yeah, Anand vs Carlsen with the Carlsen of today and the Anand of the Kramnik match (let's hope he can regain that form) would be fantastic.

This is a great post. I also left the Adams-Carlsen game thinking it was headed to a draw. Yet again I was impressed by Carlsen, he just Wins.

(There's too many posts itt that are off-topic or downright bad.)

Congrats to Carlsen on having the highest rating ever.

I give it (max) a few weeks until Kasparov publishes an exact calculated science for how much ratings inflation there has been since he had the peak rating. This report will shine very favorably on Kaspy of course.

I'm not sure there is even such a large rating inflation. Recently I looked at the rating chart of a 2450 player who hadn't played a single ELO rated game over the last 12 years. His world ranking position hasn't changed much. This isn't even surprising to me because at some point the lowering of the rating entry barrier must kick in. But that is probably a topic for another thread.

The "inflation" largely takes place at the top (but i think has slowed down too) which means it took higher and higher ratings to enter the top 100. But this might well have other reasons than a general rating inflation.

Still i don't think the rating record means that much in terms of absolute chess strength, but if it's something that excites the public it must be a good thing that Carlsen is going to break it.

Hey Noir,

btw you're an absolutely great poster (even though you don't start many threads ).

Maybe inflation doesn't exist. But there is no doubt that with access to computers and much easier and in-depth training sessions, there are naturally more 2700+ players than in the Fischer, Karpov, or even Kasparov era. So to say a 2700 rated player is weak is quite a leap, but that's exactly what I think is going on. The lower level 2700s beat up on the vastly lower rated 2300-2600s in their countries, but don't hold a candle to most established 2750+ players.

But those "just" 2700 rated players don't matter much to the top 3 or 4, because they never play them and almost exclusively play the top 15 or 20 in the world in tournaments.

Also, ratings have to be the measure for strength. Otherwise, we don't really have a measure of strength in the chess world. The world championship is a joke, and country championships are flawed for telling absolute strength for obvious reasons. So we have to go with ratings.

comon , u all know ratings work beside inflation right ?

this is why fisher best rating could never be compared to kasparov and Carlsen.

i mean if u agree that u loose rating by only drawing because your opponent is too low ...
wich imo is a significant variable.

fisher had a 125 points rating lead over spasky !


wich means even when he draws, he would still looose points. is only way to get is rating higher or even worst, to prevent him of losing points , would be for him to win 100% of his games.

Carlsen if far away from this situation.


i mean, it took karpov 22 years to reach close to the rating of fisher, because he couldnt get lot of points from his peers being too low...

juts loook Carlsen peers, is got 20 players in his 100 rating , fisher only one .


i dunno how much point u win when u face an oppoenet with 100 points difference, but at least in tournmaments Carlsen have pletny of them while fisher onyl had 1, how can u go up the ladder in that situation.


Carlsen is amazing , but his best rating cant be compared to fisher, neither of Kasparaov wich imo, was between the 2 for his best rating performance, having more players following him in the 100 rating brackertthen fisher but less than Carlsen.


i could only compared the domination of Carlsen with fisher when he will have 125 point over the #2 player in the world imo or win 20 games in a row vs the top 5 ? or something like that ...

http://ratings.fide.com/calculator_rtd.phtml

At 2785 vs. 2660 with a K of 10, a win results in a change of +3.3, a draw -1.7, and a loss -6.7. So it's clear that if the 2785 goes 1.5-0.5 s/he's gaining points. 100% is a bit of an exaggeration.

Another day, another win. <3 Carlsen.

A very clean win.

Anand blunders against Adams just after the time control and Adams thought for awhile wondering if Anand really blundered and found the obvious 41...Qd1.

Kramnik eased into a better game in Aronian-Kramnik and could have put the pressure on with 34...Bg6 instead of 34...Kd7 according to the post-mortem, but in the end it was a draw. The Berlin seems very tough to crack. In any case, Kramnik now barely tops Aronian as #2 according to the live chess ratings.

The theory that there is rating inflation at the top could be tested by looking at the performance of the various 'outsider' wild cards that get thrown into events with them. In this event that would be Polgar, McShane and Jones. After 5 rounds those players have a grand total of 1 win between all of them - and that was McShane over Jones!

Of course 60% of one tournament doesn't prove anything, but this doesn't seem to be particularly uncommon and is at least a testable hypothesis. On the other hand of course this says nothing about whether the rating pool as a whole has inflated. That is something that seems untestable in any reasonable fashion.

(Regarding inflation, I always thought people held the latter theory, that the entire rating pool has inflated, not just at the very top.)