One of the bloggers just made a very interesting point: World Champion vs. World #1 Ranking
When was the last time a Classical World Champion not the #1 rated player in the world (at the start of the World Championship match or after)?
Kasparov was #1
Karpov was #1
Fischer was #1
This takes us back to at least 35 years ago. How far back can we go?
Chess Daily News from Susan Polgar
The question isn’t quite clear. Never #1, or not #1 at any point during his reign?
Though Karpov was #1 for most of his reign, Kasparov was higher rated than him going into their 1984 match.
In 1974, Fischer was still World Champion, but had fallen off the rating list due to inactivity.
Before that, Spassky was not #1 for part of his reign, specifically when he defended against Fischer. Possibly all of his reign. Chessmetrics.com shows Korchnoi still rated higher than Spassky even immediately after decisively beat him in their first mach.
Petrosian was #1 during parts of his reign but not other parts. In the first ever FIDE rating list, Petrosian and Fischer were tied for the top spot at 2690.
In the days when we had a full blooded Candidates system, it was more natural for a challenger to be hotter going into a championship match, simply because he’d just fought his way through the Candidates, while the champion might not have played as much recently.
On second thought, maybe the question is clear. Since it states that Kasparov and Fischer were #1 according to its terms, then apparently we’re not counting temporary losses of the #1 spot (because even Kasparov lost the #1 spot a couple of times; first when he was removed from the rating list, and again when Kramnik briefly held the #1 spot in the late 90’s.)
So, last champion to never hold the #1 spot during his reign would probably be Spassky. At least if there is such a champion it would have to be him, since we’ve eliminated everyone else.
At least Chessmetrics never has him higher than #2 during his reign:
http://db.chessmetrics.com/CM2/PlayerProfile.asp?Params=199510SSSSS3S124734000000151000000000000010100
Though again, the first Spassky-Korchnoi match shows us the danger of putting too much stock in ratings. Looking at chessmetrics’ numbers, they have Korchnoi going into that match at 2781, Spassky at 2753. After Spassky decisively defeated Korchnoi 6½-3½, the new ratings are Spassky 2766, Korchnoi 2769. Korchnoi’s still higher! But there can be little doubt which of them deserved to go on to challenge for the title. (Hint: Not Korchnoi).
well, actually Spassky has one “blue mark” in 1966 so he briefly hold #1 according to the chessmetrics guys.
Funny that Topalov has NEVER been #1 is you believe the site 😎 Topalov’s achievements are unquestionable though.
This just shows how cheap Danailov’s “look at his rating” rhetorics is. FIFA also has ratings ofnational and club teams. They are used to determine the drwas etc. But everybody knows that that Champions League win is real and applause to the winner, instead of “rating cries” (and “cable cries” :-))
>>
well, actually Spassky has one “blue mark” in 1966 so he briefly hold #1 according to the chessmetrics guys.
>>
Chessmetrics has Spassky holding the #1 spot for 6 months total, all during 1966, but that was before his reign. Incidentally, it looks like they still have him #1 even after losing to Petrosian, another warning against taking ratings too literally.
I’m looking at chessmetrics numbers, because a) They cover a lot more history, and b) I have access to them. But they don’t mesh precisely with FIDE numbers. Kramnik, for example, has topped the FIDE list (also, before his reign), but has never topped the chessmetrics list.
Topalov has never topped the chessmetrics list, because it hasn’t been updated since San Luis. It’s a bit behind on recent events…
I’m back to thinking that the question isn’t clear. It says at first “When was the last time a Classical World Champion not the #1 rated player in the world (at the start of the World Championship match or after)? (My emphasis), indicating that temporary losses of the #1 spot count. Then it goes on to say that Karpov, Kasparov and Fischer were #1, even though none of them were for ALL of their reigns.
Still, we’ve answered the question both ways. 1) There’s never been a world champion who held the #1 spot on FIDE’s list for his entire reign (not even Fischer, since he dropped off the list).
2) Has there ever been a World Champion who hasn’t held the #1 rating at any time during his reign? Yes. Kramnik, and maybe Spassky, we’re not quite sure (though both of them held it before their reign).
Again though, we have to warn about putting too much stock in ratings. They sometimes show the loser of the match as higher than his conquerer (i.e. Spassky-Korchnoi 1968, Petrosian-Spassky 1966). They’re more a record of recent results (usually against other people, than of ability, or of how two people will perform against each other.
No matter how you slice it or what ratings say, it was Spassky who deserved to challenge in 1969. Not Korchnoi who’d just been defeated, and not Fischer who’d been largely inactive for years, and had no recent big successes to base a challenge on.
“Again though, we have to warn about putting too much stock in ratings.”
with this I agree entirely
and sorry I thought that Spassky become the champ in 1969 (not in 1966 as I thought)
Susan, I believe that Boris Spassky was #2 already before his WCH match with Fischer in 1972.
After this match, Fischer’s rating raised to his career peak of 2785.
I believe the old Elo lists of the late 60’s and early 70’s had Fischer ahead of Spassky for the whole of Spassky’s reign.
Fischer reached his peak rating of 2785 after the Petrosian match, and before the Spassky match [FIDE list 1 July 1972, which was before the Spassky match {which was 11 July – 2 September 1972}].
Fischer lost 5 points in the Spassky match to end up on 2780 [FIDE list 1 July 1973].
#1 FIDE were Fisher before 1975, (never Spassky), Karpov 75-82, 85, Kasparov 82-84, 85-06, Kramnik (tied once with Kasparov), Topalov in 06 and now probably Anand, who certanly deserves it, if Anand did not lost 20 points at Torino Olympics or Bungesliga games were counted (FIDE skip it) for previous list, Anand would be #1 already.
Just another thought:
Spassky’s rating going into the 1972 match was either 2660 or 2665. So he was either 125 or 120 behind Fischer – a whopping difference!
I think the biggest rating difference between two contenders for the title since the Elo system began would be Kasparov – Short in 1993. Kasparov’s rating was 2815; Short’s 2665. So a difference of 150 points!
I would be interested to know what is Spassky’s correct rating for 1 July 1972 – 2660 or 2665?
Informator 14 gives 2660; but British Chess Magazine December 1972 gives 2665, seemingly confirmed by them the next year when giving Spassky’s rating of 1 July 1973 of 2655 by saying he had lost 10 since 1 July 1972.
Does anybody know?
Capablanca would have been higher than Lasker for at least some of Lasker’s reign.
Botvinnik would have been higher than Alekhine after 1938 or so.
Of course the #1 issue reflects two points. 1) Kramnik is very powerful in match play, but does not always dominate tournaments (this is a stylistic thing). 2) More importantly, it reflects the depth in world class chess at the moment. There is no one player who can truly dominate like in the old days. Chess at the top has become too professional.
It seems that Kramnick and Petrosian have the same characteristics of being excellent match players and average tournament players — a reflection perhaps on their chess style? But then how does one account for the most successful tournament player of all time, Anatoly Karpov, who had a similar style to these two?
I don’t know where this idea of Kramnik and Petrosian being ‘excellent match players’ comes from.
Petrosian lost as many as 5 matches – to Spassky in 1969; heavily to Fischer in 1971; and three times to Korchnoi!
Kramnik has lost to Kamsky, Gelfand and Shirov; and only just managed to draw with Leko. He has lost more matches than he has won!
How does one account for the tournament success of Karpov? Simple. He was a lot stronger than both Kramnik and Petrosian.
anonymous 4:39 PM
Your listing does not seem quite right to me.
According to the information I have:
(1) Fischer was still on the January 1975 list. Therefore Karpov first takes over the number one position on the January 1976 list.
(2) Karpov maintains his No 1 position, undivided, up to and including the July 1983 list.
(3) Kasparov is No 1 on the January 1984, July 1984 and January 1985 lists.
(4) Karpov is No 1 on the July 1985 list.
(5) Kasparov regains the No 1 position on the January 1986 list and keeps it up to and including the January 2006 list after which he drops off due to his retirement.
On one occasion only (January 1996 list), this top position is shared with Kramnik.
[The removal of Kasparov and Short off the January 1994 and July 1994 lists was political interferance and quite possibly illegal, and should not count. Kasparov would almost certainly have retained his No 1 position on these two lists, despite Karpov’s great result at Linares 1994.]
(6) Topalov is in No 1 position from April 2006 until January 2007 lists inclusive.
From this, it can be seen that both Fischer and Kasparov had the No 1 rating (sole or shared) for their entire reigns as World Champion. Karpov also did, except for a year and a half near the end of his reign.
On the other hand, neither Kramnik or Spassky have ever had No 1 rating while World Champion.
geaeme, interesting website you have there. Thank you.
Your comments are also interesting. I am pretty skeptical of chessmetrics ratings, though I applaud the attempt, and the constuction design of the site itself. The system is based on a premise that you start losing rating points after just one month(!!) of ‘inactivity’! This seems absurd to me. The consequences of this can clearly be seen if you look at Lasker’s graph and see the huge artificial dips in his ‘rating’.
>>
I am pretty skeptical of chessmetrics ratings, though I applaud the attempt, and the constuction design of the site itself. The system is based on a premise that you start losing rating points after just one month(!!) of ‘inactivity’! This seems absurd to me. The consequences of this can clearly be seen if you look at Lasker’s graph and see the huge artificial dips in his ‘rating’.
>>
Yes, that’s all true. There are some questionable assumptions there. The main strength of the site is that they try to gauge performance over a long period of time without rating inflation or deflation skewing the numbers.
There are some weird anomalies with Lasker. They have him as low as #9 going into the match with Marshall.
Petrosian did lose several matches, but only to the very top tier of players, and never lost a match until he was 40.
Still, Karpov was certainly farther ahead of his peers than Kramnik or Petrosian were.
I thought Fischer had dropped off the list. He was definitely on it in December 1973 because they were so proud of it they put the top of the list on the cover of [i]Chess Life & Review[/i]. He resigned the title in June 1974, so if he was still on the list in January 1975, then he was #1 for his whole reign after all.
graeme, thanks for comment.
I agree that a strength of Chessmetrics is that it takes account of rating inflation or deflation. To me, however, a better and very good looking method is given by Ron Edwards on his site:
members.shaw.ca/redwards1/
He works out a rating inflation of 118 points since 1985/1970. Add that to Fischer’s peak rating of 2785 in 1972 and you get 2903 in today’s terms! The current crop rave about getting to 2800!
His Edo Historical Chess Ratings look better too, though they only go to 1902.
Perhaps the Chessmetrics ratings are not too bad after about 1975 when increased activity could tolerably mask the ‘inactivity’ weakness. They could even be better than the FIDE ones, which also have some weaknesses; I couldn’t say. [eg I don’t believe Kramnik was as strong as Kasparov in January 1996] But before about 1950, when they played less, it can be pretty disastrous. Also before about 1950, there is a serious incompleteness of data on which the ratings are based. This is not Jeff’s fault as he is a busy man and has done the best he can with the time he has available. But it is a problem, and it is serious. These two things combined cause some very questionable results before 1950.
eg, the World War Two period and aftermath has a lot of problems, eg the January 1946 list has Euwe ranked 69th in the world. Hmmm.
Fischer is on the January 1975 list that I have, which was in the ‘British Chess Magazine’ 1975. I don’t have the relevant ‘Informator’ to check.
My understanding is that in those days if you were inactive, they left you on for three years before taking you off.
True, Petrosian lost no matches until he was 40, fair enough. However, some of his match wins weren’t very impressive either.
He took a long time to move ahead of an ageing 52-year-old Botvinnik in 1963. Petrosian was 18 years younger.
In 1966, he faced a Spassky exhausted by a very long and arduous qualifying series. He won by the odd point.
In both his 1971 wins against Hubner and Korchnoi, he won only one game; and the Korchnoi match was possibly thrown? (according to Karpov.)
I made a slight mistake with the Kramnik matches. I forgot he has also beaten Yudasin. So Kramnik has won the same number of matches as he has lost. Still, not impressive.