitations, I could not care less about the ratings of the GMs.
Tell me who wins the big games, the tournaments, and the matches.”
Ummm,… mostly the one with the highest rating?
Indeed! If you want to get high on rating lists you better go to stock exchange: then there might be some profit for yourself.
What is the use of numbers from other players than yourself? Get a live.
The main problem I can see with live ratings is the fact that players are not playing at the same time – therefore fluctuation on a daily basis is inaccurate(?) in terms of who is number one. I can see that “smoothing” the results over a period where players have an opportunity to post relevant results in different events may indeed reflect a more accurate picture(?).
Personally, I think the one on one factor is the only true test. I place far more value on the outcomes of, for example, Anand versus Carlsen than points earned from Carlsen versus Pelletier…..IMHO
The last post is a good point- which is why it is best tio say Carlsen has not yet reached number 1 unless he officially does on the FIDE rating list.
Ivanchuk was above Carlsen on the virtual rating list before the start of Biel, hasn’t he played worse since (joke)! No he hasn’t p;ayed- so it is nonsense to put Carlsen above Ivanchuk when the latter hasn’t had a chance yet. Ivanchuk might be the best by the next list, in which case these virtual ratings were misleading!
The live rating list was no more official than my post 2 days ago telling everyone what Carlsen’s virtual rating was- it is just a calculation.
Tennis players don’t play the same tournaments either, yet the ATP ant WTA lists are updated every Monday.
I’m sure Capablanca’s live rating would have been/is higher. Is it meaningful to regard top place on this list as a huge achievement, if you don’t calculate it for the other greats in chess history.
Ratings are a tool. As any tool you can apply it when it fits or when it doesn’t.
In order to tell who the “greatest ever player” was, it isn’t useful.
A real ‘live’ rating would change the basis to the new rating- whereas this one sticks with the last official FIDE lst which shows its real place as subordinate to the FIDE one.
CArlsen’s virtual rating would be atleast 10 points lower if the basis were the last live rating each time, since he benefits from being underrated and hence lower expected score and greater increase in rating.
In Baseball you get the batting average and many other statistics updated every day in the newspapers yet it takes months to get chess ratings. Ridiculous. Chess has to get up to date. Today there is such a thing as a computer.
You can do semi official ratings on the Fide web site. there is a spot where you can calculate the ratings uning the fide computer program. I can only guess that will give an accurate value.