Here are the players who are rated over 2700. There are 29 of them!!
Rank Name Country Rating
1 Anand, Viswanathan IND 2798
2 Morozevich, Alexander RUS 2788
3 Kramnik, Vladimir RUS 2788
4 Ivanchuk, Vassily UKR 2781
5 Topalov, Veselin BUL 2777
6 Carlsen, Magnus NOR 2775
7 Radjabov, Teimour AZE 2744
8 Mamedyarov, Shakhriyar AZE 2742
9 Shirov, Alexei ESP 2741
10 Leko, Peter HUN 2741
11 Svidler, Peter RUS 2738
12 Aronian, Levon ARM 2737
13 Adams, Michael ENG 2735
14 Grischuk, Alexander RUS 2728
15 Karjakin, Sergey UKR 2727
16 Movsesian, Sergei SVK 2723
17 Kamsky, Gata USA 2723
18 Gelfand, Boris ISR 2720
19 Ponomariov, Ruslan UKR 2718
20 Gashimov, Vugar AZE 2717
21 Eljanov, Pavel UKR 2716
22 Polgar, Judit HUN 2711
23 Bu, Xiangzhi CHN 2710
24 Jakovenko, Dmitry RUS 2709
25 Dominguez Perez, Leinier CUB 2708
26 Alekseev, Evgeny RUS 2708
27 Ni, Hua CHN 2705
28 Milov, Vadim SUI 2705
29 Wang, Yue CHN 2704
Source: FIDE
Can we say total inflation?
Nope, what we are seeing is just the effects of the computer revolution in chess. It has become far easier to reach your maximum potential as a player. If there was total inflation, the top rating would have inflated as well, but since 2000 it has been going down 50 Elo points.
When will people realise that ratings from different periods can’t be compared. The ELO scale just wasn’t designed for that.
But one thing is certain – the top was never as crowded as now. The times when one or two players stood up above all others have long passed.
Of course there is inflation over time. Top 10 used to dip to about 2600. Just use your head and you can see this.
People take the rating inflation for granted. Everyone says it exists and people see that there are many more strong players than ever, and jumps to the conclusion rating inflation is indeed true.
It is a way too simple line of thought though, and I guess people don’t challenge it enough, because everyone says it is that way.
But as I already pointed out:
1) The rating of the top player has gone down, not risen, which would be expected with rating inflation.
2) The number of strong players rising dramatically can be explained by the computer revolution and a dramatic increase in chess information availability. This leads to more rapid development of players (seen in how GMs become younger and younger, for example) and players reaching their potential to a much larger degree.
No rating inflation!? So how many on the current list would be beating Petrosian (2650) with the appropriate margin of victory (100 rating pts= 2 out 3 points scored)?
Of course they could not, because the ratings don’t show relative strength between the eras. Inflation.
That you cite how the #1 rating is lower than the former #1’s rating as proof of no inflation is just silly. Kasparov is one of the greatest players ever, ever. That no one has risen to his level is evidence that they do not dominate their peers as he did.
And we come to the area where historical rating lists can be compared usefully to each other. Relative dominance. Fischer dominated his peers even more strongly than Kasparov.
I agree that there hasn’t been any significant rating inflation. Computers/Internet enable those who have the time and talent to become much more skilled in chess-playing.
Regarding the proponent of inflation who used Petrosian as an example, I would have a different view of his observation. If Petrosian were playing today, his rating would be much higher than 2650, not because of inflation, but because he would be so much stronger with the use of modern training tools & information.
Um, if Petro were alive he would be as strong as he used to be and scarcely a bit more. You see, he already knew how to play chess, and there are no training methods that would add 100 points to his strength–but his rating would still be much higher than his old 2650. All he would need would be the chance to catch up on opening theory.
Inflation exists and obviously so.
Kamsky left chess to pursue other careers. When he returned, he still had the same talent and brilliant understanding of the game, but his early results were less than desirable. He was not up on the latest theory .. meaning mpostly opening theory. What he used to know was no longer good enough.
Petrosian would faced the same challenge were he to play modern 2700+ GM’s with his 1960’s vintage knowledge. He’s play like a 2650 player and get whipped.
Inflation does not exist, and obviously so.
Wrong.
Kamsky was out of play, and his rating dropped (from 2745) because he was losing that much. He wasn’t losing due to inferior opening prep or archaic (10 year-old??) training methods. He lost an edge due to taking 10 years off at during critical chess years–ages 10-20. See?
Petrosian would not be out of practice though. All he would lack is booking up the latest opening theory and he’d be top 10 material and enjoying his new and inflated rating.
BTW, Petrosian’s knowledge wasn’t 1960s vintage–he was playing into the 1980s, and his style and strategic understanding of the game was deeply profound and unique. He wasn’t stuck in some antique rut lol.
You just make it up as you go along though so what’s the use. To you there is no inflation and a player like Polugaevsky would not make it on the top 100 list. In your mind he would not know how to play good chess any longer without those “training methods” modern players use. You just don’t understand soem basic things, including ratings inflation.
edit: Kamsky off ages 20-30
Korchnoi is rated 2600, less than 100 points off his 30-year old peak rating. He is getting close to 80.
Those numbers would reflect inflation, don’t you think?