No #1 for Vishy.

Acirce asked the right question: WHEN. If it was decided well ahead of time - say, December - and announced to all players, fine. If it was made later, I cry foul.

Maybe Mr. Freeman can also explain why the Top 50 women's list only contains 20 names.

http://www.fide.com/ratings/top.phtml?list=women

I am not even going to be satified with an answer to When. The rating committee can implement it only after a certain/reasonable period from when they make the formal announcement.

"Of course this could be quickly forgotten if Anand is still in the top spot come July. Is he playing a rated event before Dortmund in June-July?"

Well, at least (one) more Bundesliga game(s) - He beat McShane today picking up yet some extra virtual points. (Shirov and Carlsen won too, Svidler drew. Overall Baden-Baden won the match and assured overall league victory. So perhaps they won't be using their aces tomorrow in the final round.)

Topalov is playing at MTEL and he should be able to mop up the field in MTEL to regain the points he lost in Linares and regain the number one spot.

"Acirce asked the right question: WHEN. If it was decided well ahead of time - say, December - and announced to all players, fine. If it was made later, I cry foul."

It was decided when Topalov lost so many points in Linares and lost his #1. Decided by Danailov in March and conveyed to his FIDE circles.

If FIDE really wanted to swerve things Topalov's way wouldn't it be easier to make sure he got his rematch with Kramnik prior to Mexico?

Of course, if FIDE wanted to throw things both Topalov's way and Kramnik's way (or Zhukov's way) perhaps this would be exactly how they would help both men. Topalov gets to keep his #1 slot, Kramnik his title.

Perhaps if Anand gets a strong financial backer, they will come up with something for him too.

First off, the timing of this new rule is odd. Very odd. Very very odd.

Secondly, what exactly is 'completely fair' about refusing to rate tournaments that end less than a month earlier than when the list is supposed to be out (though so far it only seems to apply to Linares)? Has there been any complaints about this? I find that hard to believe. Wouldn't the world of chess be best served if FIDE strived to include as many recent tournaments as possible? Isn't the rating is supposed to be a reflection of your (recent) performance? Well, the games have been played, the players have performed. Why not include them? It doesn't make any sense to me.

An old discussion, I know. But who started it, by saying there were only 4 nr. 1 players in the history of the list? I count 5:

1. Fischer
2. Karpov
3. Kasparov
4. Kramnik
5. Topalov

Okay, it was a shared first for Kramnik with Kasparov on the list of January 1996, but according to the FIDE rules of that time (the player who has played most games comes first) he was first.

Of course there might be people who deny Kramnik that first place. Fine with me. But then, who was ranked first on the list during that time? Nobody at all?!

I guess we'll all have to root extra hard against Topalov at MTEL now so that he doesn't unfairly keep his #1 spot.

Well, odd it is. But it doesn't have to be a big evil conspiracy. Let's say Topailov contacted FIDE and said, "isn't it about time you started enforcing your own rules?" They would be within their rights. It would be creepy, but not unreasonable. It would be looking out for their best interests and asking only that the rules be correctly enforced after many years of observing an unofficial exception. It wouldn't win them any fans, obviously, but that hasn't exactly been a concern lately. Not a crime, not unethical, just unattractive.

Not saying that's what happened, of course. But it wouldn't shock me. That sort of thing has a long history in just about every field. When the rules work for you you want them enforced. When they work against you, hey, why be so strict?

Well, if FIDE had said: starting from now we enforce our rules, reports sent in after the 1st of March are not counted for the April list, it would have made some sense.

This is not wat happened. They made a new rule that nobody knew of.

Yuriy, if Danailov had issued his challenge in time so that the match could legally take place (i.e. Kramnik would have no formal grounds to complain against it),

do you think that Topalov would still not have got his rematch?

http://www.fide.com/official/officials.asp?f=5 lists the members of the Rating Committee. If I were not so lazy, I would call one of them to ask when this rule was implemented. To be honest, I'd ask first if he knew of this new rule :-)

Why not ask Shirov or Krasenkow, members of the Committee? They won't hide anything, I'm sure of that.

Acirce,

There was bank issues, bank holidays, timing of match, timing of Mexico, timing of challenge, Kramnik's schedule...

Shortly, nothing that can't be worked out between two parties who want the idea to go forward.

So, yes.

All those people in the Committee, including top GM's, and it was still a secret to the entire world until today?

I'm aware of Kramnik's shared first on the Jan 96 list, but I just don't find it very relevant in the scheme of things. It's not as if it's an official title so since he wasn't rated ahead of Kasparov I consider Garry's run at the top spot unbroken. I'm fine calling it a shared first or whatever, but for the sake of the argument at hand I don't consider it a factor. Maybe some day FIDE will release the actual math and show the rounding to the decimal and we can all argue about it again!

I remember that amazing leap by Kramnik. I think he gained 45 points or so on one (six month) list and caught Garry, who dropped 20 at Horgen. If I recall, everyone was trying to figure out at that tournament if Kramnik would take the top spot. Making up a 70 point gap in six months at that level, amazing.

Nothing FIDE does should surprise anyone. After all, it has shown itself to be a hopelessly inadequate excuse for a governing body for a very long time.

If a shared first place for Kasparov counts for a first place, for his "unbroken run at the top spot", the same shared first place (and first according to the tie-break rules in place at the time) should count for a first place for Kramnik as well.

Surely the rules for Kramnik are the same as for Kasparov?

There are 'de jure' rules like the black letters of the law, and they are like the written rules in FIDE's rule book.

There are also 'de facto' rules like common law, and they are like what FIDE did in this particular regard, accepted by all in the past.

Both types of rules are valid if justice is served. But no type of rules serves any justice if the rules are bent like a nose of wax without any reasonable notice to anyone in the jurisdiction.

The nosebending in this case stinks.

Well, maybe Nigel Freeman can explain why tournaments played entirely in March has been included as well? (Linares started February 17th)

For instance Asian Cities Team Championship for Dubai Cup, code 7050 was played from 01.03.07 to 10.03.07, submitted 19.03.07 - and still is rated.

And I agree very much that such a decision must be announced well ahead of time, since anything else will make things MORE random, not less. And AFAIK the deadline is for submitting the reports - but still lots of tournaments submitted after March 1st are calculated - so this is a completely new rule, on when tournaments must be finished, not when the rating report is committed. By chance, the latest tournament calculated, was submitted March 20th 2007 - why isn't reports submitted March 21st calculated? A random decision by a random FIDE official?

I disagree, Mig - this smells, and is unethical.

I'd like to add that this kind of nosebending would be repugnant to someone like Bessel Kok, and it is one more reason why I can't really believe that his involvement in FIDE is real.

The same Bessel Kok who was involved in the first attempt to rob Shirov of his World Championship match?

Well this is what happens when you have an arbitrary system. Vishy is not "the number one" because he lost a popularity contest in FIDE. Lets not pretend any different. We all know he performed better by the standard of the FIDE elo system at this point in time. They arbitrally shift when they will count tournaments so he is not "number one"

This is goign to sound crazy but maybe these top players should simply play some matches against eachother and decide it over the chessboard instead of by committee vote.

Mig if you say there were four players rated number 1 then its relevant if there were five. You brought it up and to that extent we shoud get the math right.

They don't add up fractions of points, they count the number of games played in that period to see who will be listed above the other. That is the FIDE system you like to use to title the worlds "number one." Don't talk about reinventing the rules when history doesn't suit you.

Yes covering that gap was amazing and it secured Kramnik the very top of the rating list.

Oh it definitely smells, and I have little doubt at least a phone call or two was made. But unethical on the part of whom is the question. I don't see 4 tournaments, one rated by the FIDE ratings chief (Tehran), from 1200 as being proof of suspicious inconsistency by FIDE.

It's also worth noting that this means Mtel, Topalov's tournament, has the #1 instead of the #3 and that Dortmund, Kramnik's tournament, has the #2 and the #3 instead of the #1 and #2. Answering the obvious "cui bono?" isn't enough to say that a crime has been committed. But cover your nose, no doubt.

Mig you said - Let's say Topailov contacted FIDE and said, "isn't it about time you started enforcing your own rules?"

Nice one - so how about enforcing the rule about an unjustified accusation - evidence here: http://www.chessninja.com/dailydirt/2006/12/topalovs_abcs_of_elista.htm.

FIDE's code of ethics http://www.fide.com/official/handbook.asp?level=A10 state the following:

2.2.9 Players or members of their delegations must not make unjustified accusations toward other players, officials or sponsors. All protests must be referred directly to the arbiter or the Technical Director of the tournament.

What is the punishment for that?

3.2 Anyone acting in contravention of this code can be excluded from participation in all FIDE tournaments or from specific types of tournaments for a period of up to 3 years. Weight shall be given to the type of violation and to any previous violations in decided upon the length of the exclusion period.

If Mr Freeman is watching perhaps he can answer why Mr Topalov hasn't been called into account for breaking the FIDE code of ethics?

I think MIG got it wrong, unless I got it wrong.

FIDE did NOT implement a current rule. It framed a new rule. There are plenty of submissions well into March graded in. So if this is not conspiracy, what else is?

Even otherwise, you cannot implement something arbitrarily. You can't use law/rule as a cover to do injustice.

Sigh, I knew when I wrote it that it would be dragged into a silly argument. I KNOW Kramnik was also rated number one on one list. He and Kasparov had the same number of rating points: 2775. FIDE could use alphabetical order, height or eye color to decide who is listed first in a rating tie and I wouldn't respect that as meaningful either. It's irrelevant for the discussion, which is about rating. Rating points. 2775 of them.

I just didn't think it mattered because I was talking about the #1 position changing hands since the inception of the rating list. Since it didn't change hands when Kramnik tied Kasparov, my phrasing didn't require this tangent. Whoopee.

Which tournaments have been rated in each list in the past has tended to have been as to when the reports are received. The FIDE rule book states that normally the reports have to be received one month before. Abundo would have at some stage towards the end of the last quarter gone to Markkula and De Ritter (Titles and Ratings Committee Chairmen)and asked them to make a ruling as to what tournaments should be included. In order to make it more logical and consistent, they decided this time that there should be a cut-off date as to the close of tournament. In the past major events such as Linares have been included even if their reports were received after other more minor tournaments. I do not see what is ethical, logical, consistent or fair in this, to put in a tournament just to get headlines for the top of the FIDE ratings list. Whether they should have announced this, when they made the decision is, I believe, neither here nor there, Anand would not have played worse nor Morelia-Linares moved their dates.

With regards to the date used, many countries (the USCF being a prime example) have had difficulty providing reports in the new format. I would hope that in future, the cut-off dates can be moved nearer to the dates of the lists as people get used to inputting in the new format.

I have asked Abundo as to why the four (now five)tournaments were rated in this list for, to my knowledge, they should not have been and will let you know when he has replied (he is based in Elista).

Best regards

Nigel Freeman

P.S. I am surprised that no one has yet pointed out that David Jarrett, the FIDE Executive Director is English and as Micky Adams would have lost ratings points in Gibraltar and out of the top ten, therefore...

The problem is that FIDE seems to have been selective about application of the rules they used to ignore more liberally. They enforced (with four exceptions from 1,200 events) the date of the end of play having to be before March. They didn't enforce the part about receiving the results by March, obviously. But they were consistent with this new application of the rules, so the submission date issue is something of a red herring. But it's fair to ask that if they were going to suddenly be strict about one aspect, why not both?

The answer seems obvious. Enforcing the submission date would affect a huge number of events and require a lot of work and explanation. It would also establish a precedent requiring organizers to change behavior. Meanwhile, their method is more selective and can basically be done "at home" because the date of the last game is easy enough to see and requires no further input.

You were talking about the #1 position changing hands? Then my English is even worse than I thought... I see nothing about changing hands in your text, only a remark about four number 1's.

It seems that not only the FIDE has different rules for different people. According to you, if Kasparov and Kramnik are shared first, it's only a first place for Kasparov. But I wonder if FIDE will call people who point out their errors "pedants" as well, as you graciously did.

Are people getting errors that are causing all of these double posts? I haven't seen any errors in the server logs. Please never click "post" twice or refresh the post page.

By the way, I hear the Indian press and the Anand household are, to put it mildly, quite displeased.

"Abundo would have at some stage towards the end of the last quarter gone to Markkula and De Ritter (Titles and Ratings Committee Chairmen)and asked them to make a ruling as to what tournaments should be included. In order to make it more logical and consistent, they decided this time that there should be a cut-off date as to the close of tournament."

Nijel,

I am confused. Are you saying this is what happened or this is what could have happened to lead to this?

We all know that FIDE can change rules and some of us even care how it goes by doing so. The question here is at what point did they decide to change the rules and why the rules seem to have only been enforced in a manner that resulted in Topalov keeping the #1 slot? If there really was a recent rule change, you would think consistent enforcement of it would be a priority for employees and four tournaments would not slip past everybody.

Oscar: The entire discussion and my emphasis were on the changes. I've changed the item to more accurately represent this emphasis.

So I noticed. The original text claimed there were only 4 people at the top spot, which is obviously incorrect, as you seem to have realized. Only three changes, that is reasonable, as indeed Kasparov was first all the time, even if he had to share that place on a list.

However. For the real pedants, you should change the four changes into five. You see, according to them it was Fischer-Karpov-Kasparov-Kramnik-Kasparov-Topalov.

Only if you write it Fischer-Karpov-Kasparov Kaspamnik-Kasparov-Topalov. Or, if you prefer, Fischer-Karpov-Kasparov-Kramparov-Kasparov-Topalov. I'll let you pick.

No no no, a real pedant claims an unshared first position for Kramnik. The official FIDE rules for first place were the following:

1. Number of elo points
2. (if players have an identical elo) Number of games

As you pointed out already, rule nr. 2 is rather arbitrary, but, as the pedants would say, a rule is a rule. If you want to write what the pedants shout, you should write what the pedantic pedants say, not the pseudo-pedants!

Kaspamnik/Kramparov reminds me of Topailov. Surely you would not compare the duo Kasparov/Kramnik to Topalov/Danailov?!

In Jan 1996, Kasparov and Kramnik were #1-2, neither being #1 or #2. You cannot define a rank when scores are repeated, unless there is an official tiebreak criterion. How can you say Kramnik was #1, when there are equally good reasons for saying he was #2?

Mig gives draw odds to Kasparov in Jan 1996, like Kramnik had in Brissago, and that is probably reasonable if you want #1 to be a title like WC.

It's not a comparison. There's really nothing derogatory about my use of Topailov. I just use it as humorous shorthand when I'm talking about actions on behalf of Topalov taken, or probably taken, by his manager. It seems wrong to say just one of them and I get tired of slashes. It's also a funny poke at Danailov's "we are the same person" comment.

I'm a fan of portmanteaux of all shapes and sizes, even if I have to make them up. (Recently, "afritzionados" for chess fans.) We may need a new one for this situation. How about "fidiculous"? "Kirsantastic"? "Abundogle"?! It's a great irony that "fideism" means what it does when compared to FIDE. Faith over reason indeed.

The FIDE rules were written some time ago when tournament reports were coming in all sorts of different formats. They are now in the process of being updated.

The decision would have been made by Markkula/De Ritter and they would not have taken it based on Morelia-Linares results or any other. Iam sure it was purly based in making the process more logical, consistent and fair, something that FIDE critics have complained that FIDE does not do. Personally I think that making it the date of the tournament finishing is better than the arbitrary procedure that tended to happen before.

Oscar:

Hmm I didn't know about this rule nr 2. Then certainly Kramnik was #1. Was that reflected in the FIDE list?

I have just seen the post by mcb. That would mean a complaint to the Ethics Commission, which I believe was made by Carsten Haensel. They have yet to make a ruling.

The inclusion of the results of Linares in past years is the more serious issue. It established a binding de facto rule, regardless of what the black and white letters of FIDE's rule book say.

FIDE has changed this de facto rule in an improper way. I don't believe myself that there was any malicious intent of FIDE, it is just the usual incompetence. That does not make the rule change proper, it still stinks.

There are definitely five players who have been top of the list- and Kramnik is one of them!

I believe he was also top in around 1996. Equal number of points, but the method to decide the number one was the number of games, which seems a reliable indicator to me- it means the grade is more accurate. I think Kasparov had played 0 games on that version of the 1996 list.

Lol, and it's nice to see that Miggy has changed the post now- he doesn't clearly say there are four plays anymore. Apparently people who think Kramnik was top are 'pedantic'.

"Abundo would have at some stage towards the end of the last quarter gone to Markkula and De Ritter... they would not have taken it [the decision] based on Morelia-Linares results or any other. Iam sure it was purly based in making the process more logical, consistent and fair..."

Thanks Nigel, sounds reassuring. Then I don't see the problem. ;-)

You're late to that party, Mark! But Oscar was filling in for you. Read, then write. Pixels are precious.

The Indian federations has moved quickly:

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3768

India is up in arms now.... nice job, FIDE. You are about to p*ss off 1.1 billion people. ;-)

AICF Takes Up Linares Issue With FIDE

http://www.indianchessfed.org/News/2007/March/aicftakesuplinaresissuewithfide.asp

“The FIDE rules were written some time ago when tournament reports were coming in all sorts of different formats. They are now in the process of being updated.

The decision would have been made by Markkula/De Ritter and they would not have taken it based on Morelia-Linares results or any other. I am sure it was purely based in making the process more logical, consistent and fair, something that FIDE critics have complained that FIDE does not do. Personally I think that making it the date of the tournament finishing is better than the arbitrary procedure that tended to happen before.

Posted by: Nigel Freeman at March 31, 2007 18:25"

Nigel, since you put yourself in league with Kirsan, you seem to talking the same gibberish as the Illuminated one. This was done on purpose - and it really doesn't matter who orchestrated it. The FIDE leadership is all at fault, and we all know that Anand is number one now.

In the past the rating list has been revised after first being published. Granted these revisions were slight, but I think this is a perfect time to do so and include all tournaments submitted in March. They have this fancy new software (old as the hills and difficult for people with modern computer skills to use), so there shouldn't be any trouble at all.

Susan:

I like the name " The Illuminated one ". I guess, you won't be welcomed much in Godforsaken Elista.

I called him "the Ilyuminazi" once but it didn't sell.

Mig said:

"But they were consistent with this new application of the rules, so the submission date issue is something of a red herring. But it's fair to ask that if they were going to suddenly be strict about one aspect, why not both?"

Exactly - so, in fact this is a completely new rule, not the old one about submission dates finally enforced. In effect, some ppl in FIDE have changed how this works, without any notice in advance.

"They decided that this time ..."

Oh, they just decided that this time _this_ rule should apply - and next time, what rule will they decide "should" apply then? We have no idea.

Arguing that Anand wouldn't have played differently in Linares, like Freeman does, is completely missing the point: Anand thought he'd become number one after Linares (and everybody else also thought so). Anand has given many interviews on this matter - isn't this more than just a little emberrasing for FIDE?

When Linares/Morelia was just starting on 16 February, and the outcome was unknown of course, FIDE announced that all events finishing after 28/2 will be rated for July http://www.fide.com/news.asp?id=1265

All these conspiracy theories are becoming so boring...

Why are we all making a big fuss out of the rating list? We all know that Anand is a better player than Topalov.

Elias, that simply reinforces the point. We already KNOW that is the stated rule.

"Elista FIDE Office reminds all National Chess Federations that the deadline for submission of tournament reports for the April 2007 FIDE Rating List is 28 February 2007. Reports received late will be rated for the next list, July 2007."

Not events finishing after 28/2 - reports received after 28/2.

Yet, MANY tournaments with their reports sent in after 28/2 HAVE been counted for the April list.

This is NOT only those 4 events that FINISHED after 28/2.

That link told us nothing that was new, exactly the opposite.

rofl @ "the Ilyuminazi"....another gem....but I really liked the dogs humping legs and anti-rook defamation league material. Great stuff.

Nigel Freeman - thanks for answering my query. Do you know who is on this ethics committee and when it is meeting? I am aware that it could be a serious issue - banning a former FIDE World champion from FIDE events for upto 3 years could be a difficult decision to make. Have there been any complains from the Topalov camp about the accusations against him to the same forum?

Mig - I am going to be a pedant I am afraid. I agree with you that Kasparov retained his #1 ranking from 1985 (or whenever) to his retirement. However it is still true that for one rating list Kramnik was joint 1st with him. So you can keep your claim of only 3 changes in the #1 spot, as long as you accept my assertion that there have been 5 players at the top of the rating list. However from what I have read I don't suppose Kramnik really cares too much about whether he was ever the official #1.

I assume that FIDE are not going to back down on this one - so since I think (like almost everybody) that Anand has the moral right to be #1, I hope that Danailov is not smiling too much during the M-Tel event.

"The decision would have been made by Markkula/De Ritter and they would not have taken it based on Morelia-Linares results or any other. I am sure it was purly based in making the process more logical, consistent and fair, something that FIDE critics have complained that FIDE does not do."

Nigel, thanks for the prompt reply. I take it then that you have no idea when or why the decision was made, or even whether it was made or not. I admire your being sure that the decision was made for good reasons or even that was made at all, but nothing in any of your replies suggests that you KNOW that to be the case.

As of now, FIDE has provided no explanation as to why Linares would suddenly not count after counting all the previous years. And Nigel's posts, if you read them carefully, restate that he is not aware of any changes in the policy.

“When Linares/Morelia was just starting on 16 February, and the outcome was unknown of course, FIDE announced that all events finishing after 28/2 will be rated for July http://www.fide.com/news.asp?id=1265

All these conspiracy theories are becoming so boring..."

Posted by: Elias at March 31, 2007 20:38

Elias, this would have been fine if they had been smart enough to leave out the four or five March tournaments that were included.

Of course they didn't know the outcome of Linares, but they knew that on February 28th Topalov was at the top of the list.
**************************
"I guess, you won't be welcomed much in Godforsaken Elista."

Posted by: dirtbag at March 31, 2007 19:45

Thanks dirtbag. I would never step foot in a country whose President might arrange to have someone killed (remember Larisa Yudina?) because they are looking into his illegal dealings. Since I am not an important person or a journalist, I am not worried about speaking the truth or calling him names.

Illusionov would be appropriate: Kirsan, the number juggler

Does leading a rating list actually rate a concern? Does FIDE reward number 1 players. The limited world of professional sponsership is certainly aware of player ratings. This issue is the proverbial mountain out of a mole hill. The issue really doesn't matter a a damn. A true non-contraversy.

Guys,
The chess community knows who is #1 and thats what matters! If the #1 becomes #2 in July, thats life.

We should look on the FIDE as the drunk uncle we love to hate. =)

~ I am a Topalov fan (or should it be Fritz)

Actually this IS a serious issue. Recently some people qualified for the World Championship based on their position in the rating list on some date in the past. For example, 4 entries in San Luis and 4 entries in Mexico were determined that way. There is no guarantee that FIDE won't decide to play that trick in the future. For example it may suddenly decide that if Kramnik wins Mexico, he will play the #1 in FIDE rating list on the 1st of April 2007. It's not only top 3 that might be affected, perhaps there are some other changes that we are not aware of yet. Based on past experience with FIDE this has a potential to be a serious matter.

5 players qualified to the Candidates Matches by rating as well.

Anybody considering it to be an April 1st Fools Joke? :o)

I think everyone here is reacting to the wrong subject. #1 is important, but a ceramic rooster!?!?!?

osbender has a very good point here..

Also, one would have to be really really stupid to not realize that FIDE is playing foul to favor Topalov...

But, despite being a Vishy fan, I wouldn't mind this anomaly under normal circumstances. Vishy should take the higer moral ground here and win more and leave no doubts by October because, as Mig points out, in some ways FIDE can be seen as doing the right thing. And it would not mean much for Vishy's claims of being a 'true' #1 if he is #1 in April but not in July or October. However, everyone knows that FIDE (Kirsan) is corrupt and its favorite players (Topalov & Kramnik) gain benefits at the cost of others. I would not be one bit surprised if Topialovtz (Topalov+Danialocv+Fritz) crush the field at Mtel in home territory this May and gain several points and hold on to the #1 ranking.. Now, I also feel that it is quite probably Topalov's allegations against Kramik were 100% true. Kirsan was bullied into favoring Kramnik (much like a mafia godfather favoring one son over another) and this how he pays back Topalov.

"dirtbag points out this new FIDE item on how this was the first list produced using the new FIDE Ratings Server, moving more of the operation online."

Seems pretty obvious that this is likely the issue here. New system, new screwups. Anyone who seriously thinks this is some sort of master plot to help Topalov likely has way too much time on their hands.

Come on Anand N, Kramnik has nothing to do with it. While cheating allegations against the Topa boy, however fantastic in nature, were at least believable in terms of character, the stuff they made up about Kramnik is both unsubstantiated and hard to imagine to come from one of the more honest players in the game, as far as everyone knows (Anand is another, perhaps even clearer example of integrity). FIDE certainly does not need a reason other than Danailov's connections to play this latest rating trick.

ok, yander.. I give you (Kramnik) the benefit of doubt..

Well said, Anand N. It is a very Indian thing to accept things that one cannot influence as destiny rather than make a fool of oneself wailing and crying. Anand will simply wipe away a couple of manly tears and get down to winning more games. There is a quiet dignity in that, which befits gentlemanly players like Anand. And how few there are, indeed. Let Topalov cheat and Kramnik scheme all they like. Vishy has about 1100 million more fans than they do.

april fools, right?

april fools

FIDE really can find ways to screw up even the simple things! If one told them to buy a tomato I bet they'd bring you a cucumber... Anyway, these kind of changes in procedures how tournaments are included in calculations should be published well in advance and preferably introduce the change starting Jan. 1st (here January 1st 2008 would have been the right time). What they have done now is inconsistent (some March events calculated and some not) and mysterious to say the least. Very unprofessional!

Well this new story is dated April 1st, and alll that tiresome crap, but, FIDE seem to have changed their mind

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3768

sean,
Do we just let an offender go unpunished if the victim is willing to forgive? We still hand out some sort of punishment for the greater good, no? Let Anand behave gentlemanly. Let us do our part and see to it justice is served!

LOL, perhaps the wannabee rule changers at FIDE fear bad karma in that they and their own pockets get hit by similarly unannounced income tax changes, etc.

It should be obvious that rule changes ought to be implemented properly, i.e. announce the changes and the underlying reasoning to all impacted well in advance, have transitions to insure justice is served to those living under the old, new, and transitional rules, etc. But that's completely unrealistic with Kirsan's FIDE.

Re FIDE correction, nice news if it is true. 100% tasteless on Chessbase's part if it isn't.

There is so far no change to the official list for April 2007 according to FIDE's site.

http://fide.com/ratings/top.phtml?list=men

If this is an Aprils fool from Chessbase...

If it is an April Fools from ChessBase it's really going to tick me off because it was my idea for an April Fools and I told that to Freddy at ChessBase last night. It would be just as funny if FIDE has preempted my joke about their idiocy with the truth.

This a out rite racist move by the FIDE. For the first time in modern Chess History a non White player will be ranked Number one. First they kept Kasparov at number one for ages on number one even though he had stopped playing for all practical purposes. When finally Kasparov was forced to retire, they are coming up with this gem this time around. As the sun sets on the West, their attempts keep getting more and more pathetic to maintian domination (or appearance of it).

actually,
as an Indian am proud of Anand, but he is settled (and very well integrated) into Spain for over a decade now.

I'm wondering who wrote the ChessBase article. He or she wrote there were five previous number ones on the FIDE rating list, and according to a previous version of this blog item this qualifies the writer as a pedant.

If FIDE would decide to change its mind, to include Linares/Morelia, Bulgaria will be extremely upset. I predict complaining Topalov-fans, who see the change as further proof that FIDE is against their hero. They will also claim it is highly suspect that ChessBase brought the news first.

Maybe Danailov would even go to court? Like he did against FIDE for refusing a rematch, against the journalist who took the ABC interview with Topalov and against Breutigam, who accused him of signalling?

PircAlert, you are right, wrongdoers MUST be punished, regardless of whether the victim wishes to press charges or not. That is the foundation of a just society. In this case, however, its very slickly done and all evidence of wrongdoing is entirely circumstantial and indirect. "Historian" commented that it is a racist move, to keep non-white people out of the top-slot. Thats a bit of a wild allegation, but to us brown people, it does look like the most probable motive. Why else, indeed, was Kasparov kept on the list for so long after he retired? Once Topalov superseded Anand, Kasparov was pushed off.

Kasparov was kept on the list for a year, even if he wasn't playing anymore, because those were the rules. Not rules that were invented especially for that case, but rules that were existing (and being enforced) long time before.

Huh? Any news? IS the correction for real or not?

Oscar, how old are you? Only a 6-9 year old would assume that 'all Bulgarians will be upset' over a FIDE rating. Even the few fans are pretty much aware of what's going on and that there is not much that can be done to deal with the procedures of the FIDE/Rating Commitee whether it works for you or against you.

General comment -- dragging Topalov into this shows lack of mature thinking. There have been real griefs in the past, which have been exhaustively articulated.

D.

Dimi, it seems that your sense of humor has left you on this 1st of April. Are you going to write Mig as well, to pint out that Anand probably has less than 1.1 billion fans?

Until now nobody dragged Topalov into it. It is generally known that the work aside the chessboard is done by Danailov. So if a trick was played, it was Danailov, not Topalov.

Yes, it would be good PR for the M-Tel tournament if they had the nr.1 playing, and good PR for Topalov as well. Let's be real: in a week or two everybody forgot about the "scandal". And the man in the street will not notice it at all. It's just some fanatics and pedants on a chess blog that make a case out of it. But does that prove anything? Of course not. Following another reasoning, it might be a scheme of FIDE to make Topalov/Danailov look guilty, because they gain something from it.

Personally, I think the chances that Danailov had something to do with it are higher than a racist scheme of FIDE. But even these chances are very small. It was probably a screwup of FIDE, one in a list of many.

Looks like the correction is for real.

"Important addendum on April 1st 2007
We have just received word from the Rating Commission that Morelia/Linares (and the Gibtel tournament in Gibraltar) will be included in a corrected April 2007 rating list."

per chessbase.

http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3768

happy they came to their senses. Oherwise the power to arbitrarily including and excluding tournaments (deviating from norms of the past without announcing in advance)could have been a dangerous occurrence.

BTW, in all this discussion, ACIRCE asked the right question "When?" So my compliments to him.

if i were "the illuminated" i'll lament the following:

"They are all so stupid, and i'm their boss!"

great stuff, since yesterday ... ROFL

@acirce,

how is this confirmed ?

If this is an April fools joke, it's a pretty lame one. Unfortunately, Chessbase hasn't posted anything else that looks like a joke, so I'm guessing this is it.

DaneDude, I'm not sure yet, so let's just wait. A guy on chessgames.com who says he's a FIDE delegate and should know confirms it, but who knows? It also starts to pop up in the news items (http://sport.indiatimes.com/Anand_deprived_of_No_1_spot/articleshow/1841771.cms etc) but I guess it could be taken from Chessbase.

However, it does look like the real April Fool's joke is something else. As much as I'd like to believe that story..

The India Times article says:

---

The "double standard" adopted by the International Chess Federation (FIDE) became evident on Sunday after Indian Grandmaster Viswanathan Anand was deprived of the top ranking in its latest chart.

The Indian was sure to become the world number one on FIDE charts after he won the Morelia-Linares tournament in Spain last month.

But the FIDE list showed Veselin Topalov of Bulgaria still on the top, 13 points ahead of Anand, without including the points earned or lost in the Morelia-Linares tournament.

When the All India Chess Federation raised the issue with the game's world governing body alleging them of indulging in "double standard", the FIDE agreed to correct the list, which it had earlier described as "fair".

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3769 i believe this is a link to the chessbase april fools joke, and thankfully it has nothing to do with fide ratings. something about film of lasker annotating his games from NY 1924 being converted into a chessbase trainer dvd. when you click on 'order now' its not there.

Ah, so it might be for real after all. Good for Anand!

"Time: Ihre Erfolge werden auch einer psychologischen Herangehensweise der Partien zugeschrieben. Was sagen Sie dazu.

Dr. Lasker: Nun, das ist Blödsinn. Der Reti quatscht immer davon. Weil er nicht versteht, wieso er schon wieder verloren hat, bringt er die Psychologie ins Spiel. Ein Besuch beim Herrn Freud wird ihm vielleicht weiter helfen."

:-) Good retort!

while this has been resolved, I hope Humpy is included in the list of top juniors. as I pointed out in another thread, she has a higher rating than #19 on the juniors list, but is not included in the list possibly bcos of a computer glitch that doesnt count a girl as a junior player.

"NEW DELHI: After initially depriving Viswanathan Anand of the top position in its latest ranking list, the International Chess Federation (FIDE) on Sunday bowed to widespread pressure and crowned the Indian as the world's number one player.

FIDE Rating Committee Chairman Casto Abundo confirmed Anand as the game's new number one.

"Congratulations to Anand and the All India Chess Federation. Pleased to inform you that we have rated Linares event today and Anand is world number one," Abundo said."

http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1088232

There is hope! The ICF page mentions a date (Monday) that Chessbase didn't include in its "important addendum," so at this point it looks legit. Only seeing the actual corrected ratings on FIDE will settle it in my mind, but I'm a lot more optimistic now than I was last night.

Anand no.1 official!!!

Rating comittee confirmed it.
http://sport.indiatimes.com/Its_official_Anand_us_numero_uno/articleshow/1841936.cms

If the rating list will indeed be corrected, my guess is that FIDE will declare that the new rating server is a pilot server only, that the definitive rating list will be calculated as before, at least for the time being...

acirce:

The Indian newspapers are getting it from Chessbase. Here is an article, nearly identical to the one on India Times, which quotes Chessbase as its source:

http://www.rediff.com/sports/2007/apr/01anand.htm

I don't think this is an April Fool's joke by Chessbase. If it was, Chessbase would have (i) devoted an entire article to it (rather than an update to a correct story), and (ii) added some ridiculous details to make it less believable. Of course, it is still possible that Chessbase's source is wrong.

historian, sean:

It is quite likely that FIDE's initial ratings list was inspired by politics/favoritism. However, this is a very different thing from racism. I hope we Indians don't develop a racial persecution complex like minorities in western countries have. For the record, there are few more racist places on earth than the countries of Asia -- India, China, Israel.... Have you ever talked to a black person who has been to India?

Just saw Abundo's statement. So, it's official. Credit to FIDE for making Anand's #1 ranking (however slighly) controversial.

Glad they are making the correction, of course, even though it makes it even harder to understand what they were thinking about to begin with. They must have understood that there would be an outrage, surely?

"Hey, I've got an idea. What if we come up with some lame excuse not to count the Linares tournament for the April list, although we have always done so before, with the result that one of the most popular players in the world is unexpectedly deprived of his long awaited no.1 place on the rating list and one of the least popular players keeps it? Do you think anyone will notice?"

Things would not have moved so quickly unless for Mig's 2 DD posts and people like acirce and many others who kept on questioning the validity of FIDE list. Keep up the good work!

Even when/if the correction appears on FIDE's site, I will not trust it...

By the way, why the hell is Kirsan depicted all over the FIDE site ??

Someone pointed out that the Lasker video article has an April 1 flavor - and NICELY produced! Bravo. Forensic analysis of the cellar photo, hover, reveals pretty clear signs of hasty editing. The patched in photo of the babe leaning against the oversized queen in the middle is more consistent with today's preference for skinnier women - and her bathing suit is not a 1924 model! A little more chiaroscuro next time, Chessbase!

All we need now is a DD post called "No. 1 for Vishy."

Clever one RR. I like it.

mcb, the list of member of the Ethics Commission under Info and then Directory

The Lasker thing is the April Fool's hoax. Look at the cellar picture. Now look at the picture on the floor. It is Alexandra Kosteniuk.

http://www.kosteniuk.com/albums/william05all/william05all.html

Look for the 1887.jpg picture about halfway down on the left side of the page.

When the corrected list IS published it's time for Danailov and the Bulgarian federation to protest.

Been out. I dunno where the Abundo quote came from, but the rating commission guy I heard from today only justified the exclusion and said that notification had been posted on Feb 16 on the FIDE website. He wasn't backing down on the exclusion at all. Confusing.

That guy probably refers to http://fide.com/news.asp?id=1265

But this notification only says tournaments have to be sent in before the 1st of March (and FIDE rated many tournaments that were sent in afterwards).

It says nothing about the new rule, that only events ending before the 1st of March will be rated.

Ken: AHA! I thought she looked familiar. Low resolution. Good detective work!

if they do correct it, my guess is the original outcome was unintentional. If they planned to keep Topa #1 they knew there was going to be an outrage--they wouldn't have backed off at the first sign of it.

I am still wondering if the decision was made this year not to count Linares (pre-March tournaments) for whatever reason or if this is just another FIDE screw-up.

Following my e-mail to Abundo, copied to him, Mikko Markkula has replied as follows:

On February 16th the following note was posted on FIDE web site.
"Elista FIDE Office reminds all National Chess Federations that the deadline for submission of tournament reports for the April 2007 FIDE Rating List is 28 February 2007. Reports received late will be rated for the next list, July 2007."
That means clearly that the tournaments mentioned should be rated on July list. Gibtelecom is a bad mistake by the organizer, Linares is clearly a tournament that belongs to July list. The others I do not know.
After discussion with Casto Abundo we decided that they will be rated on April list, partially because Linares has been incorrectly rated in the earlier years.
In the congress in Turkey clear rules will be decided to have equal treatment to tournaments from different parts of the world and tournaments at different level.
The interval between the deadline and the publishing of the rating list will be tried to get shorter in the future.

The discussion with Abundo was after I had e-mailed them. Please note that the posting on the FIDE site was pre-Morelia-Linares. I trust this now puts conspiracy theories to bed. As I am travelling, I did not have all the information in front of me and had assumed, which to me looks more sensible, that there was a cut-off date for the tournament ending and its seems (with a few exceptions) the Elista Office, which does the ratings, did too.

As Markkula advises, once the Federations get more accustomed to sending in the results in the correct format and in a timely manner, we should be able to make the cut-off date closer to the rating list date. What we want to ensure is that all tournaments and players are treated equally. Chess ranks/rates far more events and far more people from many more countries than any other sport and the job of the Ratings List is to be as correct, up-to-date and fair as possible.

Okay, there was no new rule about only rating tournaments that started before the 1st of March. FIDE just wanted to enforce the existing rule that only tournaments whose reports have been sent in before the 1st of March are rated. Tournaments that are sent in after the 1st of March are not rated.

But why do I see a zillion rated tournaments that were sent in after the 1st of March on

http://www.fide.com/ratings/reports/logbkapr07.txt

? Is that list completely wrong, or were there still many tournaments that were sent in too late rated? Except for Linares, of course.

It's clear what they did. They closed the list to tournaments that finished in March (discounting the four exceptions). They didn't enforce the submission deadline. So the February 16 reminder isn't directly related to the change in policy. The matter of why and when is a separate one to the what. I'd like to see the same tournament list for April 2006, or even Jan 2007, to see if this was a new thing or not. Was Linares the only one of thousands of tournaments to be rated, or was it fairly haphazhard until now?

"On February 16th the following note was posted on FIDE web site.
"Elista FIDE Office reminds all National Chess Federations that the deadline for submission of tournament reports for the April 2007 FIDE Rating List is 28 February 2007. Reports received late will be rated for the next list, July 2007.""

"Please note that the posting on the FIDE site was pre-Morelia-Linares. I trust this now puts conspiracy theories to bed. "

No, it doesn't. I have seen the same version of this notice posted for every ratings list for as long as I have been going to the FIDE website. Basically as soon as an official deadline approaches, this note goes up and says "FIDE reminds for [insert date here] ratings list blah blah blah submission deadline is [insert date here] blah blah blah." Repeat in three months with new dates. The fact that FIDE again posted this on February does not indicate a policy change nor does it explain why all of a sudden they decided not to count Linares this year.

http://www.fide.com/ratings/download/jan07log.xls

is the only list that is still downloadable. Some tournaments that were sent in in december were rated, not that many if you leave out those that were sent in on the 1st of December. But there are also many that have no date of sent in. These can be looked up on

http://www.fide.com/ratings/archive.phtml

for each federation separately (choose a country, at the list of rated events click on the "i" next to a tournament).

FIDE didn't enforce the submission deadline at all, although I understand from Mr. Freeman's posting (made after consultation with the people responsable for the list) that they say they did, and that that is the reason Linares is not counted.

Yes,

"On February 16th the following note was posted on FIDE web site.
"Elista FIDE Office reminds all National Chess Federations that the deadline for submission of tournament reports for the April 2007 FIDE Rating List is 28 February 2007. Reports received late will be rated for the next list, July 2007."
That means clearly that the tournaments mentioned should be rated on July list. Gibtelecom is a bad mistake by the organizer, Linares is clearly a tournament that belongs to July list. The others I do not know."

Am I understanding this correctly and this is Mr. Markkula's explanation? Linares should be on the July list because the TOURNAMENT REPORT was submitted after Feb 28? That is the reason now - when it ended has now nothing to do with it? Odd. What happened to the policy change we heard about before?

I'm glad they have corrected it but so far why and when they made the decision in the first place remains a mystery. How come that is so hard to explain?

It's hard to think it's a conspiracy when they change their minds virtually the moment the predictable outrage begins, but that doesn't mean there's nothing wrong here.

Mig, it seems that the process has been fairly haphazard until now, we are now trying to put it into some order, hence the February deadline. After the Antalya Executive Board Meeting, I expect to see a clear policy decided. As I have pointed out, the existing regulations go back to the days when events were sent for rating in all sorts of different formats. The trouble is that no changes can be made to regulations except by the Geneeral Assembly and the next General Assembly will be in Dresden in late 2008. Attempts were made to change in Calvia, but these were not accepted by the General Assembly. So now all we have to rely on is the interpretation of the existing regulations.

"So now all we have to rely on is the interpretation of the existing regulations."

Well then, with respect, don't change the interpretation of the existing regulations, just because there is a new rating server.

Thanks for the info Nigel. We certainly don't expect the sprawling system to be error free, or to go through changes without problems. The timing here was incredibly awkward and the explanations didn't really jibe. Your maintaining a degree of openness and communication in such situations is essential and much appreciated.

To address acirce's question, I think it's hard to explain because while this wasn't exactly a mistake, there is always a strong desire to present one's decisions in the best possible light. There was an unfortunate element of arbitrariness here and people, especially in bureaucracies, don't like to admit that everything wasn't part of a carefully mapped out plan. Everything's under control, etc. Not really an answer, I suppose, but it's not a crime either.

Nigel Freeman is to be commended on coming to this site to explain. But, if he was a party to the atrocious decision to exclude Linares, then he has no business being on the Presidential Board.

Thanks FrankM. In looking back through the posts though I see you noticed something wrong before I did. Sharp eye. :-)

DaneDude asks "why the hell is Kirsan depicted all over the FIDE site ??" Question with a question : Why were Lenin and Mao, Stalin and Hitler, etc. depicted all over their countries? And isn't Kirsan more photogenic than a few of those?

Well, Mig is more diplomatic than I am, for sure. It's just hard to remain diplomatic after more than a decade of Kirsan's arbitrary rule changes with no end in sight.

There was no decision to exclude or include Linares, there was a decision made to try and make one set cut-off date so that it would be fair to all competitions. As someone has pointed out, there were other events that put in their results before Linares which now will not be included. I do not find this fair, but Mark Crowther and others seem to think that major tournaments matter more. As Markkula said: Linares has been incorrectly rated in recent years; the fact that something was done wrong in the past does not mean it should be done wrong now. What FIDE tried to do was to improve the consistency, logicality and fairness of the Ratings Lists. The cut-off dates are bound to be arbitrary and I would have preferred that we had stuck to what was put on to the site on 16th February. The Executive Board will meet in Antalya in November and we hope that proposals will be put forward to take account of the changes in the way ratings reports are made.

Thanks for the post, I'll take the opportunity to show a viewpoint and begin with an example.

You take your car to a garage first thing in the morning to have it painted red. An hour later, the garage calls you at work to say that they run out of red paint, but that they could paint the car blue, and you agree with it. You pick up the car in the afternoon, but don't like the color blue.

Guess what, no Court is going to permit you to wave with the work contract that has the color red written on it, no sense of justice would permit you to demand the garage to repaint the car red. You agreed to the color blue, albeit only on the phone, and that is binding on you and the garage.

That's the crux of what is so maddening with FIDE for well over a decade now. Say, that FIDE does something in a certain way and it is accepted by the community. Then that's the governing rule that's binding on FIDE and the community, even if it is against the black letters of the rule book.

Suddenly, out of the blue sky, FIDE think that the black letters of the rule book should be enforced. No, that's certainly NOT right, on the contrary, it is inflicting injustice to the community.

If FIDE wants to change things, and I am all for improvement, then FIDE should implement changes properly. Perhaps the FIDE board should finally look into best practices of change management.

I just wonder why, with moder technology, the list can not be dynamically updated whenever a new competition entry arrives?

Updating performance lists in any other sports in real time is not a problem.

Following my own monitoring, billions of persons all over the world receive the loan at well known creditors. Hence, there's good chances to get a term loan in every country.