This is from the website: http://chess.liverating.org/
A number of players including Hikaru Nakamura, Dominguez, Milov, Gashimov, Wang Yue, Movsesian, and Eljanov broke the 2700 barrier! Congratulations to all!
1 Anand 2798,1 -4,9
2 Kramnik 2788,0 0
3 Morozevich 2786,5 +12,5
4 Ivanchuk 2780,5 +40,5
5 Topalov 2777,0 +10
6 Carlsen 2775,4 +10,4
7 Radjabov 2744,1 -6,9
8 Mamedyarov 2742,1 -9,9
9 Shirov 2741,4 +1,4
10 Leko 2741,0 0
11 Svidler 2738,0 -8
12 Aronian 2737,1 -25,9
13 Adams 2734,5 +5,5
14 Grischuk 2728,2 +12,2
15 Karjakin 2727,3 -4,7
16 Movsesian 2727,0 +32
17 Kamsky 2720,1 -5,9
18 Gelfand 2719,8 -3,2
19 Ponomariov 2717,6 -1,4
20 Eljanov 2715,8 +28,8
21 Gashimov 2712,4 +33,4
22 Polgar 2710,6 +1,6
23 Jakovenko 2709,4 -1,6
24 Wang Yue 2707,7 +18,7
25 Alekseev 2707,6 -3,4
26 Dominguez 2707,5 +12,5
27 Ni 2705,9 +1,9
28 Bu 2704,6 -3,4
29 Nakamura 2703,6 +17,6
30 Milov 2703,5 +13,5
Go Nakamura!
This is all illegal. Trust only in FIDE!
Thats great for Hikaru. Though I must add….its sort of sad that ratings have been so inflated….I mean..look @ this list. 22 or so people now over 2700?
I’m pretty sure Fischer reached that level and in the 70’s this was unheard of…only matched by Kasparov reaching 2800
I wonder how this is happening….top gm’s only play each other nowadays…so this must contribute to it..Top GM’s never play run of the mill gm’s…*cept perhaps @ the Olympics) and I think they do that not to lose rating points. A strong master once told me…..”Take care of your chess…and your rating will take care of itself” I think that’s true for normal folks….but with the top flight GM’s its more like…Take care of the Tourneys you play…and your rating will take care of itself.
I mean cmon…Spassky Petrosian, Smyslov, Botvinnik, Tal, Fischer….none of these guys ever reached ratings like this. You’re telling me these people are this much more brilliant? Well…go ahead and beleive that if you like but I don’t.
Still, congrats to all.
Mike
“Top GM’s never play run of the mill gm’s”. What about Morozevich?
Your supposition that the inflation is happening because top GM’s pick their tournaments is ridiculous. The inflation is happening across the board.
However, I agree with the rest of your comments.
The inflation is too great to be due just to a case of ‘there are more players these days, so therefore there will be more really good players’.
There are now six, repeat SIX, players that have a rating either higher or very close to Fischer’s highest rating of 2785.
None, let alone SIX, of these players are anything like as good as Fischer was at his peak (only Kasparov at his peak approached this level).
So, there is certainly something seriously wrong – there is obviously REAL inflation.
Breaking the 2700 barrier now is not as great an achievement as breaking the 2600 barrier was up to 1986.
Of course, useless FIDE, which to a considerable extent created the problem by raising all women’s except Susan Polgar’s ratings by 100 points in 1986, does absolutely nothing about it.
Top six players are class apart from rest and they should plan a tournament with these 6 guys. Shirov, Kamsky don’t belong to that group. Try to find ex world champions like Pono, Khalifman and Kasmidizhov!!
And why should FIDE do anything about it???
ELO difference tells you the probability how one player is supposed to perform against the other. So it doesn’t really matter if you have players rated 2800 and 2700 or 1500 and 1400. The probability that the ffirst one is going to defeat the second one is the same.
ELO scale was never designed to compare players from different periods.
So again; Why should FIDE or anybody else do anything about it?
“ELO scale was never designed to compare players from different periods”.
You may be right, you may not be. How do you know this? Where is your evidence for this statement?
There was NO INFLATION for 15 YEARS 1970-1985!! That’s a long time.
Then Campomanes went and screwed it all up in 1986. Ten years later, ratings were unrecognisable and you couldn’t compare them with earlier.
FIDE broke something that wasn’t broken, so they bloody well should do something about it.
Jeff Sonas with Chessmetrics has a system that accounts for inflation. So it can be done.
At the very least, some sort of guide should be produced indicating what the inflation is at the top level.
Then different period comparisons can be made – something I’m sure most players would like to be able to do.
The mentality that some people have that ‘inflation is ok’ beats me.
Ni!! Bu!!! Ni!! Bu!!! Ni!! Bu!!! Ni!! Bu!!! Ni!! Bu!!! Ni!! Bu!!! Ni!! Bu!!! Ni!! Bu!!!
Inflation may be overstated.
It is quite possible that the current crop of top GMs is stronger than their 70s counterpart given they are sitting on their predecessors shoulders while peering on their laptop screens.
Fischer says as much when talking of his dissatisfaction with the role of computers in modern chess.
It looks like Nakamura beat Fabiano Caruano to the 2700 mark.
The next World Champion may not be Carlsen but Nakamura
polo mateo,
I get a bit tired of people bringing up this silly red herring.
It is implicit in such arguments that what is being talked about is innate strength and comparative dominance over peers (ie you allow Fischer to catch up with opening theory, etc.).
How come if players are so much ‘stronger’ now, they are making so many more ridiculous blunders than Fischer did?
Did Fischer ever miss a mate-in-one (as Kramnik did}?
Did Fischer ever lose in 16 (as Anand just did)?
Did Fischer toss 3 games out of just 11 with totally absurd blunders to thus lose a World Championship match (as Topalov did in 2006}?
Granted, Fischer may have made one or two such blunders in his whole life. These guys seem to make them at a rate about one or more a year. Stronger? Rubbish.
None of the current crop are comparable with the Kasparov of the 1980’s and 1990’s either. [whom also hardly ever made such blunders.]
If what you say is true, then how come ratings didn’t increase for a whole 15 years (1970-1985)? Yet just 10 years or so later, they are unrecognisable.
Few would argue that the Karpov of 1996 was a stronger player than the Karpov of 1986. Yet his rating in July 1996 was 2775 – 70 points higher than his 2705 of July 1986 and 50 points higher than his highest ever in his career up to 1989 (2725). This included all his epic matches with Kasparov except the last. Even as late as January 1998, his rating of 2735 was still higher than this.
Do you really think that 17-year-old Carlsen is just about as strong as Fischer was at his peak? (indeed the relative weakness of today’s top players is what makes it possible for a 17-year-old to already be near the top of the rankings.)
No, there has been REAL inflation since 1986 (while there was none 1970-1985).
Congrats to all of the players that have cracked 2700, but it seems to me that 2700 is now the new 2600 rating that one has to crack to be considered a “strong” GM.
“Where is your evidence for this statement?”
The evidence is in the design of ELO scale.
“Jeff Sonas with Chessmetrics has a system that accounts for inflation. So it can be done.”
This artifical system only tries to compare players from different eras. Something that can’t be done in any sports. Who was better Michael Jordan or Wilt Chamberlain? Maradona or Pele? Schumacher or Fangio?
“There was NO INFLATION for 15 YEARS 1970-1985!!”
Where is the evidence for this? And how many tournaments per year were there where at least 75% of the participants were from top 15? Ever thought that the ratings got inflated because of that? It’s much easier to achieve a higher rating if there are many high rated players. And today 2700+ players are almost exclusivelly playing against 2700+ players. So of course today it’s much easier to achieve 2800 as it was in 1970 when there were no (or only one) player rated above 2700.
If you still don’t understand I will give you an example: Let’s say god comes to earth to play chess. He would of course win all the games and his rating would be 800 points higher than the second higher player. So his rating would be 3600. Now let’s say that god would decide to play against computers too and lets assume that Rybka’s strenth is 3100 ELO. God would of course win all games and his rating would be 3900. So the same entity with the same playing strength would in one case achieve 3900, but “only” 3600 in the other case.
Do you already see my point why ratings from different eras can’t be compared?
If not I will continue my example. Now the devil comes to play chess (he is of course better than god because he cheats). With god in the player pool the devil would achieve 4400 (or 4700). If you take god out of equation the devil would achieve “only” 3600 (or 3900).
In both cases the devil is 800 points better than the second best player. And ELO is just that – measure of RELATIVE strenth between the players IN THE POOL.
From the ratings we can only say that at one time Fischer dominated his opponents the most (biggest gap between number 1 and number 2) but we can’t compare Fischer’s 2780 with Kasparov’s 2850.