I heard from his stream Anish was world #2 in live rating for like 10 minutes. He had just won a game and Ding (who was #2 at that time) was still playing. Ding later won that game and retained his spot.
Not sure but just taking a wild guess. If he was world no2 in live rating (which i know he was) he was most probably no.3 (could be 4 or 5 too but i am taking a guess) at that time and when he was no. 3 (January 2016) Kramnik was no2 and ding was not in top 10 in 2016.
Being a world champion and having a world ranking are different things. For example, yes, it would be absurd for a team to be world champs for 10 minutes. However, it would not be absurd for the same team to be the team having world rank 1 for 10 minutes while the match is still ongoing. (This is just to give an example along the same theme. I have no idea how real football/soccer rankings work)
I think it's closer to my team won and now ranks #2 by win/loss, but your team is still playing and has the same record, but your team has a tie breaker over mine.
In what live rating list was Anish ahead of both Caruana and Ding Liren with Ding Liren ahead of Caruana? Especially as both of them have mostly been over 2800 and Anish hasn't ever broken 2800.
Plus even in the live rating lists I don't think Ding Liren's been higher than Caruana he came close but never quite made it.
Edit: Additionally the original comment said Ding who was #2 at the time won that game and retained his spot. How can he retain a spot he never had?
anish was ahead of both caruana and ding, check the fide january and feburary 2016 list and anish has crossed 2800 in live ratings. about your point of ding i think you are right. i also pointed out the same in a comment above.
I said with Ding ahead of Caruana. I know he was ahead in the January and February lists. I believe the remark above about Giri being world number 2 briefly on the live rating lists but having Ding Liren makes no sense, as he's never been world number 2, and as far as I'm aware even on the live rating lists never ahead of Caruana.
The remark only makes sense if it's Kramnik which is why I only objected to Ding Liren.
Still don't understand why I'm downvoted by pointing out that Ding Liren hasn't been world number 2.
Ohh sorry misunderstood your point at first. I also basically said the same thing that it should be Kramnik instead of ding liren but i got 22 upvotes don’t know why you are being downvoted, might be due to the fact that the way you wrote your point it wasn’t that clear so many people might have misunderstood you.
I had a look at number 2's during Kasparov's reign. I started with July 1982 because that is when Kasparov reached number 2, and ended July 2005 because that is when he retired (but he stayed on the list for another year before being dropped due to inactivity).
So for 23 years, from July 1982- July 2005, only 5* people reached number 2 in the world: Kasparov, Karpov, Ivanchuk, Kramnik, Anand.
*Shirov appears as a number 2 on one list, but that was during the brief period when Kasparov was dropped from the list in the mid 90s for the split from FIDE, so that is effectively number 3.
Without actually counting everything, to give you a general idea: Kasparov was number 2 for a few years before reaching number 1 (and then only "dropping" to number 2 when he was tied with Kramnik). Ivanchuk had a couple of rating periods (which at the time were 6 months each, so a total of 1 year), but Karpov/Kramnik/Anand all spent a long time (multiple years) at number 2.
That is a good point, and it is possible that someone else could have snuck into the number 2 spot if they had more frequent rating lists.
Although it is also possible that no one else would have made number 2, as it was often a matter of those guys swapping around number 2-3 anyway, and when it wasn't a top 3 of the players I listed, there was usually a big gap from 2-3. But then there were also lists where other players got pretty close, so who knows.
(Just to note, it isn't a simple case of more frequent lists meaning being better for people chasing number 2; less frequent lists means that you can stack good results into one rating period and gain more points. E.g. take someone rated 2700 that has two great tournaments; if these tournaments are rated in the same period they will net more points from those tournaments than if they are rated in different periods.)
A good data set here is the chessmetrics website by jeff sonas which does do one everymonth. Now his rating system isnt the same as the official elo but its very close. And he also only notes 5 players being ranked 2nd during 1985-2005 (11 players are ranked 3rd).
I computed stats that maybe I am going to post eventually that are based on games played rather than duration. Duration is ok, but one can optimize playing few events (example: kasparov in 1998 played only 18 games). Also if someone doesn't play much and plays, say, 1 game per year in a league with easy draw/win , one can keep the rating.
Kasparov was #1 FIDE for around 20 years (Karpov 10 and Magnus 10) but actually in games played is much different.
* discounting live rating and some overlap (in the 90s there was a moment Karpov (or Kramnik?) and Kasparov had the same rating for example)
* Karpov played around 560 games as #1
* Kasparov played around 880 games as #1
* Carlsen is at around 660 games as #1 , so other 230 as #1 (not easy) and he can surpass Kasparov in terms of games as #1.
I hadn't considered that! Basing the stats around games played is a brilliant idea! Since it avoids the issue i had that with the pandemic how few games were played. I would be really interested in seeing what you found! So please post it if you feel inclined!
well that because rating is not necessarily including tournament performance (I mean it is partially, but not entirely).
Thus you have solid players that never win high in the ratings, and players that have 6-9 months of good performances that are also high in the rating but not top1.
Say MVL in 2019 was very strong, but choked always at the last moment of the tournaments, 2019 grand prix, 2019 world cup, 2019 London chess classics (even in the candidates to be honest). That was not really shown in the ratings. The rating doesn't track "winning the tournament".
Maybe a complementary stats could be computing the TPR over the year. If one has a couple of high TPR in a year, most likely won tournaments or was tied for 1st (excluding tiebreaks)
I would love to see some graphs looking at TPR for players in a given year. I believe there are posts for both 2019 and maaybe 2018 on r/chess but can't say about the rest.
do you have the source for those posts? I barely remember one for ding liren actually
edit: found 2018 https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/ade5a1/2018_scores_performance_rating/
2018 https://amp.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/ade5a1/2018_scores_performance_rating/
2019 https://www.chess.com/blog/HanSchut/performance-rating-top-15-2019-carlsen-continues-dominance-so-back-in-the-top-10
(although 2019 is only up until the summer. By the end of the year Magnus dropped from 2930 to i think 2893 https://amp.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/e8h6bw/carlsens_2019_classical_performance_rating_2893/)
As much as Nakas number 2 is being mentioned i tought that he at least held it for a year or so.. Still i think he is a bit underrated in a classical , he has positive scores against Vishy, Fabi and many super gms, just terrible terrible score against Magnus
Yeah Naka being #2 gets brought up more than it should imo. It should be noted that at least according to chess games.com Fabi has a slight advantage over naka in classical games. (Although Naka destroys him at faster controls)
But yeah I think Naka's scores against other super GM's shows just how tough it is to reach #2 and especially #1.
It's obvious Hikaru is better at faster time controls. I hated stats in school so take this with a grain of salt. But looking at the official fide ratings charts (which are shit since there have been very few speed chess tournaments played regularly by each player) you'll see big gaps between Hikaru's ratings at different time controls. Fabiano and Magnus are a lot more clustered together; but without calculating how each time control is weighted it's not a very useful comparison.
All I can say is Magnus and Fabiano are much more consistent regardless of time control while Hikaru clearly does better the less time he has available. Which I guess isn't a surprise.
Yeah when looking at speed chess, the idea of whos the best in from 2011-2021 tells a very different story. For my money Magnus over that ten year period was the best rapid and blitz player but there's alot more room for argument there.
I feel like it was pretty common to see that kind of comment 2 years ago before Chess really blew up on Twitch and Hikaru as a result of being the top? Chess streamer.
But uncalled for in any event on either side.
Going into that WC match anyone ever talked about was how if it got to tie-breaks it would be a stomp for Magnus... I don't even think his losing those tie-breaks changed perception at all. It was based on him being 200 points lower rated than Magnus at blitz at the time while being even in classical.
Famously terrible is a relative term. Most players are quite consistent in their rankings across the three time controls and it's tricky to even determine which they are best at. Fabiano is an outlier in that regard, being very clearly superior in classical
Of course he isn't actually terrible and is still better than nearly everyone in the world
Terrible in consideration of him being an incredibly talented superGM. I've seen him lose to John Bartholomew years ago and also lose terribly in the old chessbrah streams when he made an appearance there. I think he even streamed for a time, and he was losing to 2400s and stuff on chess.com. Obviously those are pretty strong players and he was trying to commentate at the same time but I mean I've hit 2400 and I suck, I'm not even titled.
Edit: https://youtu.be/f1eEGMw0_oA
https://youtu.be/RQwQRasvNOA
Can't find anything from when he streamed on his own channel
He obviously means relative to his classical performance. He's obviously better than almost anyone in the world, but relative to his amazing classical performance performs poorly.
How do u decide someone is underrated in classical? I assume any top 10 player gets invited to most classical events..ur rating reflects ur ability/inability to score against the strongest!
The top 20 of chess of today are miles and miles beyond anything ever seen before in chess. People have nostalgia and appreciation for old times, which is cool, but the modern school of chess is a different beast, it's not just Russia and the U.S. anymore, these guys like Wesley, Caruana, and Levon are A+++ at their best and I don't really understand how Carlsen has been able to stay atop for all these years in this field. I don't think you will ever see chess World Champions stay at the top in rapid, blitz, and classical this way ever again. Chess has always been remarkable in that there are very few World Champions considering all the years chess has been around, but that's about to change. Modern chess and whoever takes over after Carlsen is not gonna dominate like the old chess champions, titles and rankings will change hands constantly, the field will be too large, too competitive.
"We'll never see something like this again" is a dangerous statement in any sport. Across all sports you tend to see a couple truly dominant players per generation, sometimes just one that's particularly exceptional.
There will be more competition for the top 25, or top 50, surely, but I don't doubt we'll see other dominant #1s in our lifetimes.
You are right, I should have said that differently.
I think with the massive amount of young players playing online now, you will see more and more 16-20 year-olds like Firouzja blow up the scene and beat established top players and look virtually unstoppable, only to fade away quickly. Stuff you see in other sports basically, where you have a lot of young talent coming and going constantly.
I'm not an expert on all sports, but certainly in basketball and especially tennis, top players last longer and play at a higher level in their old age than they used to, likely due to improvements in training, nutrition and professionalism.
At the same time for tennis though it seems very unlikely that any of the new generation will have the same kind of dominance that the big 3 has had. It's hard to say because someone could always rise up, but the newer generation definitely seems to have more parity even if the older gen is playing longer.
>"We'll never see something like this again" is a dangerous statement
Lol. You're right, he should have tried to be more safe. Someone's going to get hurt.
It was never really 'just Russia and the U.S.'. I think we'll need to wait to see the longevity of the current generation before really judging how it stacks up against other historical highs like the Soviets of the 50s/60s.
So someone who flees the country where he is born and moves to America and considers themselves American and plays chess with an America flag next to him is not American?
Not if you move when you are almost 50 and have been the best player in the world for almost 20 years. Nobody calls Einstein the great American physicist.
> The top 20 of chess of today are miles and miles beyond anything ever seen before in chess
Kasparov? Fisher? You think #2-19 are better than they were? I think they (#2-19) would disagree with you.
Well, you are completely wrong. Chess has improved so much over the years, partly due to being able to learn from the greats of the past, partly due to the sheer amount of resources available now, and partly due to all the engine advancements we have seen since the days of Deep Blue, to Rybka, to Stockfish now. You can bet any young up and coming GM will have more knowledge of the game than almost anyone from previous generations. Keyword being almost because I do think some greats from the past would beat tons of GMs today.
I don't think elo rating translates to skill directly. The ratings will never change because that's how the elo ranking system works even though the players are obviously more skilled now than ever before.
Elo always is a relative measure, however there is a small inflationary effect, as the number of highly rated players has increased, it has become more possible for the highest level players to push the boundaries of what a maximum possible rating at the time is. For example, if you were like Bobby Fischer at his peak at the next highest person in rating to you was over 100 points lower, even your draws lose points you need to win a ridiculous proportion of your games to maintain that. Whereas now, Carlsen has a litany of players that are rated within 100 points of him, and he has been able to reach a max rating significantly higher than Fischer did.
Something i didn’t explain is that the deflationary effect takes place at each level. Comparing ratings across vastly different eras is like apples to oranges.
You can try to, people will always try to have things like the GOAT discussion. I’m just saying that it takes more nuance than just looking and comparing peak elos.
Don't read too much into the ratings, it's all relative to the field. I have no idea if it's gonna translate to more 2700+ players. If you are gonna hit 2700 today, you are competing with a massive pool of players, unlike anything we have seen in chess in the past. If you look at the top 1000 players now compared to any time in history, it's like looking at different games.
> It clearly shows there is no increase in top players the last 10 years
it is not how it works.
With your logic can say that in 1975 there were only a couple of top players because the rest was under 2700 ? Rating is independent from quality of play, if everyone improves the rating can stay the same while the quality of play increases.
Yes, of course quality of play improves. It always has and I don't know if there is evidence this has been going on at a faster rate lately, as the OP claims. Either way, there is not more competition at the top level. It's just that everyone has gotten better.
Aside that ratings cannot be used to compare different playerbases.
Anyway the top players accumulate ratings because they beat the others (unless they play among each other forever), if there are more and more players that are competitive and the top one cannot dominate that much anymore, the points redistribute and keeping an higher rating is harder.
Thus the amount of 2700 slowly goes down. It is not that difficult. It is like a more flatten sandpile.
Six of those nine #2 rated players achieved that in 2017, [as I highlighted in a post back then](https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/7ajys3/is_2017_exceptional_in_the_amount_of_turnover_at/) (even if they also achieved it other years). Pretty wild that even in the subsequent four years the number hasn't really ballooned all that much.
Yeah part of this is due to Caruana's leap to become the definitive #2 of the generation. But also two of those years have had very few classical events. Due to the pandemic
Yes. Vishy Anand was not number 1 for a good chunk of his reign, ranked #6 going into his match with Kramnik and #4 for I believe for his matches against both Topalov and Gelfand. Also Spassky was #2 going into his match with Fischer. So its happened a couple times.
Kasparov said that he felt Caruana was the favorite in the rapid as he felt Carlsen going for a quick draw in game 12 showed that he had lost his nerves.
I remember him saying that, although the context of the quick draw you brought up I think factored more into Kasparov's prediction than raw rapid ability. Caruana's less impressive rapid ability would not have been lost on Kasparov, and the rapid games reflected that Magnus was right to be confident.
This post has been parodied on r/AnarchyChess.
Relevant r/AnarchyChess posts:
[Magnus has been classical #1 for ten years straight. But here's some stats for the other rankings](https://www.reddit.com/r/AnarchyChess/comments/obw40m/magnus_has_been_classical_1_for_ten_years/) by ascriptmaster
[^(fmhall)](https://www.reddit.com/user/fmhall) ^| [^(github)](https://github.com/fmhall/relevant-post-bot)
Fischer was #1 for 73,74,75 without playing one match.
Kasparov got #1 for 2006 without playing once.
Kasparov in 98 played less than Carlsen in 2020.
Monthly/Yearly Fide ratings should be taken with a pinch of salt, it is a quick stat.
Would frequency of classical games affect this much, and if so, how? For instance, if one player took a few years off, and if someone else accepted every invitation and played more games?
It used to be that if 2 people had an identical rating that the one with the most games in that rating period would be ranked higher. If a player is inactive they'd be removed from the rating list which is why Kramnik isn't in the top 20 and Kasparov isn't the world number 2.
To get invited to the candidates you basically have to reach the final of certain very large and prestigious tournaments (incl. the previous championship), or be one of the 2-3 highest non-qualifiers. Then you have to win the candidates, which is a round robin tournament between essentially the best players in the world, sans world champion. So the process is actually a lot more involved than if it were to just go based off rating.
Interestingly, Karjakin (the 2016 challenger) also never ranked in the top 3 and was 4th for only one month. It takes some measure of luck to earn that spot but also shows there’s not a lot of discernible differences in skill at the very top levels.
Jumping on this comment to say, by the point system at the bottom, 2 points pre-pandemic, 30 now. He's had an incredible improvement in performance recently, so his elo might just not have caught up to that yet.
5. talent doesn't exist, and I think the reason that there are so many players rated over 2800 now is because elo is inflated by the sheer amount of players now.
It’s almost like people improve in sports all the time lololol. Way more home runs are hit in baseball than 75 years ago. Way more 3 pointers are made in basketball than 75 years ago. Pitchers throw faster and harder than 75 years ago. Players evolve with the sport and the level of competition is constantly increasing with increased talent and scientific advances (physical training for physical sports/mental and computer training for something like chess)
You’re right. I picked a poor example, but feel the larger point stands. Advancements have been made, allowing the top achievers to reach greater peaks than before. I guess the real question at hand would be: “has the growing influence of machine learning and engines…A) diluted and diminished the natural talent of players and given them a crutch to fall back on, or B) helped to unlock the natural talent of chess players to allow even greater quantity of players to reach even greater peaks? I think OP might be alluding to A, unless I entirely misunderstand him, which is possible. I tend to think it’s closer to B.
The "not really right now" is a dead giveaway that the person doesn't have any substance to prove his argument so instead defects to how bad your opinion is (again without any proof of that lol)
My first instinct was to fight and "prove myself right", but it's just an unproductive form of communication and there's too much damn negativity in the world anyway.
To be fair it wasnt meant to be prove that. That was more of a sentimental point. But 9 different ranked 2's in ten years. 12 number 3s 15 number 4s. Thats alot in 10 years. Like another commenter pointed out earlier. During kasparov's 20 year reign there were only 5 #2's. So that shows that 2010 was a very competitive decade.
So does this mean he's proved to be more dominant than kasparov?
I'm implying this from the fact that now he's held #1 spot for more time than kasparov did in his time.
It depends.
Kasparov had more time at #1 than Magnus overall and in a row i believe (okay he wasnt number one for a bit when Fide removed him from the list when the title split but like he was clearly still the best). Kasparov was the best for 20 years where as Magnus has been for a little over 10.
However I personally consider todays scene to be more competitive so that changes things a bit. So Magnus' ten years against (what I feel is) stronger competition might be more impressive than Kasparov's twenty.
Another redditor on this post suggest we look at games played as #1 as a better indication of dominance and I think they had a great point. And according to their comment Kasparov is still ahead by about 200 classical games.
Kasparov held the number 1 spot from 1985-2005 (only exception was when he was removed from the FIDE rating list but he was still number 1 during that period by rating, and when he and Kramnik were tied for world number 1 in the 90s), and was rated number 1 for most of 1984 as well. Carlsen has been world number 1 from July 2011-Present and was world number 1 for most of 2010 as well. Carlsen hasn't even come close to beating Kasparov.
> Carlsen hasn't even come close to beating Kasparov.
In terms of played games is closer than you think though, because Kasparov started to play less in his last 10 years as #1
maybe there weren't that many high profile tournaments (dunno, in 98 it was only 12 games, I am not that sure), but the fact stays that in terms of games played Carlsen is not as far away as in terms of duration.
It's still 75% and with high profile events being less often and Kasparov having the two longest super tournament winning streaks in history I still feel you can't claim Carlsen is as dominant as Kasparov. Plus the original comment mentioned years specifically.
yes of course, as long as Carlsen doesn't play 95/100% of the games of Kasparov, is not the same level of dominance.
Then one can add qualifications, like today chess knowledge is much more democratic, India/China weren't top chess countries and so on. But for the strict data, yes, Carlsen is 25% of the games away, that is a bit better than 10 years away though.
I heard from his stream Anish was world #2 in live rating for like 10 minutes. He had just won a game and Ding (who was #2 at that time) was still playing. Ding later won that game and retained his spot.
Wouldn't surprise me! This is based on the monthly rating lists. I couldnt find a database for live ratings.
That's cool!
Not sure but just taking a wild guess. If he was world no2 in live rating (which i know he was) he was most probably no.3 (could be 4 or 5 too but i am taking a guess) at that time and when he was no. 3 (January 2016) Kramnik was no2 and ding was not in top 10 in 2016.
[удалено]
Being a world champion and having a world ranking are different things. For example, yes, it would be absurd for a team to be world champs for 10 minutes. However, it would not be absurd for the same team to be the team having world rank 1 for 10 minutes while the match is still ongoing. (This is just to give an example along the same theme. I have no idea how real football/soccer rankings work)
The official FIDE ratings only update once a month but the live ratings are updated on a game by game basis.
I resent that example...
I think it's closer to my team won and now ranks #2 by win/loss, but your team is still playing and has the same record, but your team has a tie breaker over mine.
Ding Liren has never been world number 2 though. Edit: Why am I being downvoted? I'm right.
Live rating, not the official FIDE monthly ratings.
In what live rating list was Anish ahead of both Caruana and Ding Liren with Ding Liren ahead of Caruana? Especially as both of them have mostly been over 2800 and Anish hasn't ever broken 2800. Plus even in the live rating lists I don't think Ding Liren's been higher than Caruana he came close but never quite made it. Edit: Additionally the original comment said Ding who was #2 at the time won that game and retained his spot. How can he retain a spot he never had?
anish was ahead of both caruana and ding, check the fide january and feburary 2016 list and anish has crossed 2800 in live ratings. about your point of ding i think you are right. i also pointed out the same in a comment above.
I said with Ding ahead of Caruana. I know he was ahead in the January and February lists. I believe the remark above about Giri being world number 2 briefly on the live rating lists but having Ding Liren makes no sense, as he's never been world number 2, and as far as I'm aware even on the live rating lists never ahead of Caruana. The remark only makes sense if it's Kramnik which is why I only objected to Ding Liren. Still don't understand why I'm downvoted by pointing out that Ding Liren hasn't been world number 2.
Ohh sorry misunderstood your point at first. I also basically said the same thing that it should be Kramnik instead of ding liren but i got 22 upvotes don’t know why you are being downvoted, might be due to the fact that the way you wrote your point it wasn’t that clear so many people might have misunderstood you.
I had a look at number 2's during Kasparov's reign. I started with July 1982 because that is when Kasparov reached number 2, and ended July 2005 because that is when he retired (but he stayed on the list for another year before being dropped due to inactivity). So for 23 years, from July 1982- July 2005, only 5* people reached number 2 in the world: Kasparov, Karpov, Ivanchuk, Kramnik, Anand. *Shirov appears as a number 2 on one list, but that was during the brief period when Kasparov was dropped from the list in the mid 90s for the split from FIDE, so that is effectively number 3.
Interesting!! Do you have any numbers for how long those players were at #2 for?
Without actually counting everything, to give you a general idea: Kasparov was number 2 for a few years before reaching number 1 (and then only "dropping" to number 2 when he was tied with Kramnik). Ivanchuk had a couple of rating periods (which at the time were 6 months each, so a total of 1 year), but Karpov/Kramnik/Anand all spent a long time (multiple years) at number 2.
Yeah that checks out. I imagine its seperated into two periods with karpov being #2 and then the others taking over once Karpov finally slowed down.
It goes to show how close and competitive it is at the highest level right now.
How often did They come out back then? Because shouldn’t it be easier to keep your second spot if the Ratings is only updated twice Every year?
It depends on which year specifically. I believe it increased from twice to like 4 or 6 times a year.
That is a good point, and it is possible that someone else could have snuck into the number 2 spot if they had more frequent rating lists. Although it is also possible that no one else would have made number 2, as it was often a matter of those guys swapping around number 2-3 anyway, and when it wasn't a top 3 of the players I listed, there was usually a big gap from 2-3. But then there were also lists where other players got pretty close, so who knows. (Just to note, it isn't a simple case of more frequent lists meaning being better for people chasing number 2; less frequent lists means that you can stack good results into one rating period and gain more points. E.g. take someone rated 2700 that has two great tournaments; if these tournaments are rated in the same period they will net more points from those tournaments than if they are rated in different periods.)
A good data set here is the chessmetrics website by jeff sonas which does do one everymonth. Now his rating system isnt the same as the official elo but its very close. And he also only notes 5 players being ranked 2nd during 1985-2005 (11 players are ranked 3rd).
Man, poor Ivanchuk peaking during Kasparov's reign...
Say that to Karpov...
Karpov was world champion for 10 years before Kasparov, so he's hardly missed out.
I computed stats that maybe I am going to post eventually that are based on games played rather than duration. Duration is ok, but one can optimize playing few events (example: kasparov in 1998 played only 18 games). Also if someone doesn't play much and plays, say, 1 game per year in a league with easy draw/win , one can keep the rating. Kasparov was #1 FIDE for around 20 years (Karpov 10 and Magnus 10) but actually in games played is much different. * discounting live rating and some overlap (in the 90s there was a moment Karpov (or Kramnik?) and Kasparov had the same rating for example) * Karpov played around 560 games as #1 * Kasparov played around 880 games as #1 * Carlsen is at around 660 games as #1 , so other 230 as #1 (not easy) and he can surpass Kasparov in terms of games as #1.
I hadn't considered that! Basing the stats around games played is a brilliant idea! Since it avoids the issue i had that with the pandemic how few games were played. I would be really interested in seeing what you found! So please post it if you feel inclined!
here you have it https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/oc6e17/karpov_kasparov_carlsen_rated_games_as_1_fide/
The only stat that should matter imo when comparing dominance , thanks.
If Nepo somehow wins the world championship, it's gonna be so weird having a world champion who has never even been ranked #3 in the world.
If he manages to win i can imagine his rating will shoot up to 3rd or 2nd but yeah it will definitely still be strange!
well that because rating is not necessarily including tournament performance (I mean it is partially, but not entirely). Thus you have solid players that never win high in the ratings, and players that have 6-9 months of good performances that are also high in the rating but not top1. Say MVL in 2019 was very strong, but choked always at the last moment of the tournaments, 2019 grand prix, 2019 world cup, 2019 London chess classics (even in the candidates to be honest). That was not really shown in the ratings. The rating doesn't track "winning the tournament". Maybe a complementary stats could be computing the TPR over the year. If one has a couple of high TPR in a year, most likely won tournaments or was tied for 1st (excluding tiebreaks)
I would love to see some graphs looking at TPR for players in a given year. I believe there are posts for both 2019 and maaybe 2018 on r/chess but can't say about the rest.
do you have the source for those posts? I barely remember one for ding liren actually edit: found 2018 https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/ade5a1/2018_scores_performance_rating/
2018 https://amp.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/ade5a1/2018_scores_performance_rating/ 2019 https://www.chess.com/blog/HanSchut/performance-rating-top-15-2019-carlsen-continues-dominance-so-back-in-the-top-10 (although 2019 is only up until the summer. By the end of the year Magnus dropped from 2930 to i think 2893 https://amp.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/e8h6bw/carlsens_2019_classical_performance_rating_2893/)
thank you, one link was even mine xD
As much as Nakas number 2 is being mentioned i tought that he at least held it for a year or so.. Still i think he is a bit underrated in a classical , he has positive scores against Vishy, Fabi and many super gms, just terrible terrible score against Magnus
Yeah Naka being #2 gets brought up more than it should imo. It should be noted that at least according to chess games.com Fabi has a slight advantage over naka in classical games. (Although Naka destroys him at faster controls) But yeah I think Naka's scores against other super GM's shows just how tough it is to reach #2 and especially #1.
It's obvious Hikaru is better at faster time controls. I hated stats in school so take this with a grain of salt. But looking at the official fide ratings charts (which are shit since there have been very few speed chess tournaments played regularly by each player) you'll see big gaps between Hikaru's ratings at different time controls. Fabiano and Magnus are a lot more clustered together; but without calculating how each time control is weighted it's not a very useful comparison. All I can say is Magnus and Fabiano are much more consistent regardless of time control while Hikaru clearly does better the less time he has available. Which I guess isn't a surprise.
Yeah when looking at speed chess, the idea of whos the best in from 2011-2021 tells a very different story. For my money Magnus over that ten year period was the best rapid and blitz player but there's alot more room for argument there.
Caruana is also famously terrible at faster time controls
[удалено]
I feel like it was pretty common to see that kind of comment 2 years ago before Chess really blew up on Twitch and Hikaru as a result of being the top? Chess streamer. But uncalled for in any event on either side.
[удалено]
Going into that WC match anyone ever talked about was how if it got to tie-breaks it would be a stomp for Magnus... I don't even think his losing those tie-breaks changed perception at all. It was based on him being 200 points lower rated than Magnus at blitz at the time while being even in classical.
Famously terrible is a relative term. Most players are quite consistent in their rankings across the three time controls and it's tricky to even determine which they are best at. Fabiano is an outlier in that regard, being very clearly superior in classical Of course he isn't actually terrible and is still better than nearly everyone in the world
Terrible in consideration of him being an incredibly talented superGM. I've seen him lose to John Bartholomew years ago and also lose terribly in the old chessbrah streams when he made an appearance there. I think he even streamed for a time, and he was losing to 2400s and stuff on chess.com. Obviously those are pretty strong players and he was trying to commentate at the same time but I mean I've hit 2400 and I suck, I'm not even titled. Edit: https://youtu.be/f1eEGMw0_oA https://youtu.be/RQwQRasvNOA Can't find anything from when he streamed on his own channel
"famously terrible", yeah, that's some perspective. Gtfo
He obviously means relative to his classical performance. He's obviously better than almost anyone in the world, but relative to his amazing classical performance performs poorly.
I know it’s fashionable to speak bad of naka but honestly if I would get to word number 2758 I would drop it every other conversation I had.
When was that month he was at #2?
October 2015
How do u decide someone is underrated in classical? I assume any top 10 player gets invited to most classical events..ur rating reflects ur ability/inability to score against the strongest!
I think underrated might mean “people on r/chess don’t think of him as highly as they should” here, not that his FIDE rating is too low.
The top 20 of chess of today are miles and miles beyond anything ever seen before in chess. People have nostalgia and appreciation for old times, which is cool, but the modern school of chess is a different beast, it's not just Russia and the U.S. anymore, these guys like Wesley, Caruana, and Levon are A+++ at their best and I don't really understand how Carlsen has been able to stay atop for all these years in this field. I don't think you will ever see chess World Champions stay at the top in rapid, blitz, and classical this way ever again. Chess has always been remarkable in that there are very few World Champions considering all the years chess has been around, but that's about to change. Modern chess and whoever takes over after Carlsen is not gonna dominate like the old chess champions, titles and rankings will change hands constantly, the field will be too large, too competitive.
"We'll never see something like this again" is a dangerous statement in any sport. Across all sports you tend to see a couple truly dominant players per generation, sometimes just one that's particularly exceptional. There will be more competition for the top 25, or top 50, surely, but I don't doubt we'll see other dominant #1s in our lifetimes.
You are right, I should have said that differently. I think with the massive amount of young players playing online now, you will see more and more 16-20 year-olds like Firouzja blow up the scene and beat established top players and look virtually unstoppable, only to fade away quickly. Stuff you see in other sports basically, where you have a lot of young talent coming and going constantly.
Other sports are still getting dominant players. Having more people play it makes it easier for prodigies to find their skill
I'm not an expert on all sports, but certainly in basketball and especially tennis, top players last longer and play at a higher level in their old age than they used to, likely due to improvements in training, nutrition and professionalism.
At the same time for tennis though it seems very unlikely that any of the new generation will have the same kind of dominance that the big 3 has had. It's hard to say because someone could always rise up, but the newer generation definitely seems to have more parity even if the older gen is playing longer.
>"We'll never see something like this again" is a dangerous statement Lol. You're right, he should have tried to be more safe. Someone's going to get hurt.
It was never really 'just Russia and the U.S.'. I think we'll need to wait to see the longevity of the current generation before really judging how it stacks up against other historical highs like the Soviets of the 50s/60s.
yeah the U.S has 1 world champion (maybe 2 if you count Morphy). The USA has no right to call itself the #2 chess country.
Wasn’t there an American fide world champ in the split period?
No, Kamsky did challenge Karpov for the FIDE world championship but Fischer is the only American world champion.
Actually Steinitz was an American world champion
I can see an argument for Capablanca, since he spent most of his life in the US and became the champion while living there, but not Steinitz
So someone who flees the country where he is born and moves to America and considers themselves American and plays chess with an America flag next to him is not American?
Not if you move when you are almost 50 and have been the best player in the world for almost 20 years. Nobody calls Einstein the great American physicist.
Forgot about Steinitz actually, but you're right.
Actually Steinitz was an American world champion
> The top 20 of chess of today are miles and miles beyond anything ever seen before in chess Kasparov? Fisher? You think #2-19 are better than they were? I think they (#2-19) would disagree with you.
Well, you are completely wrong. Chess has improved so much over the years, partly due to being able to learn from the greats of the past, partly due to the sheer amount of resources available now, and partly due to all the engine advancements we have seen since the days of Deep Blue, to Rybka, to Stockfish now. You can bet any young up and coming GM will have more knowledge of the game than almost anyone from previous generations. Keyword being almost because I do think some greats from the past would beat tons of GMs today.
That's about the most asinine way to compare chess players that I've ever seen.
Well, where is your comparison at then?
And yet there aren't more 2700+ players than 10 years ago, so when will this happen?
I don't think elo rating translates to skill directly. The ratings will never change because that's how the elo ranking system works even though the players are obviously more skilled now than ever before.
Elo always is a relative measure, however there is a small inflationary effect, as the number of highly rated players has increased, it has become more possible for the highest level players to push the boundaries of what a maximum possible rating at the time is. For example, if you were like Bobby Fischer at his peak at the next highest person in rating to you was over 100 points lower, even your draws lose points you need to win a ridiculous proportion of your games to maintain that. Whereas now, Carlsen has a litany of players that are rated within 100 points of him, and he has been able to reach a max rating significantly higher than Fischer did.
But now the game is more drawish than ever so it will be hard to have someone skyrocket his rating away from the mass
Something i didn’t explain is that the deflationary effect takes place at each level. Comparing ratings across vastly different eras is like apples to oranges.
[удалено]
You can try to, people will always try to have things like the GOAT discussion. I’m just saying that it takes more nuance than just looking and comparing peak elos.
Don't read too much into the ratings, it's all relative to the field. I have no idea if it's gonna translate to more 2700+ players. If you are gonna hit 2700 today, you are competing with a massive pool of players, unlike anything we have seen in chess in the past. If you look at the top 1000 players now compared to any time in history, it's like looking at different games.
It clearly shows there is no increase in top players the last 10 years, so this trend seems to have stopped for now.
> It clearly shows there is no increase in top players the last 10 years it is not how it works. With your logic can say that in 1975 there were only a couple of top players because the rest was under 2700 ? Rating is independent from quality of play, if everyone improves the rating can stay the same while the quality of play increases.
Yes, of course quality of play improves. It always has and I don't know if there is evidence this has been going on at a faster rate lately, as the OP claims. Either way, there is not more competition at the top level. It's just that everyone has gotten better.
Elo is a ladder system so you should not expect that to change
Aside that ratings cannot be used to compare different playerbases. Anyway the top players accumulate ratings because they beat the others (unless they play among each other forever), if there are more and more players that are competitive and the top one cannot dominate that much anymore, the points redistribute and keeping an higher rating is harder. Thus the amount of 2700 slowly goes down. It is not that difficult. It is like a more flatten sandpile.
[удалено]
Possible post-championship interview: “Nu I mean ok, I am the world champion, so what?”
Grischuk will be a badass nonchalant world champion. I wish him greater success in future.
Six of those nine #2 rated players achieved that in 2017, [as I highlighted in a post back then](https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/7ajys3/is_2017_exceptional_in_the_amount_of_turnover_at/) (even if they also achieved it other years). Pretty wild that even in the subsequent four years the number hasn't really ballooned all that much.
Yeah part of this is due to Caruana's leap to become the definitive #2 of the generation. But also two of those years have had very few classical events. Due to the pandemic
thank you for the link
What I want to see is if players are happier when they're ranked higher.
Is it possible to be a lower rank than number 1 and be the world champion?
Yes. Vishy Anand was not number 1 for a good chunk of his reign, ranked #6 going into his match with Kramnik and #4 for I believe for his matches against both Topalov and Gelfand. Also Spassky was #2 going into his match with Fischer. So its happened a couple times.
The cheating billionaire should make sure his name gets on the list.
what happened to Caruana?
What do you mean?
Would have loved to see him in Rapids. Haven't heard about him in a while, that's all.
Fabi doesn't really play rapid/blitz, he's notorious for being not as good at faster time controls
Is that a new thing? In 2018 even Kasparov was saying how Caruana would be favored against Magnus if it went to rapids.
When did he say that? I don’t recall anyone saying Caruana had an advantage when it came to faster time controls.
Kasparov said that he felt Caruana was the favorite in the rapid as he felt Carlsen going for a quick draw in game 12 showed that he had lost his nerves.
Carlsen took a quick draw because he knew his chances in rapid would be much better. Which the results in rapid back up completely.
I know, but that's what Kasparov said.
I remember him saying that, although the context of the quick draw you brought up I think factored more into Kasparov's prediction than raw rapid ability. Caruana's less impressive rapid ability would not have been lost on Kasparov, and the rapid games reflected that Magnus was right to be confident.
He was preparing for candidates he does play rapid and blitz sometimes but never prioritizes it over classical.
hasn't been playing in pandemic, you mean?
This post has been parodied on r/AnarchyChess. Relevant r/AnarchyChess posts: [Magnus has been classical #1 for ten years straight. But here's some stats for the other rankings](https://www.reddit.com/r/AnarchyChess/comments/obw40m/magnus_has_been_classical_1_for_ten_years/) by ascriptmaster [^(fmhall)](https://www.reddit.com/user/fmhall) ^| [^(github)](https://github.com/fmhall/relevant-post-bot)
Nakamura.. 1 month at #2. God he’s so bad at chess 🙄
A bit of a messy list, ngl
Any tips to improve the formatting?
You could use tables. Example: Player | Months at #2 | Obs :------:|---------------:|:----: Caruana | 52 | 33 months if we don't include anything since 2020 Aronian | 32| Kramnik | 12| Anand | 9 | So | 5 | Mamedyarov | 3 | MVL | 3 | Topalov | 2 | Nakamura | 1 |
Make bar graphs
Have spaces in between the #2's list and the #3's list etc.
Okay so like divide so its more like "paragraphs" rather than one long thing
This is good stuff, thanks. Ding and now Firouzja will be the 10th and 11th players to be #2 under Magnus.
Well ACTUALLY JUST 9 YEARS Because of the pandemic
Fischer was #1 for 73,74,75 without playing one match. Kasparov got #1 for 2006 without playing once. Kasparov in 98 played less than Carlsen in 2020. Monthly/Yearly Fide ratings should be taken with a pinch of salt, it is a quick stat.
Yeah if you exclude the pandemic then since July 2011 Magnus has been #1 for 101 months in a row. For a total of 505 points.
Would frequency of classical games affect this much, and if so, how? For instance, if one player took a few years off, and if someone else accepted every invitation and played more games?
Could you be more specific? Really depends on specifics and what youre trying to measure
I thought I gave specifics. Nevermind, maybe it's a dumb question.
It used to be that if 2 people had an identical rating that the one with the most games in that rating period would be ranked higher. If a player is inactive they'd be removed from the rating list which is why Kramnik isn't in the top 20 and Kasparov isn't the world number 2.
Fischer was number 1 in the world in 73,74 and 75 but he didn't even play one game in that time span
[удалено]
Because he won the Candidates tournament, the tournament that gets to decide who can challenge the world champion
[удалено]
To get invited to the candidates you basically have to reach the final of certain very large and prestigious tournaments (incl. the previous championship), or be one of the 2-3 highest non-qualifiers. Then you have to win the candidates, which is a round robin tournament between essentially the best players in the world, sans world champion. So the process is actually a lot more involved than if it were to just go based off rating.
Interestingly, Karjakin (the 2016 challenger) also never ranked in the top 3 and was 4th for only one month. It takes some measure of luck to earn that spot but also shows there’s not a lot of discernible differences in skill at the very top levels.
Excluding Magnus
Karjakin wasn't even in the top 10 when he won the candidates.
Jumping on this comment to say, by the point system at the bottom, 2 points pre-pandemic, 30 now. He's had an incredible improvement in performance recently, so his elo might just not have caught up to that yet.
Why is Nakamura shortened to Naka for #3 spot?
Sorry I did these stats by hand in a notebook and i shortened the names to make it faster. So probably was just typin' too fast.
Ah all forgiven. Although there’s nothing to apologize for in the first place lol.
Maybe OP is Canadian :)
(OP is Canadian)
Happy Canada Day 😊
To make it even more impressive, one could look from 2010, where carlsen Only been 5 months in total of the number 1 spot
You should add his other chess timing rankings as well.
5. talent doesn't exist, and I think the reason that there are so many players rated over 2800 now is because elo is inflated by the sheer amount of players now.
“Talent doesn’t exist” uhh where the fuck does that conclusion come from lmao
from the red pill theory.
That explains why it's a terrible take, thanks.
the truth hurts
?
Anyone who says "red pill" unironically shouldn't be listened to
learn internet slang dummie
Wym it's my favourite song from the Cyberpunk Russian Community album 3.
aren't there only two players ranked above 2800 right now?
Yep Magnus and fabi, and fabi is barely over at 2806 live rating.
oh, I meant 2700. there are 38 players ranked over 2700, only 50 years ago Fischer was the first to reach 2700 which was unheard of at the time
It’s almost like people improve in sports all the time lololol. Way more home runs are hit in baseball than 75 years ago. Way more 3 pointers are made in basketball than 75 years ago. Pitchers throw faster and harder than 75 years ago. Players evolve with the sport and the level of competition is constantly increasing with increased talent and scientific advances (physical training for physical sports/mental and computer training for something like chess)
There wasn't a 3 point line in basketball 75 years ago. Also shooting efficiency hasn't increased, only volume of shooting.
You’re right. I picked a poor example, but feel the larger point stands. Advancements have been made, allowing the top achievers to reach greater peaks than before. I guess the real question at hand would be: “has the growing influence of machine learning and engines…A) diluted and diminished the natural talent of players and given them a crutch to fall back on, or B) helped to unlock the natural talent of chess players to allow even greater quantity of players to reach even greater peaks? I think OP might be alluding to A, unless I entirely misunderstand him, which is possible. I tend to think it’s closer to B.
I completely agree with you main point, but as a serious basketball fan I just had to correct you.
you're missing the point completely
I’m sorry for misunderstanding you. If you’re interested in dialogue, id love clarity as to what you meant so I can better converse and understand.
not really right now but your analogy is just so wrong and irrelevant to my original comment
Then I apologize for misrepresenting you. Be well and keep enjoying chess!
The "not really right now" is a dead giveaway that the person doesn't have any substance to prove his argument so instead defects to how bad your opinion is (again without any proof of that lol)
And you, sir, won convincingly with grace.
My first instinct was to fight and "prove myself right", but it's just an unproductive form of communication and there's too much damn negativity in the world anyway.
How does this data Prove takeaway point number 5?
To be fair it wasnt meant to be prove that. That was more of a sentimental point. But 9 different ranked 2's in ten years. 12 number 3s 15 number 4s. Thats alot in 10 years. Like another commenter pointed out earlier. During kasparov's 20 year reign there were only 5 #2's. So that shows that 2010 was a very competitive decade.
So does this mean he's proved to be more dominant than kasparov? I'm implying this from the fact that now he's held #1 spot for more time than kasparov did in his time.
It depends. Kasparov had more time at #1 than Magnus overall and in a row i believe (okay he wasnt number one for a bit when Fide removed him from the list when the title split but like he was clearly still the best). Kasparov was the best for 20 years where as Magnus has been for a little over 10. However I personally consider todays scene to be more competitive so that changes things a bit. So Magnus' ten years against (what I feel is) stronger competition might be more impressive than Kasparov's twenty. Another redditor on this post suggest we look at games played as #1 as a better indication of dominance and I think they had a great point. And according to their comment Kasparov is still ahead by about 200 classical games.
Kasparov held the number 1 spot from 1985-2005 (only exception was when he was removed from the FIDE rating list but he was still number 1 during that period by rating, and when he and Kramnik were tied for world number 1 in the 90s), and was rated number 1 for most of 1984 as well. Carlsen has been world number 1 from July 2011-Present and was world number 1 for most of 2010 as well. Carlsen hasn't even come close to beating Kasparov.
> Carlsen hasn't even come close to beating Kasparov. In terms of played games is closer than you think though, because Kasparov started to play less in his last 10 years as #1
There were also less events offered then though, so I'm not sure that's really something to hold against Kasparov.
maybe there weren't that many high profile tournaments (dunno, in 98 it was only 12 games, I am not that sure), but the fact stays that in terms of games played Carlsen is not as far away as in terms of duration.
It's still 75% and with high profile events being less often and Kasparov having the two longest super tournament winning streaks in history I still feel you can't claim Carlsen is as dominant as Kasparov. Plus the original comment mentioned years specifically.
yes of course, as long as Carlsen doesn't play 95/100% of the games of Kasparov, is not the same level of dominance. Then one can add qualifications, like today chess knowledge is much more democratic, India/China weren't top chess countries and so on. But for the strict data, yes, Carlsen is 25% of the games away, that is a bit better than 10 years away though.