According to the new LIVE rating list which includes the first 8 rounds of Bilbao, Ivanchuk is on the top of the chart. With 2 losses in Bilbao, Anand’s ranking drops all the way to #5.
1 Ivanchuk 2791,3
2 Morozevich 2787,0
3 Carlsen 2786,2
4 Topalov 2785,2
5 Anand 2783,8
6 Kramnik 2771,9
7 Aronian 2761,1
8 Leko 2746,6
9 Radjabov 2746,2
10 Adams 2737,1
Source: http://chess.liverating.org/
Chess Daily News from Susan Polgar
Anand should stop playing and concentrate on Kramnik.
He did some months ago. He only moves pieces at the moment; it’s a farce.
Neither Anand nor Kramnik shows the real strength. They just take the chance to warm up.
Not convinced, and not convincingly. probably they don’t show their real strength, but warm up? They collect start money, more likely.
This addiction to live ratings is something I will never understand…
I hope you agree we don’t have to cheer them on underperforming for about a year, all for a match.
Kasparow never underperformed, he always wanted to show the world and his fans he was the Beast of Baku!
Live ratings just shouldn’t be taken seriously. The results of two games isn’t enough to say that a player that was 4th best in the world is now the best.
As mentioned in the earlier thread- these virtual ratings are only 2 games away from becoming official with Ivanchuk clear favourite (roughly 2/3 chance) to actually become official number 1. So Ivanchuk seems to have appeared top at the business end of these virtual rating lists- well timed just 2 games to hold for!
Also the official list is a moment in time. Let the games speak, please. There lies the beauty, the failure, the emotion. If you want a rating: take Kasparow. he was way above 2800 years ago! So, without the current inflation.
Anand is still the World #1 player, despite what this article tries to tell you, and he will remain so, at least until the next FIDE Rating List comes out.
Anand has joined Kramnik on the back-burner.
Interesting comments. The live list is more accurate than the FIDE list and soon it would be a joke if we had to go by a 3-month old list in this day and age.
Ivanchuk’s 48 games at high level since the last FDE list says something, as does Carlsen’s, etc.
Something some people don’t like. 🙂
If the live rating list was so accurate, it wouldn’t fluctuate so wildly. Are you telling me that one day player X is the best in the world, the next day player Y is the best, and 3 days player Z is the best, based on the live ratings? Nonsense.
Noone should say that the player with the most Elo according to any list is “the best”.
Anand is the player with the highest rating at the moment but he is far from being the best in this tournament, isn’t he? And even in his stronger days he was just about as good as many others.
Next Elo list may see Ivanchuk or someone else in front but that one isn’t best, too, he will be as good as the others, too.
You can never say who is best while they are all so close together (it may be something different with one player dominating) and so the daily form may decide who is better today and who is better tomorrow.
Even if one player often loses against another one you just know that their styles give that one player an advantage in their games (and so just regarding these two he is better) but _overall_ you can’t say who is better.
It’s just impossible as goodness is so relative.
What I wanted to answer to is…
“Are you telling me that one day player X is the best in the world, the next day player Y is the best, and 3 days player Z is the best, based on the live ratings?”
No (and as I read noone does!), but it wouldn’t be that nonsense to say “Today player X’s _rating_ is higher than player Y’s, if player Y wins against X tomorrow his _rating_ may….” – that would be a fact but a fact sayig nothin about who is stronger.
If that is an interesting fact is another question (I do not think so ;)) but I do not think it should be called nonsens.
Reading that the posts (which talk about _Elo numbers_, nothing more) all talk of someone _being best_ is just for people who think strength=Elo, but that is just a guideline not an absolute criteria and there is no way to convert them.
(Sorry, long post and it is quite late in Germany and I am tired, I hope it’s understandable what I want to say.)
Best wishes
Jochen
(good night to everyone)
Live ratings are a good idea but this needs to be calculated at the end of the tournament, not during the tournament.
This would then be equivalent to what we have in tennis.
During the tournament, not only does this fluctuate a bit too much, it also disturbs the players (I assume they would be bombarded with this during press conferences!).
Yes- I acually saw a video of a press conference after Ivanchuk’s win over Carlsen (before he beat Radjabov) and the interviewer kept saying things like ‘How do you feel beating the world number 1, and when you were number 1 a couple of times- did that give you satisfaction…’ (the interviewer was even wrong re live ratings Ivanchuk hadn’t been number 1 yet).
Ivanchuk basically replied that he doesn’t live in the past and was just looking at his next game now etc. Ivanchuk was very sensible here and didn’t want the interviewer to mess his head with all this you beat him look at ratings analysis. To call Carlsen number 1 was a over the top by the interviewer- Ivanchuk wouldn’t have looked at it like that at all.
I don’t like Anand.
and i’m not like most of you who worship Carlsen!!!
A correction: I found the interview on ICC Bilbao -7-Ivanchuk (see it here http://www.chessclub.com/):
Interviewer: You have now beaten (not been) the unofficial number one player twice this month. Did you observe that did you take any particular satisfaction with winning against the world’s number 1?
Ivanchuk: Okay ofcourse I’m happy with victory today but now I want to forget about this game as soon as possible and start to prepare for my next game against Radjabov.
Interviewer: Do you think this will give you a psychological boost?
Ivanchuk: Okay I want just to play my next game, don’t want to come back in the past.
So the interviewer did not make a mistake said beaten not been, but still going on too much about live ratings and hence making out ‘you beat the world number 1 Carlsen’ etc. which is a bit wrong.
It’s also a little facetious to for the interviewer to refer to Carlsen as the world’s #1 like that, as if the interviewer were really trying to make a point about Carlsen rather than Ivanchuk!