According to FIDE, Magnus Carlsen gained 19.5 rating points (the most in the top 15) when the new list comes out on April 1. His current rating is 2733 (2753). #7
Anand is currently at 2799. He gained 4.2 points to break 2800 again (2803). #1
Kramnik is currently at 2799 as well but he lost 11 points (2788). #2
Topalov is current at 2780 and lost 10.1 points (2770). #4
Morozevich is currently at 2765 and gained 9.1 points (2774). #3
Svidler is currently at 2763 and lost 17.3 points (2746). #9-10
Mamedyarov is currently at 276o and lost 8.4 points (2752). #8
Shirov is currently at 2755 and gained 5 points (2760). #5
Peter Leko is currently at 2753 and lost 6.9 (2746). #9-10
Vassily Ivanchuk is currently at 2751 and lost 11.4 points (2740).
Levon Aronian is currently at 2739 and gained 17.4 points (2756). #6
Boris Gelfand is currently at 2737 and he lost 14 points (2723).
Teimour Radjabov is currently at 2735 and gained 8.8 points (2744).
Sergei Karjakin is currently at 2732 and his rating is unchanged (2732)
Gata Kamsky is currently at 2726 and his rating is unchanged (2726).
Mickey Adams is currently at 2726 and he gained 3.2 points (2729).
My sister Judit is currently at 2707 and she gained 1.8 points (2709).
Please note that these are only my calculations and it is unofficial. There are still changes to come as Morelia has been rated but Linares has not.
The top change for the US is Nakamura. He is currently at 2670 and gained 15.9 points (2686).
Xiangzhi Bu of China is currently at 2691 and he gained 16.9 points (2708).
Hua Ni of China is currently at 2680 and gained 23.5 points (2704).
Bu and Ni are the 2nd and 3rd Chinese to break 2700.
They (FIDE) haven’t put the second half of Morelia-Linares yet. So there’s still gonna be some more changes.
Again Kramnik has failed to become clear first on the rating list.
Kramnik is the only World Champion apart from Spassky NEVER to have been a clear first on the FIDE rating list. This shows what a relatively weak player he is.
“This shows what a relatively weak player he is.” comments like this show what a moron you are
That is an interesting comment.
If the number 2 player is a weak player, how do you describe players after number 2 ? weaker players??
well I may disagree (completely) with the anonymous 11:38, but he did say “relatively” as compared to other world champions…
So clearly comments like “what are the rest players” are not in place …
I know it’s been said a million times but I’m going to say it again: Magnus Carlsen’s progress is amazing, and he seems like a person who really deserves all of it. Good for him.
fide april list prediction, 1st draft, 2008-03-07
01 Anand 2803 +4 (2) 27 1969
02 Kramnik 2788 -11 (1) 13 1975
03 Morozevich 2774 +9 (1) 11 1977
04 Topalov 2767 -13 (2) 27 1975
05 Carlsen 2765 +32 (2) 27 1990
06 Aronian 2763 +24 (2) 27 1982
07 Mamedyarov 2752 -8 (1) 13 1985
08 Radjabov 2751 +16 (2) 26 1987
09 Svidler 2746 -17 (1) 11 1976
10 Leko 2741 -12 (2) 27 1979
11 Ivanchuk 2740 -11 (3) 35 1969
12 Shirov 2740 -15 (1) 14 1972
13 Karjakin 2732 0 (0) 0 1990
14 Adams 2729 +3 (1) 13 1971
15 Kamsky 2726 0 (0) 0 1974
16 Gelfand 2723 -14 (1) 13 1968
17 Ponomariov 2719 0 (0) 0 1983
18 Grischuk 2716 +5 (1) 11 1983
19 Jakovenko 2711 -9 (1) 11 1983
20 Alekseev 2711 0 (0) 0 1985
21 Polgar 2709 +2 (1) 13 1976
22 Bu 2708 +17 (2) 16 1985
23 Bacrot 2705 +5 (1) 13 1983
24 Ni 2704 +24 (3) 28 1983
25 Cheparinov 2696 -17 (1) 13 1986
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessuser?uname=frogbert
Thank you, anonymous 1:14.
Appreciated that someone actually read what I wrote.
And you may, of course, disagree (completely) with what I said. But to me, Kramnik cannot compare with Fischer, Karpov, Kasparov,…probably Carlsen in the future.
“But to me, Kramnik cannot compare with Fischer, Karpov, Kasparov,…probably Carlsen in the future.”
You have here picked out the three world champions who completely dominated chess at their heights: only Capablanca enjoyed a similar dominance over the rest. Usually, say, in the Botvinnik-Spassky period you have a small bunch of players at or near the top: where, as Botvinnik used to say, the World Champion was “primus inter pares”. Unitl someone like Carlsen establishes himself as dominant, we are in a period when we have a group of players near the top, with the top two Anand and Kramnik consistently above the rest and with very little to choose between them. All you are really saying is that Kramnik is not as great a player as Kasparov at his peak: but I don’t think anyone has ever claimed he was.
“only Capablanca enjoyed a similar dominance over the rest”.
I don’t agree.
Lasker did. Just look at his results 1896-1900. Utter dominance!
Alekhine did. Just look at his results 1930-2. Utter dominance!
Botvinnik did, if not as World Champion (like Fischer). Just look at his results 1941-1948. Utter dominance! Botvinnik’s saying “primus inter pares” came in the 1950’s when he was past his best and was only equal to the other best players. But we must remember that Botvinnik was in his 40’s then. He was already 40 when he defended his Title against Bronstein in 1951.
Tal dominated 1957-1960.
Really, before Kramnik, the only World Champions who didn’t dominate at some stage of their career were the brief tenure holders Euwe, Smyslov, Petrosian and Spassky; and Kramnik is on their level. He has never dominated at any stage, which, of course, is reflected by the point I originally made.
And even Topalov and Anand have been clear first on the rating list!
Anand and Kramnik have not been “consistently above the rest”. Topalov might have something to say about this for the period 2004-6. In fact, Anand and Kramnik’s position regarding ‘the rest’ (apart from Kasparov) is very much the same (both in terms of strength and rating) as it was in the 1990’s – and Kasparov dominated them in strength and rating then.
So, actually, what I am really saying is that overall, Kramnik is weaker, and by a considerable margin, than most of the World Champions – Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, Botvinnik, Tal, Fischer, Karpov, Kasparov.
Kramnik is a fine world champion. Anand is a worthy world champion.
The arguments here are like arguing on the head of a pin.
First off to be a world champion today you must be a better chess player then all the old world champions. Chess makes progress. Opening theory has progressed tremendously.
Kasparov and Karpov had great help from other grandmasters helping them greatly on their openings. No one previously or at that time had such help. To say either one was such a good chess player is only to show how you have been duped by the Russian Chess Machine.
Fischer did it all on his own with no help from other GM’s or a chess computer. Todays players with their chess engines can not be compared to self made men like Fischer.
“So, actually, what I am really saying is that overall, Kramnik is weaker, and by a considerable margin, than most of the World Champions – Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, Botvinnik, Tal, Fischer, Karpov, Kasparov.”
According to “chessmetrics” calculations, the peaks of Anand and Kramnik make them the 8th and 9th strongest players in the history of the game – way ahead of Tal, who is 18th. Tal is certainly the odd one out in your list. Even during his meteoric rise, he won tournaments primarily by his efficiency in beating up the weaker players in a tournament. If you look at his results against Korchnoi (12th on the chessmetrics list), he didn’t succeed in beating Korchnoi once in the relevant period, while Korchnoi scored a number of wins: that is not what I call dominance.
I don’t even understand why some people get so fired up when something negative is said about kramnik regarding chess?
is it that difficult to see that kramnik himself and his performance are what create room for comments?
well, ok he is the tallest top chess player, but unfortunately for some that has nothing to do with chess
Chessmetrics is quite weird in my opinion.
How could Tal’s peak period [which is given as ending in December 1961]include his dreadful 13-8 1961 return match loss to Botvinnik? This is ridiculous.
Also chessmetrics’ crazy provision that you start losing rating points if you have not played for just one month virtually invalidates it in my opinion. For example, this provision causes Lasker to be ‘ninth best’ in the world going into his match with Marshall in 1907. Who believes that??
But I will agree with you that Tal is the weakest case on my list (caused by illness after 1960). But he did win virtually everything he played in 1957-60, including two very strong Soviet Championships, an Interzonal, a Candidates Tournament, and a 12.5 – 8.5 victory over the World Champion. Kramnik doesn’t have anything like a comparable run.
Even otherwise dominant players can have a difficult opponent. Fischer had Geller. Capablanca in his best period (1911-1927) never beat Rubinstein, while losing a game to him.
…In any case, even if I did agree to remove Tal from my list, this would not essentially affect my argument.
But if we are to use Chessmetrics, then you should look at its ‘most dominant player’ list (over the whole period 1840-2005). There Tal is given as 14th most dominant player of all time; Anand as 36th; and Kramnik as 45th. Hmm.
And in fact, Chessmetrics, if valid, strengthens my argument considerably. Up to the end of 2004 (when it finishes), EVERY World Champion EXCEPT Kramnik is top of the list at some stage. Kramnik doesn’t even get a first equal either (or even close)!
A rating system is only as good as the model of competition that it is based on.
For example, you could assume (or not) that a player has one rating throughout their career. SSDF appropriately does that, and FIDE appropriately does not. If you are varying ratings, ‘rate of adjustment’ has so far been arbitrary.
If a player is absent for a time, you could assume their capability is ‘as was’, is increasingly distributed around their last capability, or has decreased.
I favour the last model, but no rating scheme afaik has identified what the rate of decrease is best for this model.
Well a good argoument in favour of Kramnik is that he coinsided with Kasparov. He was #2 in ratings behind him for very long time.
Hypothetical senario to highlight this:
Fisher didn’t withdraw, and actually beat Karpov in ’75 and few more times till ’85 (but only very marginally, say the way Kasparov won Karpov).
Then in ’85 Kasparov appears and while in this hypothetical senario, Karpov has at last exceed Fisher, he remains second to Kasparov.
Would this mean that Karpov was much weaker than say Petrosian, Spassky, Botvinik etc?
NO. Even if he would have never become #1.
A good criteria is “how long a player has been in (say) top 3”. This avoids such cases. Karpov for example he was #1 only for 10 years, but in top 2 for almost 25 years… Anand and Kramnik also, have been in top 3 for extremely long (however with breaks and not continusly).
I think the supposed decrease in the strength of an inactive player is way overestimated (especially for former times).
To me unless the period is very long (eg Fischer 1972-1992), or there is an aging factor (eg 40ish), an inactive player retains his basic innate strength.
For example, let us take Lasker at St Petersburg 1914. Lasker had not played for 4 years, plenty of time for his strength to have supposedly decreased (and Chessmetrics has him going down from 1st in the world in 1910 to 12th(!) at the start of the tournament).
Lasker was a bit rusty and wobbly at the start of the tournament (but even so, qualified for the final, unlike Rubinstein, who had been inactive for only one and a half years), but soon found his balance to record a terrific overall result perfectly in keeping with his real strength of strongest in the world.
Or take Fischer, inactive for one and a half years 1968-1970. Upon return, all he was able to do was immediately start producing the best results of his life!
So if you do apply a rate of decrease, it seems to me it should only start applying after about 2 years or so (3 or 4 in former times), and then only very gradually. After 6 years or so of inactivity in older times, and 4 years or so nowadays, a player should just be removed altogether, and if he returns, a new rating constructed as if he is a new player.
On the other hand, the rate of decrease (and the absurdly short time after which it starts applying) in Chessmetrics is radically way over the top and leads to absurd distortions.
To anonymous 4:34 AM
I understand what you are saying. But in Kramnik’s case, I don’t think it is very valid.
In the first place, Kramnik has not been second in the ratings behind Kasparov “for a very long time”. He was second from January 2001 to January 2004 and rarely otherwise. Or if you take Chessmetrics, from mid 2001 to mid 2003 and rarely otherwise. This is not a “very long time” – nothing like what Karpov was.
One has to be careful in taking a ‘top 3’ placing criteria. The quality of the top 3 placing also has to be considered. Is it one that’s in the stratosphere with the top guy well above the pack as was Karpov’s in the second half of the eighties; or is it a low quality one only marginally above the pack as were Timman’s and Ljubojevic’s in the eighties?
Kramnik’s top 3’s tend towards the latter on the whole. For example, in July 1999 Kramnik’s rating was a whopping 91 points behind Kasparov’s and only two above 4th placed Morozevich.
Also, Kramnik has had plenty of time to take over top spot since Kasparov retired. He has not been able to do so.
No, all the evidence points to Kramnik being one of the weakest World Champions along with Euwe, Smyslov, Petrosian and Spassky. Even Anand comes out better than Kramnik, both in terms of having taken number 1 spot, and in the terms you describe.
Wow. Look at all of the shorts posts here!
Comparing old top players with recent one’s:
When you see how Federer plays and how Mcenroe used to play in his best days (see old videos), you can see that Federer plays much better. Same is true for Kramnik or Anand versus old top chess players. They play much better chess and although the level of game will improve further with time, it will become tougher and tougher; after all how long can an humane being concentrate on such a high level. So my advice is to honour the old and the new champions without comparing them.
As you mentioned, Bu Xiangzhi will suppass the 2700 border line in next list. Soon we will be able to watch his games in the Russian league and also in The M-Tel masters 2008 were he has been invited and will even have a chinese language coverage here: http://www.mtelmasters.com/cn/
I don’t have any words to appreciate this post…..I am really impressed ….the person who created this post surely knew the subject well..thanks for sharing this with us.